Alpha Centauri B may have "superhabitable" worlds

ImaFungi

stormbringer1701

ImaFungi
reply to post by stormbringer1701

 

Monopoles dont seem to be possible. I mean technically if you take a bar magnet and cover one pole with a nonmagnetic material is that a monopole? In essence would that not be what a fundamental monopole would be, a 3d object, where one end has an electric charge (for that is what dictates magnetism) and the other end is...I dont even know?

and yet if you don't have at least one monopole the universe itself could not exist. the monopole is necessary to fix the value of one of fundamental constants of the universe and standard model. which is why Dirac postulated it's existence in the first place. and the synthetic one behave as Dirac predicted it would. synthetic monopoles have also spontaneously developed as an emergent phenomenon in solidstate physics experiments.

I'm rooting forthe monopole

Can you expand on what you mean if there wasnt at least one monopole the universe could not exist, what is the constant it needs to fix? Well if they really made a synthetic monopole I guess that proves that there was at least one monopole in the universe. Can you describe what a monopole would actually be, theoretically how it would exist and physically exist and be, what its nature of charge would be? Because charged particles are 3d, and because they have spin, this implies that they are not isomorphic if that is the proper term. They are not like a perfect marble which can travel through space and interact with things predictably. A charged particle like the electron is a magnet itself because of this, and a magnet itself is only electrons that share a common alignment. So would a monopole be an isomorphic particle of charge that on all surrounding sides of itself would only attract to one pole? I just dont understand how this would be possible, being as most likely the reason electrons have the characteristics they do in terms of magnetism is the mean in which their fundamental nature, charge, and spin, interact with the coupled EM field, which needs to be reacted with the show any signs of magnetism, attraction or repulsion. If a particle was only of 1 charge, it (like all charge and the meaning of charge) would be interacting with the surrounding field in a certain manner, and the nature of this interaction could not be equal on all sides, the reason boles exist is because an object which spins reacts with a medium differently according to the relative views of it. Like how you can look down at a sphere spinning clockwise, and up at the same spinning sphere and claim its spinning counter clockwise.

the monopole they created does not count as a detection of a real monopole because it was made of a rubidium atom albeit in a special state. the emergent solid state monopole does not count because it was a behavior in a swarm of energy in a chip. i will look up the constant thing in a few minutes but i have to pause to walk the dog. i will post a summary when i get back.

the existance of the monopole explains the quanticization of the electric charge. with all of the implications in particle physics and chemistry as well as cosmology.

The existence of even a single Dirac magnetic monopole would have far-reaching physical consequences, most famously explaining the quantization of electric charge3, 4

www.nature.com...

inevitable wiki reference:

Twentieth century[edit]
The quantum theory of magnetic charge started with a paper by the physicist Paul A.M. Dirac in 1931.[10] In this paper, Dirac showed that if any magnetic monopoles exist in the universe, then all electric charge in the universe must be quantized.[11] The electric charge is, in fact, quantized, which is consistent with (but does not prove) the existence of monopoles.[11]
Since Dirac's paper, several systematic monopole searches have been performed. Experiments in 1975[12] and 1982[13] produced candidate events that were initially interpreted as monopoles, but are now regarded as inconclusive.[14] Therefore, it remains an open question whether monopoles exist. Further advances in theoretical particle physics, particularly developments in grand unified theories and quantum gravity, have led to more compelling arguments (detailed below) that monopoles do exist. Joseph Polchinski, a string-theorist, described the existence of monopoles as "one of the safest bets that one can make about physics not yet seen".[15] These theories are not necessarily inconsistent with the experimental evidence. In some theoretical models, magnetic monopoles are unlikely to be observed, because they are too massive to be created in particle accelerators (see below), and also too rare in the Universe to enter a particle detector with much probability.[15]
Some condensed matter systems propose a structure superficially similar to a magnetic monopole, known as a flux tube. The ends of a flux tube form a magnetic dipole, but since they move independently, they can be treated for many purposes as independent magnetic monopole quasiparticles. Since 2009, numerous news reports from the popular media[16][17] have incorrectly described these systems as the long-awaited discovery of the magnetic monopoles, but the two phenomena are only superficially related to one another.[18][19] These condensed-matter systems continue to be an area of active research. (See "Monopoles" in condensed-matter systems below.)

reply to post by stormbringer1701


Hm, I still have seen nowhere the attempt to explain how a monopole could theoretically or hypothetically even exist, given what we know about charge and magnetism. Also about the quantization of charge, what would be an example in which charge would not be quantized? Unless I dont understand the meaning of the term quantization, I figure every aspect ever will be quantized by default, seeing as there is a finite quantity of energy that exists, which cannot be created or destroy, 'stuff' is fated to be quantized.

ImaFungi
reply to post by stormbringer1701

 

Hm, I still have seen nowhere the attempt to explain how a monopole could theoretically or hypothetically even exist, given what we know about charge and magnetism. Also about the quantization of charge, what would be an example in which charge would not be quantized? Unless I don't understand the meaning of the term quantization, I figure every aspect ever will be quantized by default, seeing as there is a finite quantity of energy that exists, which cannot be created or destroy, 'stuff' is fated to be quantized.

that's not the quanticising they mean. they mean it sets the fundamental units of electric charge in the standard model. as in a particles charge. or energy of ionization and every thing. it's pretty complex. it determines how matter comes together into composite particles atomic structure chemistry, quantum levels for electrons. how much energy it take to fuse nuclei how much energy comes from nuclear reactions in fact it effects so much stuff i cannot tell you all the ramifications as a layman.

reply to post by stormbringer1701


Hm, ok. I guess it may have to do something with electrons and them not being able to occupy the same space, perhaps this is what is meant by quantization. If you have 20 electrons you cant just put them together and make an electron soup, its very interesting that charge even exists and im not quite sure exactly what or why it is, and why it has the property such as 2 electrons repulsing each other. Its interesting because electrons themselves are magnets with N and S pole, so I wonder why they wouldnt align and attract, most likely do to constant semi violent frequency of vibration coupled with spin which maybe causes the surrounding local EM field to be constantly waving and shaking and bringing two of those together just equals a net repulsion, but idk.

What if we lived in a solar system with more than one habitable worlds. For some civilizations discovery of new life might go as far as discovering new continents and then finding that the planets of their system are deserted, for others the meeting of interplanetary cultures might be as close as Mars is for us.