return to homepage
return to updates
WHY MAGNETIC MONOPOLES
by Miles Mathis
In a recent paper I said that magnetic monopoles can't exist because the charge field is everywhere. I stated this as an addendum to a paper on the fine structure constant, and only readers who understood perfectly everything I wrote there will have understood my addendum. So I will expand my commentary on the monopole here.
The fundamental reason the monopole cannot exist is that the electromagnetic field is not a dipole to start with. So it cannot be split. The separation of electricity into positive and negative was just a heuristic device, a semi-useful conceptualization. Franklin proposed it, Faraday expanded it, and it is still in use. But, at a fundamental mechanical level, it is false, as I have shown in a series of papers on the electromagnetic emission field. What we call the electromagnetic field is created by the emission of real photons by protons, anti-protons, electrons, and positrons. In this sense, the field is always positive. The opposite “pole” is created by relative densities of the field, and by the size differences among the particles, not by an opposing field or by a real attraction between any of the particles. The smaller particles are able to dodge the photons better than the larger particles, allowing them to appear to “swim upstream.” In this sense, the electron is not attracted to the proton or nucleus: it simply avoids being driven off until it gets quite close. At a small distance from the nucleus, the electron reaches a density of photons it cannot dodge, and (in some cases) it settles into a shell of equilibrium.
As I have shown, this new mechanical model explains a mountain of problems the standard model could not explain and which it was therefore forced to bury. First among these is the fact that the electron is not attracted all the way into the nucleus or proton. Electrons do not normally collide with protons or nuclei, and particle physicists have long known this. They dodge this question in most instances, and when they are forced to answer it their answers are embarrassing hodgepodges of probability clouds and obscuring math.
The standard model has never given a clear mechanical explanation of the difference between particles and anti-particles either, while I can. Since all particles are emitting, the difference between anti-particles and particles cannot be a charge or electrical difference. The standard model knows the difference is not due to charge or the electrical field, but they continue to represent the difference with charge signs. Since the particles are signed, they appear to carry a field polarity, but this appearance is deceiving. The standard model has assigned the difference or polarity to a quark difference, but this is just a mathematical model. There has never been any mechanical explanation for the opposite signs, or even an attempt at such an explanation. QCD doesn't pretend to be mechanical, and never did. I can explain particle/anti-particle difference as opposite spins, spins with real angular momentum. Anti-particles not only have a reversed z-spin, they also have a charge field that is upside down. That is, because their photons are emitted through the z-spin, the photons themselves have an opposite spin. The anti-particles are reversed, and their charge field is reversed as well, in a strictly mechanical way. This explains particle annihilation as well as parity violations and neutrino oscillation. The opposite z-spins explain the first phenomenon, while the opposite charge fields explain the second and third.
In this sense, the particle/anti-particle difference is electromagnetic, since the z-spin determines the electrical field and the spin of the photons determines the magnetic field; but the difference is not one of positive or negative potential, as the case is with electrons and protons. The negative sign on the electron really means, in a mechanical sense, “I am smaller than the defining particles of the field—the protons—so that my motion is negative to the baseline the proton sets. If a normal repulsive field exists between protons, I can dodge that field, appearing to be attracted.” But the negative sign on the anti-proton means, “I am spinning opposite to the proton, or am upside-down relative to it, as is my emission field. Therefore our spins will cancel in collision, stripping us both of all charge as well as most of our energy. Since our charge fields are upside down, they have no spin exclusion, and cannot properly repel in all cases. Furthermore, our fields offset just like our spins, so that my charge field (that of the anti-proton) ends up annihilating an equal part of the proton charge field, causing an apparent parity loss.”
The reason none of this was seen before is that the electromagnetic field has been taught in an obtuse way from the very beginning. Up to the present decade, the field is taught as a dipole field, signified with positive and negative signs, and with these potentials created by undefined charge. In other words, the charge is not and has never been defined mechanically. The attraction and exclusion is represented by plusses and minuses and by nothing else. This heuristic, non-physical representation of forces has caused untold confusion, because potentials cannot be caused by themselves, or by charge signs. Potentials must be caused by mass or density differences: by real, assignable field parameters. I have shown that the differences must be due to size and density differences, but classical and post-classical models never attempted to assign the E/M field to real physical parameters. QED and QCD just replaced the classical heuristics with more complex heuristics, but it has never once attempted to rigorously assign forces to physical causes or fields.
Once I did this, many of their intractable problems were immediately solved, since these problems were fake problems caused by the models themselves. You can only have a monopole if you have a dipole. You can only split something that is divisible. But if your field is just one emission field, always repulsive, you cannot split it. The E/M field is not both attractive and repulsive, so logically you cannot split the attraction from the repulsion.
A host of other problems of the standard model are of the same sort. I just sent a note to the Millennium editors, informing them that their Yang-Mills problem is of this sort. Jaffe and Witten, the sponsors of this particular problem, think that the Yang-Mills Theory requires more math to fully explain it. This is the current solution to everything: pile more math on top of piles of old math, until you can no longer smell the dead mouse at the bottom of the heap. But the problem, as stated, is impossible to solve. Yang-Mills “theory” is not a theory, it is just math. It happens to be math applied to the strong force, but since the strong force doesn't exist, the so-called “mass gap” cannot be filled by extending Yang-Mills. The mass gap can be filled only by a fundamental re-interpretation of the calculus as a whole, and even then Yang-Mills will fall.
I think it is safe to say that 9/10's of the problems in physics are of this sort. That is, the problems are embedded deep in the history of physics, and can only be solved by going back to the foundations. But contemporary physicists are not interested in foundations. They are not interested in looking closely at the past and at all the things they take for granted. Like a fat man on a diet, they want an easy fix. They don't want to eat less and exercise, they just want a stomach staple or a wire through the jaw.
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.