Why There are No Monopoles
The following logic has been used for fractional charges being the same as magnetic monopoles; We don't see any monopoles, we don't see any fractional charges, therefore they're monopoles and we don't see them because we don't see them! This seems like saying we don't see T, We Don't see G, therefore they're the same...
....
No magnetic monopoles have ever been found. Dirac's famous comment was that if both the electric and magnetic fields are quantised, their product must be a magnetic monopole. This comment I take not to be proof of monopoles, This proof of monopoles can be rearranged to say, if there are no magnetic monopoles seen, then both electric and magnetic fields can’t be quantised. Electric charges are in quanta, therefore monopoles not only don't exist, Dirac's conclusion would also mean the magnetic fields are never quantized.
....
For particles like the electron, with each increase of flow of the field, to conserve quantity of motion there would be an increase in the solidity of the field nearby, for each increase of a scalar like the electric charge as it spins around, there would be an increase of the vector of the flow of the magnetic poles. I was reading a site the other day that concludes that all there is is waves and standing waves (the site is called WSM) would make the seemingly solid particles of physics. There seems to be no doing without intermediate particles, because while the basic field of waves indeed explains gravity and energy conservation well, intermediate energy particles that exert pressure seem more logical for gravity because we ask if there are only standing waves instead of particles causing the 32ft acceleration near the Earth, during the acceleration there would be force in the rest frame of the falling mass when the standing wave is changing, and at rest on the Earth there would be no force because a standing wave exerts less pressure than one in motion. Thus in my theory I name General Wave Dynamics, or GWD, the cause of no force felt when in acceleration at 32 ft is just that the particles around the elevator are flowing with the ship. And when at rest, the particles are exerting pressure on the observer. This also is how inertia would be caused, by changes in the ratio of the pressure of the waves to particles, in change of phase. When you move in uniform motion, the pressure of the particles around you is constant, only when you accelerate is the phase changed. Another objection to only waves of the standing wave theory of WSM, is how do we explain shielding? True, gravity doesn't shield, as we would expect. Even so if physics is made of waves only, we might expect there to be no force that shields, and no explanation for discontinuity. If the orbitals of electrons are caused by the resonances of standing waves, there would be no quanta. If there was implosion of continuous waves only, the waves themselves would have no way to create discontinuity. You may say, what about the problem of moving through the particles? They being discontinuous would exert pressure and calculations show the Earth would fall into the sun in a million years or so? Galileo believed this was caused by the particles mostly moving with the Earth, so when you toss up a pizza up (above the crust!) the mass rises and falls in radial motion. When you fall or are in uniform motion, the particles move with you and then when you accelerate, or are at rest in the old world, they exert pressure (your stomach feels Mamma IV has done you well!). Einstein believed the electron might put on weight when at rest in the Earth's field, and is continually accelerating through time. I believe in a two component field as I say on this page; a higher energy near electromagnetic field of the particles that may only move near the 32 feet acceleration, like the ship and the water to explain what WSM doesn't, and a lower energy much higher speed wavelike component that may be much faster than light because the strength of the gravity is lighter than light. Gravity would operate inside and around each bubble of the atmosphere of each mass as Galileo believed, and the atmosphere itself could cause the short range pressure of inertia. So inertia could be a sort of gravity without motive power.
WSM asserts that the implosion and reradiation of the standing waves is at the speed of light so relativity is involved, where relativity still asserts that all observers are equivalent. The problem here is that the Earth is more at rest than the moon and the sun is more at rest than the Earth, the problem with Einstein's belief about gravity is that if only the speed of light counts, all observers are indeed equivalent, so an observer at rest in the Earth's field should feel no more or less force than an accelerating observer too. This is the same with the WSM assumption of the implosion and reradiation at just the speed of light. The implosion and reradiation of the field at low energy seems necessary to conserve energy and unify and connect up the field at long range and low energy. In GWD a nonrelativistic cause of the acceleration outside of each might blendor in with each bubble of celestial pizza bread, because as Einstein proved, relativity is about energy conservation. The higher speed the motion in relativity, the more energy the mass has and this is energy conservation. Because relativity works much better for uniform motion and not all observers are equivalent for acceleration (just summa mamma mia, she's rich!) there seems to be another cause for acceleration, the high speed field that wouldn't operate by energy conservation and much more wavelike as in WSM. Energy conservation is caused by quanta, the more mass the more spin, the more energy goes with the mass, in exactly a way caused by Planck's constant. We feel no force when we fall because the higher speed field operates in the general area of the bubble and so the higher energy intermediate field common to both gravity and inertia in GWD wouldn't change much nearby, moving at about 32 ft in acceleration. Particles are needed to explain how we feel no force while falling and a force on the Earth at rest, and yet waves are needed for motive power for the particles which would otherwise wear out and run down via thermodynamics. If we imagine the atmosphere is much larger than the Earth, it's "aria code" is much greater so there might be many more particles slowing the Earth, thus the wave component with reduced friction to power the attraction of the sun and the Earth seems of worth. This would be how even with the particles the earth doesn't fall into the sun and yet how gravity would attract. (Particles without waves have the problem of radiation. Because they're discontinuous, they only radiate out; gravity however is implosive mostly (other than Einstein's idea that a low energy field also reradiates which I've tried to improve to explain stuff like cosmic acceleration and other problems Einstein hadn't yet seen at the opera with Ma Bell.).
My belief is that waves are indeed more fundamental than particles because gravity would be a wave from which all the other fields would be powered to conserve and unify energy conservation. One of the main reasons I believe in ultimate waves that may make the intermediate particles like for inertia and gravity is Einstein's comment that, "If there are fundamental particles, how do they emit and absorb waves?" They need further divisability to do this, no matter how small, and so on, leading to infinite wheels within mozzerella, and infinite mass not ever seen. Even so I believe there need to be intermediate particles for higher energy physics, like gravity as I say above. Gravity only attracts and thus is continuous like a wave and particles seem to have inherent contradictions relating to problems like Zeno's Paradoxes and other limits to particles being as elementary as waves. Though I believe particles alone create contradictions because they're discontinuous, the problem with using waves only is that a wave is a wave and in would be the same as out, the particles would be completely symmetrical and round. If your drop a rock in the pond and it was imploding as much as reradiant it would have no spin like a whirlpool. A whirlpool needs a fundamental imbalance between the up and down of the forces to stay in motion, so too a particle would seem to need something to keep it in motion of spin, this would be the distinction of the wavelike implosion and its reaction, the particulate reradiation of the field, creating the torque. Thus waves without particles like the string theory seem to describe part of the physics but are actually incomplete. (String theory seems to be just a wave theory with many predictions physicists have already realized for hundreds of years). Waves and particles combined in this way offer a cause for spin, time and mass because all the field is in motion through time and this would be because time is always found to be periodic fluxuation in all the measurements found and the spin cause by the difference between the waves and the particles would power the spin and thus the time of the particles like small clocks. Mass is just spinning energy so the spin that gives mass it's mass is also not allowed in a wave cosmos alone..
....
Magnetic monopoles would never be proven because the more quantised the electric field would be the more fluid the magnetic field would be to conserve energy. Even if at lower energy the field may be mostly wavy like to explain the continuum of space even in the micro realm so the quantity of motion wouldn't be conserved at low energy, the field is mostly wavelike in my physics of GWD, General Wave Dynamics, so that all would be powered by the motion of the lower energy field so it wouldn’t run down over infinite time even if at higher energy quantity of motion is conserved. Because all energy would come from the motion of the lower energy field, there would be no magnetic monopoles so the fluid motion of the poles would mean there is no field ever at rest in all the cosmos. The magnetic field of a particle flows from one point to another like a line connecting the points, the line has extension and one end of the line is N and S, thus the line is never with just one pole at rest and then around in a loop. You might say the electric charges are true monopoles if they have just one charge, in truth since they need motion to stay here too they would have polarity at short distances, a to and from direction of the loop like the magnetic field. Centrifugal force isn't stopped on one side of a centrifuge because it also spins around. If we take a small section of the spinning charge of an electron, it would seem to have the equivalent of polar structure like the magnetic poles in proof of the idea is it’s a dipole too. The field flows from one point to another like the magnetic poles, so may have the proof if resistance to the flow is applied that neither magnetic or electric monopoles exist. All motion needs to be between more than one point, and if motion always has an origin to and where to move, all the fields are lines of flow, so no line has rest so there are always more distilled water in the West than booze.
....
To explain confinement I use a simple dynamic model. Particles are confined because at low energy and more distance from the center they must both overcome the unified oneness of relativity and the strong force too, at higher energy they divide as they must to become other heavy particles or leptons, and they're able to divide because the electric charge and the field may be overpowered by the strong force at faster than light, at lower energys the strong force and relativity and the speed of light are in control, while because of the change in phase at higher energies there is no confinement. Because relativity holds so well at lower energys and higher radii there are leptons and no other particles with fractional charges alone. The fractional charges may go faster than light if they are lighter than light, even so the strong force has a size, and size means motion in space time. For all fields like light there would be slowing in a field like gravity because when one slows down the other speeds up even if ultimately I believe gravity may violate energy conservation like about how galaxies spin much faster than they should in what are named "massive disproofs of relativity", at higher energies there are no monopole because all fields move even if gravity may move more yet.
....
...
In GWD faster than light is allowed (by my hopeful generalization of Maxwell's idea that the wave density is about the speed) so light is at the speed of light because of the force between electric charges being as Maxwell realized, and gravity may move much faster than light in GWD too. There would be no magnetic monopoles at faster than light like for gravity because all the field would be in motion and lines of travel come in pairs to and from the poles. Because of a change in phase for faster than light in GWD for gravity the relativistic disproof above stops at faster than light because there is less resistance so the limit of relativity would stop so all the limit would also not be creating the pressure of the Fitzgerald contraction and so the monopole there seems to exist only at the limit of the field on special relativity at the limit never reached and may be an artifice of relativity, not a proof of more general truth. If the pressure is suddenly resolved at faster than light, the Fitzgerald Contraction would not be common, but the motion is common to all the physics so in all the cosmos there would be lines of flux.
I believe another disproof of magnetic monopoles may in high energy astronomy. By way of the logic about relativity used by some, at the speed of light there is infinite mass density where the magnetic poles are compressed to 0 size, a monopole. Though the mass density becomes a measure of the relativity we see other giant masses with cosmic jets. If the compression is already to 0 in relativity, more mass density would have no more poles and the more massive jets would not be seen, no more than one. The jets would be caused by the change in phase, more compression as in the super dense singularity would create more fluid motion of the jets to conserve the resilience of the field. If you sleep out under the cosmos, you wake up in a giant cushion!
..
...Lerhner, myself and others have believed there is no Higgs at high energy. I agree because the Higgs as conceived would disprove higher level energy conservation and at high energy at any rate the quanta are well proven; all the higher energy mass of heavy particles in subatomic physics is via motion of lower energy fields. The conservation laws don't have more mass added in "by hand" like the Higgs. All the laws are from simple to complex, electromagnetism has some laws conserved, and the higher up laws are with all the electromagnetic laws plus more, and so on. If mass is spinning energy, all that may be needed may be to find what it is, not mass. All the mass of the higher mass particles in the lower energy field was already there to make the heavy particles. This about conservation laws seems to be in favor of no high energy Higg's. Though energy conservation may be disproven at low energy to explain why all the cosmos is in motion and always winds up more while the second law would always wind down and wind up is more important than wind down to hold the cosmos together like with the higher speed spin of the galaxies, at higher energies energy conservation has never been disproven. There may be a more basic particle at lower power, in my belief this may be Einstein's particle he believed in to solve the Uncertainty Principle. One property if the Higgs is it doesn't disappear at lower energy. It's the most fundamental because if it wasn't stable another particle would be the Higgs at lower energy and so on. Without stability there would be no stability around us. So a lower energy Higgs is necessary and Einstein's idea seems the best.
..
.. Einstein also asked, "Why does the electron have the charge and mass it does?" This was a question the ancient greeks and others have asked since then, where does the common field arise from, and how does disunity arise from this basic field? In other words, why does the electron implode to just its energy like a continuous wave and then reradiate out like a particle? It might seem of worth to find how the basic field is never so particulate it can't be a wave and vice versa and why waves like gravity may be more fundamental to explain the unity by energy conservation from this basic field energised up to other fields. If the basic field implodes to just the electron's energy and no more, the answers to this question may be by research about the electron of we find out about what Einstein and the greeks asked about the electron and about gravity. If the Higgs more like Einstein believed in gets around the Uncertainty Principle (more recent low energy quantum experiments seem to be evidence he was right) it may mean the electron has more basic structure and if these low energy particles were more elementary we might be studying both gravity and the ancient question of the greeks in its most essential form. I believe we might one day find these elementary currents by first finding the basic unit of charge perhaps by polarizing a large number of particles like in a resonance and seeing if there's any quantum jump. Each particle would have a small change, muliplied up enough to make an extra particle in the batch with a quantum leap. This would be like Thomson's isolation of the electric charge, from there we might progress to currents and ways to make "wires" and so on, following the progress of electromagnetism in general, or using the tricks learned from one to build up the other. The circuits of this type of physics could be reduced in size and with higher speed.
Dirac's idea which was that for relativity to be consistent with quantum mechanics, both electric and magnetic monopoles must exist seems interesting. Einstein said if one of his ideas go they all go, thus a simple interpretion of special relativity is that if mass and energy are equivalent (from the regular way the mass increases relative to the observer and more motion of energy is more mass) the mass or scalar like electric charges are equivalent to the energy or magnetic field. Mass is heavy and energy is light however at low energy at any rate by F= ma not it's higher energy standin Emc2. If the lower energy field like gravity is more the foundation by energy conservation and other laws about like the uniformity of physics, I believe the higher energy fields of relativity and others are derived from the basic field. More mass moves slower and has less energy by more general conservation of momentum so the magnetic monopoles are not seen. Dirac's observation was that if special relativity is the same as quantum mechanics, both electric and magnetic monopoles would be found. Since they're not, it seems that relativity and quantum mechanics are not unified and one; thus either relativity or QED is more important and general, one or the other is deficient. In GWD relativity is not the most general, and more of the more general cosmic world sometimes may be seen even in subatomic physics where mass and energy are assymetrical would be more disproof of relativity, not quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics and gravity make up all the world around us, and relativity is essentially a small subset of high energy physics. While Einstein proved the wave particle duality in physics, he contradicted himself in relativity where he said light is a particle alone. Einstein's belief was light is unchanged and thus discontinuous and uninfluenced between radiance and the observer by being constant in speed.
General Wave Dynamics/Synopsis
Why wake up? Researchers have proven that an odor while you sleep of the same odor (like a flower) while you were on the web makes you remember it more when you wake up! A rest by any other URL smells the same..
Here's the site with more deep sleep research *****.
They found a giant hail stone the largest yet in the US so sez the Yahoo News. Why is it named a hail stone if it's from heaven? If it rains glitz in 80's TV shows Star Zoom lives!
..
