Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Amherst Researchers Create Magnetic Monopoles

timothy posted 1 year,2 days | from the can-we-call-them-dirac's-revenge? dept.

Science 156

An anonymous reader writes "Nearly 85 years after pioneering theoretical physicist Paul Dirac predicted the possibility of their existence, an international collaboration led by Amherst College Physics Professor David S. Hall '91 and Aalto University (Finland) Academy Research Fellow Mikko Möttönen has created, identified and photographed synthetic magnetic monopoles in Hall's laboratory on the Amherst campus. The groundbreaking accomplishment paves the way for the detection of the particles in nature, which would be a revolutionary development comparable to the discovery of the electron." That's quite a step beyond detecting monopoles; the Nature abstract is online, but the full paper is paywalled.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Verry cool IF TRUE (2)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110165)

But how many slashdot stories about fusion reactors, methanol fuel cells, or flying cars has actually been more than investor fleecing vaporware?

Re:Verry cool IF TRUE (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110223)

Should be able to make an extremely efficient motor from this if true. Also, perhaps something like an anti-gravity drive (obviuosly not true anti-grav though).

Re:Verry cool IF TRUE (2)

tibit (1762298) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110349)

Bullshit. Electric motors are limited by the performance of the conductors and the good old magnetic path where the monopoles are of no help. Electric motors with superconducting windings have been built, and they are pretty damn efficient. Heck, stock brushless electric motors are already pretty damn efficient.

Re:Verry cool IF TRUE (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | 1 year,1 day | (#46111655)

Electric motors aren't getting more efficient until someone finds a better room-temperature conductor than copper. Ideally a superconductor. There's no fundamental law that says such a thing couldn't exist, but so far it has eluded all efforts to find one.

Re:Verry cool IF TRUE (1)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,1 day | (#46111839)

Nano tube winding are possible.

The group that find a way to mass produce long nano tube will be rich and will change the worlds.

Re:Verry cool IF TRUE (1)

RoboJ1M (992925) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110363)

Might be able then to *find* anti-gravity particles though! 8D

These are NOT Dirac Monopoles (5, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | 1 year,2 days | (#46111045)

But how many slashdot stories about fusion reactors, methanol fuel cells, or flying cars has actually been more than investor fleecing vaporware?

These are not actually Dirac monopoles. These are magnetic quasiparticles that behave in a way that simulates Dirac monopoles.

The Ars Technicha article has the best explanation:
http://arstechnica.com/science... [arstechnica.com]
Emphasis mine:
"Since we can't seem to find one, though, some researchers decided to emulate monopole behavior using an analogous quantum system. They used a Bose-Einstein condensate: a collection of very cold atoms that behaves like a single quantum system."

Re:These are NOT Dirac Monopoles (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | 1 year,1 day | (#46111977)

Thank you .

Re:Verry cool IF TRUE (5, Funny)

tomhath (637240) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110313)


Hall's team adopted an innovative approach to investigating Dirac's theory, creating and identifying synthetic magnetic monopoles in an artificial magnetic field generated by a Bose-Einstein condensate, an extremely cold atomic gas tens of billionths of a degree warmer than absolute zero.

"Verry cool" is an understatement.

Re:Verry cool IF TRUE (2)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110465)

no. it's not an understatement, it's a typo.

Re:Verry cool IF TRUE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110625)

He was just shivering because it was so cool inside the Bose-Einstein condensate.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Energy Star program and Freddie Mac have signed an agreement that will help to cut carbon pollution while increasing the affordability of multifamily housing properties. The agreement outlines strategies to save water, energy and money for multifamily property owners and residents.

“Boosting energy and water efficiency not only saves money and makes these properties a better investment for owners and more affordable for families who live there -- it is also an important step in the President’s commitment to fighting climate change by cutting energy waste in our nation’s buildings,” said Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “By making it easier to secure financing for energy efficiency investments and providing data about energy use and efficiency opportunities, these strategies will create lasting environmental and public health benefits while making multifamily buildings more efficient and valuable.”

"Freddie Mac is proud to partner with the EPA in this effort,” said Mitchell Resnick, Freddie Mac Multifamily vice president of loan pricing and securitization. “As one of the largest Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (CMBS) issuers in the country, we are looking to guide the industry and the CMBS market towards a greater sensitivity to environmentally responsible lending and investing. This partnership is the first of what we hope are many steps in that direction. We are looking at how energy efficiency improves the financial viability of the apartments we finance, and most importantly its impact on the affordability of rental housing."

Roughly one-third of Americans live in apartments within multifamily buildings, spending approximately $22 billion on energy every year. Rising energy costs are contributing to the decline in affordability for many of these Americans. Housing industry studies have projected that multifamily properties can become 30 percent more efficient by 2020, unlocking $9 billion in energy savings and preventing more than 35 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year.

In support of the President’s Climate Action Plan, this memorandum of understanding outlines key strategies to make multifamily housing more affordable by encouraging building owners and tenants to benchmark their energy and water performance and take steps to improve efficiency. Among those strategies:

- Freddie Mac will explore the collection of energy and water performance data from property owners during the loan underwriting and asset management processes.

- By demonstrating the financial value of energy and water efficiency to lenders and borrowers, Freddie Mac hopes to be able to influence lending practices in ways that encourage investments in energy efficiency and make multifamily housing units more affordable.

- EPA will assist Freddie Mac with these, and other, goals, by providing technical and educational support in the use of the Energy Star Portfolio Manager® energy management and tracking tool as well as other Energy Star resources.

The President’s Climate Action Plan calls for helping multifamily buildings cut waste and becoming at least 20 percent more energy efficient by 2020. While EPA has already been working with Fannie Mae and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, this latest agreement with Freddie Mac is another critical step forward in meeting the President’s goal. Together, these three organizations influence the largest sources of residential and multifamily lending in the country.

Products, homes and buildings that earn the ENERGY STAR label prevent greenhouse gas emissions by meeting strict energy efficiency requirements set by the U.S. EPA. In 2012 alone, Americans, with the help of ENERGY STAR, saved $26 billion on their utility bills and prevented greenhouse gas emissions equal to the annual electricity use from 35 million homes. From the first ENERGY STAR qualified computer in 1992, the ENERGY STAR label can now be found on products in more than 70 different categories, with more than 4.5 billion sold over the past 20 years. Over 1.4 million new homes and 20,000 office buildings, schools and hospitals have earned the ENERGY STAR label.

More information on EPA’s ENERGY STAR buildings program: www.energystar.gov/buildings

Re:Verry cool IF TRUE (1)

mlts (1038732) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110489)

EFOY fuel cells have been in the field for a while now. In fact, if you are willing to pony up the $8000 or so, you can get one for your RV. You have to use their methanol cartridges which are 150 bones per 10 liters, but they give out constant, relatively quiet power to keep RV batteries charged even at night, without needing to fire up a generator or start the vehicle's engine.

Plus, they're worth 25 RU (5, Funny)

nightfire-unique (253895) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110173)

.. and can certainly help in the fight against the Ur-Quan!

Re:Plus, they're worth 25 RU (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110199)

I'm *frizzy* that the first post referenced UQM / StarCon.

WOW! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110175)

The F-country is named like my country!!!! I'm FAMOUS!

Monopole Magnets (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110207)

"The secrets of magnetism"

Requires Superstring Theory, Silksteel Alloys

Leads to Nanominiaturization, Unified Field Theory
Enables: Terraform Mag Tube

Re: Monopole Magnets (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110347)

We are on our way to Transcendence

Re:Monopole Magnets (1, Insightful)

Kongming (448396) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110631)

You ivory tower intellectuals must not lose touch with the world of industrial growth and hard currency. It is all very well and good to pursue these high-minded scientific theories, but research grants are expensive. You must justify your existence by providing not only knowledge but concrete and profitable applications as well.

Re:Monopole Magnets (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110759)

You have it wrong. Scientists make the discoveries and then its the engineers who apply those discoveries to the real world.

Re:Monopole Magnets (-1, Troll)

Eunuchswear (210685) | 1 year,2 days | (#46111235)

No, scientists make the discoveries then engineers decide the earth is 6000 years old, claim AGW doesn't exist or crash airliners into tall buildings.

Re:Monopole Magnets (2)

some old guy (674482) | 1 year,2 days | (#46111517)

Scientist: I can mathematically predict a vacuum > 29 in/Hg

Engineer: I can prove it with your lips on my manometer.

Re:Monopole Magnets (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | 1 year,2 days | (#46111041)

And this is probably the reason Morgan is the first punishment sphere resident in nearly every single game of Alpha Centauri I've played.

Re:Monopole Magnets (1)

jythie (914043) | 1 year,1 day | (#46111813)

Unless of course one feels there is more value in knowledge, in which case it is industrial growth and hard currency that need to not loose touch with research, lest they fail to justify their existence and the resources they consume.

Re:Monopole Magnets (1)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,1 day | (#46111931)

"...but concrete and profitable applications as well."
which is the stupidest thing you can say about science, and the stupidest way to measure scientist success.
Great way to kill research, tho.
I suspect anyone who says that is just looking for an excuse to kill scientific investigation.

No one knew electricity was going to lead to iPhones.

You use science to find out how things work and publish it. Engineers use those finding to build things.

Re:Monopole Magnets (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#46112073)

No one knew electricity was going to lead to iPhones.

Probably just as well. If they had, we might never have had all the good things that electricity has brought us.

Re:Monopole Magnets (2)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (895364) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110635)

I maintain nonetheless that yin-yang dualism can be overcome.
With sufficient enlightenment we can give substance to any
distinction: mind without body, north without south, pleasure
without pain. Remember, enlightenment is a function of willpower,
not of physical strength.

â"Chairman Sheng-ji Yang,
âoeEssays on Mind and Matterâ

Re:Monopole Magnets (1)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,1 day | (#46111961)

There is no enlightenment, there is only acceptance of a narrative..an often incorrect narrative.

Re:Monopole Magnets (4, Funny)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110893)

And yet our tanks can still be beaten by archers.

Besides that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110221)

..it does an attractive screen saver.

Practical application. (1)

grub (11606) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110241)

North and South Pole-specific compasses. I should patent that.

(magentic north be damned)

Re:Practical application. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110433)

Does that mean I can FINALLY make my infinite power device by having a rotating center with north-only magnets rotate around an alternating north and south magnet container ?

(Leakage be damned)

Re:Practical application. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110445)

Disney Already has! Your new compass has a needle which spins in circles, and for only $9.99 +gst you can active the built in compass North or South (but not both) for only $20 more you can upgrade to the premium feature's which includes different "skins" snap on covers for only $9.99 each and accurate magnetic guidance (R2D2 Voice) + ($30 for C3PO translation), Please note you are required to purchase a subscription to Disney care $4.99 Per week this cover's proprietary licensing fees and the backup service located in the Utah Data Center, "also known as the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Cente"

Re:Practical application. (2)

cellocgw (617879) | 1 year,1 day | (#46112119)

(magentic north be damned)

Agreed. I far prefer roseate north.

Copyright infringement. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110249)


Well, that happened. ....again.


What is it? (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110257)

For the lay people in this particular field, from TFA (also, wiki link [wikipedia.org] ):

As the name suggests, however, a magnetic monopole is a magnetic particle possessing only a single, isolated pole—a north pole without a south pole, or vice versa.

Re:What is it? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110909)

If you can't figure out what a magnetic monopole is from it's name, you shouldn't be reading /.

Re:What is it? (1)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,1 day | (#46111971)

It was discovered by Dr. Monopole, duh.

Re:What is it? (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | 1 year,1 day | (#46112265)

Working at the lab late one night, he got doused with radiation while in the presence of a strong magnetic field, and from then on, found himself incredibly attractive to members of the opposite polarity.

Re:What is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#46112179)

Exactly. Clearly it's $1 in monopoly money.

Ha the science publishers will be all over this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110273)

Damn we have to rewrite the textbooks on electromagnetism.
No more div B = 0.

Re:Ha the science publishers will be all over this (2)

tibit (1762298) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110385)

Except that as far as I understand it, those classical equations are unaffected. It's a quantum-scale effect.

Re:Ha the science publishers will be all over this (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110393)

Damn we have to rewrite the textbooks on electromagnetism.
No more div B = 0.

might want to read the paper more closely. still have div B = 0

Re:Ha the science publishers will be all over this (4, Informative)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,2 days | (#46111313)

no, that equation still holds with no known exceptions.

summary is wrong, no monopoles were produced, just a formation that in some ways resembles one but is not a magnetic source or sink.

really, the sensationalist nonsense of half of slashdot's headings needs to stop

Re:Ha the science publishers will be all over this (1)

jythie (914043) | 1 year,1 day | (#46111843)

Yeah, esp since what the researchers actually did was still pretty expletive cool.

Are we sure. . . (4, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110275)

someone wasn't playing a trick on them and was turning the electric can opener on and off in the other room?

Re:Are we sure. . . (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110731)

Hold the phone - the researchers are cats?

Re:Are we sure. . . (3, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110931)

Hold the phone

I can't. I has no thumbs.

Re:Are we sure. . . (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | 1 year,1 day | (#46111993)

Monkeys do too have thumbs, no matter how Wonky they are

Monopole Magnets (1)

Experiment 626 (698257) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110283)

I maintain nonetheless that yin-yang dualism can be overcome.

With sufficient enlightenment we can give substance to any distinction: mind without body, north without south, pleasure without pain. Remember, enlightenment is a function of willpower, not of physical strength.

—Chairman Sheng-ji Yang,
“Essays on Mind and Matter”

Time to start building those Mag Tubes!

Re:Monopole Magnets (1)

Tebriel (192168) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110391)

This is the first thing I thought of upon seeing this article.

Contradicts current theory? (0)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110317)

Does this contradict previous electromagnetic theory? I always thought that a magnetic field had two poles and doesnt that this is not true sort of throw EMF theories into the rubbish? Also, would this allow for the development of an over unity, energy from nothing generation machine. Perhaps someone could provide an in the nutshell description of EMF theory and relation of electric field to magnetic for the benefit of others here.

Re:Contradicts current theory? (2)

JoeMerchant (803320) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110381)

Not the theory put forth by Paul Dirac 85 years ago.... but, otherwise, yes - this is essentially a different source of magnetism from that created by moving electrons.

Re:Contradicts current theory? (1)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,1 day | (#46111997)

no, it' does not contradict it at all. What it seems to have done is underscore the fact that you don't know what a scientific theory is, or is not.

It's new information that in no way changes what we know, only ADDS to it.
It's not like it broke Ohm's law.

Just like Einstein didn't make anything Newton discovered incorrect.

Re:Contradicts current theory? (4, Insightful)

tibit (1762298) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110497)

That's some misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is, right there. A theory must have predictive power - it must be useful for something, that is. Electromagnetic theory, so far, is extremely successful precisely because it works where we need it to work. The monopole demonstration doesn't change it one iota - neither your computer nor your electric plant have stopped working overnight.

It doesn't matter in practice that it doesn't work everywhere, and there's no need to rewrite anything and there's no contradiction. We know that the classical theory of electromagnetism, well, applies to classical scale phenomena, under certain conditions. No scientist in their sane mind would insist that this effect contradicts the classical theory. It's simply outside of the classical theory's scope, just as relativistic effects are outside of the realm of classical mechanics.

The real problem is with extremely widespread, naive understanding of what a scientific theory is and that there are limits to applicability of any scientific theory of nature. The phrase "law of nature" is perhaps the biggest romanticism-imbued snafu there ever was in popularization of science.

Re:Contradicts current theory? (3, Interesting)

dkf (304284) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110527)

Theory (due to Paul Dirac's work combining quantum mechanics and relativity in the first half of the 20th Century) had been predicting monopoles for a long time. Yeah, the simplified version that you were quoting from didn't predict monopoles, but the full version did. If the submitters of the paper have found one of these rare beasts in the lab, that's a very interesting confirmation.

The real question is whether the result can be reproduced by different experimenters in a different lab. (Since it's lab-scale work, that ought to be possible.) If so, watch out for some really interesting new areas of physics to be opened up.

Re:Contradicts current theory? (2)

Sockatume (732728) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110667)

They actually coaxed a BEC into "simulating" a magnetic monopole. http://www.nature.com/news/qua... [nature.com]

Re:Contradicts current theory? (3, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110921)

Well, they created a magnetic monopole but they didn't create a magnetic monopole. :) They created a magnetic field without it's corresponding opposite field (or actually the opposing field was separated by enough physical distance that they behaved independently), but they didn't create or detect the particle which in theory generates that field.

Re:Contradicts current theory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110655)

It is trivial to add magnetic monopoles to Maxwell's equations. If anything, the equations become more symmetric and uniform with monopoles. They are normally left out because they had never been observed, so it would be like always plugging in a zero for the magnetic charge term.

Re:Contradicts current theory? (4, Funny)

Kongming (448396) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110665)

Also, would this allow for the development of an over unity, energy from nothing generation machine.

The answer to that question is always, always no. Except when it's still no, in which case it is no. No.

In conclusion, no.

Re:Contradicts current theory? (5, Funny)

meta-monkey (321000) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110803)

So you're saying there's a chance...?

Re:Contradicts current theory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46111325)

Try a fun experiment one day: when talking to someone who espouses those kinds of beliefs, try talking about space. I think you'll see a large overlap between people with imaginary science and people with irrational beliefs about space. Just watch for the following dog-whistles: this rock, the species, computers got better.

Re:Contradicts current theory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#46111603)

Having dealt with a lot of over unity types at lab tours and from old contact emails, I don't see much if any correlation with a push for space programs from them. They are by far mostly too busy worrying about conspiracy theories or view government research as a problem and are not pushing for more. Those that discuss space travel are too busy using the past tense as if there are things already in progress and being hidden, or just assume it will be trivial given some other far out technology/psuedo-science they are focusing on instead. At least in that sense, their logic is sound: if we assume we have access to limitless power, space travel becomes a lot cheaper and straightforward. The problem is with the premise.

Re:Contradicts current theory? (2)

blueg3 (192743) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110787)

No. Maxwell's equations are essentially symmetric with respect to electricity and magnetism. Not surprising, since they are really the same thing. The form that you usually learn in school reduces the equations by having magnetic charge = 0 and magnetic current = 0 everywhere, since as far as we know, that's the world we live in. But magnetic monopoles are in no way disruptive to our understanding of how electricity and magnetism work.

Re:Contradicts current theory? (4, Informative)

breech1 (137095) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110969)

No it doesn't contradict previous theory. The existence of a magnetic monopole would require adding some extra terms in Maxwell's equations: one for magnetic "charge" (the monopole) and one for magnetic "current" (moving monopole) analogous to electric charge and current. (Adjusting Maxwell's equations this way is a popular exercise in advanced undergrad / grad level E&M courses). If your system happened to have a magnetic monopole in it, then you would need to use the equations with the extra terms. You would see some extra effects due to the monopoles, but they would be accounted for. The extra terms would give a nice symmetry to Maxwell's equations, helping to demonstrate that the electric and magnetic field are manifestations of the same phenomena (which isn't clear until you get to special relativity).

This is cool, but (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110319)

they haven't really found a magnetic monopole. They've created a long skinny solenoid with ends that are far enough apart that they look like independent monopoles.

Great physics, terrible summary.

Re:This is cool, but (1)

dkf (304284) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110549)

they haven't really found a magnetic monopole. They've created a long skinny solenoid with ends that are far enough apart that they look like independent monopoles.

My reading of the paper was that that's the physical interpretation of what monopoles are in the first place.

Re:This is cool, but (3, Informative)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110967)

no, these are not monopoles at all, hence the word "synthetic" in front.

there is no evidence whatsoever that monopoles exist, not for the last 70+ years of searching.

Re:This is cool, but (2)

Sockatume (732728) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110687)

Nope, there's no corresponding opposite pole in the system they've created. It's a genuine magnetic monopole quasiparticle, albeit one that only exists as the product of tweaking the magnetic field of a Bose-Einstein condensate.

Re:This is cool, but (2)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,2 days | (#46111021)

false, there is no magnetic field from a source point, a compass wouldn't point at what they've created.

these are not magnetic monopoles at all, in no sense of the word.

magnetic monopoles do not exist, there are no evidence they exist after decades of looking.

Re:This is cool, but (1)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,1 day | (#46112029)

There is no reason they can't exist, nor have many of the ways to look for them been completed.

Re:This is cool, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#46111569)

genuine ... quasi

It's a real fake!!!

Monopole Money (2, Funny)

retroworks (652802) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110355)

You could run an electric utility, four railroads, and get out of jail free if this can be produced to scale.


Arancaytar (966377) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110367)

Sweet! On to Nanominiaturization and Unified Field Theory.

Next: aguuti nodules (1, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110389)

Magnetic monopoles, how do they work? My guess is the other pole is directed through higher spacial dimensions.

How is this different from previous research? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110401)

Re:How is this different from previous research? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110659)

From the article:

Unlike monopole experiments in spin ices, liquid crystals, skyrmion lattices and metallic ferromagnets, our experiments demonstrate the essential quantum features of the monopole envisioned by Dirac3.

Pseudoparticles (5, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110529)

These are pseudoparticles. They're like magnetic monopoles in almost all ways, but they arise from the collective motion of other particles rather than actually existing in and of themselves (think about having an electron hole, versus having an actual positron). The breakthrough is that they've made the first pseudoparticle in a quantum mechanical regime that allows it to behave consistently with the real particle.

Err, quasiparticles (1)

Sockatume (732728) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110555)

I should say, "quasiparticles".

Re:Pseudoparticles (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46111015)

They're like magnetic monopoles in almost all ways, but they arise from the collective motion of other particles rather than actually existing in and of themselves

All magnetic fields arise from the collective motion of other particles.

Re:Pseudoparticles (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,1 day | (#46111875)

What? No. Not even a little close.

Re:Pseudoparticles (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46111033)

True. Also I thought I had seen this before from last year. Turns out I did.

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-artificial-magnetic-monopoles.html#nRlv from a different team than the Finland one.

Re:Pseudoparticles (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46111051)

So in other words, these are not the magnetic monopoles that were discussed learning Maxwells equations in Physics 201? Got it.

I always pictured a magnetic monopole to be spherical, with the flux eminating universally outward. And of course, with degradation over time.

Re:Pseudoparticles (4, Insightful)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | 1 year,2 days | (#46111489)

I like the "electron hole" analogy. Electron holes aren't as spectacular as positrons; they don't annihilate electrons and generate gamma-ray photons. They can, however, "annihilate" an electron in a semiconductor to produce a visible photon -- and that's how we get LEDs.

This "monopole" won't let us build super-motors or disintegrate protons at will. But I wonder if, recreated in a more robust medium, it could have its own interesting uses?

Sheldon FTW! (1)

dloflin (110712) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110559)

Yes! Sheldon is vindicated!!

Re:Sheldon FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46111115)

But he didn't discover them. Just more evidence that he is less talented than the competition.

He may fall into a depression and become --- GASP --- human!

Maybe I'm stupid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110571)

but isn't it a real breakthrough in levitation (Theorically)?

Are these true really true monopoles? (2)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110713)

Or is it just like a normal, really long magnet with an "undetectable" body (the bar between the poles)?

Meaning, that if they have a south monopole somewhere in their "extremely cold gas", someplace else within the same gas has a north monopole. Then just consider the line linking both to be the magnet.

Call us back when they can separate them by splitting the "extremely cold gas" into 2 containers, in such a way that one container has the south pole, and the other the north pole, and both can be moved arbitrarily far from each other.

Glad they're back in stock... (3, Funny)

PseudoCoder (1642383) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110725)

My previous supplier has left me high and dry and I can't finish my perpetual motion machine without one of these. Can I get a discount on more than one? Or do I have to buy them one by one to avoid them neutralizing each other?

"but the full paper is paywalled" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110751)

Unless you are really up on your Maxwell's equations and condensed matter physics, you wouldn't get much out of the actual paper. When I hear all the bitching and moaning about paywalled papers and how "the people" need to see the paper, I can't help but think that 99.999% of "the people" couldn't get past the intro paragraph because of all the field-specific details. That's why there are places like Scientific American and numerous science-writer blogs to translate this for the layman. If you can understand the following, then you most likely have access to the actual article, and if you don't know what this all means, then you are far better off going for the layman's summary:

The spinor order parameter corresponding to the Dirac monopole14,17 is generated by an adiabatic spin rotation in response to a time-varying magnetic field, B(r, t). Similar spin rotations have been used to create multiply quantized vortices18 and skyrmion spin textures19. The order parameter Y(r, t)5y(r, t)f(r, t) is the product of a scalar order parameter, y, and a spinor, f~ðfz1,f0,f{1T¼^ jfi, where fm5Æmjfæ represents the mth spinor component along z. The condensate is initially spin-polarized along the z axis, that is, f5(1, 0, 0)T. Following the method introduced in ref. 14, a magnetic field Bðr,t~bqðxx^zy^y{2z^zzBzðt^z is applied, where bq.0 is the strength of a quadrupole field gradient and Bz(t) is a uniform bias field. The magnetic field zero is initially located on the z axis at z~Bzð0=(2bq)?Z, where Z is the axial Thomas–Fermi radius of the condensate. The spin rotation occurs as Bz is reduced, drawing the magnetic field zero into the region occupied by the superfluid.

Re:"but the full paper is paywalled" (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46110963)

And half the time people complain that an article is pay-walled, they don't do a simple search for the article's title that would show a free preprint version as the first result. In this case, I don't see the article on places like ArXiV, but the authors have previous papers there so it only might be a matter of time before they upload it and/or update their website.

Re:"but the full paper is paywalled" (1)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110999)

QED, not maxwells equations and yes part of my degree was the CMP. Anyway, the the subject of these articles are not monopoles at all, no magnetic field at all in fact, an imaginary compass wouldn't point toward them.

There is not one shred of evidence that magnetic monopoles exist. These researchers have not made a magnetic monopole.

Re:"but the full paper is paywalled" (1)

PPH (736903) | 1 year,2 days | (#46111471)

Somewhere, sitting in the USPTO, signing off on useless "Do X on the Internet" patents, there is an individual for whom all of this stuff is trivially simple. We would do science a great service to facilitate this person's access to such material.

Even if only to provide a distraction and keep a number of useless patents off the books.

Re:"but the full paper is paywalled" (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | 1 year,1 day | (#46112037)


The AC OP's point is a terrible one because it could apply to nearly everything more complicated than a primetime tv show. It isn't about the 99.999% who can't use the information, it is the 0.001% who can use it that matter and it is no one's job to decide who qualifies.

not really monopoles! (2)

somepunk (720296) | 1 year,2 days | (#46110811)

You should be thanking Alan Guth and the Gods of Inflation they didn't find actual monopoles. Those things are terrifying beasts! They eat protons like it's going out of style!
http://www.npl.washington.edu/... [washington.edu]

monopole (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46111221)

Did you hear that somebody has created a magnetic monopole?

Now the FTC is launching an anti-trust suit to break them up.


Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#46111263)

I really wish that lamers would stop posting articles to paywalled sites to try and generate traffic in the hope some sucker subscribes. post a link to the full article or get the hell of the internet and stop wasting people's time.

Slightly off topic but... (1)

adisakp (705706) | 1 year,1 day | (#46111557)

Can someone identify the music in the video?

Fucking magnets (1)

nuckfuts (690967) | 1 year,1 day | (#46111673)

how do they work? [youtube.com]

Now we can fight of the Kzinti! (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,1 day | (#46112065)

Thanks to Larry Niven.

This can mean only one thing - (1)

xZoomerZx (1089699) | 1 year,1 day | (#46112087)

We will soon be searching for monopoles in the asteroids which will lead to our first encounter with the Pak.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?