This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# 14 janvier 2006, traduction

1

**What do we know about magnetic monopoles ?
**

Claude Daviau

La Lande, 44522 Pouill´-les-coteaux, France e email : daviau.claude@wanadoo.fr Fondation Louis de Broglie, 23 rue Marsoulan, 75012 Paris, France

ABSTRACT. The Dirac’s relation between the electric charge, the magnetic charge and the Planck constant is false. Only the experiment can give the value of a possible quantum of magnetic charge.

With the Maxwell laws of electromagnetism, the electricity and the magnetism play a diﬀerent role : the electric ﬁeld E is a true space vector while the magnetic ﬁeld H is a pseudo-vector. More, there are electric charges linked to the divergence of E while there is no magnetic charge, the divergence of H being null. The fact that there is no magnetic charge in the classical electromagnetism does not imply that there cannot exist magnetic charges, but only that the experiment has not yet seen them. The best way to read the laws of the electromagnetism is to use the Cliﬀord algebra of space-time. All the Maxwell laws, in the vacuum, are summarized by ∂A = F ; ∂F = 4π J c (1)

where A is the space-time vector electromagnetic potential, J is the space-time vector current A = γ µ Aµ ; J = γ µ Jµ ∂ is the diﬀerential operator : F is the electromagnetic ﬁeld : F = γ 01 F01 + γ 02 F02 + γ 03 F03 + γ 12 F12 + γ 23 F23 + γ 31 F31 ; γ µν = γ µ γ ν . The γ µ may be represented by the Dirac matrices, for instance I 0 0 −σj 0 j ; γj = −γ = γ0 = γ = 0 −I σj 0 1 0 01 I = σ0 = σ 0 = ; σ1 = −σ 1 = 0 1 10 1 0 0 −i ; σ3 = −σ 3 = σ2 = −σ 2 = 0 −1 i 0 0 I γij = γi γj ; γ5 = −iγ0123 = I 0 The components of the electric ﬁeld and the magnetic ﬁeld are E j = F0j ; H 1 = F23 ; H 2 = F31 ; H 3 = F12 With the Lorentz condition 0 = ∂µ Aµ = ∂ · A (6) (7) (4) ∂ = γ µ ∂µ (2) (3)

(5)

2 the equality F = ∂A is equivalent to E = −∂A0 − ∂0 A H =∂×A where we use A = σj Aj ; ∂ = σ1 ∂1 + σ2 ∂2 + σ3 ∂3 ∂ A = ∂ · A + i∂ × A And the second equality (1) is equivalent to ∂·E = 4π J0 c

C. Daviau

(8) (9)

(10) (11)

(12) (13) (14) (15)

−∂0 E + ∂ × H =

4π J c ∂0 H + ∂ × E = 0

∂·E =0

What become that laws if we suppose that exist magnetic charges and currents ? The simplest reasoning uses the frame of the space-time Cliﬀord algebra, where each element M is a sum of a scalar part M0 , a vector part M1 , a bivector part M2 , a trivector part M3 and a pseudo-scalar part M4 : M = M0 + M1 + M2 + M3 + M4 (16)

J and A are vectors (type M1 ). F is a bivector (type M2 ). M0 , M2 , M4 are called even terms, M1 and M3 are called odd terms. The gradient operator ∂, applied to an even term, gives an odd term, and inversely. Therefore the simplest way to generalize the laws (1) ot the Maxwell’s electromagnetism is to put ∂I = P ; ∂P = where I et I are odd terms and where P is even : I = A + γ0123 B ; I = J + γ0123 K P = s + F + pγ0123 (18) (19) 4π I c (17)

A and J are the electric potential and electric current vectors, F is the electromagnetic bivector ﬁeld of (1). Those classical terms are now completed by the pseudo-vector magnetic potential B of Cabibbo-Ferrari and the pseudo-vector magnetic current K, but also by a scalar term s and a pseudo-scalar term p which are joined to the bivector ﬁeld F . The equality ∂I = P between ﬁeld and potential terms gives now, instead of (7), (8), (9), four equalities : s = ∂µ Aµ E = −∂0 A − ∂A0 + ∂ × B H = ∂ × A + ∂0 B + ∂B0 p = −∂µ B

µ

(20) (21) (22) (23)

If the Lorentz condition ∂µ Aµ = 0 is satisﬁed, and if a similar condition is satisﬁed for the pseudo-vector B, ∂µ B µ = 0, then the scalar and the pseudo-scalar parts of the ﬁeld cancel and P is reduced to the bivector F of the classical electromagnetism. As for the second equation (17), it is equivalent to four equalities : 4π J0 c 4π ∂s + ∂0 E − ∂ × H = − J c 4π ∂p + ∂0 H + ∂ × E = K c 4π ∂ 0 p + ∂ · H = − K0 c ∂0 s + ∂ · E = (24) (25) (26) (27)

About magnetic monopoles . . .

3

Those laws of the electromagnetism with magnetic potential and magnetic current are well-known, from long, but in the particular case s = p = 0. But then, why the observations of magnetic monopoles [1][2] have so much trouble to be recognized ? It happens that between the laws (1) of classical electromagnetism and now, there was the discovery of the electron, and many other particles, with charges which are always an integer multiple of the electron’s charge. That quantiﬁcation of the electric charge was not expected, and is not a consequence of (1). The movement’s law of such a charge, the Lorentz force, is not a consequence of (1). But it can be deduced [3] from the relativistic wave equation got by Dirac, which gives, very accurately, the quantum levels of an hydrogen atom. The splendid success of his equation preceded another Dirac’s calculation [4], establishing a relation between the elementary electric charge e, the elementary magnetic charge g and the Planck constant : n eg = c 2 (28)

This formula presents the advantage of justifying the quantiﬁcation of the electric charge. It presents the disadvantage of giving a great value for the magnetic charge : g= c 2e 137 e 2 (29)

But Mikha¨ ılov’s experiments [1] showed an elementary magnetic charge much smaller than the magnetic charge in (28), therefore impossible if the formula (28) is true : g= α e 6 1 e 822 (30)

The strange radiation observed by Urutskoev [2], which seems very similar to a radiation of magnetic monopoles, does not allow an easy calculation of the magnetic charge, but thoses experiments are relatively low energy experiments. And physicists generally think a monopole with the great magnetic charge (28) as having a very high proper mass, impossible at low energy. More, the experimental eﬀects seen by Urustkoev are evanescent after several days, and that questions the conservation of the magnetic charge. The Dirac relation (28) may be got by sereval ways, and so appears very ﬁrm : we can get it from the calculation of the kinetic momentum of an electron in the ﬁeld of a monopole [5], or from the gauge transformation of the electric potential vector, or from the Aharonov-Bohm eﬀect, or from the G. Lochak’s wave equation for a monopole [6]. In spite of the ﬁrm aspect of those convergent calculations, and because we must never forget that physics is an experimental science, we must question the Dirac relation (28). That has been done by G. Lochak in [7]. But it seems that the failure in each calculation is simple and always the same : it occurs in the calculation of the potential terms. Each way to get (28) calculates an electric potential vector created by a magnetic charge, or calculates a magnetic potential pseudo-vector created by an electric charge. But combining the two equations (17) we get 4π 2 I = ∂(∂I) = I ; = ∂0 − ∂ 2 (31) c that is 4π J c 4π B= K c A= (32) (33)

There is a complete separation between the electric vectors and the magnetic pseudo-vectors. So, it is easy to transpose the electrostatic laws to magnetostatic laws : as an electric charge at rest creates an electric potential A0 as 1 , a magnetic charge at rest creates a magnetic potential B0 as 1 . In the case of moving charges it is r r necessary to consider the retardation. But never an electric charge can create a magnetic potential, never a magnetic charge can create an electric potential, and that destroys all the proofs of (28). That relation was believed because it justiﬁed the quantiﬁcation of the electric charge, and also because the gauge invariance makes to believe that the potential terms are only calculation tools without physical meaning. But O. Costa de Beauregard gave ﬁrm arguments for the physical reality of the potential terms [8]. More, with the de Broglie’s electromagnetism with photons [9], the pseudo-vector B, as the vector A, are a part of the electromagnetic

4

C. Daviau

tensors, as much as the electromagnetic ﬁeld F . They are not some calculation tool that we can freely use. They are also integrated when we calculate the energy of the electromagnetic ﬁeld. And we must not forget the symetry laws : A and J are space-time vectors while B and K are spacetime pseudo-vectors, that is three-ranked antisymmetric tensors. Those tensors do not have the same P and T symmetry laws. Each proof of (28) breaks these symmetry laws. That separation of the electricity from the magnetism, that we well see in (32) and (33), implies that the conservation of the electricity, which is a very well established law, by numerous experiments, and is not linked to a conservation of the magnetism. The conservation law of electricity reads 0 = ∂µ J µ = ∂ · J But we have (34)

4π ∂ · J = ∂ · ( A) = (∂ · A) (35) c So the Lorentz relation 0 = ∂ ·A implies the conservation of electricity. We must remark that the Lorentz relation is a part of the de Broglie’s electromagnetism with photons [9]. For the magnetic part of the electromagnetism we have now (33), so we get 4π ∂ · K = ∂ · ( B) = (∂ · B) = − p (36) c Consequently, if p is not null, the K current is not conservative : the magnetic monopoles can have any charge, and this charge may be not constant, which can be the reason of a decreasing activity. The title of this papers asks : what do we know about magnetic monopoles ? Well, it should be honest and desirable to answer : now, few things ! We don’t know if an elementary magnetic charge exists, and if it exists what is its value, if it is stable or not. We do not know the law of motion of those objects. Even if the electric charges seem exactly points, we do not know if magnetic charges are also points. They can also have the form of torus or pretzel or anything. And we shall gain answers to these questions only from experiments. R´f´rences ee

[1] V.F. Mikhailov : Observation of the magnetic charge eﬀect in the experiments with ferromagnetic aerosols, Ann. Fond. Louis de Broglie, 12 n◦ 4, 1987, p. 491-524. [2] L.I. Urutskoev, V. I. Liksonov. V. G. Tsinoev : Observation of transformation of chemical elements during electric discharge, Ann. Fond. Louis de Broglie, 27 n◦ 4, 2002, p. 701-726. [3] D. Hestenes : Local observables in the Dirac theory, J. Math. Phys. 14 n◦ 7, july 1973, p. 893-905. [4] P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A133 (1931) 60. [5] Edgard Elbaz : De l’´lectromagn´tisme ` l’´lectro-faible, Ellipses, Paris, 1989. e e a e [6] G. Lochak : Sur un monopˆle de masse nulle d´crit par l’´quation de Dirac et sur une ´quation g´n´rale non lin´aire o e e e e e e 1 qui contient des monopˆles de spin 2 . Ann. Fond. Louis de Broglie, 8 n◦ 4 1983 et 9 n◦ 1 1984 o 1 G. Lochak : The symmetry between electricity and magnetism and the wave equation of a spin 2 magnetic monopole. Proceedings of the 4-th International Seminar on the Mathematical Theory of dynamical systems and Microphysics. CISM 1985 G. Lochak : Wave equation for a magnetic monopole. Int. J. of Th. Phys. 24 n◦ 10 1985 G. Lochak : Un monopˆle magn´tique dans le champ de Dirac (Etats magn´tiques du champ de Majorana) Ann. o e e Fond. Louis de Broglie, 17 n◦ 2 1992 ´ G. Lochak : L’´quation de Dirac sur le cˆne de lumi`re : Electrons de Majorana et monopˆles magn´tiques, Ann. e o e o e Fond. Louis de Broglie, 28 n◦ 3-4, 2003. [7] G. Lochak : Quelques questions ` propos de la formule de Dirac pour la charge d’un monopˆle magn´tique, Ann. a o e Fond. Louis de Broglie, 29 n◦ 4, 2004, p 695-705. [8] O. Costa de Beauregard : Un ´nonc´ de Vaschy et une exp´rience de Blondel revisit´s : la tension d’Amp`re, Ann. e e e e e Fond. Louis de Broglie, 28 n◦ 1, 2003, p 77-82. [9] Louis de Broglie : Th´orie g´n´rale des particules ` spin (m´thode de fusion), Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1954. e e e a e