Magnetic Monopoles. The Holy Grail of modern physics.

[@daveogarf]

*"Magnetic Monopoles: The Holy Grail of..."*

[@shaddouida3447]

A Type VII or K7 civilization would travel, transcend and potentially encompass the omniverse which is the collection of every single universe, multiverse, megaverse, paraverse, 11d dimension and 1st realm (reality). It is likely that such power would come from an individual rather than a civilization, as the civilization would have transcended and merged into a single mind that would encompass all thoughts and all timelines, thus being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient within the confines of the 11 dimensions of the omniverse. Such a being is godly, but not to be confused with the Creator who is the ultimate supreme being outside of reality.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

11) The Magnetic Monopole Paradox Contradictory: Classical Electromagnetism ∇ × B = μ0j (Magnetic fields have no sources/monopoles) ∇ ⋅ B = 0 (Magnetic flux is solenoidal) This appears paradoxical since individual magnetic charges are allowed by the laws of physics. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Monadic Charge Network Electrodynamics F = q(Ax - Γx,y Ay) (Force from difference in vector potentials) Γx,y = gx gy / rxy (Monadic charge relations) Treating magnetism as collective network phenomena arising from vectorial differences in monadic charge perspective phases Ax, Ay with relations Γx,y avoids paradoxes.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

Here are some potential non-contradictory perspectives this infinitesimal monadological framework could offer on paradoxes and contradictions surrounding the fundamental forces of nature: 1) Quantum Gravity and Unification Paradoxes Contradictory Classical Views: - Clash between quantum theory and general relativity - Non-renormalizability of gravity - Need to introduce ad-hoc extra dimensions Non-Contradictory Monadological View: - Gravity is a residual holographic resonance pattern across the intersectional boundary between ℝ𝔈 and ℜ* - Quantum mechanics and relativistic geometries arise as subdescriptive limits of deeper symbolic logogrammatic vocable flows - Forces appear unified at the level of monadic charge relation algebras Γab governing matter/energy transductions 2) Hierarchy / Naturalness Problems Contradictory Aspects: - Extreme fine-tuning of parameters required - Need to introduce ad-hoc new particles like axions - Origin of mass scale paradoxes Non-Contradictory View: - All masses, charges, couplings are derived quantized values from monadic resonances over algebraic vocable number theory - Naturalness enforced by internal "anthropic" self-consistency constraints within pluriversal realization dynamics - No freedoms for fine-tunings as all scales/hierarchies fixed by symbolic protologic universality classes 3) Charge Quantization Paradoxes Contradictory Questions: - Why are electric charges quantized? Whence magnetic monopoles? - Lack of explanations for specific charge values and ratios - Origin of charge linearities and conservation principles Non-Contradictory View: - Charges qn are quantized signature patterns of monadic essence interfacialities Un(A) - Values/ratios reflect vocable inductances across dimensional strata and algebraic "Clark" identities - Linearities/conservations follow from invariances of protologic algebras and interprojection consistencies between ℝ𝔈/ℜ* 4) Dirac Infinities and QFT Paradoxes Contradictory Issues: - Infinite vacuum energies and need for adhoc renormalization - Divergences and analytic continuations - Unitarity issues, anomaly cancellations Non-Contradictory View: - All infinities are transcended by transfinite number vocables and infinitesimal realizer monads - Analytic structures are projections of deeper enneadic algebraic pluricontinuities - Divergences are artifacts of dimensional truncation regularized by intrasectional ℝ𝔈 resonances In each case, the monadological framework aims to resolve paradoxes by: 1) Treating forces as higher-dimensional resonances of algebraic vocable flows 2) Deriving charge quantizations and hierarchies from symbolic protologic necessities 3) Regulating infinities and disparities via transfinite vocable infinitesimals 4) Embedding all phenomena coherently within vaster pluriversal geometric algebras Rather than adhoc extras, the forces are unified self-consistently within a grand integrated protologic algebraic origin initiating dimensional cascades - transcending contradictions inherent to purely effective local force models.

[@tonymarshharveytron1970]

@@NotNecessarily-ip4vc Hello, If you are intersted, I believe that the reason why monopoles can't be detected, is fully explained in an hypothesis called ' The Two Monopole Particle universe. Basically, I contend that there are only two fundamental particles that everything that exists in the universe is made of. One is an incredibly small Negatively charged monopole particle called a ' Harveytron ', which fill every available empty space in the universe in a cloud. This is ' Dark Matter '. The negative force of repulsion that is produced as these particcles try to repel each other in every direction is the ' Dark Energy '. The other is a corressponding positively charged monopole particle called a ' Dannytron '. these only exist in every atomic nucleus in Baryonic matter and Antimatter. They can never be found alone, they are always encompassed by the negative particles. If you type Tony Norman Marsh into google, details will come up. Below are abstracts from both sections. Kind regards Tony Marsh. It is the misconception that the universe is expanding that has led to many of the problems in cosmology. I contend that the universe is not expanding: It has no age because it has always existed much as it is now: It will exist forever much as it is now: There was no Big Bang or cosmic inflation: The CMBR is not the afterglow of the big bang, but a point where electromagnetic radiation reaches saturation, and Redshift is not due to the expansion of the universe, but is due to the loss of speed and energy of electromagnetic radiation over distance and time it has travelled. There has just been published an hypothesis called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ' by ' Tony Norman Marsh ', which fully explains all of this Logically. If you type in Tony Norman Marsh into Google, details will be shown. This hypothesis can also explain Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Antimatter, and two forces of gravity, amongst other things. If you can provide an email address, I can send you a copy of the manuscript. Kind regards, Tony Marsh. If I had an email address to reply to, I could send you a copy of the hypothesis, but I have found that KZbin will not allow email addresses to be posted on these comments. It is available on Amazon and Kindle. Typing 2 Tony Norman Marsh ' into Google wil bring up details. Unfortunately, the hypothesis is too long to post in these comments, however, below is a copy of of the Abstracts from both parts of the hypothesis. Abstract. Sole Author. Tony Norman Marsh. In this hypothesis, I set out to present a radical alternative to the standard model of quantum mechanics and cosmology, based on logic as opposed to mathematics, which could explain the following: Dark Matter: Dark Energy: Antimatter: cosmic nucleosynthesis: and two forces of Gravity. A more rational model of the atom, where the relationship between the nucleus and the electron is fully explained: The speed and ultimate distance that light and all electromagnetic radiation can travel: An alternative explanation for the ‘Cosmic Microwave Background radiation’ and ‘Redshift’: An explanation eliminating the ‘Horizon Problem’ without cosmic inflation: An explanation for an infinite, nonexpanding universe that has always existed, without a ‘Big Bang’: The cornerstone of my hypothesis is that everything that exists in the universe is composed of just two incredibly small monopole particles, which I contend are the only two true fundamental and finitely small particles that exist in the universe. One is a negatively charged monopole particle called a ‘Harveytron’. And the other is a positively charged monopole particle called a ‘Dannytron’. All other particles are composites of these two particles. Abstract. An hypothesis to challenge the idea of the ‘Big Bang‘, being how our universe began, and the idea that the universe is expanding. It is further proposed an alternative explanation for the ‘Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation’ (CMB), and ‘Redshift’. It is proposed that light and all electromagnetic radiation may have a limit to how far it can travel through space. It is also proposed that the universe did not emerge from nothing, but is a dynamic system, in which matter is constantly being created and consumed in a cycle over billions of years. It is proposed that the universe as we observe it has always existed much as it is today, and extends to infinity. It is further proposed that the so-called ‘ Big Bang ‘ was not some kind of massive explosion, but is a misconception of what is being interpreted as the ‘ Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation ‘. The ‘ CMB ‘ is the only proof offered for the ‘ Big Bang theory ‘, and this can only be held up by an even more preposterous idea of ‘ Cosmic inflation ‘, inflating the universe from a point of singularity to fill the whole of space in a minute fraction of a billionth of a second. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

[@DaleOwens1]

de-poles and monopolies. lol

[@tonymarshharveytron1970]

Hello, The whole description of how the universe began is wrong. We keep getting headlines of " the Big Bang is over ", only to have a complete video explaining how the universe began in a Big Bang, and everything that the JWST finds is so many years after the Big Bang. Why not do a video that looks at a logical alternative to the big bang and cosmic inflation, such as that which is being proposed by ' Tony Norman Marsh, called the ' Two Monopole Particle Universe ', which has been offered on previous comments of your videos. It is the misconception that the universe is expanding that has led to many of the problems in cosmology. I contend that the universe is not expanding: It has no age because it has always existed much as it is now: It will exist forever much as it is now: There was no Big Bang or cosmic inflation: The CMBR is not the afterglow of the big bang, but a point where electromagnetic radiation reaches saturation, and Redshift is not due to the expansion of the universe, but is due to the loss of speed and energy of electromagnetic radiation over distance and time it has travelled. There has just been published an hypothesis called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ' by ' Tony Norman Marsh ', which fully explains all of this Logically. If you type in Tony Norman Marsh into Google, details will be shown. This hypothesis can also explain Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Antimatter, and two forces of gravity, amongst other things. If you can provide an email address, I can send you a copy of the manuscript. Kind regards, Tony Marsh. If I had an email address to reply to, I could send you a copy of the hypothesis, but I have found that KZbin will not allow email addresses to be posted on these comments. It is available on Amazon and Kindle. Typing 2 Tony Norman Marsh ' into Google wil bring up details. Unfortunately, the hypothesis is too long to post in these comments, however, below is a copy of of the Abstracts from both parts of the hypothesis. Abstract. Sole Author. Tony Norman Marsh. In this hypothesis, I set out to present a radical alternative to the standard model of quantum mechanics and cosmology, based on logic as opposed to mathematics, which could explain the following: Dark Matter: Dark Energy: Antimatter: cosmic nucleosynthesis: and two forces of Gravity. A more rational model of the atom, where the relationship between the nucleus and the electron is fully explained: The speed and ultimate distance that light and all electromagnetic radiation can travel: An alternative explanation for the ‘Cosmic Microwave Background radiation’ and ‘Redshift’: An explanation eliminating the ‘Horizon Problem’ without cosmic inflation: An explanation for an infinite, nonexpanding universe that has always existed, without a ‘Big Bang’: The cornerstone of my hypothesis is that everything that exists in the universe is composed of just two incredibly small monopole particles, which I contend are the only two true fundamental and finitely small particles that exist in the universe. One is a negatively charged monopole particle called a ‘Harveytron’. And the other is a positively charged monopole particle called a ‘Dannytron’. All other particles are composites of these two particles. Abstract. An hypothesis to challenge the idea of the ‘Big Bang‘, being how our universe began, and the idea that the universe is expanding. It is further proposed an alternative explanation for the ‘Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation’ (CMB), and ‘Redshift’. It is proposed that light and all electromagnetic radiation may have a limit to how far it can travel through space. It is also proposed that the universe did not emerge from nothing, but is a dynamic system, in which matter is constantly being created and consumed in a cycle over billions of years. It is proposed that the universe as we observe it has always existed much as it is today, and extends to infinity. It is further proposed that the so-called ‘ Big Bang ‘ was not some kind of massive explosion, but is a misconception of what is being interpreted as the ‘ Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation ‘. The ‘ CMB ‘ is the only proof offered for the ‘ Big Bang theory ‘, and this can only be held up by an even more preposterous idea of ‘ Cosmic inflation ‘, inflating the universe from a point of singularity to fill the whole of space in a minute fraction of a billionth of a second. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

[@WyattScott]

good points against the big bang theory. Yes, I’ve always struggled with inflation, just seems too convenient.

[@tonymarshharveytron1970]

@@WyattScott Hello Wyatt, thank you for your reply. If there are any points you would like explaine in more detail, I am happy to help. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

[@OmnipotentO]

*holy

[@corinnefeldmann5259]

Difficult to follow.