This post is a continuation of Reason number 50 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles as found on the other website. I published nr 50 in 2017 on 14 Oct. In that nr 50 Reason I tried to estimate the gradient of an inhomogeneous (non constant) magnetic field. It was just a rough estimation so you can have all kinds of critisism on it, but the gradient needed in the magnetic field was so huge that we safely can conclude that electrons cannot be accelerated by non constant magnetic fields.
Back in the year 2017 I more or less stated that universities are never very helpful. I joked that the word cooporation was not found in their dictionary. So now about 18 months later this seems to be true, why is that? Well all universities are relatively formal structures, most things go along some kind of protocol. For example when I would try to get a research job for the study of magnetic domains (because I think magnetic domains have surplusses of either one of the spin variants, so every magnetic domain is a magnetic ‘monopole’ on the domain level), that likely would not be possible. Because everything goes in such a formal manner likely I have to start as a first year student of physics, slowly climb the ranks and that’s it because ‘we cannot make an exception’. And from the university this is rather logical; if they give in to one weirdo that think that electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles, next comes along another crazy person that wants to study more homeopathic medicines or whatever what.
Ok, what are we looking at in this post? I simply view the electron as some kind of massive small sphere with a diameter of 10^-16 meter and as such estimate the density or the mass per cubic meter.
Without trying any kind of calculation, try to accelerate such an object with an inhomogeneous magnetic field…
It is three pictures long so this is a short post although the numbers are impressive. Picture sizes all 550×775 pixels.
Ok, this is what I had to say on the impossibility of accelerating magnetic dipole electrons in any meaningful amount while using inhomogeneous magnetic fields… See you in the next post.
Today I came across one of those video’s where people try to explain how permanent magnets work. And originally I thought of a title like ‘Idiot of the day observed’ but soon I changed my mind because Paul Sutter does not do it on purpose; what he says is more or less the general accepted version of permanent magnetism…
In general there are two lines of reasoning when it comes to permanent magnets: One line of reasoning is that the magnetic domains get aligned, the other way is that the electron spin of all unpaired electrons align.
Paul Sutter goes for the second line of reasoning; the spin of all unpaired electrons align giving rise to a permanent magnet. Just like everything else in the video it is just wrong; in my view where the electrons carry magnetic charge, it is the placement of the unpaired electrons in the inner shells of for example an iron atom that makes the global permanent magnet emerge.
If it was just electrons having all their dipole magnetic moments point in the same direction, in that case with a strong magnet you could always change or invert the magnetic direction of a weak magnet. In practice this just does not happen; last spring I even made a simple experiment with this: I took my stack of the most strong magnets I have and placed them over 24 hours against the two most weak magnets I have. And, like expected, there was no change at all in the weak magnets indicating there is some kind of threshold at work. The threshold is of course that it is hard to remove the magnetically charged electrons from the inner shells of the iron atoms…
Here are two pictures of the simple experiment from 08 March 2018; the permanent but very weak magnets on the left were exposed to the stack of neodymium magnets for just over 24 hours and just nothing changed in the behavior of the weak magnets. If electron magnetic moment alignment were a significant factor in permanent magnetism, the stronger permanent magnets should alter the magnetic properties of the weak magnets. It just does not happen…
It is lovely to see so many of the wrong stuff bound together in just one short video: For example when Paul explains why electron pairs are magnetically neutral while the unpaired electrons are not. In my view if it is true that electrons are magnetic dipoles, they would be magnetically neutral. They are not and in my view this shows electrons are magnetic monopoles. How does Paul explain it? Very simple: The electron pair is magnetically neutral because one of the electrons has spin up while the other has spin down and that cancels each other out.
Here is the Youtube video of Paul Sutter, please don’t think that Paul is a dumb person or so. This is just the view of professional physics folks that have studied magnetism for centuries…
May be at last I am getting a little bit sarcastic: They have studied that for centuries… But if you let go that dumb and unproven Gauss law for magnetism, just try to think about our physical reality as electrons also carry magnetic charge beside their electric charge, a lot of things become better to understand. After all, why do we only observe electron pairs? Why never something else like an electron triplet?
Ok, let’s leave it with that. Till updates my dear reader.
There is more than one candidate; the possible explanation of those solar loops via the rotating plasma under it is indeed very very nice.
But it is very hard to find experimental evidence for that, how to check that on the sun where there is one of those solar loops, the solar plasma underneath it is rotating?
So my choice for this year most beautiful insight is how those magnetic domains in materials like iron actually work. If my thinking on electrons as magnetic monopoles is correct, you could view those magnetic domains as surplusses of either north-pole electrons or south-pole charged electrons.
This should be much more easy to verify experimentally. After all there is still plenty of magnetic tape around and the best way of checking if magnetic domains are suplusses of one of the two magnetic charges is much more handy if you have a flat surface like magnetic tape.
Furthermore at present day it should be possible to measure very small magnetic charges. After all in most computers there still are spinning hard disks that use magnetism as the basic information storage.
Anyway to make a long story short: If in a flat material like magnetic tape you can go around a magnetic domain with a tiny compass, all of the time the tiny compass should point towards that magnetic domain with the same side of the compass needle.
So it should always point with the north-pole of the compass needle or the south-pole of the compass needle. Remark that according to standard physics theory going around a magnetic domain should always give different readings with a tiny compass needle…
Also in that line of thinking, the domain walls shoud have surplusses of electron pairs that all are spinning around to compensate or neutralize the magnetic forces they feel. An important clue to that lies in the fact you cannot really move or transport domain walls in a wire as the engeneers of IBM tried with making their nano wire racetrack memory.
This year we heard more or less nothing from IBM with progress into the concept of nano wire racetrack memory. Yeah yeah, the price of not understanding electron spin is huge, if we could have fast computer memory that uses very little energy that would be great…
This year I also gave up on my fantasies of trying to make an official publication in some physics yournal. I don’t think such a publication will ever pass the peer review that those scientific yournals use. Those peer review people just want the electron is a magnetic dipole and that’s it. So I did not try that this year nor will I try next year.
Not that I am aginst peer review. Suppose there would be zero peer review and think for example medical scientific publications. They would be filled with all kind of weird benefits that homeopathy therapy has, or the healing of your chakra’s with mineral chrystals… Of course we cannot have that. As such there must always be the so called peer review…
Ok, the word count counter says 500+ words written so I have to stop writing.
Here is the link to what I self more or less consider as the best improving insight on my behalf on the behavior of all things magnetic. It is from 7 July this year:
There is a Youtube channel named the science asylum. It is run by a guy that makes your head tired but for a few minutes it is often nice to watch. In the next video he tries to explain magnetism, both electro-magnetism and permanent magnets.
Here is the video:
The video guy tries to explain permanent magnets via the concept of angular momentum. As far as I know physics now this is indeed the way it has historically evolved. Now a lot of physics folks think that the unpaired electrons somehow go around the nucleus and as such create a magnetic dipole moment, other place more emphasis on electrons being the basic dipole magnets and if they align all conditions for possible permanent magnets are there. Of course beside electrons also the so called magnetic domains need to align and the official version is that this is more or less the way some materials like iron can be turned into permanent magnets.
In my view there is a long list of problems that come with that. For example the Curie temperature, above the Curie temperature the permanent magnet looses it’s magnetism completely.
If you view electrons as magnetic monopoles, stuff like the Curie temperature become a lot more logical: above the Curie temperature it has to be that the metal is so hot it starts to loose it’s unpaired electrons.
In my view, when permanent magnets are manufactured it is the applied external magnetic field and the slow slow cooling down from above the Curie temperature that ensures the magnet becomes ‘permanent’.
There should be a simple experimental proof for that but although for years I tried to find it, until now I still haven’t found it. But in our global industrie a lof of permanent magnets are made every day and the experimental proof for my view on electron spin simply says the next:
If during the cooling down a NS external magnetic field is applied, the permanent magnet will come out as a SN magnet.
With SN I simply mean that the magnetic south pole is on the left while the magnetic north pole is on the right. So the macroscopic object known as the permanent magnet will always be anti-aligned with the magnetic field that is applied during the fabrication of the permanent magnet.
I still haven’t found it after all these years, but if it comes out that permanent magnets have the same orientation as the applied external magnetic field during fabrication, I can trash my theory of magnetic charges and finally go on with my life…
But there are plenty of problems more with the standard model version of electrons being magnetic dipoles. Here is a screen shot from 4.35 minutes into the video from the crazy asylum guy and it contains so called quantum numbers.
The title in the picture might look a bit confusing because the only single-electron atom in the universe is the hydrogen atom. Likely the author means the number of unpaired electrons in some atom.
You observe two quantum numbers that are holy inside quantum mechanics:
The so called ‘Total orbital angular momentum’ number l and something weird because it is only along the z-axis direction m_l.
In my view, if electrons carry magnetic charge and are not magnetic dipoles and for example it has 3 unpaired electrons, total magnetic charge runs from -3 to +3.
And that is precisely what the m subscript l number does…
So I still have to find the very first fault in my simple idea that electrons just carry one of the two possible magnetic charges.
In this post I skipped the fourth quantum number: total spin. That is also a quantum number thing so is it a vector (a magnetic dipole) or a magnetic charge (a magnetic monopole)?
Ok, let’s leave it with that. Have a nice set of quantum numbers or try to get one.
Added on 26 Nov:
May be looking at chaotic guys makes me chaotic too, but reading back what I wrote yesterday I think it is better to explain the ‘anti alignment’ a bit more because I explained it far too confusing I just guess.
I made a schematic sketch of it, you see two coils that make a long lasting constant magnetic field and in that field a hot piece of iron is slowly cooling down. An important feature of iron is that the four unpaired electrons are in the inner shells, this is a consequence of the so called aufbau principle.
Here is the sketch:
So my basic idea of manufacturing permanent magnets is the fact that during the long cool down the unpaired electrons can settle in those inner shells inside the electron could of the iron atoms.
Furthermore it has to be that the chrystal structure metals like iron make is such that the individual iron atoms cannot rotate. It is fixed in place. And with the unpaired magnetic charge carrying electrons in place after the long cool down, that is why your permanent magnet is more or less permanent:
Small surplusses of south charged electrons should be at the left & vice versa a bit more north magnetic charge at the right as sketched above.
This all sounds very simple but we also have those magnetic domains in metals like iron, those magnetic domains are just small surplusses of either one of the two magnetic charges. This blurs the simplicity a bit but it perfectly explains as why unmagnetized iron gets attracted to magnets anyway: the dynamics of the magnetic domain changes under the influence of the outside permanent magnet…
At last I want to remark that if the idea of permanent magnetism would solely based on dipole electron spin that aligns, in that case strong permanent magnets should change the permanent magnetism of weakly magnetized iron. The strong magnets would simply eat up the electrons of the weak permanent magnet.
That just does not happen. Last spring I made a small toungue in cheek ‘experiment’ with that where I placed my stack of most strong neodymium magnets against two of my most weak magnets. It was all fixed in place over 24 hours, but after all that time my two most weak permanent magnets exposed the same behaviour as before.
So no electron was flipped and for me that was one more reason to say farewell to the idea of electrons being magnetic monopoles.
Here is a link to that very simple toungue in cheek experiment, I hope it is so simple that physics professors will vomit on that…
This post is on magnetism only but it is more or less in the planning that the next post on 4D complex numbers is about diagonalization of a 4D complex number. After that we have (may be) to try and calculate the number tau in this way.
Ok magnetic stuff:
Since I think that electrons are not magnetic dipoles but carry one of the two possible magnetic charges, electrons will always be accelerated by magnetic fields just as they are by electrical fields.
That basic idea of magnetic charge makes a whole lot of things much more easy to understand. For example electron pairs are only observed as pairs, never as triples or whatever what like circular structures of 17 electrons…
Let’s look at the most simple molecule we know of: molecular hydrogen. Two atomic hydrogen are both electrically neutral, why should they bond anyway? But if the two electrons of those two hydrogen atoms carry opposite magnetic charge, that could be a reason as why they want to bond anyway.
And if you think about it that way (the protons also carry some magnetic charge) all of a sudden a hydrogen molecule is nothing but a balancing act between electric and magnetic charges.
Once more: Why do we only observe electron pairs in chemical bonding via electron pairs? If the electron was indeed a magnetic dipole, what explains we only observe electron pairs?
I made a beautiful drawing of two electron magnetic dipoles, I know I know it is a bit simplistic with two simple lobes of magnetism in a 2D representation. But here it is & how is all that bonding in the electron pair supposed to go?
Why do we only observe electron pairs and not other forms of possible magnetic dipole formations? We have never seen only one electron triple as far as I know.
I know it is a terrible drawing. Always when I show drawings to other human beings they always get tears in their eyes…:)
In the beginning I just thought that the tears were explained because those people could see the underlying beauty of my drawings. But later they also started vomiting and I was just scratching my head and decided to post less and less drawings because that vomit is so smelly and dirty.
But let’s not talk about the smell of vomit but a bit more on the wonderful progression the Max Planck Institute is making with their expensive nuclear fusion reactor known as the Wendelstein 7-X fusion reactor. They have set breathtaking records like in the next link:
If my version of electron spin carries more truth compared to the retarded version of every electron is a magnetic dipole, if that is true nuclear fusion machines like Tokamak or the Stellarator design as used in the Wendelstein 7-X reactor will not work properly.
So let’s make it a little contest between me and the entire Max Planck Institute, in particular the IPP parts of it (IPP = Institute for Plasma Physics).
Now that is German stuff so I will use a German video as found on the internet where a German guy named Harold Lesch asks questions at another German guy named Hartmut Zohm. One of those questions is answered at 3.33 minutes into the video where Harold asks if there are still some major ‘technical hurdles’ that have to be taken…
Hartmut Zohm says: Das haben wir alles schon ausgeraumt.
Loosely translated the answer says that ‘everything has been cleaned out’.
Here is the video:
Harald Lesch & Hartmut Zohm zur Fusionsforschung
And of course a picture of how it looks to observe two humans not understanding electron acceleration by magnetic fields:
So what is the little contest between the Max Planck Institute and me?
Very simple: They will keep on going with the insight from the standard model of physics that says electrons are magnetic dipoles. And from my side I will keep on insisting that electrons are the long sought magnetic monopoles and as such are accelerated by magnetic fields.
It will take some time to let this pan out, after all the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator is not something you turn on like a light bulb. But one thing is clear; the longer the machine is turned on the longer the electrons get accelerated and likely this is creating a long list of plasma stability problems like ever growing turbulence. Or more and more electrons smashing into the vessel walls because the high speed will make them leave the magnetic field lines they follow at low speeds…
At last I want to remark that electrons as magnetic dipoles with only one of the two possible magnetic charges makes something like the formation of H2 easier to understand. But that comes with a hefty price: Now the formation of proteins becomes much more difficult to understand. If you look at animations from how proteins form very often you see the electron as a magnetic dipole and when needed it simply flips around… So what happens in reality is unknown to me, is there all kinds of electron transport going on so that the right electron is at the right place in a chemical reaction? Or are there all kinds of photons going round changing the magnetic charge of the individual electrons?
I don’t have a clue as how our human bodies actually make all those proteins…
That is the end of this post.
A correction on the 17 June 2017 post is added on 29 Oct 2018. It is just a silly typo in just an example of a possible so called trapdoor function, but last week when I read that old post again I decided to correct it. So although it is a very old post compared to the present day news cycle where idiots run the atheneum formerly known as the Federal government of the USA, I still live in timescales that evolve more slowly.
After all, almost all of the math as written down in the post about finding prime factors of huge composite numbers as they are used in internet security was found by me in the nineties. So it is over two decades old math and by other standards that is still very young math…
The original post was 15 pictures long, as usual it is very hard to understand all stuff in a single day. The human brain learns slow because all that brain matter has to rewire itself and that is a process that makes you tired, just like nature wants I just guess.
In the end I came close, I had all the technical stuff figured out but I still lacked a mechanism of converging into the direction of the prime numbers as used in for example communications encryption.
Ok, the correction itself is on the second picture of the old 17 June 2017 post.
If you don’t want to read the old post, the correction looks like this:
In reason 66 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles I tried to find a lower bound for the sideway acceleration the electrons have in the simple television experiment.
To put it simple: How much sideway acceleration must the electrons have to explain the dark spots on the screen where no electrons land?
The answer is amazing at first sight: about 2.5 times 10^15 m/sec^2.
This acceleration lasts only at most two nano seconds and in the end the minimum sideway speed is about 5000 km/sec so while the acceleration is such a giant number it does not break relativity rules or so…
Here is the link:
You know I took all kinds of assurances that it is only a lower bound on the actual acceleration that takes place. For example I took the maximal sideway distance as only 0.5 cm. Here is a photo that shows a far bigger black spot where no electrons land, so the actual sideway distance if definitely more than 0.5 cm.
The math part of this post is not extremely thick in the sense you can find the results for yourself with the applet as shown below. Or by pencil & paper find some 4D eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors for yourself.
But we need them in order to craft the so called eigenvalue functions and also for the diagonal matrices that come along with all of the matrix representations of the 4D complex numbers Z.
I hope I wrote it down pretty straightforward, this post is five pictures long. And if you like these kind of mathematical little puzzles: Try, given one of the eigenvalues like omega or omega^3, find such an eigenvector for yourself. It is really cute to write them down, multiply them by the eigenvalue and observe with your own eyes that indeed we have all that rotation over the dimensions included that omega^4 = -1 behavior.
This post is five pictures long, it is all rather basic I hope.
The applet used is from the WIMS server (https://wims.sesamath.net/), look for the Matrix calculator in the section on Online calculators and plotters.
For the time being I think that in Part 12 we will craft the eigenvalue functions for any 4D complex number Z. Ok, that was it for this update.
Yes that is all there is: spinning plasma… At the end of last year’s summer I had figured out that if indeed electrons have far more acceleration compared to the protons, if on the sun the solar plasma starts rotating this caused a lot of electrons flying out and as such the spinning plasma would always be electrically positive.
But at the time I had no clue whatsoever about why there would be spinning plasma at the surface of the sun but lately I found the perfect culprit: The sun spins much faster at the equator compared to the polar regions.
This spinning plasma is visible at the surface of the sun as the famous sun spots and it is known these sun spots are places of strong magnetic fields.
There is a bit of a weak spot in my simple model that says all spinning plasma creates a strong magnetic field because if the solar spots are at there minimum none of them are observed for a relatively long time. The weak spot is: Why would there be no tornado like structures be made during this minimum of solar spots? After all the speed difference is still there between the equator regions and the polar regions.
Anyway the good thing is that my simple model is very falsifiable: If you can find only one spinning tube-shaped or tornado-shaped plasma structure that not makes magnetic fields, the simple model can be thrown into the garbage bin.
The simple model is found in Reason number 65 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles on the other website:
The main feature of the solar loops is that before your very own eyes you see all that solar plasma accelerating while according to the standard model of physics this is not possible.
Now there are plenty of physics professors stating that electrons can be accelerated by a magnetic field but if you hear them saying that you know they have never done the calculations that make it at least plausible that non constant magnetic fields are the main driver of electron acceleration.
Here are two nice pictures of what I am trying to explain with my simple model.
The above picture is in the UV part of the spectrum.
After having said that, the next post is like planned about numerical evaluations related to the four coordinate functions of the new found exponential curve f(t) for the 4D complex numbers. I hope to finish it later this week.
Now we are talking about cute numerical results anyway, in the next picture you can see numerical validation that the number tau in the 4D complex space is invertible because the determinant of it’s matrix representation is clearly non-zero.
You might say ‘so what?’. But if the number tau is invertible on the 4D complex numbers (just like the complex plane i has an inverse) in that case you can also craft a new Cauchy integral representation for that!
Again you might say ‘so what?’. But Cauchy integral representation is highly magical inside complex analysis related to the complex plane. There is a wiki upon it but the main result is a bit hard to swallow if you see it for the first time, furthermore the proof given is completely horrible let alone the bullshit after that. Anyway here it is, proud 21-century math wiki style:
The next post is about so called Wirtinger derivatives for functions defined on the space of 4D complex numbers. That would also be part 8 in the basics of complex numbers but you can ask yourself if it looks like this is it basic?
It looks like you can rewrite these horrible looking operators always as the Laplacian.
It’s amazing. So that will be the next post.
After that, for the time being it is in the planning, a few numerical results from the sphere-cone equation for 4D complex numbers. That could serve as another post.
In another development I decided to skip all possible preperations for an ‘official publication’ when it comes to electron spin. The bridge between what I think of electron spin (a magnetic charge) and the official version (magnetic monopoles do not exist) is just too large. As such the acceptance in a peer reviewed scientific journal are not that high given the ‘peer review hurdle’.
Beside this hurdle there are much more reasons that I throw this project into the garbage bin. I just don’t feel good about it.
May be in five or ten years I will change my view on this, but I think it is better for every body that the official standpoint on electrons just stays as it is:
Electrons are magnetic dipoles.
No, why should I try to get into some physics scientific journal saying it ain’t so?
Until now all experimental evidence I have is this lousy picture that I made with an old television set, it is from April 2016:
Once more it is very hard to explain this away with the Lorenz force only. By all mathematical standards the Lorentz force is continuous when it comes to electron velocity and the applied magnetic field.
What we observe with this old 12 € television is that the electrons behave not that way; they behave discontinuous…
After a little bit of thinking I decided to open another page on magnetic, mostly the tiny fact that electrons carry magnetic charge and are not magnetic dipoles, covering stuff as it is found in the year 2018.
Of course I will not push that idea for an infinite amount of time but this is about year number four and I still like it to look into the details of all things wrong with the official version of electron spin.
Likely this year will be as the previous years; total 100% silence from all physics professors, you can view that kind of behavior as a combination of being stupid and coward at the same time. This is known as a super position of cowardice and stupidity…
Also this year I will never ever try to attempt to write an official publication on the subject of electron spin, I still estimate the likelihood of rejection above 90% and on top of that I do not like it to be judged by some coward dumb ass.
No, the year 2018 is just another year of strong separation between me and all those university people.
After having said that, here is the link to the new page three:
This year I posted four more reasons as why electrons cannot have magnetic dipole properties of their own, basically most stuff observed like the electron pair in chemical bonding is not based on two magnetic dipoles doing ‘mysterious stuff’ but the pair is a sole reflection of the fact the pair has opposite magnetic charges.
Here is a screen shot from where I am now:
A very short description of the content of the four new posted reasons:
Reason 53: It was observed that in the IBM attempts to craft so called magnetic racetrack memory, the domain walls could not be moved by magnetic fields in those nano structures. Very boldly I simply claimed that in all metals with magnetic domains, the domain walls contain (much) more electron pairs…
This was very bold but if you want to shoot my theory out of the sky, the professional professors have to prove that the magnetic properties of the unpaired electron are more or less the same as the electron pair while at the same time upholding the Gauss law for magnetism (no magnetic charges do exist).
Reason 54: The circular magnetic field around circular (copper) wires when they transport electrical current. In my view, dependent on the magnetic charge of the individual electrons they will spiral at the surface of the wire into two different kind of spirals.
Reason 55: If what the video says is true and this is how the electron spin valve works, that is one more contribution to the simple fact electrons carry magnetic charge. It all boils down to the idea that opposite charges attrack while like charges repel.
That is the way such spin valves work.
Reason 56: After watching a lot of so called ‘spin torque transfer’ video’s I was so completely fed up with these people who only do theoretical blah blah blah but never ever in their lives as perfumed princes touch things like a screwdriver, I decided to do a simple experiment that debunkes a lot of that theoretical ‘spin torque transfer’.
Here is picture number two of my very simple experiment that shows there is no spin torque tranfer observed in a time frame of about 25 hours:
It is not observed: The strongest magnets possible in this year against the weakest macroscopic magnet still in my possesion, no spin torque transfer observed…..
It has to be remarked that the physics folks are very persistant to keep on trying to find the so called Dirac monopole. How this has come to be is still a miracle to me. After all if the electron has one electric charge and for the rest it is a magnetic dipole, it would look naturally to look for a particle that is a magnetic monopole and an electric dipole at the same time…
But I have never heard about such an investigation, it is only the Dirac magnetic monople and that’s it.
Here is a quote from sciencenews dot org:
If even a single magnetic monopole were detected, the discovery would rejigger the foundations of physics. The equations governing electricity and magnetism are mirror images of one another, but there’s one major difference between the two phenomena. Protons and electrons carry positive and negative electric charges, respectively, but no known particle has a magnetic charge. A magnetic monopole would be the first, and if one were discovered, electricity and magnetism would finally be on equal footing.
Comment on the quote: Because in my view I consider the electrons having one electrical charge and one of two magnetic charges, I think we have a nice equal footing of electricity and magnetism… (End of the comment.)
Back to CERN and stuff. Last month it came out that the MoEDAL experiment has failed in the sense that no magnetic monopoles were observed. Here is a small screenshot from the preprint archive stuff:
Comment: No idea what these people are talking about when they talk about 68.5 times the electric charge… Are they talking about electric charge or magnetic charge?
(End of comment)
detector in 2.11 fb−1 of 13 TeV proton-proton collisions at the LHC.
After a bit of searching I found back this beautiful video, coming from CERN, explaining how to find magnetic monopoles. It is clear they never ever studied the electron.
Yeah yeah my dear average CERN related human; what exactly is a magnetic monopole?
Does it have electric charge too and why should that be?
In my view where the electrons carry both electric and magnetic charge, a magnetic monopole with zero electric charge just does not exist.
Ok, let me bring this post to an end by observing that at CERN they were not capable in the year 2017 of detecting the magnetic monopole as it should exist following the lines of thinking like Paul Dirac once did.
So that is a good thing because after thinking about four years about magnetism it would be horrible for me to find that at CERN they had a major discovery about magnetic monopoles…
Sorry CERN folks, your failure to find magnetic monopoles your way does not prove that electrons are indeed carrying magnetic charge. It just makes it a little bit more plausible that they do…
So my dear CERN folks, thanks for publishing your failure because for me it is another tiny quantum move into the direction of accepting the electron as it is.