University of Alicante Spain

Discussion

Started 16th Jul, 2023

# The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles

**THE FATE OF “SOURCE-INDEPENDENCE” IN ELECTROMAGNETISM, GRAVITATION, AND MONOPOLES**

**Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.**

With the introductory claim that I make here suggestions that seem rationally acceptable in physics and the philosophy of physics, I attempt here to connect reasons beyond the concepts of magnetic monopoles, electromagnetic propagation, and gravitation.

A magnetic or other monopole is conceptually built to be such only insofar as the basic consideration with respect to it is that of the high speed and the direction of movement of propagation of the so-called monopole. Let me attempt to substantiate this claim accommodating also the theories in which the so-called magnetic monopole’s velocity could be sub-luminal.

If its velocity is sub-luminal, its source-dependence may be demonstrated, without difficulty, directly from the fact that the velocity of the gross source affects the velocity of the sub-luminal material propagations from it. This is clear from the fact that some causal change in the gross source is what has initiated the emission of the sub-luminal matter propagation, and hence the emission is affected by the velocity of the source’s part which has initiated the emission.

But the same is the case also with energy emissions and the subsequent propagation of luminal-velocity wavicles, because (1) some change in exactly one physical sub-state of the gross source (i.e., exactly the sub-state part of the gross source in which the emission takes place) has initiated the emission of the energy wavicle, (2) the change within the sub-state part in the gross source must surely have been affected also by the velocity of the gross source and the specific velocity of the sub-state part, and (3) there will surely be involved in the sub-state part at least some external agitations, however minute, which are not taken into consideration, not possible to consider, and are pragmatically not necessary to be taken into consideration.

Some might claim (1) that even electromagnetic and gravitational propagations are just mathematical waves without corporeality (because they are mathematically considered as absolute, infinitesimally thin waves and/or infinitesimal particles) or (2) that they are mere existent monopole objects conducted in luminal velocity but without an opposite pole and with nothing specifically existent between the two poles. How can an object have only a single part, which they term mathematically as the only pole?

The mathematical necessity to name it a monopole shows that the level of velocity of the wavicle is such that (1) its conventionally accepted criterial nature to measure all other motions makes it only conceptually insuperable and hence comparable in theoretical effects to the infinity-/zero-limit of the amount of matter, energy, etc. in the universe, and that (2) this should help terming the wavicle (a) as infinitesimally elongated or concentrated and hence as a physically non-existent wave-shaped or particle-shaped carrier of energy or (b) as an existent monopole with nothing except the one mathematically described pole in existence.

If a wavicle or a monopole is existent, it should have parts in all the three spatial directions, however great and seemingly insuperable its velocity may be when mathematically tested in terms of its own velocity as initiated by STR and GTR and later accepted by all physical sciences. If anyone prefers to call the above arguments as a nonsensical commonsense, I should accept it with a smile. In any case, I would continue to insist that physicists want to describe only existent objects / processes, and not non-existent stuff.

The part A at the initial moment of issue of the wavicle represents the phase of emission of the energy wavicle, and it surely has an effect on the source, because at least a quantum of energy is lost from the source and hence, as a result of the emission of the quantum, (1) certain changes have taken place in the source and (2) certain changes have taken place also in the emitted quantum. This fact is also the foundation of the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg. How then can the energy propagation be source-independent?

Source-independence with respect to the sub-luminal level of velocity of the source is defined with respect to the speed of energy propagation merely in a conventional manner. And then how can we demand that, since our definition of sub-luminal motions is with respect to our observation with respect to the luminal speed, all material objects should move sub-luminally?

This is the conventionally chosen effect that allegedly frees the wavicle from the effect of the velocity of the source. If physics must not respect this convention as a necessary postulate in STR and GTR and hence also in QM, energy emission must necessarily be source-dependent, because at least a quantum of energy is lost from the source and hence (1) certain changes have taken place in the source, and (2) certain changes have taken place also in the emitted quantum.

(I invite critical evaluations from earnest scientists and thinkers.)

## Most recent answer

## All replies (40)

University of Alicante Spain

I have revised the lead-text for more clarity, and uploaded the PDF under the section on Research.

formerly conicet and universidad nacional del litoral

The electric monopole exists as charges and are found, not so magnetic charge or monopole.

Too bad because some theorists like the idea, to make Maxwells equations more symmetric

in electric and magnetic parts, and a few other reasons. This is discussed in Jackson.

The speed of light in vacuum is independent of the motion of the source? You question that?

Or you mean the motion of the source is afected by mometum carried off by photon?

(The motion-radiative problems are yet unexactly treatable in theory)

Exact meaning of sub-liminal here?

1 Recommendation

University of Alicante Spain

Juan Weisz,

If, at the moment of ejection of a photon out of an electric state change in an atom in moon, it means that the very emission of the photon is due to the specific change in the electon system in the atom. The specific change is the cause of the change called the emission. Due to the emission something has further changed in the electron system.

But the speed of the moon as such does not affect the emission of the photon in the sense that the changes within one atom's electron system in the moon is negligible compared to all the matter and its changes in the moon taken together. But the speed of certain effects within the electron system in one atom has affected the photon emitted -- not merely in its velocity but also in its momentum and other properties. Sure. What to call this?

I mean by sub-luminal (not sub-liminal) the velocities that are less than that of electromagnetic radiation.

Theory of Everything

No problem. I apologize for the mass of unintelligible typos. I was multitasking using text-to-speech. I look forward to enjoying your research. I hope you find the following answer more No useful: Synchronicity prevails. I am currently writing a paper on proving or disproving magnetic monopoles in a mathematically and physically undeniable way. My functioning form of Universal Theory does good things with monopoles. It is attached. You are free to mess around with it, that it may help you conclusively mathematically and physically prove monopope related work. You are of course free to utilize any of the work personally or otherwise. I actually found that the theory inherently has traits which indicate it may be able to mathematically and physically prove monopoles beyond a reasonable doubt in a fashion which is accurate and consistent both mathematically and physically. I have also found during stages of feasibility and speciousness checking of the indicated Grand Unified Theory framework, that seperate advanced math-based AI as well as a physics-based AIs when questioned after feeding it data on the theory about what inherent properties I may be overlooking to prove certain things came to the same conclusion independently. I immediately found that reiterating the key as well as all of the variables in the full framework equation resulted in the aforementioned mathematics AI as well as the physics AI separately arriving at the conclusion that the theory could be very, very useful in conclusively proving or disproving magnetic monopoles. I was actually told by the physics based AI system that the theory actually full on conclusively proved magnetic monoples, but I am in no way ready, and in no way have the mathematical and physical proof to make that statement in any conclusive way at this time.
I also have an indication that they should be correctly termed always as Electromagnetic-monopoles. This is reiterated by the mathematical consistency of the Grand Unified Theory Framework (attached) indicating of course that Electromagnetism is an inherent and fundamental construct affecting time and space. I do believe overlooking the small "electro" portion or neglecting to account for it in a way which is mathematically equivalent to calculated and expected purely magnetic values may cause erroneous calculation as well as improper assumptions of the effect on spacetime and it's relation to other physical processes that may contain vital pieces of the puzzle to deduce the possible mechanism or inexistent of magnetic monopoles Raphael Neelamkavil

2 Recommendations

formerly conicet and universidad nacional del litoral

Charges like the proton radiate

If accelerated so the trajectory

May be influenced

Institute of Physics of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine

“…

*The part A at the initial moment of issue of the wavicle represents the phase of emission of the energy wavicle, and it surely has an effect on the source, because at least a quantum of energy is lost from the source and hence, as a result of the emission of the quantum, (1) certain changes have taken place in the source and (2) certain changes have taken place also in the emitted quantum*….”- here is no some principal problems. Any/practically every change in a state of any/every material object [a particle, atom, etc.] that happens at interaction with other particle(s), etc., or, say, when an unstable particle or an atom’s unstable state decays, etc., all that always happens in full consistence with energy, momentum, and angular momentum, conservation laws, including if in such cases something – a photon at acceleration of an electrically charged particle, some particles, say, at neutron decay, etc., – are emitted/created.

However that

*“… This fact is also the foundation of the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg. How then can the energy propagation be source-independent*?…..”

- really is too vague claim. What happens at “emissions” isn’t foundation of Uncertainty Principle, though happens in accordance with the principle, including, say, at relaxation of short-life

*Δt*excitations of electronic shells in atoms indeed*ΔEΔt~ћ/2*.If we say about photons, then just energy of photons,

*ΔE*, is “source dependent” at least in two points: that is determined by the source’s structure, etc. independently on – the source moves in 3D space or not; and by the source vector velocity, if it moves;- however the concrete photon’s propagation speed in the space doesn’t depend on the source, it is determined only by medium where photon propagates [though the speed depends on photon’s energy, and so, in certain sense, on the source],

- in vacuum photon propagates only with the speed of light, that fundamentally is independent on source, since is determined by properties of the ultimate medium of Matter – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of the primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [the lattice] is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (

*cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct*).Propagations of Gravity and Electric Forces mediators in mediums are fundamentally different, E/EM mediators can be even practically completely screened by some mediums, while Gravity can be screened only rather partially, however in vacuum both Forces mediators propagate similarly: only with the speed of light; and if a Gravity or Electric Force charge move in 3D space, then Electric Force mediators obtain “magnetic” properties, rather possibly that happens with Gravity Forces mediators in this case also, more see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces ; including that so called “magnetic monopoles” fundamentally don’t exist.

Cheers

University of Alicante Spain

In the second paragraph you wrote something general in physics. But what is its connection with the first paragraph you cited from me?

About Uncertainty: I shall change the statement a bit: This is the general reason for (not merely the result of) the Uncertainty Principle.

If "however the concrete photon’s propagation speed in the space doesn’t depend on the source, it is determined only by medium where photon propagates", then it is DEPENDENCE ON THE MEDIUM. But this cannot automatically mean SOURCE-INDEPENDENCE. The latter should be with respect to the speeds of the source and the emitted wavicle.

University of Alicante Spain

Watch this video (streamed today, 23 July 2023) from after the 9thminute: A suggestion that the constant velocity of light, Planck’s constant, and Gravitational constant may be found to have covariance when the whole cosmos is considered.

1 Recommendation

University of Alicante Spain

**Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!**

Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University

For the field theory of gravity, see Newton's 'Principia', Section 'Definitions'. For magnetic monopoles, see Dirac's articles. What exactly is your problem?

University of Alicante Spain

Suggestions taken. Thanks. The problems are discussed in the text. If you want to ask clarifications, kindly pinpoint.

University of Alicante Spain

I have seen a lot of physics and mathematics students mistaking the logical ways in which they experiment and theorize as the conceptual foundations of physics and mathematics. They even think of these ways as the possession of scientists. Imaginably, in this pride, they are encouraged by their scientific temper. More evidently, there were and there are physicists holding that their use of logic, epistemology, ontology, etc. is final and that all other details being done by other sciences, especially by philosophers, are a mere waste of time. (If you want me to cite, I suggest to get into some of the YouTube interviews with Stephen Hawking.) The same sort of claim is to be seen being made by many mathematicians: that logic is a by-product of mathematics.

Institute of Physics of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine

That

“…

*For the field theory of gravity, see Newton's 'Principia', Section 'Definitions'. For magnetic monopoles, see Dirac's articles. What exactly is your problem*?….”- really is principally in XXI century incorrect. Newton Gravity law is some analog of Coulomb law in electrodynamics, but to describe what exist and happens in electrically coupled systems of particles, bodies, etc., it is necessary to know/use a number of other laws that act in this case. So, say Mercury orbital motion cannot be described only in Newton Gravity, and the couple of adequate to the reality description are Paul Gerber’s 1898 one, where he introduced in fact some retarded potentials and speed of gravitational impacts be equal to

*c*,[analogously to ED] and the GR’s one, where that also by some ways is used;- magnetic monopoles fundamentally don’t exist, since magnetic field is really only a specific transformation of electric field, which is created by moving electric charges; how that happens see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces; and it doesn’t exist in classical ED, though.

SS post on page 225 in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/An_old_question_that_is_still_fresh_Is_gravity_a_Newtonian_force_or_Einstein_space-time_curvature/225 is relevant in this case also; though last time this thread is too heavily flooded by a series of rather strange posts.

Cheers

University of Alicante Spain

**How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences**

University of Alicante Spain

Can source-independence of EM and probably also of Gravitation be held? If yes, why? If no, why?

This question is mind-boggling. I would invite theoretically engaging reflections on this question.

The reason why I ask this is that I remain astounded and helpless at the thought of finding an answer to this.

University of Alicante Spain

This is a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:

**NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)**

University of Alicante Spain

**AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.**

Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia

University of Alicante Spain

**WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition**

University of Alicante Spain

THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

University of Alicante Spain

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

1 Recommendation

## Similar questions and discussions

Source of Major Flaws in Cosmological Theories: Mathematics-to-Physics Application Discrepency

- Raphael Neelamkavil

**SOURCE OF MAJOR FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES:**

**MATHEMATICS-TO-PHYSICS APPLICATION DISCREPENCY**

**Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.**

The big bang theory has many limitations. These are,

(1) the uncertainty regarding the causes / triggers of the big bang,

(2) the need to trace the determination of certain physical constants to the big bang moments and not further backwards,

(3) the necessity to explain the notion of what scientists and philosophers call “time” in terms of the original bang of the universe,

(4) the compulsion to define the notion of “space” with respect to the inner and outer regions of the big bang universe,

(5) the possibility of and the uncertainty about there being other finite or infinite number of universes,

(6) the choice between an infinite number of oscillations between big bangs and big crunches in the big bang universe (in case of there being only our finite-content universe in existence), in every big hang universe (if there are an infinite number of universes),

(7) the question whether energy will be lost from the universe during each phase of the oscillation, and in that case how an infinite number of oscillations can be the whole process of the finite-content universe,

(8) the difficulty involved in mathematizing these cases, etc.

These have given rise to many other cosmological and cosmogenetic theories – mythical, religious, philosophical, physical, and even purely mathematical. It must also be mentioned that the thermodynamic laws created primarily for earth-based physical systems have played a big role in determining the nature of these theories.

The big bang is already a cosmogenetic theory regarding a finite-content universe. The consideration of an INFINITE-CONTENT universe has always been taken as an alternative source of theories to the big bang model. Here, in the absence of conceptual clarity on the physically permissible meaning of infinite content and without attempting such clarity, cosmologists have been accessing the various mathematical tools available to explain the meaning of infinite content. They do not also seem to keep themselves aware that locally possible mathematical definitions of infinity cannot apply to physical localities at all.

The result has been the acceptance of temporal eternality to the infinite-content universe without fixing physically possible varieties of eternality. For example, pre-existence from the past eternity is already an eternality. Continuance from any arbitrary point of time with respect to any cluster of universes is also an eternality. But models of an infinite-content cosmos and even of a finite-content universe have been suggested in the past one century, which never took care of the fact that mathematical infinity of content or action within a finite locality has nothing to do with physical feasibility. This, for example, is the source of the quantum-cosmological quick-fix that a quantum vacuum can go on create new universes.

But due to their obsession with our access to observational details merely from our local big bang universe, and the obsession to keep the big bang universe as an infinite-content universe and as temporally eternal by using the mathematical tools found, a mathematically automatic recycling of the content of the universe was conceived. Here they naturally found it safe to accommodate the big universe, and clearly maintain a sort of eternality for the local big bang universe and its content, without recourse to external creation.

Quantum-cosmological and superstrings-cosmological gimmicks like considering each universe as a membrane and the “space” between them as vacuum have given rise to the consideration that it is these vacua that just create other membranes or at least supplies new matter-energy to the membranes to continue to give rise to other universes. (1) The ubiquitous sensationalized science journalism with rating motivation and (2) the physicists’ and cosmologists’ need to stick to mathematical mystification in the absence of clarity concurring physical feasibility in their infinities – these give fame to the originators of such universes as great and original scientists.

I suggest that the need to justify an eternal recycling of the big bang universe with no energy loss at the fringes of the finite-content big bang universe was fulfilled by cosmologists with the automatically working mathematical tools like the Lambda term and its equivalents. This in my opinion is the origin of the concepts of the almighty versions of dark energy, virtual quantum soup, quantum vacuum, ether, etc., for cosmological applications. Here too the physical feasibility of these concepts by comparing them with the maximal-medial-minimal possibilities of existence of dark energy, virtual quantum soup, quantum vacuum, ether, etc. within the finite-content and infinite-content cosmos, has not been considered. Their almighty versions were required because they had to justify an eternal pre-existence and an eternal future for the universe from a crass physicalist viewpoint, of which most scientists are prey even today. (See:

**Minimal Metaphysical Physicalism (MMP) vs. Panpsychisms and Monisms: Beyond Mind-Body Dualism:**https://www.researchgate.net/post/Minimal_Metaphysical_Physicalism_MMP_vs_Panpsychisms_and_Monisms_Beyond_Mind-Body_Dualism)I believe that the inconsistencies present in the mathematically artificialized notions and in the various cosmogenetic theories in general are due to the blind acceptance of available mathematical tools to explain an infinite-content and eternally existent universe.

What should in fact have been done? We know that physics is not mathematics. In mathematics all sorts of predefined continuities and discretenesses may be created without recourse to solutions as to whether they are sufficiently applicable to be genuinely physics-justifying by reason of the general compulsions of physical existence. I CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT TO DISCOVER WHERE THE DISCREPENCIES LIE. History is on the side of sanity.

One clear example for the partial incompatibility between physics and mathematics is where the so-called black hole singularity is being mathematized by use of asymptotic approach. I admit that we have only this tool. But we do not have to blindly accept it without setting rationally limiting boundaries between the physics of the black hole and the mathematics applied here. It must be recognized that the definition of any fundamental notion of mathematics is absolute and exact only in the definition, and not in the physical counterparts. (See:

**Mathematics and Causality: A Systemic Reconciliation,**https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation)I shall continue to add material here on the asymptotic approach in cosmology and other similar theoretical and application-level concepts.

Bibliography

*(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology*, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

*(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology*, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

*(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology*, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

*(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology*, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

*(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie*, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

## Related Publications

In ordinary, non-relativistic, quantum physics, time enters only as a
parameter and not as an observable: a state of a physical system is specified
at a given time and then evolved according to the prescribed dynamics. While
the state can, and usually does, extend across all space, it is only defined at
one instant of time, in conflict with special...

O livro Física Moderna e Contemporânea está dividido em dois
volumes. Neste volume (volume I) será abordado nos dois primeiros
capítulos as teorias da relatividade especial e geral. Neles serão discutidos, desde os conceitos do movimento relativo, a inexistência do
éter, a constância da velocidade da luz e os postulados de Einstein
da relativid...

Hardy's theorem states that the hidden variables of any realistic theory of quantum measurement, whose predictions agree with ordinary quantum theory, must have a preferred Lorentz frame. This presents the conflict between special relativity and any realistic dynamics of quantum measurement in a severe form. The conflict is resolved using a `measur...