The problem of rabbit, touchy and feely
That “authentic” rabbit Dandan noticed the bilateral conception of current:
“We have negative charges (electrons) moving so we have a current. The other way to look at it is to say we have a flow of positive charges (holes) and get the same current. (The flow of positives is in the opposite direction of the negatives.)”
Also he noticed the conception of “one thing two aspects”.
“I suppose it might seem reasonable to suggest that the two particles would experience different changes to the electric potential, but in actuality the magnitudes of the potentials are the same so the two particles react the same.”
But piggy noticed he dared not to go on with the research in this way. Perhaps he was AWARE that it might beyond the “standard”. Piggy guesses.
Piggy really feels human’s thought has been constrained dead by the “standard”.
Then, Dandan said:
“However there is room for a monopole and a single monopole in the Universe would explain why charge is quantized. Freaky, isn't it?”
Piggy’s additional comment here:
Magnetism is a phenomenon generated by current or say moving charge(s). This point had been well – proved in classical electromagnetism. Static charge(s) would not. While the polarization or say the property of charge ever exists, no matter the charge moves or not. Charge is the inherent property of matter. And “matter” or “anti - matter” ever exists, no matter they move or not. (Smart researcher already can observe this point in piggy’s physics model / unit charge model too, in the thread “matter vs anti matter”)
Logically, magnetism relies on charge. So, why the property of charge (quantization) needs to rely on magnetism? Logic confused?
Piggy’s physics model / unit charge model was there long ago. It can explain why charge is quantized, very simple and explicit, a vivid analogy:
Left – handed spiral spring: one piece, two pieces, three pieces…
Right – handed spiral spring: one piece, two pieces, three pieces…
If not yet vivid enough, then, another one:
Male rabbit: one, two, three, …
Female rabbit: one, two, three, …
It’s that simple. Why “sweat” is needed to meddle in the affair? Absurd.
The tragedy might be this:
If the fact is that the experiment was “unsuccessful” to search the so called what “magnetic monopoles” (it’s a conjecture only), why theory must insist “there is room for” it?
Experiment eyes model is one cancer in modern physics research, piggy always says.
“…saying it's never been observed is not proof, as it has not been observed to this moment.”
This is just a way of thinking. In this way, perhaps people will have to spend hundreds / thousands / millions of years to wait (and see)…science wanders there…
Another way of thinking is: why we can’t observe it in practice? If we can essentially deny it in “meta” theory, then, science can move on…
After the cross roads are two roads extending in two directions, which road to go is up to one’s own choice.