Page 5 of the magnetic pages covering the stuff found in the year 2020.

 

Introduction: In this html page on magnetism we will focus on a weird detail of the so called Stern-Gerlach experiment from the year 1922 where they managed to separate a stream of silver ions into two parts. 
And the culprit was one loose unpaired electron that did split this stream of silver ions. 

I was 50 years of age when I read these weird results for the first time and I did not understand them: 
The experiment used an inhomogeneous magnetic field so how could electrons choose the way of the weaker magnetic field?  

Within two days I had the answer: Electrons are magnetic monopoles because only monopoles can be repelled by the stronger side of a magnetic field. 

I was very surprised by my own result because I too was indoctrinated by 'Magnetic monopoles do no exist' kind of thinking. 

Anyway, two years back that was the starting point of the 'electrons are magnetic monopoles'. 

Have fun reading it and hopefully you will learn something from it. 
And for those who know my math pages on higher dimensional complex numbers: Here I will avoid math most of the time. 

     

 
Page 1 containing updates from Oct 2015 till Dec 2016: 

27 Oct 2015: Ten reasons why electrons are magnetic monopoles   
12 Dec 2015: Reason 11 is found: Lamor precession versus the violin string 
21 Dec 2015: Reason 12: Nuclear fusion & the plasma instability problem  
30 Dec 2015: Reason 13: Experiments with a television tube  
08 Jan 2016: Reason 14: Even numbered atomic elements are more stable 
10 Jan 2016: Reason 15: Superconductivity explained as a monopole effect 
25 Jan 2016: Reason 16: Even numbered atomic elements are more stable. part 2 
27 Jan 2016: Reason 17: Dia-magnetism explained via magnetic monopoles 
29 Jan 2016: Reason 17.5: The combed universe  
02 Feb 2016: Reason 18: Para-magnetism explained via magnetic monopoles 

15 Feb 2016: Reason 19: The temperature of the solar corona 

17 Feb 2016: Reason 20: The plasma instability problem according to MIT 
25 Feb 2016: Reason 21: The way plasma magnetic mirrors work 
05 March 2016: Reason 22: Birkeland currents  
07 March 2016: Reason 23: Behavior of DIY plasma in a magnetic field 
20 March 2016: Reason 24: The energy levels in cosmic rays 
28 March 2016: Reason 25: Because Pauli said so 
03 April 2016: Reason 26: First evidence of particle acceleration by magnets 
23 April 2016: Reason 27: The SI units for magnetic and electrical fields 
27 April 2016: Reason 28: Localization of charge and linear polarization of light 
03 May 2016: Reason 29: Because Germans say neutrons carry magnetic moment 
12 June 2016: Reason 30: New photo's from a television experiment 
12 July 2016: Reason 31: Experimental results from JET show non confinement
11 Aug 2016: Reason 32: Why does the plasma start spinning asks Steve Cowley 
19 Aug 2016: Reason 33: Vertical displacement events in nuclear plasma's 
13 Sept 2016: Reason 34: Two famous physics professors telling nonsense
17 Sept 2016: Reason 35: Some Tokamak explosive discharges explained
03 Oct 2016: Reason 36: Solar corona temperature explained via the bonkers force
05 Oct 2016: Reason 37: Old and new experiments upon the bonkers force 
10 Oct 2016: Reason 38: The Hendrik Casimir effect and the vacuum catastrophe
14 Oct 2016: Reason 39: The acceleration of the solar wind 
27 Oct 2016: Reason 40: Electrons must conserve linear momentum, but they don't 
24 Dec 2016: Reason 41: The vacuum catastrophe part 2 
 
Page 2 covering stuff found in 2017:  

07 Jan 2017: Reason 42: A 60 minutes documentary on the Stern-Gerlach experiment 
31 Jan 2017: Reason 43: The way a Faraday box and other mirrors work 
06 Feb 2017: Reason 44: The way qubits from Dwave work
15 Feb 2017: Reason 45: The critical magnetic threshold in super conductivity 
19 March 2017: Reason 46: BCS theory says electron pairs are bosons...
19 April 2017: Reason 47: The acceleration of the solar wind, Part 2
24 July 2017: Reason 48: The failure of IBM's racetrack memory  
07 Sept 2017: Reason 49: The amazing strength of the Jupiter aurora's 
14 Oct 2017: Reason 50: A calculation on electron acceleration by a magnetic field 
17 Dec 2017: Reason 51: Spin properties of the positron 
19 Dec 2017: Reason 52: Jupiter aurora's without the electrical field acceleration
 
 
Page 3 covering stuff found in 2018:    

08 Feb 2018: Reason 53: Domain walls of magnetic domains explained (electron pairs) 
22 Feb 2018: Reason 54: Spin Hall effect in circular conductors or back to the basics? 
07 March 2018: Reason 55: The way a simple nano spin valve works 
08 March 2018: Reason 56: This experiment shows zero spin torque transfer 
24 March 2018: Reason 57: A video containing the formation of magnetic domains
29 March 2018: Reason 58: The main Bloch wall simply moves if you add more magnets
07 April 2018: Reason 59: Are Majorana fermions their own anti particle? Nope!
09 April 2018: Reason 60: The existence of zero field splitting 
26 April 2018: Reason 61: The vacuum catastrophe part 3 
13 May 2018: Reason 62: The 'holes' in the solar corona 
06 June 2018: Reason 63: The possibility of Compton scattering 
07 July 2018: Reason 64: Bloch and Neel walls explained
22 July2018: Reason 65: A possible model for solar loops going between two solar spots 

16 Aug 2018: Reason 66: Side-way electron acceleration as in the television experiment 
07 Nov 2018: Reason 67: Perfect flat metal pieces stick together like very strong magnets

 
Page 4 covering stuff found in 2019: 

11 Jan 2019: Reason 68: Elevator pitch for electron magnetic monopolism 
14 Jan 2019: Reason 69: At least he shows the Lorenz force 
16 Feb 2019: Reason 70: Comparison with ions in an electric field 
04 March 2019: Reason 71: Rabi freq = 0.5*Lamor freq in this experimental setup 
02 April 2019: Reason 72: The spherical electron and formation of the electron pair 
09 May 2019: Reason 73: In his own words; S. Goudsmit on the discovery of electron spin 
01 June 2019: Reason 74: A simple experiment & magnetic domain dynamics 
09 July 2019: Reason 75: Electron configuration of Neodymium
09 August 2019: Reason 76: Failure of fusion reactors like ITER and Wendelstein 7-X
04 Sept 2019: Reason 77: More on the Curie temperature of iron
10 Oct 2019: Reason 78: An easy experiment I can't do myself  
05 Nov 2019: Reason 79: Fusion plasma heated by magnetic field
04 Dec 2019: Reason 80: Does magnetic reconnection disprove Gauss' law of magnetism?
 
 

Page 5 covering stuff found in 2020:

14 Jan 2020: Reason 81: Parker probe results; fast changing direction of magnetic field 
08 Feb 2020: Reason 82: More on solar flares
03 March 2020: Reason 83: Plasma instability in fusion reactors  
11 May 2020: Reason 84: A few possible experiments on electrons 

 

 
 
 

Foreword: Last year I tried to make at least one update a month, this year I will relax that to at most one update a month. All in all I now have penned down 80 reasons as why it is impossible that electrons are magnetic dipoles. And these 80 reasons show it is far more logical that electrons carry magnetic charge and as such are never magnetic dipoles but magnetic monopoles.

In order to show you that I always like to keep it as logical as possible, never stuff like 'If you think you understand quantum physics you don't understand quantum physics', let me give you a small elevator pitch.

Elevator pitch: It is known that the electron pair is magnetically neutral. For example it is known that materials having only electron pairs never are ferro magnetic. But if electrons were magnetic dipoles, almost by definition they would be magnetically neutral. Yet unpaired electrons get accelerated by magnetic fields, that is known from the Stern Gerlach experiment. The logical conclusion simply is: It is impossible that electrons are magnetic dipoles. So this leads to the conclusion that electrons are magnetic monopoles; they carry magnetic charge...

Ok, may be my elevator pitch is a bit too long for a 20 seconds long explanation. But if the electron pair is magnetically neutral while the electron is not, it is only logical that electrons aren't magnetic dipoles. 

This year is only 12 days old (when I write this it is 12 Jan 2020) and I already found two more reasons as why it makes it plausible that electrons carry magnetic charge. I would like to start with the latest results from the Parker solar probe. The other reason could be that on stars like our sun, if they rotate faster they have fare stronger solar flares. May be that would be the reason for the month of February. End of the foreword.

  

14 Jan 2020: Reason 81: Parker solar probe results; fast changing direction of the local magnetic field. 

A couple of years ago I arrived at the conclusion that if solar plasma would spin round like some kind of tornado, that would make a lot of the electrons inside that spinning tornado go out and very soon this tornado would become positively charged and as such become a very strong dipole magnet. 

But I had no clue whatsoever if there could be spinning tornado like structures going into the solar plasma. So I never wrote that idea down at the time because it was all too speculative. After about a year I became aware of the fact that at the solar equation the sun is rotating faster compared to the polar regions. Ah, that was a very good finding because if the equation regions spin faster, it all is very plausible that rotating structures will emerge in the solar plasma... 

It is well known that plasma is very conductive, for example they run the current through a tokamak fusion reactor with only one Volt or something of that order of magnitude. Plasma is highly conductive by it's very nature: most electrons are separated from the atomic nuclei. So if such a spinning tornado structure becomes highly positively charged because it spits out so many electrons, in that case streams of electrons from the surrounding plasma could come in. It could also be that in a short span of time so many electrons come in that the spinning plasma tornado would become negatively charged resulting in a sudden change of magnetism as it comes out of the solar surface... 

May be, if you have seen those video's of the solar surface, you see such a stream of plasma going out from a solar spot along some magnetic field but than all of a sudden it stops in it path and you see all that plasma reverse and go back into the sun...

Ok, now for one of the results of the Parker solar probe. Let me quote you from a NASA source:14 Jan 2020: Parker solar probe results; fast changing direction of magnetic field. They name such sudden magnetic reversals 'switchbacks'.
Quote:  

One type of event in particular caught the attention of the science teams – flips in the direction of the magnetic field, which flows out from the Sun, embedded in the solar wind and detected by the FIELDS instrument. These reversals – dubbed "switchbacks" – appear to be a very common phenomenon in the solar wind flow inside the orbit of Mercury, and last anywhere from a few seconds to several minutes as they flow over the spacecraft. Yet they seem not to be present any farther from the Sun, making them undetectable without flying directly through that solar wind the way Parker has. 

Source: First NASA Parker Solar Probe Results Reveal Surprising Details About Our Sun
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/first-nasa-parker-solar-probe-results-reveal-surprising-details-about-our-sun 

I hesitated for about 10 days in order to turn this stuff into reason number 81 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles because the explanatory graphic from NASA were so strange. But from history when it comes to solar plasma I know that a lot of the 'official version' also includes magnetic fields as some rubber band thing that live inside the sun and because of the rotational differences that would 'mess up' the rubber bands and all that energy released is the root cause of solar spots and the outbursts they have... I am not fooling you, I have said many times those people are crazy to the bone.  

Here is the NASA picture: 

 

The five sided thing at the right lower corner is the Parker solar probe. It looks like the NASA folks think that the magnetic reversals are spatial but my dear NASA folks: magnetic fields fly out with the speed of light.  

So all in all I post this reason number 81 is that I think a model like plasma tornado's makes much more sense to describe all that wonderful stuff we seen when looking at the behavior of solar plasma.

Back in 2018, on 22 July to be precise, I suggested this rotation model for the first time. That was in reason number 65 as why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles:
Reason 65: A possible model for solar loops going between two solar spots

I could not find a video that fast that shows solar plasma going out, coming to a halt and then going back along the same magnetic arc as it came out. But I found a nice pdf written by the quartet  Z. Sturrock, A. W. Hood, V. Archontis, and C. M. McNeill. It is about sunspot rotation. Let we give you a short quote from the abstract:

Solar eruptions and high flare activity often accompany the rapid rotation of sunspots. 

The title of their pdf is:  Sunspot rotation (A consequence of flux emergence).
Link to pdf: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2015/10/aa26521-15.pdf

Needless to say I think the title is a bit wrong: It is the rotation that causes the magnetic arcs going out of the solar surface. And not magnetism coming from the inside of the sun that makes the plasma rotate (anyway that is what the authors of that pdf seem to think).

Ok, that was it for this month Jan 2020. Till updates.  (Updated on 22 Jan.)

By accident I found that video again where the solar magnetism is explained as rubber bands that get stretched and knotted and then explode releasing all that magnetic energy... It could be that the above confusing picture is explained by ideas like rubber bands that move through space.

It has to be remarked however that the astronomers just like me think that the difference in rotation speed is a driving factor in all those solar eruptions and those magnetic arcs observed at the solar surface. Yet the explanation offered in the video is rather weird; because of that difference in solar rotation those magnetic bands start moving sideways, get knotted and more or less explode in a violent manner... 

Here is a screen shot of how it is supposed to work (according to the video from the university of Glasgow).
Click on the picture to land at the video, the explanation offered is found about 20+ minutes in the video: 

 

Video title: 'Solar Flares and Superflares' A lecture by Prof Lyndsay Fletcher University of Glasgow
Http stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYlDNyf7rfk 

Ok, it is a bit of a tongue in cheek picture but let me try and use a tiny bit of the thing called 'logic' in my version of electrons being magnetic monopoles:

If electrons are magnetic monopoles and just like the protons carry a net magnetic charge, they will get accelerated by magnetic fields much more than the protons. Compare it to acceleration of electrons & protons by an electrical field: because the electric charges are opposite is sign but equal in strength, due to the giant difference in mass the electrons get much more accelerated. The same should go for magnetic fields. 

Furthermore if the rotational difference of the sun gives rise to tornado like rotating structures in the solar plasma, once the plasma is spinning it will spit out much more electrons compared to protons going out. That means rotating plasma will always become positively charged and as such will act as a strong dynamo.

End of trying to use the thing called 'logic'.  

End of this update.  

 

08 Feb 2020: Reason 82: More on solar flares.

Once more we will look at the rotational differential in our sun and more general in stars like the sun. At the equator the sun seems to be rotating much faster compared to the polar regions of the sun and in my view this gives rise to tornado like structures in the solar plasma. If indeed electrons and protons carry magnetic charge, in that case the electrons will be pumped out via the magnetic field and as such the tornado becomes heavily positively charged and as such acts as a strong dynamo generating magnetism.

But the solar plasma is very conductive, so a spinning tornado like structure that is strongly positive will generate all kinds of electrical currents that will bring down the overall positive charge of that spinning tornado like structure. So what happens if there is a lack of electric current going into the spinning tornado like structure? I think that is when a solar flare is created: the magnetic field becomes very strong and with high speed the plasma gets ejected.

An open question is that during the solar minimum there are no sun spots (sun spots must be always rotating, underneath is one of those spinning tornado like structures), but if there are no sun spots or flares or stuff, how the hell is it possible there are no rotating tornado like structures? After all the rotational differential, if that is a driving force during sun spot activity, why during a solar minimum are there no sun spots?

Well during a solar minimum when the sun major magnetic field is flipping from north to south, the rotational differential should vanish. I think it does but I could not find any proof for that (only and article that stated polar speed declined by about 1%, that is just not enough...). 

__________

Ok, just a few quotes from a wiki about solar rotation. And I would like to keep it simple, we only look at those G-type stars like our own sun. Here is the wiki link where I am quoting from: 
Superflares, link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superflare

The information seems to be coming from observations of the Kepler satellite, quote: 

Flares are more common in stars with short periods. However, the energy of the largest flares is not related to the period of rotation.   

Comment: Remark this is information within the G-type stars like our sun. If red dwarf rotate much much faster that could may be an explanation for their magnetic behavior. If the largest flares are not related to the star rotation all I can say: hey the plasma is highly conductive so if a tornado becomes too positive that will kill itself. 

It is well known that both the rotation rate and the magnetic activity of a star decrease with age in G-type stars. 

Comment: This is perfectly in line with my idea that all this magnetic behavior is just a way of transforming the angular momentum from the sun or a star into all kinds of kinetic energy. As such the average angular momentum should always decline as a function of time.

__________

Beside spinning plasma on the sun, during star formation it seems there are those jets coming out from the polar regions. Again the same principle should be at work: Because of the rotation the electrons get spewed out much more compared to the protons and neutrons because of the vast difference in mass. That makes the whole rotating lump of plasma electrically positive and that explains the strong magnetic fields associated with it. But from the accretion disk there is still all kinds of material falling and if the accretion disk is also mainly plasma there will be all kinds of electrical currents attracted to that highly positive large spinning ball of plasma.  

There are all kinds of irregularities involved, here are a few screen shots from a video about the formation of large stars. It is from the channel Launch Pad Astronomy by a guy named Christian Ready.
Video: Massive star formation in the Large Magellanic Cloud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9ghiiCyjUM

 

 

 

The two jets should mostly contain electrons of opposite magnetic spin, after all like charges repel so the north pole of the forming star will spit out electrons with a north pole magnetic charge and vice versa for the magnetic south pole of the forming star. 

I have to remark that I sincerely hope the above pictures are crafted from astronomical observations and are not computer generated pictures... Of course the colors are often not real but are just a translation from information about a particular part of the em spectrum we can't see to a visual representation of what we can see... It's fine by me those pictures are often heavily photoshopped, but the core basis should always be build on astronomical data.

In another development, since I think electrons carry one of two possible magnetic charges, could it be that these give the two kinds of photons we know as left & right circular photons? If true, the light coming two jets coming from such a forming star should contain mostly photons of a preferred circular polarization.  

__________ 

Back to our beloved solar flares & all that solar plasma that is going round in magnetic arcs on the solar surface. It is known that sun spots are sources of strong solar magnetism, so are they the spinning tornado like structures of plasma?

From a 2011 html file from phys.org it is a funny read:

Rotating sunspots spin up a super solar flare
https://phys.org/news/2011-04-rotating-sunspots-super-solar-flare.html 

Just a funny quote:  

“Rotating sunspots are an extremely efficient way to inject energy into the magnetic field of the Sun's atmosphere,” said Dr. Brown. “With five sunspots rotating at the same time enough energy has been injected into the atmospheric magnetic field to produce the largest solar flare seen for almost 5 years.” 

Comment: That is not a bad quote to end this update known as Reason nr 82 why electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles with. 

 

 

03 March 2020: Reason 83: Plasma instability in fusion reactors.

It seems there are all kinds of filaments forming in the plasma of fusion reactors like the JET in the UK and without doubt also in the stellarator type from the Max-Planck institute in Germany. The official version is that the electrons in those filaments do not move except for the Lorentz force, that means they move something like 2 mm around in circles. 

Of course that is not what I think; if electrons are magnetic monopoles that come in two varieties, from the moment they enter a magnetic field they will get accelerated. Why can't electrons be magnetic dipoles? Think for example at the neutron, is the neutron an electric tripole? After all the official version is that a neutron is made of 3 quarks who all have an electric charge. And those three electric charges add up to zero hence the neutron is neutral when it comes to electric fields.
The electron is much smaller compared to the neutron and if you cram two magnetic charges together in something that is as small as an electron, again it would cancel out and as such the electrons would be neutral when it comes to magnetic fields...

A simple thought experiment:

We load the plasma vessel with atomic hydrogen and it is heated up so it becomes a plasma of protons and electrons.
In nature stuff always tries to get to the lowest possible energy, so we can expect there will be no clusters of electrons or protons but it is all mixed together nicely and no large electrical difference are expected.
Now the magnetic field is turned on and as such all plasma particles with a net magnetic charge will get accelerated.

WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?

Well the electron have a tiny mass compared to the plasma protons so they will get accelerated much more than the protons. Depending on the magnetic charge of the electrons they will get accelerated in two opposite direction. These electrons try to follow paths with least resistance so a bunch of electrons that more in the same direction will keep being together and as such form very small microscopic filaments. 

Compare that behavior to for example when you are at a big music concert with thousands of people and you want to go to the toilet or get more beer or whatever what. Most of the time you try to follow streams of walking people that lead you into the direction you want to go.

Of course electrons are not visitors to a music concert, but they will cluster together if they are accelerated into the same direction. So we get initially small filaments that do a lot of electron transport and electrons with opposite magnetic charge will feel opposite forces and as such move in opposite directions.

WHY WOULD THOSE FILAMENTS GROW IN SIZE?

These filaments are clearly electrical currents, so filaments that move in the same direction will attract each other. That is very simple explained by the Ampere law for two wires: if in two wires the electrical current goes in the same direction they will attract each other. And filaments with opposite direction will repel each other.

So those filaments will keep on growing and get bigger and bigger so that after some time there are only a few left. It could be you are only left with two big filaments going round but it could also be there will be some alternating layer formation of filaments.  

Suppose we only have two huge filaments going round constantly accelerated by the magnetic field that is supposed to contain the very plasma, after some time also the protons will follow those fast electrons and as such the entire plasma starts rotating in opposite directions. 

END OF THE SIMPLE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. 

In tokamak fusion reactors there are two magnetic fields; one that goes around in the torus shaped fusion vessel and one generated by a giant extra electrical current going round and as such those filaments look like: 

 

You can only see this on the outside of the plasma where it cools down so that the recombination of protons and electrons give the light we can see. Inside the plasma there should also be all kinds of filaments but you can't see them because they do not emit light in the visible spectrum. (But since they get accelerated they should resist to that by sending out the so called brems strahlung, yet I never found research results into that direction.)

Remark the longer the magnetic field of the fusion vessel is turned on the more the plasma filaments will combine in bigger filaments. So likely this photo is not from when the fusion reactor is turned on for 5 or 10 minutes but only shortly after firing it up.

Source of the screen shot (the guy in the picture is one of those that think the electrons move at best 2 millimeters due to the Lorentz force, good luck with explaining those filaments that way...):

Fusion energy: scientific challenges.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JITh4ZNZ3cA (it is about 33.30 minutes into the video) 

To my amazement they also have computer simulations of the fusion plasma and weirdly enough it shows two regions with opposite behavior: an inner layer of plasma rotating opposite to the outer layer. How they pull that off is a big mystery to me: if in computer simulations you model the electron as a magnetic dipole, how the fuck can you end with only two layers moving in opposite direction?

It is about 38.30 minutes into the video where the guy from the video shows the results of that computer simulation: 

 

I also want to remark that the sound of the old video from 2013 is highly symbolic: there is some microphone problem and constantly you get those eruptions of noise that is louder than the voice of professor Howard Wilson explaining plasma eruptions and the understanding of those plasma eruptions back in the year 2013.. 

At last a screen shot from a part where Howard Wilson talks about plasma eruptions. In my view if the electrons constantly get accelerated this is what you get. Like said before a few years back I joked at the Wendelstein folks about relativistic electrons. Of course just like you I have no guess what the maximum speed of such electrons is, so if they are really relativistic is hard to say.

 

At first, a few months back, I wanted to write it all down as some mathematical model. Later I decided that was too time consuming and I have no way of more or less easy to do plasma simulations... ;) So I just gave it a thought of how the plasma could behave if there was an energy transfer all of the time by the magnetic fields that are supposed to contain the plasma.
Ok, that was it for this month. I hope I explained the way that plasma gets unstable is understandable.  

 

 

11 May 2020: Reason 84: A few possible experiments on electrons.   

After writing about five years about the impossibility that electrons are magnetic dipoles, it is about time that I try to unfold some idea's of experiments that would validate that indeed electrons are magnetic monopoles. Not that I expect that such experiments will be done during my lifetime, after all suppose somebody indeed is capable of gathering experimental evidence (or experimental proof) that indeed electrons are magnetic monopoles. And this person tries to write it down in some official publication, what will happen? Very simple: That publication will never make it past the so called peer review process, it will be dismissed because the experiment must have experimental error because 'electrons are magnetic dipoles' and every body knows that. 

It has to be remarked once more that these weirdo's (the peer reviewers) have zero experimental evidence or experimental proof that the electron is a magnetic dipole, but who cares?  

I would like to start with an experiment that I think can not be done because electrons are just too small for that. Since it cannot be done the experimental setup is irrelevant.

The impossible experiment: Measuring the magnetic field strength of an individual electron. If it falls down with the square of the distance, it must be a magnetic monopole. If it falls down with the third power of the distance it likely has at least two magnetic poles. End of this proposal of the impossible experiment. 

Although the impossible experiment can not be done, if electrons carry magnetic charge they should be accelerated by magnetic fields in a classical way. In a uniform magnetic field it should be accelerated in the direction of the magnetic field and as such obey the classical expressions from Newton for their displacement along the magnetic field lines. 

How to set up an experiment as cheap as possible?  

The possible experiment number 1: Use an old cyclotron, cyclotrons are made such that the magnetic field is as uniform as possible and that is just what you need. Cyclotrons use electric field to accelerate particles (often protons) and all that stuff has to be removed carefully because we do not want any electron acceleration by electrical fields. 

But an old cyclotron has the benefit it has a vacuum in it and that is also important. 

The goal of the experiment is to let a beam of electrons enter the vacuum chamber, let the Lorentz force do it's thing so the electrons will go round in a circle. If the beam of electrons is made up from magnetic monopoles, the electron beam should split in two. One going up and one going down. 

And, that is important, this spiraling up and down should go faster and faster precisely like the Newton law for acceleration says it should. Here is a famous photo of what clearly was a mountain of work:

 

Basically the experimental setup is easy to understand: A beam of electrons enters a uniform magnetic field in a perpendicular way. The Lorentz force will make the beam go around in circles and these circles will split in two because the individual electrons are magnetic monopoles and as such have a preference of going north or south. 

Although the experimental setup is easy to understand, as you see in the old picture from above it takes a lot of labor before you have your 'finished product'.  

Making an electron beam should not be that hard, after all those old televisions run on that stuff. But those old televisions used high voltage so that should be far away from the inside where the electron spiral should split in half.

At CERN they are very good at transporting particles in beams, so look at ideas they use over there. So try to craft a beam of electrons that enter a chamber without any electric field and that has a uniform magnetic field.  

For visualizing the electron beam splitting in two you need some stick or whatever what with fluorescent paint on it that makes the electron position visually detectable. 

A lot of cyclotrons seem to be made for accelerating protons, therefore the magnetic field is rather strong if you use it for electrons. Let's take a look at that cute high school formula (anyway in most of the EU it is high school stuff, in the USA it likely is something for the last year of a university study).

 

My estimation is that it is not bad to have a rather strong magnetic field, you can always compensate by letting the electrons have a higher velocity but of course that will make the apparatus more expensive. With a high magnetic field strength we should get a better separation between the 'spin states' of the electron.

So if you are an experimental physicist and if you need to apply for some funding for this experimental setup, in your application always remark that you want to separate the electrons due to their spin. Absolutely do now say that you want to measure if electrons are magnetic monopoles because that is a 100% rejection of your request for funding!

So far for this easy to write down experimental setup, in practice it will be a lot of work of course but it should not be a multi year project like all that CERN stuff. And if you succeed it is very pleasant to know that over there at CERN lately they failed to find the magnetic monopoles. But they used the insights of Paul Dirac to find the magnetic monopole and that is a particle without magnetic charge and with a magnetic charge. I think such things do not exist, electrons have always a negative electric charge and one of the two magnetic charges. Why Paul never thought of a 'dual particle' to the electron that has a magnetic charge and is an electric dipole is unknown to me.

Let's go to the next possible experiment. 

__________ 

The possible experiment number 2: From magnetic domains it is known that you cannot displace the domain walls with magnetic fields. Years ago I arrived at the conclusion that the walls of magnetic domains must have a surplus of electron pairs while the domains themselves have surpluses of either north pole electrons or south pole electrons. Hence two magnetic domains that are separated by a domain wall must always have opposite magnetic charges, that is the famous checker board pattern they must have.

I once observed a video where an experimental physics professor showed how from a super conducting material when it gets warmer, all of a sudden those magnetic domains emerge. How he made the magnetic domains  visible is completely unknown by me, I also do not know how expensive such visualizations of magnetic domains are.  

So if you have figured out how to make magnetic domains visible to the human eye with the help of a lot of tech, all in all checking the checker board pattern should be simple: You start with a visualization where there is no external magnetic field. If you apply an external magnetic field, in a checker board alternating fashion the magnetic domains should grow and shrink in size. 

If is very simple: If you approach the sample with the south pole of a permanent magnet, the domains with a surplus of south charged electrons should shrink while the magnetic domains with a surplus of north magnetic charge should get a bit larger. 

Again: I have absolutely no idea how expensive such an experimental setup is, as always the cheaper it is the better it is.

End of the description of the second possible experiment.

__________ 

And the perfumed princes from CERN, what do the want? After their failure of finding magnetic monopoles, any form of super symmetric particle or any significant result at all, all they want is 20+ billion € for a 100 km long particle accelerator. In my view we should not do this.   

After all the CERN perfumed princes are to stupid not only to understand it is logical that electrons cannot be magnetic dipoles, they are also too stupid to understand 3D complex numbers... Why give those mentally handicapped people 20+ billion €? If you have a proven track record of finding nothing, why would that change with a fresh load of tax payer money?