Edward M. Wysocki, Jr.
Edward M. Wysocki, Jr.
Author Researcher
Author Researcher
Campbell and the Monopole
by Edward M. Wysocki, Jr.
Published in September/October 2023 issue of Analog Science Fiction & Fact. Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved. No part may be reproduced in any form without the explicit permission of the author.
​
During his tenure as Editor of Astounding and Analog, John W. Campbell occasionally became fascinated with scientific or technical ideas that he would then promote within the magazine. The discovery of nuclear fission provided the basis for a number of editorials and articles. In the case of fission, Campbell was on reasonably firm ground, deriving most of his material from the reports of the latest atomic discoveries in the daily press.
In other cases, Campbell strayed a bit from accepted scientific theories. Two that should be familiar to many are the Dean Drive and the Hieronymus Machine. The first was a mechanical system based on rotating weights that Campbell felt was a form of reactionless space drive. The second was a mineral detector that operated on unknown principles, and which eventually led Campbell in the direction of psionics.
In 1944, Campbell was briefly interested in a supposed scientific discovery. His attention was drawn to it by articles that appeared in the New York Times. He first mentioned the discovery in the editorial “Super-Conservative” in the April 1944 issue of Astounding. This was followed the next month by the article “Beachhead for Science.” The focus of his interest was a set of experiments that apparently indicated the existence of the magnetic monopole. How Campbell presented these experiments and the conclusions that were drawn from them require some careful analysis.
I would think that everyone is familiar with a bar magnet, which has a north pole at one end and a south pole at the other. What happens if you cut such a magnet in half? You get two shorter magnets, each of which has its own north and south poles.
The question is, can you ever obtain an isolated magnetic pole (north without south or south without north)? You cannot do it by cutting magnets into smaller and smaller sections as described above. Based on what is currently known in physics, there is no way to do it with matter composed of known subatomic particles.
A hypothetical elementary particle with only one pole is called a magnetic monopole. What does physics say about the magnetic monopole?
Let us begin with the first of Maxwell’s equations, also known as Gauss’s Law. It can be written as
​
This form of the equation relates the electric field at a point in space to the electric charge distribution at that point.
But what about the second of Maxwell’s equations, also known as Gauss’s Law for Magnetism? It can be written as
This is a statement that there does not exist a magnetic equivalent of the electric charge, which would be the magnetic monopole. Should the existence of magnetic monopoles ever be established, it would be necessary to modify Maxwell’s equations.
Other than simply speculating about the existence of such particles, what else can be said? For that we must look at the English theoretical physicist Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac (1902 – 1984).
In 1931, Dirac was working to understand electric charge, trying to determine why electric charge comes only in integer multiples of a known amount e. By working with both Maxwell’s equations and quantum mechanics, he then tried to find out what could be said of the magnetic field of a quantum particle.
One of his conclusions was that if the magnetic monopole existed, its magnetic field would, like the electric charge, have only values that were integer multiples of a known amount. By his calculation, the attractive force between two monopoles of opposite sign would be about 5,000 times the force between an electron and a proton. Dirac suggested that is why an isolated pole is never seen.
His second conclusion stated that if an experimenter should ever discover a single monopole, it would explain why electric charge appears only in integer multiples of e.
It is important to note that Dirac’s work does not say whether or not monopoles exist. But if they do exist, then they can be described by quantum mechanics.
What has been done experimentally with regard to proving the existence of magnetic monopoles? This brings us to “Beachhead for Science,” which describes experiments performed by the Austrian physicist Felix Ehrenhaft (1879 – 1952). Ehrenhaft claimed that these experiments demonstrated the existence of monopoles. The article also presented statements by Campbell about the possible implications for science and technology should Ehrenhaft be proved correct.
In 1903, Felix Ehrenhaft received from the University of Vienna a doctor’s degree in physics and the title of mechanical engineer. He then performed research on colloids, which are mixtures in which microscopic insoluble particles are suspended in another substance. He also made important contributions with regard to Brownian motion.
Ehrenhaft then began work to establish the value of the electric charge e. His initial result in 1909 was close to the currently accepted value. At about the same time, similar work was being pursued by Robert Millikan at the University of Chicago. Millikan’s work eventually led to a result close to the modern value. It could be argued that Ehrenhaft got the best value first. But then Ehrenhaft announced that he had found values of e/3, e/2, and 2e/3. In the end, Millikan received the Nobel Prize in 1923, while Ehrenhaft’s results were discredited.
His insistence on the correctness of his results led to his being considered as a crank by members of the physics community. He continued to do work involving the behavior of microscopic or submicroscopic particles. This has a connection with magnetic monopoles, as will be shown in the discussion of Campbell’s article.
Ehrenhaft retained his position at the University of Vienna until 1938. Following the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany, he was arrested and beaten by police, had his money confiscated, and was expelled from the University. In April 1939, he was able to leave for England, eventually proceeding to the United States.
Campbell’s article described a number of Ehrenhaft’s experiments along with his interpretation of the results. Along with the descriptions are a number of diagrams and photographs. One photograph shows Dr. and Mrs. Ehrenhaft being interviewed by Willy Ley.
When I first read “Beachhead for Science,” I found some problems with regard to how Campbell presented the material and how it was interpreted. In an effort to resolve these problems, I looked for similar articles in contemporary magazines. I was able to find “Magic with Magnetism” by Alden P. Armagnac in the June 1944 issue of Popular Science. I also found “The Magnetic Motor: Recent Advances in Magnetic Current Research” in the November 1944 issue of Radio-Craft. This article was simply listed as being by the Editors of Radio-Craft. The Editor-in-Chief of that magazine was Hugo Gernsback. In my presentation of Campbell’s article, I will refer to the other articles as necessary in an attempt to address any problems or questions.
If we have electrons in motion along a wire, we can speak of an electric current. If we have particles of magnetic charge – magnetic monopoles – in motion, we would then have a magnetic current.
The purpose of what Campbell called Critical Experiment #1 was to demonstrate the rotation of electric charges around a magnetic current. The key to the experiment was a small glass cell. With proper illumination and a low-power microscope, it was possible to observe activity of bubbles or small particles within the cell.
The cell was placed between the poles of an electromagnet. The ends of the cell were soft iron pole pieces, electrically insulated from the iron magnet core. Campbell did not specify the material used to accomplish the insulation. One diagram in the article shows wires attached to the pole pieces. A caption of a photograph indicated that a series of switches could either apply voltages to the pole pieces or short them together. I have attempted to reproduce this description in Figure 1.
Figure 1
​
The iron pole pieces were in contact with a dilute sulfuric acid solution within the cell. The reaction of the sulfuric acid on the iron would result in production of hydrogen bubbles. Campbell then stated that a “little” electric current was applied, without providing any actual value. Since the pole pieces were electrically charged, he said that the bubbles would also be charged. It was claimed that if a magnetic current could be made to flow through the acid solution, then theory indicated that the bubbles should go into rotation around the magnetic current.
According to Campbell, this is exactly what happened:
When the electromagnet was turned on, the rising bubbles instantly and violently twisted into a rapid rotation – rapid and violent enough to be far beyond any question of accidental eddies of liquid, convection or anything else.
Campbell said that that the motion of the bubbles was enough to affect the mass of liquid within the cell. If the electromagnet was reversed, it took a short period of time for the rotation to stop and then proceed in the opposite direction.
He emphasized that he had seen this experiment and that the bubbles definitely went into “a flat, very rapid, horizontal rotation.”
As Campbell could not provide a different explanation for the observed behavior of the bubbles, he felt that this proved Ehrenhaft’s claim of the existence of the magnetic current.
This experiment was also described in the Popular Science article with photographs that were said to show the violent rotation of the bubbles.
What happens if a permanent magnet was used instead of an electromagnet? Campbell said:
Electrically charged particles do not rotate detectably, however, around the gap between the poles of a permanent magnet.
He then proceeded to explain this difference by saying that the permanent magnet represented stored magnetic energy and:
The permanent magnet does not, therefore, have a magnetic current associated with it.
What can be said about this observation and its explanation? To begin with, unlike the experimental setup with the electromagnet, Campbell did not provide any description, photograph, or diagram of the experimental setup using a permanent magnet. For this, we must go to the article “The Magnetic Motor” that appeared in Radio-Craft magazine. Figure 2 is based on a photograph on that article and shows the experimental cell with the electromagnet replaced by a permanent alnico magnet. Alnico refers to a family of ferromagnetic alloys containing iron, aluminum, nickel, and cobalt.
Figure 2
The term “magnetic motor” in the Radio-Craft article referred to this combination of the cell and the permanent magnet. The liquid contained in the cell was not the same as in the version of the experiment with the electromagnet. In this case, the liquid was ferric chloride.
This article, in contradiction to Campbell’s article, clearly stated that there was observable motion. The statement in the article regarding this motion was simply a quote from Dr. Ehrenhaft. Unfortunately, this article did not contain any photographs that demonstrated the claimed motion.
The Radio-Craft article did not discuss the experiment being performed with an electromagnet. Conversely, the Popular Science article did not mention the experiment involving the permanent magnet.
How should we interpret these results? Campbell’s article and the one in Popular Science agreed on the result obtained using the electromagnet. In the case of the permanent magnet, however, we have a contradiction between the statements of Campbell and those of Dr. Ehrenhaft in the Radio-Craft article.
As there seems to be no way of resolving the questions concerned with Critical Experiment #1, let us move on to Critical Experiment #2. In #1, the objective was to demonstrate motion of electric charges due to the magnetic current. In #2, the objective was to perform some type of chemical work.
​
Ehrenhaft claimed to have demonstrated magnetolysis, the splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen by the action of a magnetic current rather than an electric current.
Campbell began by stating the magnetolysis experiment used the same setup as the rotating charge experiment. The only difference was that the two pole pieces were shorted together electrically, which should make electrolysis impossible. The action of the dilute sulfuric acid solution upon the iron pole pieces would gradually release hydrogen according to the reaction
Fe + H2SO4 = FeSO4 + H2
He then stated that when the electromagnet was energized, there was an acceleration in gas production. His important claim is that when the gas was collected and analyzed, there was from 2 to 12 percent oxygen present. The purely chemical action would only have given rise to hydrogen, so the presence of oxygen was taken as an indication that magnetolysis was acting upon the water in the solution. His conclusion, based on the use of an electromagnet in Critical Experiment #2, was that the magnetic current can apparently do chemical work.
So much for the action of an electromagnet. What about the case of a permanent magnet? In his discussion of Critical Experiment #2, Campbell made no mention at all of performing the experiment with a permanent magnet or the results obtained.
Curiously, Campbell’s article contains a photograph of the magnetolysis experiment as performed with a permanent magnet. The caption states:
The magnetolysis experimental set-up is equally simple. Here a powerful semicircular alnico permanent magnet energizes the soft-iron magnetodes thrust through rubber grommets into the U-tube so that the gas bubbles from each pole may be collected separately for subsequent analysis.
As described above for the case of the electromagnet, the magnetodes (pole pieces) were shorted together.
If the experiment was performed as suggested by the photograph, why did Campbell not refer to it in his discussion of Critical Experiment #2?
What do the other two articles say about magnetolysis? Both the Popular Science article and the Radio-Craft article refer only to the magnetolysis experiment as performed with permanent magnets. Each article showed a diagram of the experimental setup in addition to one or more photographs. The diagrams differ slightly, and in Figure 3 I have attempted to present the key points of the apparatus.
​
Figure 3
The diagram in the Popular Science article showed a continuous U-tube at its base, as in Figure 3. The diagram and description in the Radio-Craft article referred to a vertical glass partition within the U-tube at its base, separating the two arms. Small holes in the partition were plugged with asbestos, permitting liquid contact between the two arms, but keeping any evolved gases on their respective sides of the U-tube.
This figure is also a close match for the photograph in Campbell’s article. The photographs in all of the articles show the pole pieces electrically shorted together, also as shown in Figure 3.
The result of gas collection with the permanent magnet version of the experiment agrees with that given by Campbell for the electromagnet version. The Popular Science article stated that the amount of oxygen produced was found to be between 2 and 12 percent of the total volume of gases, with the largest amount from the section of the U-tube corresponding to the north pole of the magnet. The same percentage range for the oxygen was stated in the Radio-Craft article.
The third experiment described by Campbell involved the reduction in the strength of a permanent magnet.
Campbell began by stating that this experiment just consisted of bringing a magnet into contact with an acid solution. He said that oxygen was released which could not be produced by purely chemical action. The text did not describe how the gas was collected and analyzed.
The answer lies with a photograph that just shows an alnico permanent magnet. The caption referred to using the magnet with the magnetolysis setup to determine the relationship – if any – between reduction in the strength of the magnet and gas production.
It was simply stated that the pole strength of an alnico magnet was reduced by 10 percent in 60 hours in one case and by similar amount in only 24 hours in another case. The suggestion was made that the difference was due to a smaller liquid gap between the pole pieces in the second case. This is also a reference to the magnetolysis experiment.
It is difficult to understand why Campbell referred to the magnetolysis experiment as performed with a permanent magnet only in the captions to photographs and in his discussion of the third experiment, and not in his discussion of Critical Experiment #2.
What do the other two articles say about the magnet strength reduction? In the Popular Science article, following the description of the magnetolysis experiment, reference was briefly made to the loss in strength of the alnico permanent magnet. The observation of Dr. Ehrenhaft was quoted, to the effect that a 10 percent loss was observed in 24 hours. This matches one of the values from Campbell’s article. The Radio-Craft article simply stated that a reduction was observed after magnetolysis, again given as 10 percent without any mention of a period of time.
All of the discussions of magnetolysis using permanent magnets plus the consequent reduction in the strength of the magnets were based on the assumption that some form of chemical work was being done. This chemical work was attributed by Campbell to the action of a magnetic current. This is in direct contradiction with his earlier statement in connection with Critical Experiment #1 that a permanent magnet does not have a magnetic current associated with it! Clearly, Campbell was unaware of the problems created by his statement.
The final pages of “Beachhead for Science” contain speculations about what might be possible if magnetic currents actually existed. Campbell stated that the field of magnetic current research was wide open. He suggested that a direct current transformer might be developed. He said that atomic theory would have to change if Ehrenhaft was correct. Some of the experiments made use of sulfuric acid, which he called a fine electrolyte. He wondered if we could then speak of some substance being a magnetolyte?
Campbell concluded the article by stating that if magnetic currents exist, the current situation regarding such questions was that “we don’t know nothin’ from nowhars!”
I have tried to convey as clearly as possible the content of “Beachhead for Science.” The way that the material was presented, however, made this a bit difficult.
As it has never been proved that magnetic monopoles cannot exist, the search for them continues. This means that Ehrenhaft’s results in this area were never accepted by mainstream physics. So what was actually going on in his experiments? If it was not due to magnetic currents, what caused the bubbles to rotate in the experimental cell? If oxygen was produced, but magnetolysis was not responsible, what was the actual cause? Was chemical work supposedly done by the permanent magnets responsible for the reduction in pole strength? We just don’t know.
Clearly, someone would have to duplicate Ehrenhaft’s experimental setups and then repeat the experiments with very strict controls. If his results could not be duplicated, that would imply that his setups were not exactly as he described. If his results could be duplicated, then a search for causes other than magnetic currents would be required. Do Ehrenhaft’s personal papers and laboratory notebooks contain information of sufficient detail and accuracy to permit such work to be done today?
The experiments that have been performed in recent years contrast greatly in size and complexity with those of Ehrenhaft. The very simplicity of his experimental setup and the relative ease by which he obtained his results would argue against the existence of magnetic monopoles.
Remember that Maxwell’s equations, which do not allow for magnetic monopoles, are successful in describing how our world works. If monopoles did exist such that they were so easily detected by Ehrenhaft, their presence would have been noted over the years in the operation of all sorts of electromagnetic systems and devices. Otherwise, we would be forced to conclude that magnetic monopoles and magnetic currents just happened to be produced only in his experiments.
What was the reaction of the readers to “Beachhead for Science”? I have examined the 12 issues of Astounding following the appearance of the article. I found only one mention of Ehrenhaft, his experiments, or his claims regarding magnetic currents in any of these issues. But this mention did not occur in an editorial, nor in a short filler at the end of a story, nor in Brass Tacks.
This one mention that I located in Astounding was in the Malcom Jameson story “Tricky Tonnage,” which appeared in the December 1944 issue. The developer of the device for exploiting gravity explained:
It was Ehrenhaft’s work with magnetics that got me to thinking about it. Since he was already doing magnetolysis I didn’t bother to go along that line
Should a lack of response by readers be considered unusual? I would say Yes! Consider the Campbell article “The Space-Drive Problem,” which appeared in the June 1960 issue of Analog. In this article, Campbell presented the claims of Norman L. Dean regarding his invention of a supposed reactionless drive. Did any response to this article subsequently appear? Most definitely. There were letters in the October and November issues. In fact, all of the letters in Brass Tacks in the November issue discussed the Dean Drive. As a follow-up, the 1961 issue contained an editorial “Report on the Dean Drive.”
I cannot believe that no letters at all were received by Campbell regarding the May 1944 article. I would suspect that there would have been many letters. So why were no letters published following the appearance of “Beachhead for Science”?
To sum up my observations regarding “Beachhead for Science,” the biggest problem created by Campbell was his statement that a permanent magnet did not have a magnetic current. This makes it impossible to explain how chemical work, in the form of magnetolysis, could have been performed by permanent magnets. How could such a statement have crept into the article?
Two problems regarding the structure of the article also deserve repeating. Why did Campbell not describe or illustrate the permanent magnet version of Critical Experiment #1 on which he based his important statement? Why was the permanent magnet version of Critical Experiment #2 not discussed in its proper place in the article, in spite of a photograph of the setup?
Might we assume that Campbell was pressed for time in the creation of the article and that it was not subjected to adequate review and revision? Or are we forced to conclude that he did not have a proper understanding of the subject?
If Campbell received letters from readers about the article, did they contain comments similar to those that that I have presented here? If so, Campbell might have realized that some of the criticisms were valid, but he did not wish to respond. Or was he just no longer convinced of the validity of Ehrenhaft’s claims? Whatever the reasons, after the publication of the May 1944 article there is no indication that Campbell continued to have any interest in the work of Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft and magnetic monopoles.
SOURCES
A good description of the magnetic monopole problem was found in “The Concept of the Monopole. A Historical and Analytic Case-Study” by Helge Kragh in the June 1981 issue of Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. A bit more was learned about Dr. Ehrenhaft in “A debate on magnetic current: the troubled Einstein-Ehrenhaft correspondence” by Gildo Santos in the September 2011 issue of The British Journal for the History of Science. To learn more about Paul Dirac, I would suggest the biography The Strangest Man: The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Mystic of the Atom by Graham Farmelo. Chapter 15 of Farmelo’s work was my primary source for information on Dirac’s work with monopoles. Finally, for those with an interest in more recent experiments, I suggest “The Search for Magnetic Monopoles” by Arttu Rajantie in the October 2016 issue of Physics Today.