4 ms·
Your analogy would imply that the other pole exists, it's just someplace else. Is that what the paper is suggesting? I didn't see that, but admittedly most of
by SamBam 3y ago
Your analogy would imply that the other pole exists, it's just someplace else.
Is that what the paper is suggesting? I didn't see that, but admittedly most of it went over my head.
- tbrownaw 3y agoI don't think the paper cares, since it's about how the fields on the surface behave locally while the other pole needing to exist (and of course it could be split into multiple weaker ones, or smeared out, or whatever) is an invariant that applies to the object as a whole.