Why there is no measurable electric field in a magnet!

[gravityblock]

I would like everyone to seriously consider what I'm about to propose.  First, let me ask why there isn't a measurable electric field in a magnet?  Also, can current flow In opposed direction on a single wire? Now, let me ask, "what came first, the chicken or the egg"?  Please bare with me.  The egg has the form of a chicken. The chicken is in the egg. The two are one. One did not come before the other, as the question wrongly implies. They came together, as one, and not separately. It's a bad question, because the question itself has separated the two when they actually came together and were one. If we don't ask the right questions, then we won't get the right answers.  Wrong assumptions create bad questions and wrong answers which lead to paradoxes.

The chicken and egg analogy also applies to the electron-positron pairs. They are one, and not separate. They are the same particle. If the electron-positron has a clockwise rotation direction, then the charge on one side is cancelled. If it has a counter-clockwise rotation direction, then the charge on the other side is cancelled.

Now an electron-positron, as a wave form, is moved in an (anti)clockwise circle. In this spiraloid movement it has a discontinuous wave surface rather like a spiral spring. The movement itself is not discontinuous, but only appears so by virtue of its spiraling movement. It also shows a magnetic phenomenon cancelling out the charge on one side which gives an observer the impression that the energy moves in jumps. Further, it is subject to the outcome of the difference of charge due to this magnetic effect, as well as the result of its rotation. We can see this helical spiraloid movement of the particles in a cloud chamber. As a stationary wave form inside the field of an atom, then the electron-positron will have a neutral charge. This explains why there is no measurable electric field in a magnet.

Can Current Flow In Opposed Direction On A Single Wire?  Yes, but we must first correctly define and understand what current flow is. Today Physics claims that the Electron-Positron pair may annihilate at any Kinetic Energy.  Actually, it is the exact opposite as Ioannis has correctly stated. The Electron as also the Positron must have an initial velocity of 0.62c and below this value, the pair cannot be annihilated. 

Here's a video showing the dual charges in action. Notice there are two streams. One stream is made of negative charges (electrons) while the other stream is made of positive charges (positrons). The dual charges generate the same current, since they are of opposite charges and moving in opposite directions. In this video, the two streams appear to combine into a single stream in most instances.  They actually remain separated from each other at an extremely small distance by the repulsive coulomb force.  When the magnet is correctly positioned, then we can see the two streams further separate from each other. There are both attractive and repulsive coulomb forces at play. If both charges gain enough acceleration and momentum (0.62c and above) they will overcome the repulsive coulomb force, collide and annihilate each other while generating excess heat.  Current flow is the flow of negative and positive charges moving in opposite directions generating the same current. One stream is running against the other stream.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

In Graph(3) of Ioannis Xydous's publication, it says the known attractive coulomb force has a range from 4.8fm to infinity while the unknown repulsive coulomb force has a range from 1.409fm - 4.8fm.  If the known attractive coulomb force has a range from 4.8fm to infinity, then this is the reason why it takes energy to separate the charges (electrons-positrons).  However, in Graph(4 & 5), the unknown repulsive coulomb force becomes an attractive nuclear force, because the proton has a positive charge, with a range of 0.668fm - 2.25fm, while the repulsive nuclear force has a range from 2.25fm - infinity.  Doesn't this suggest it would take no energy to separate the protons-antiprotons since the repulsive nuclear force reaches out to infinity?  My answer would be a yes.  This means we could in theory have an infinitely strong electrostatic field.  The next question is how do we accomplish this.

A typical electron-positron collision with each having a velocity near to the speed of light will produce ten Ï€ mesons (pions), a proton, and an anti-proton.  Now, how do we accelerate the electrons-positrons above 0.62c which can produce a proton and an anti-proton? A photon which is continuously oscillating inside an electric field will be continuously decreasing in frequency and momentum until the moment of entropy is reached. In each successive decrement in the frequency of the photon, then the charges (electrons and/or positrons) will gain acceleration and momentum. Once both charges obtain the necessary acceleration and momentum they will overcome the coulomb forces, collide and annihilate each other generating excess heat along with a proton and an anti-proton.  We can then charge up a capacitor with protons (positive charges) and anti-protons (negative charges) to obtain an electrostatic field with a strength which in theory can reach to infinity with no additional energy.  As the electrostatic field increases in strength, then we will be producing photons with higher and higher frequencies and the process will then become self-feeding and perpetual with an infinite energy source.

Gravock

[Gwandau]

Gravock,

This indeed is an intriguing concept. I especially like the overall picture of particles in the quantum domain not really being physical particles
at all but instead being purely interacting waveforms, being able to shapeshift into any expression given the right wave energy parameters.

I believe that one of the biggest contributions to mankind born out of the coming understanding of the LENR processes is the insight that
our physical reality isn't that physical at all, and that matter is "merely" standing wave patterns.

Physical reality is an illusion, it is all Wave Relativity. There is no Higgs particle giving physical stability to our reality and will never be.
The guys at Cern can stop waisting our money, they will just continue to find new fractal wave expressions of same basic field source.

Our whole idea of matter being here by its own means as a piece of driftwood in empty space is a sandcastle of contemporary science soon to be leveled
with the shore of reality when the new wave theories are given enough momentum by the the new findings of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

Ioannis Xydous's may be nailing down the hitherto unexplained processes in LENR and LANR catalysis, and as I understand it,
here may be clues hidden how to weaken the Coloumb forces by RF generation.

What are your ideas about the type of wave length and frequency range needed to overcome this boundary?
I am myself involved in a serious attempt to replicate the A.R. LENR effect.


Gwandau

[gravityblock]

Gwandau,

You are correct in saying our physical reality isn't that physical at all.  We can say that neither matter nor energy exist, but only deformed space, which is called matter, and what we call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.

What are my ideas about the type of wave length and frequency range needed to overcome this boundary?  I'll be working on this answer, but I think Xydous can figure it out much quicker than I can.  It wouldn't surprise me if the frequencies and the range is relatively on the low side.  I would imagine the strength of the electrostatic field would be a factor also.

Gravock 

[Gwandau]

what we call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.

gravock,

It is a rare experience to hear someone explaining energy this way.
It is exactly the way I have come to understand our center oriented truly relativistic universe.

Although the words used differ from the words used by David Barclay in his book Unity, they hit the point just as well.
David, who is my mentor in true relativity, uses the concept Field Differential instead, but it covers just the same transition.

Gwandau