Please reread very carefully pages 2 and 3 of Edward Leedskalnin's magnum opus: Magnetic Current
Ed speaks of North and South Pole individual magnets, and I quote: "... the metal is not the real magnet. The real magnet is the substance that is circulating in the metal. Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself, and both North and South Pole individual magnets. They are so small that they can pass through anything.. In fact they can pass through metal easier than through the air. They are in constant motion, they are running one kind of magnets against the other kind, and if guided in the right channels they possess perpetual power. The North and South Pole magnets they are cosmic force, they hold together this earth and everything on it. Each North and South Pole magnet is equal in strength ...
Extremely confusing, to say the least! It is assumed occasionally that the confusion of Ed's writings comes from his poor command of English. Yes, Ed's English is not perfect. However, I believe that the confusion is in Ed's head rather than in his English. Pay attention to those black and white dots on pages 2 and 3. What are those dots? Are they some kind of particles that physically exist? If they are, can they exist independently? Listen to Ed again: "Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself
". It is next to impossible to tell whether this particle Ed is talking about is "the black dot + the white dot" that cannot be split into parts, or there are two different types of magnetic particles: "North Pole magnet particle" (the black dot) and "South Pole magnet particle" (the white dot), to which he ascribes independent existence.
I get the impression that Ed himself does not know what to believe, and that's the real source of the confusion – not his English.
On the other hand, we can say with confidence that Dr Felix Ehrenhaft – a fascinating scientist with insights into the nature of electromagnetism on the level of Edward Leedskalnin – believed in the existence of magnetic monopoles. Moreover, the professor went as far as to claim that he proved that existence experimentally: .
We know also that Paul Dirac has conjectured the existence of magnetic monopoles. But Peregrinus was convinced that magnetic poles cannot exist independently. Who was in the right, and who was in the wrong?
It seems to me that this controversy can be resolved only by admitting that "magnetic pole" is nothing but a human concept – a very helpful one, admittedly – however, it is very unhelpful to imagine the "magnetic pole" as a some kind of physical particle.
What say you?