My New Book "I Killed Schrodinger's Cat!" is now for sale.

To Ian Griffiths (my sincerest apology for the early mistake),

We discussed putting the information into peer reviewed papers, but we felt that most of our concepts have already been proven by other "Peer Reviewed" papers and experiments.

It is not that we are contradicting current physics, it is that we are refining how things work based upon measured experimental data and we define how the universe makes things very simple.

An example:  We claim that nuclear fusion will not generate excess energy.

Proof:  Every fusion experiment since the 1960's has failed to generate breakeven energy.

The conventional physics claim that they just need a bigger and better whatever to reach breakeven.

Our analysis clearly show that the all of these experiments succeeded in proving our view that nuclear fusion is an endo-energy reaction.  We also show why that is the case and we prove that the astronomical theories about the stellar process is wrong.

As for Cosmin's example, there is no proof that electrons pass through conductors to carry electric charge.  As I recall, nearly every peer reviewed article using that theory has been approved.

In the book we offer the challenge to the scientific community.   PROVE US WRONG or consider our ideas.

We show many examples where data from failed experiments proves our theory.  The fact that those experiments failed to prove the "official" consensus does not invalidate the results.

I remember a time where scientist analyzed their data to glean the truth, not just toss it out because it did not confirm their expectations.

All we have done in our book is use "Peer Reviewed" data and drawn different conclusions.

The data does not lie.

Read our book and analyze the data yourself and you will see that our theory fits the data and accurately predicts how energy and mass flow at the subatomic level.

DAB

First of all, you have got my name wrong. Secondly, I am not trying to diminish or insult the work you have done, I was merely pointing out that no matter how much anyone wishes a theory to be true and believes it to be, unless it can be independently verified and tested, then we cannot conclude that is the way the universe works. For example, cold fusion is believed by many to be true, but no one has ever been able to reliably repeat the experiments.

If the concepts have been previously published in journals then I would be very interested in reading the articles (I would be very grateful if you could point me in their direction). But in the previous discussion on Cosmin's blog article you did not mention the existence of the articles, I am not aware of them and a search on the internet I did, did not turn up any related results. Hence, the appearance that your idea is entirely new and unprecedented.

Whilst I am not familiar with current fusion experiments this paper in nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7488/full/nature13008.html) suggests that the break-even point has been reached. But whether it has is not much of a concern. If you believe that nuclear fusion can never produce excess energy, then do you have an alternative to the current theories on the stellar process?

From the top of my head I would suggest that the Hall effect shows electrons carry the charge through a conductor. From your previous explanation, where photons are moving between electron clouds, I do not see how a magnetic field would cause a voltage to be produced. However, if you can explain it using your ideas then I would be very interested.

I have never met a scientist who tosses data out because it doesn't conform to their expectations, and it is not something that I would personal advocate. I am also unsure why you are talking about such practices, I can only imagine you misunderstood what I have previously written (which was "Your idea, from my understanding, seems to contradict known physics"). I was not saying that your ideas contradict known physics, but from my knowledge and your explanation, it appeared to me that they might.

Hi Ian,

Let me see if I can clarify.

"A moving charge produces the detected magnetic field.  This effect will occur even if no current is moving through the conductor."

This is not observed - a magnetic field is being applied to cause the Hall effect. The Hall effect is not producing a magnetic field.

From what I can tell, it has never been looked for.  If you have a hall effect sensor, it would be interesting to see what you can measure by just putting a conductor wire under the sensor and then grab both ends of the conductor.  If your set up is sensitive enough, you might see the initial surge of the charge flowing from your body through the wire.

Remember, these charge carriers I describe are very small and will only flow as long as there is a difference in potential from one end of the wire to the other.

If you look at my chapter on permanent magnets, I provide a very good explanation on both why and how you can achieve magnetism in solid materials that still obey Maxwell's equations.

Charge flow is just like thermal flow as defined by Newton's Laws on Thermodynamics.  The only thing that changes is that you are seeing the movement of charged objects of many wavelengths, where we observe the movement of thermal objects.  The discrete cause and effect are the same.  In fact, the movement of thermal objects also creates a magnetic field.

If you redo the experiment I proposed above with the conductor and your hall effect sensor and add an IR camera, then you might be able to see the flow of the thermal ETONs will cause a change in the hall effect sensor as the thermal ETONs flow past the sensor.  Again, these will be very small, but they just might be measureable.

"In my atomic model, the electron does not exist as a single particle.  We have been told all of our lives that that is true, but no one has ever proven this as fact."

The electron is believed to be a fundamental particle and not a composite because there has never been any reason to suspect that it consists of other particles. Prior to the 1960s, protons and neutrons were considered to be fundamental particles. It was only when the number of fundamental particles started to balloon that the idea of a quark was put forward, due to the symmetry between the newly found 'fundamental' particles (for more information google eightfold way). So the electron is considered to be a fundamental particle because there is no evidence to suggest that it is a composite particle.

Agreed, the electron is currently considered a single particle.  When Heisenberg conducted his experiment to prove this postulation, he failed.  He blamed his failure on the "magic" that prevented him form locating the electron because his measurement devices interfered with the electron, hence preventing location.

I took a different lesson from his experiment.  If the electron is really a cloud of smaller objects, then what Heisenberg really showed was that the objects are very small and numerous.  So it was not an issue that he indeed measured the position of a charge, its just that he had so many to chose from he could not reach a consensus on either position or charge.

Again, I can interpret his results as "proof" that I am correct because my model identified both that there were many objects in an electron cloud and that the objects come in many mass and charge values.  Our initial calculations showed that if the hydrogen atom was composed only of the lowest mass objects, then there were approximately 10^55 such objects in the single electron cloud.

Our calculations also showed a clear relationship between the absorption of a photon/ETON with an immediate change in mass and charge, which increased the diameter of the electron cloud.

This effect is well documented in basic LASER descriptions well accepted by engineering and physics.

The only difference is that I explain why this happens instead of the reliance on "magic" occurs to get a photon of one wavelength absorbed and yet the electron cloud emits a photon of a different wavelength.

In the early 1970's I asked some of the leading physicists of the day about where a photon came from.  They told me the theory, but most of them admitted that they really did not know.

I kept repeating that question over the next forty years and from all of the answers, years of both community and my own research, I think that I have a solution that works very discretely and measurably.

"To comply with your vision of free electrons moving down a conductor you first have to account for where they came from.  To move mega amps of power, you would need to magically create a huge number of free electrons.  Again, where do they come from?"

A conductor is a material where the valence (outer most) electrons of the atoms that make up the crystal are no longer bound to the individual atoms. Instead they are a feature of the crystal and are referred to as being the conduction band of the material. The reason why the electrons are unbound is a little complicated to explain in a comment, but is due to the electrons obeying the Pauli exclusion principle - I can recommend a couple of good books that explain this fully if it interests you. But essentially, the electrons don't come from anywhere, the fact it is a conductor means the electrons are already available.

Again, there is an accepted assumption that the valence levels of electrons and the multiple levels of electrons in atoms work as described.  That accepted description appears to work, so few people have really looked at what really occurs.  I appreciate your book recommendations, but I have read many very detailed documents about the process, which is why I reworked the data to see if there was a better explanation that described the process at the micro and macro level.

What I continue to find is that most of the accepted theories have a caveat that they do not work at the micro or the macro level.  This led to the proposed "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces, but even then, there is grave doubt about their existence because most experiments about them do not provide data that conclusively resolves the issue.

Pauli followed Heisenberg's solution.  He could not get the results that he wanted, so he created "something" that prevented his theory from working.  If you look at most of the physics papers over the last 85 years, you find an acceptance that this "something" keeps them from revealing the secrets of the universe.  These early decisions led to the Probability Theory solutions.  Probability is a great tool for assessing data, but at no point does it resolve why the data follows the results.

I formulated my theory on the basis that "all reactions are discrete and deterministic."  I also used Newton's laws that claim that all mass and energy are 100% conserved.

My solution proves that both are achievable for all issues of physics and engineering.

I really like these exchanges.  I encourage everyone to submit questions.  After you buy the book of course.

DAB

Hi Ian,

Let me see if I can address these issues as well.

I disagree with you that photons have never been proven to be massless. Both special and general relativity require that photons have no mass, which is a consequence of light having the same velocity in all inertial frames.

By giving photons mass, they can no longer travel at the speed of light, according to special relativity. So, therefore, one of the repercussions of your photon/ETON flow model is that it states that the fundamental arguments of special and general relativity are wrong.

Unfortunately for you, both special and general relativity have been largely proven and are accepted theories. Whilst they could potential be disproved, it is unlikely that something so fundamental, as photons having mass, would have been missed.

However, I am not just going to state that special and general relativity are largely proven, I am going to give you some evidence that they are.

One of the tests for special relativity is muon decay in Earth's atmosphere. Muons are created in the upper atmosphere at very high velocities (approximately 0.98c) and have a very short half-life (around 1.5 us). Without special relativity, the number of muons that have not decayed at ground level, relative to the flux at around 10 km, is around 0.00003% (0.3 ppm). With special relativity, approximately 5% should not have decayed by the time they reach the ground. When measured, the flux at ground level is around 5% of that at 10 km.

One of the effects of general relativity is the drifting of accurate clocks in different environments (such as different gravitational environments). If high accuracy clocks are placed in different gravitational environments around a large mass (for example at different radii around a symmetrical mass), the times on the clocks will drift apart. This drifting apart has been measured and is in close agreement with the predictions of general relativity. In fact, this drifting is compensated for in the high accuracy atomic clocks aboard every GPS, GLONASS and every other GNSS satellite.

First, GR and SR are trying to explain a perspective of observer frames.  The theories defined the effects based upon the postulation that photons had no mass.  So they only based the theory on that limitation.  At no point did they claim or prove that photons had no mass.  They only claimed the potential observable results based upon that assumption.

Again, people who did and do not understand the full ramifications of that claim have agreed to this misinterpretation.

The speed of light (SoL) issue is an interesting point.  The claim that photons travel at SoL and within a semblance of accuracy they claim that it is true.

Photon/ETONs can travel at any speed up to the SoL.   E = mC^2 only established that c was the upper speed limit for ETONs,  not that they always travel at that speed.

There are theories that claim that the energy of an individual ETON can change, but they never explain how.

I can show that each ETON has a distinct mass and energy that determines its vibration frequency.  The equation clearly states that the energy of any object is determined by its mass and its velocity.

So no mass means no energy.  Energy cannot move unless it is carried by mass.  A given mass is limited to the SoL as its upper speed limit.

All of these conclusion are consistent with everyday experiments.  When a mass has no velocity, it retains its potential energy based upon its mass.  Mass and energy are 100% conserved at all times.  No Magic.

Experiments have shown that the velocity of a stream of photons will slow down as they traverse transparent materials.  Again, this is proof that Einstein was correct and that the photon retains its energy and mass, plus it moves slower than the SOL.  At no point did my theory not comply with past experiments or currently accepted results.  All I change is the life cycle history of the photon.

When you ask scientist about where photon/ETONs come from, they pick their response very carefully.  They will spout a lot of dogma, but are unable to explain in simple terms how and why they work.

I can show a full life cycle, where they are created in a star, just like all other forms of complex mass and once formed, that they retain 100% mass and energy conservation.

I can show that they have mass and charge and how that relationship determines its vibration.  I can show how the absorption into an electron cloud retains this mass/energy conservation as does the emission of the ETON from an electron cloud.

Clock synchronization is very easy to attain over short distances.  And yes I consider the GPS and other satellites as short distance.

As for high accuracy clocks, you still have the measurement limitations of your instruments.  My theory works at 10^40 Hz range.

I can also account for the effects of MUONs without their existence.  Just because people have built up a statistical case for the effect is not proof that their results were valid.  From my observations, what they really measured were different types of mass/energy objects that I call ETONs.

The second piece of evidence for general relativity I'm going to mention is one of the main reasons for its acceptance as a theory, and this is the bending of light by a large mass. Light from stars, during solar eclipses, is seen to be deflected / bent by the Sun's gravitational field. In classical Newtonian physics, this deflection is independent of the mass of a photon (in much the same way that a hammer and a feather fall at the same velocity in a vacuum) and is predicted to be half of the observed value. General relativity, which incidentally was devised before the first measurements of the deflection were taken, predicts that the deflection is twice that of Newtonian physics and is in close agreement with the observations.

Actually the experiment that "proved" Einstein theory fully proved that photons have mass.

How does gravity just affect energy?  We already accept that energy cannot be massless.  Therefore a photon cannot be massless.

We can manipulate the path of photons with both gravity and charge.  Both actions require mass.

What you have to accept is that the photon is moving very fast.  Gravity is dependent upon the time and distance between the two masses.  In those terms, the star has a very short time to experience the force change of gravity on its direction and velocity before the distance between them becomes too great to affect it momentum.  Remember, momentum also needs mass.

I do not claim that my theory follows Newton's conclusions fully.  In fact I demonstrate several corrections based upon my subatomic model.  For his time his understanding about the universe is very impressive compared to the mathematical soup you have with quantum mechanics QM and string theory ST.

Until we can attain higher speed of travel, GR and SR are interesting effects, but they should not be used to describe everyday events in our observation frame.

Perspective is very important.  I am trying to open the micro world below atoms and I have shown that my view can explain most of what makes the other theories blow up.

If your current theory cannot be used and one appears that does, you owe it to yourself to at least analyze it before you call it wrong.

Just my opinion.

DAB

"The theories defined the effects based upon the postulation that photons had no mass."

Wrong. Special and general relativity are based on two postulates, the first is that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial reference frames, the second is that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames. At no point in time is the mass of a photon defined as being zero, it is a consequence of the theory.

"E = mC^2 only established that c was the upper speed limit for ETONs,  not that they always travel at that speed."

"The equation clearly states that the energy of any object is determined by its mass and its velocity."

If by the equation you are referring to E=mc^2, then you have mis-understood it.

"Actually the experiment that "proved" Einstein theory fully proved that photons have mass."

By giving photons mass, the theory does not match observation. Therefore, the theory is wrong.

"How does gravity just affect energy?"

General relativity predicts that a massless photon (or just pure energy) is affected by the warping of space-time due to a large mass (i.e. star light is bent by the sun).

"Remember, momentum also needs mass."

This is incorrect, momentum does not require mass. The momentum of a photon is given by p=hf/c.

"I do not claim that my theory follows Newton's conclusions fully."

If this is the case, your photon/ETON flow model requires a new version of relativity.

"A moving charge produces the detected magnetic field.  This effect will occur even if no current is moving through the conductor."

First of all, my apologies for my original response as it was not particularly clear.

You are stating that a conductor, with no current flowing through it will exhibit a magnetic field. It is this that has never been observed.

"If you have a hall effect sensor, it would be interesting to see what you can measure by just putting a conductor wire under the sensor and then grab both ends of the conductor."

What you are suggesting is to apply a very small current through the conductor to see if a Hall sensor will detect a magnetic field. This is fundamentally different to your suggestion that a conductor with no current flowing through it will produce a magnetic field.

"When Heisenberg conducted his experiment to prove this postulation, he failed.  He blamed his failure on the "magic" that prevented him form locating the electron because his measurement devices interfered with the electron, hence preventing location."

Unfortunately, there is no method of obtaining information about any of the fundamental particles without interfering with them. This isn't a result of some theory, it is purely logical. If you want to detect if an electron is in a particular area of space, there is no known method of doing so without affecting the electron. If you are watching a car move at a distance, light is bouncing off it and is imparting momentum onto the car. However, this momentum is negligible for a car, but for a subatomic particle, this momentum would be enough to disturb the electron substantially.

"If the electron is really a cloud of smaller objects, then what Heisenberg really showed was that the objects are very small and numerous."

I skipped over this in your earlier comment. Your photon/ETON model states that ETONs have both charge and mass, and are combined together to form electrons. From basic electrostatics, if each ETON has a charge, then two ETONs will repel each other. Therefore, there has to be a mechanism that binds the ETONs together to form an electron.

In addition, if Heisenberg's experiment can cause an electron to break apart into single ETONs, then why do the ETONs not bind together to a certain extent, in a similar way that an atom undergoing fission does not become a jet of nucleons, it instead produces a few nucleons and two smaller atoms.

The only possible way, that I can see, of ETONs binding is at certain fixed sizes. This is highly unlikely, as all the forces that have been observed are continuous and there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

"Our calculations also showed a clear relationship between the absorption of a photon/ETON with an immediate change in mass and charge, which increased the diameter of the electron cloud.

This effect is well documented in basic LASER descriptions well accepted by engineering and physics."

Lasers are fully explained with electron levels. In laser action there is no change in mass or charge.

"Again, there is an accepted assumption that the valence levels of electrons and the multiple levels of electrons in atoms work as described."

There is no assumption, the theory matches the observed data.

"That accepted description appears to work, so few people have really looked at what really occurs."

If your theory fits and nothing has suggested anything to the contrary, then what really occurs will be what your theory tells you.

"you find an acceptance that this "something" keeps them from revealing the secrets of the universe."

I agree with you that quantum mechanics is a pain (and I have seen undergraduates struggle with its concepts) however, it is the only theory that can explain what is happening.

"Probability is a great tool for assessing data, but at no point does it resolve why the data follows the results."

This is, unfortunately, sounding like some of the arguments against QM interpretations. There have been many attempts at try to peak below QM to understand what is happening, but unfortunately none of them work. For example, the notion of a hidden variable in quantum mechanics has been argued previously, but it does not fit all of the experimental data.

"I also used Newton's laws that claim that all mass and energy are 100% conserved."

I get the impression that you come from a classical/Newtonian background. Unfortunately, Newtonian physics breaks down at both the small and large ends of the spectrum - quantum mechanics results from the small and general relativity from the large.

Many people have tried to explain both QM and GR using classical physics and it fails.

For example, it is not possible to explain how electrons can tunnel through a potential barrier using classical physics. It is only possible to explain it using quantum mechanics. If you can explain it, without the use of probabilities, I would be very interested.

Hi Ian,

You really do need to read my book.

I have found a solution that allows Newtonian physics to work nearly everywhere it is said to fail, with a few modifications I suggest.

Back to your original issue.

The Hall effect works on a moving charge generating a magnetic field.

Regardless of whether the charge is carried by an electron or an ETON, the effect is the same.  Only the magnitude differs.

I doubt that any current Hall Effect sensor is sensitive enough to detect individual ETON movement.

The charge is ridiculously small.  The distance they travel is even smaller and the speed at which the event occurs is at the speed of light.

As for my claim that there are ETON exchanges occurring in a conductor without a EMF established to move the charge, I have an answer.

If you look at my atomic model, even a pure element will have a lot of events causing ETON movement unless you can completely isolate the atoms from all range of ETON interaction.

That means you have to prevent any energy from reaching the atoms at frequencies from zero to about 10^40 Hz.

Since that isolation is unlikely, what I found was that every minute change in temperature, humidity, air pressure, or energy exposure would cause very tiny ETON transfers at the atomic level.

If you tried to could measure them you would not see the events.  Each transaction occurs very fast, the charge is very small, and the distances very short.

Unless you could detect events in the 10^40 Hz range, it would just look like noise.

For your Hall Effect sensor, it would essentially integrate all of the movements and result in no readings.

All of the many minute magnetic fields would cancel each other out.  So at the Macro level, you would see nothing.

Now, there might be a way to see the ETON effect.  Note: this suggestion has not been tried and is only a thought experiment for you to consider.

If you took a length of conductor and attached your Hall Effect sensor I think we both agree, we would see no reading.

Now if you applied heat to one end of the conductor, you might be able to detect the displacement of ETONs from the heated end of the conductor to the room temperature end.

I think you would agree, the heat would not dislodge entire electrons as each atom absorbed the IR ETONs.

You might be able to see the slow rise in ETON movement across the sensor area as the conductor tries to equalize the temperature across its volume.

It all depends on the sensitivity of your sensor and the amplitude of ETONs migrating between the atoms.

I do have a question.  If you place your Hall Effect sensor on a permanent magnet, does it read the magnetic field?

If it does, what causes the internal charge movement?  (The answer is in my book!)

DAB

Hi Ian,

You really do need to read my book.

I have found a solution that allows Newtonian physics to work nearly everywhere it is said to fail, with a few modifications I suggest.

Back to your original issue.

The Hall effect works on a moving charge generating a magnetic field.

Regardless of whether the charge is carried by an electron or an ETON, the effect is the same.  Only the magnitude differs.

I doubt that any current Hall Effect sensor is sensitive enough to detect individual ETON movement.

The charge is ridiculously small.  The distance they travel is even smaller and the speed at which the event occurs is at the speed of light.

As for my claim that there are ETON exchanges occurring in a conductor without a EMF established to move the charge, I have an answer.

If you look at my atomic model, even a pure element will have a lot of events causing ETON movement unless you can completely isolate the atoms from all range of ETON interaction.

That means you have to prevent any energy from reaching the atoms at frequencies from zero to about 10^40 Hz.

Since that isolation is unlikely, what I found was that every minute change in temperature, humidity, air pressure, or energy exposure would cause very tiny ETON transfers at the atomic level.

If you tried to could measure them you would not see the events.  Each transaction occurs very fast, the charge is very small, and the distances very short.

Unless you could detect events in the 10^40 Hz range, it would just look like noise.

For your Hall Effect sensor, it would essentially integrate all of the movements and result in no readings.

All of the many minute magnetic fields would cancel each other out.  So at the Macro level, you would see nothing.

Now, there might be a way to see the ETON effect.  Note: this suggestion has not been tried and is only a thought experiment for you to consider.

If you took a length of conductor and attached your Hall Effect sensor I think we both agree, we would see no reading.

Now if you applied heat to one end of the conductor, you might be able to detect the displacement of ETONs from the heated end of the conductor to the room temperature end.

I think you would agree, the heat would not dislodge entire electrons as each atom absorbed the IR ETONs.

You might be able to see the slow rise in ETON movement across the sensor area as the conductor tries to equalize the temperature across its volume.

It all depends on the sensitivity of your sensor and the amplitude of ETONs migrating between the atoms.

I do have a question.  If you place your Hall Effect sensor on a permanent magnet, does it read the magnetic field?

If it does, what causes the internal charge movement?  (The answer is in my book!)

DAB

"I have found a solution that allows Newtonian physics to work nearly everywhere it is said to fail, with a few modifications I suggest."

Then please do say them.

"The Hall effect works on a moving charge generating a magnetic field."

You have said this before and you are wrong. The Hall effect requires an applied magnetic field.

In other words, a Hall effect sensor measures magnetic fields not current flow.

I recommend you read the wikipedia page on the Hall effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect) at the very least as a refresher.

"I do have a question.  If you place your Hall Effect sensor on a permanent magnet, does it read the magnetic field?

If it does, what causes the internal charge movement?  (The answer is in my book!)"

If you believe that a magnetic field requires a flow of charge, you are wrong.

Magnetic fields can be generated by moving charges, but permanent magnets are magnetic due to ferromagnetism.

If a magnetic field could only be created by a moving charge, then the second law of thermodynamics would result in every permanent magnet having a decaying magnetic field - essentially all permanent magnets would lose their magnetism. This does not happen.

In addition, please could you explain:

1 - the ETON binding force - if ETONs can exist separately and combined together as an electron, what holds the electron together.

2 - how electrons tunnel through a potential barrier in your "discrete and deterministic" theory.

Hi Ian,

Apologies, you are correct, I really did not understand the Hall Effect.

But, after going to the link, I was finally able to visualize what you were talking about.

I can easily see how the magnetic field could create the potential difference laterally across the conductor.

I woke up about four hours later and began documenting a couple of ideas.  I might be able to create three patentable ideas and three research projects.  I contacted my coauthor so that we can discuss them in detail.

I sent you a contact request.  If you approve it, send me your direct email address and I will send you a free PDF of the book.

Keep asking questions, if they all stimulate me with new ideas as this one, we could have a nice lucrative friendship.

Thank you very much.

DAB

PS, I have not yet looked into the semiconductor issues of my theory, but its on the list.

I have been plagued by a severe sinus headache for the last four weeks, which really diminishes my ability to comprehend new information.

The advantages of my atomic model would allow the electron clouds to respond to the lateral Lorentz force and initiate ETON transfers perpendicular to the current flow.

Has anyone taken a Hall Effect sensor and ran it along the length of a long conductor?  It might be a quick way to assess conductor purity and other interesting items I thought of last night.

Again, thank you very much for your information exchange.

I have sent my email address to you.

"Has anyone taken a Hall Effect sensor and ran it along the length of a long conductor? It might be a quick way to assess conductor purity and other interesting items I thought of last night."

If the conductor does not have current flowing through it, then a Hall effect sensor would not detect anything. So if you had a piece of copper wire on your desk (not connected to anything) then the Hall sensor would read zero (with the exception of any noise).

If you ran the sensor along a long conductor, which doesn't have a current flowing through it, the sensor should not detect anything. However, this would be incredibly difficult to do practically, as you would have to shield the set-up from any magnetic fields (e.g. earth's), with both the errors and noise in the experiment being quite high.