| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Bohl" |
| Date: |
21 Mar 2005 09:58:09 PM |
| Object: |
HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed?? |
People are subject to make mistakes. Dr. Bearden may be wrong in
the past but he has learned and as a result created a masterpiece.
In this message is the first 25 pages of his worldwide
bestselling "Energy from the Vacuum" book beng crazed over by
European scientists which is also available for free (from 1-74
pages of the 997 pages book) at
http://www.cheniere.org/books/efv/Chapter_1.pdf
This message is shared for scrutiny and to encourage those located
in hidden corners of the world with no direct internet to check
the free Chapter 1 above as well as for quotation purposes when
replying and addressing the possible fallacies in bearden's
hypotheses. Many great scientists like Einstein, Feynman seek to
know the answers and Bearden is just suggesting the answers many
asked. Therefore let us treat Bearden as just an advanced student
of physics and subject to mistakes as well as making sense at
times and giving out wonderful insights at least.
In our attempt in the coming years to unravel the hidden richness
of electromagnetism, let us treat Bearden as just one material
for reference and ensure we avoid the same pitfalls that may have
befallen some of the wrong concepts he has made or may be making. What
the mistakes are and what the theoretically possible ones are are
what we are here to figure out. Should we found out Dr. Bearden
is intentionally giving out false information or disinformation
then we (or I) would construct an anti-bearden web site informing
people of his motive. But before judging him. Let us judge his
work first (note: there are many independent researchers
unraveling the hidden richness of electromagnetism and Bearden
is not representative of them so if he is wrong 90%, it doesn't
mean there is no hope to learn the truth)
Starting 1-25 pages quote from Dr. Bearden "Energy from the
Vacuum" (1-75 pages are available free at his web site mentioned
above) which is in demand in many scientific establishments
around the world.
Dr. Bearden, a future Nobel laureate (?) wrote:
Chapter 1 Foundations and Scientific Mindset
"...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which
he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever
is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his
concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more
exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something
obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value
of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to
be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over
and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental
concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by
them." [Albert Einstein]{1}
1.1 Introduction Einstein's quote is a beautiful statement that
scientists should never take the present understanding - and the
present models - as absolute. That is the approach the present
author has taken for some 30 years, in a struggle to comprehend
that class of electromagnetic (EM) systems that are open systems
in disequilibrium in their virtual photon energy exchange with
the active vacuum, and exhibiting a broken symmetry in that
exchange. The statement beautifully expresses that the major
problems encountered in grappling with such EM systems have been
the existing errors and nonsequiturs in classical electrodynamics
and other parts of physics. Many difficulties have resulted from
the continued propagation of a 137-year old classical
electrodynamics model formed before electrons, atoms, nuclei,
positrons, the active vacuum, special and general relativity,
quantum mechanics, etc. were discovered or known.
1.1.1 EM Foundations Are Incomplete and Contain Errors In any
model, there are many assumptions. Even when a model is
wellfitted and well-developed, it still applies only when the
foundations assumptions on which it is based are true or are not
too much in error. Whenever one or more of the fundamental
assumptions is violated by phenomena uncovered, then there is a
new class of phenomena where the model does not hold, or does not
hold well and is only an approximation at best. In that case,
either the existing unsatisfactory model must be improved and
advanced, or a new model must be constructed.
Great scientific minds continue to point out Einstein's beautiful
principle in different words. E.g., expressing the thought of
Stephen Hawking, one of the great physicists of our day:
"All we ever know is our models, but never the reality that may
or may not exist behind the models and casts its shadow upon us
who are embedded inside it. We imagine and intuit, then point the
finger and wait to see which suspect for truth turns and runs.
Our models may get closer and closer, but we will never reach
direct perception of reality's thing-in-itself." [As stated by
George Zebrowski] {2}.
Excellent scientists - Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge, Evans, Barrett,
and many others - have indeed pointed out that classical EM
theory is seriously flawed. In the words of Bunge {3}:
"...it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both
classical and quantal, are in a sad state."
The author also found it imperative to return to many of the
original seminal papers of physics, particularly in
electrodynamics. The major concepts in those papers led to the
present classical EM model. This was particularly true of the
work of Poynting {4a, 4b} and Heaviside {5a-5c}, who
independently and simultaneously arrived at the notion of the
flow of EM energy through space5. Their work occurred in the
1880s, after Maxwell was already deceased. It also necessitated
reviewing Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside
equations, where Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all permissible
COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems.
(footnote 5 As we shall point out later, the concept of energy
flowing through 3-space is a non sequitur and requires
substantial revision today, to be consistent with the nature of
observation and the fact that no observable continuously
persists. Any observation is an instantaneous frozen 3-space
"snapshot" at a single instant, gone the next instant when almost
immediately replaced by another such frozen snapshot. In between
observations, not mass but masstime exists. The same is true for
3-space, which only exists as the output of an observation
process. Prior to observation, spacetime exists.)
The science of this "EM energy flow through space" is
controversial to this day. Which is the real "EM energy flow
vector" as such has never been adequately resolved, and there
continue to be polite debates about it {6}. One should also be
aware that physicists really do not know what many things -
including energy - are. The definitions of these fundamentals are
still uncertain, as stated rather poignantly by Feynman {7} in
this quote:
"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no
knowledge of what energy is."
As another fundamental example, Feynman {8} also pointed out that
we really do not know what force is6 either! Quoting:
"One of the most important characteristics of force is that it
has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. ... If
you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get
it!"
1.1.2 Physics Is Not the Mathematics, But What It Manipulates
Following Feynman's ansatz, one should realize that the physics
is not really in the mathematics itself, but in the physical
meaning of the concepts that the mathematics manipulates. Here
again, the inimitable Feynman {9} cautioned against
over-attachment to the mathematics itself. He said it very
clearly:
(footnote 6 The problem is the ubiquitous and erroneous use of a
"separate" force acting on a "separate" mass. Actually mass is a
component of force, as can be seen from F .. d/dt(mv). Hence
there is no such thing as a separate force in empty space, acting
upon a mass. Instead, the massless 4-field in space acts upon
mass to produce force in that interaction. Force is not a cause,
but an effect of an ongoing interaction - as is any observable.
An observable is a continuing series of frozen 3-space LLL
snapshot entities given by the result of continual application of
.../..t (LLLT) .. LLL by photon emission. The formation of the
LLLT (spacetime and masstime) in between observed m as LLL, is
produced by photon absorption of the previous m = ../..t (LLLT).)
"Mathematicians or people who have very mathematical minds, are
often led astray when "studying" physics because they lose sight
of the physics. They say: "Look, these differential equations -
the Maxwell equations - are all there is to electrodynamics it is
admitted by the physicists that there is nothing which is not
contained in the equations. The equations are complicated, but
after all they are only mathematical equations and if I
understand them mathematically inside out, I will understand the
physics inside out." Only it doesn't work that way.
Mathematicians who study physics with that point of view - and
there have been many of them - usually make little contribution
to physics and, in fact, little to mathematics. They fail because
the actual physical situations in the real world are so
complicated that it is necessary to have a much broader
understanding of the equations."
Such matters and similar thoughts had bothered me even back in
the early 1950s, when I could not find a single professor or
dictionary of physics that logically defined a field or a
potential. Considered rigorously, the definitions all fell apart
and violated elementary logic. Improper, insufficient, or just
plain wrong definitions in physics have continued and are still
widespread to this day. To give a single example from an
excellent book by Kraus {10}: On p. 60, Kraus gives the formula
for a potential referred to as the "absolute potential" of a
charge source. Quoting:
"This potential... is, by definition, the work per coulomb required
to bring a positive test charge from infinity to the point r1."
Kraus erroneously "defines" the scalar potential identically as
work, which is equating the cause with the effect. The work that
dissipating a potential does or can do, is not the potential
itself! Else "human" means nothing but how well one can chew
one's food or drive an automobile. Actually, Kraus gives one
theoretical way to measure or calculate the effect of the
potential's local intensity at a point.7 Note that what is
measured is the energy diverted from the potential at that point,
around that test charge. This does not specify the entity (the
potential itself) at all, but only what has been diverted from
it. It is rather like confusing the whirlpool (water diverged
from the normal river flow) in a river as being the river itself.
(footnote 7 To show the non sequitur, a million more positive
test point charges could be brought from infinity to that same
point, and the potential - without any change in it - would cause
the same amount of work to be done upon each of those charges. As
can be seen, even noted professors can speak rather casually when
they "define" the potential's point intensity as "the" potential
(which extends over all space, not just at that one point). There
may be different intensities at different points in the
potential, but the potential itself remains one-and-the-same
thing regardless of which one or all of the point intensities are
discussed. And neither the point intensity of the potential nor
the potential is the work that is done upon a moving charge by
that potential or its intensity.)
Integrating what has been diverted from it does not yield the
potential itself! At best, the measurement gives an indication of
the intensity of the potential at a point, insofar as its
reaction with charge is concerned. More rigorously, what is being
utilized is the potential's reaction cross section presented to a
unit point static charge at that point. The same unit point
charge, if placed in particle resonance, will sweep out more
geometrical area and exhibit a greater reaction cross section.
That will increase the energy collected divergence of the energy
flow that is being moved around the particle itself. By normal
calculations, the resonant charge may collect some 18 times as
much energy as is possible at the same point by the same charge
in static mode - e.g., as shown by Bohren {24, 25}.
A definition must present an identity. Examining the proposed
definition as "the potential is identically ... work" one sees the
problem immediately. The potential exists whether or not there is
a positive test charge, or whether one moves such a charge in
from infinity or not, and whether there is any work done or not.
None of that is what a potential identically is, but only one
aspect of what it does or can do or can cause. One leaves as an
exercise for the reader the task of further examining
dictionaries of physics and textbooks, to try to find a
satisfactory definition of that common scalar potential.8 We do
not believe the reader will find it.
(footnote 8 The scalar potential identically is actually a
harmonic set of phase conjugate longitudinal EM wavepairs, as
shown by E. T. Whittaker in 1903 {85}. Even Whittaker, however,
misinterpreted his wavepairs only after interaction with that
ubiquitous unit point charge assumed at every point in space. He
gave two effects of that interaction, not the cause (which exists
prior to interaction) and the effect (which exists only after
interaction). Reinterpreting to get at the causal wave, each
wavepair is a matched set of two waves; an incoming EM
longitudinal wave in the time domain prior to interaction with a
charge, and - after the time-energy wave is absorbed by the
charge, an emitted outgoing EM longitudinal EM wave in 3-space.
The so-called "static" potential is not static at all, but is a
dynamic, ongoing 4-space process. This follows the
re-interpretation by the present author {12} of Whittaker's
decomposition - a reinterpretation then found to be consistent
with quantum field theory {19} and with broken symmetry of
opposite charges in particle physics {73}.)
Yet any good textbook will also contain some real gems of great
insight, simply said. As an example from Serway {11}, we
eventually took a most marvelous cue, of how to get around
classical thermodynamics' prohibition against heat energy
"running uphill" from hot to cold. In an insightful statement,
Serway said {11}:
"The second law [of thermodynamics] does not rule out the
possibility of pushing heat uphill, as it were, from a cold
object to a hot one, or of creating order out of disorder. It
merely states that such a reversal of the natural flow requires
an influx of energy..."
(footnote 9 Now notice what Serway's statement means with respect
to the classical thermodynamics "definition" of closed system.
Thermodynamics defines a closed system as one in which mass is
not exchanged across its boundary, but energy can be. That
definition permits a closed system to receive excess energy from
its active environment, and thereby reduce its entropy. A
specific example is simply potentializing a circuit, prior to
movement of the current. Hence the entropy of a closed system
does not necessarily increase, but may decrease or increase if
the system is in disequilibrium (difference in energy received
from its active environment and energy escaping back to the
active environment from the system. For the same system, if
energy exchanges across its boundary equally in both directions,
the system is said to be in "equilibrium" with respect to
external energy exchange. One must be very careful in
interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics! One has a
very different "closed thermodynamic system" when it is in energy
exchange disequilibrium, than when it is in energy exchange
equilibrium. Equilibrium is the condition of maximum entropy. For
substantial disequilibrium condition, entropy cannot be computed,
but is less than the entropy of the same system in equilibrium.
The entire ansatz of thermodynamics may be violated once
time-energy is transduced into internal EM energy inside the
system. That is a fundamental disequilibrium, performed by every
charge in the universe. Hence of necessity we have advanced and
utilized new definitions of "open system" and "closed system"
in
our approach in this book, as discussed in the Appendix.)
This essentially states the law of entropy, where to reverse
entropy (disorder), one must apply ordering (energy).9 We also
note that the original concept of entropy was as dissipation of
potential. There are of course different ways to apply the
energy, and it need not be by the operator himself. Chapters 4,
5, 6, 7, and 8 of the present book give some unusual ways. A
special paper {12} published by the author in 2000 gives another.
Indeed, when the flow of time is predominantly reversed, so is
the "entropy" of a situation, since the "videotape is running
backward", so to speak. In that case, the entire classical
thermodynamics must be extended to essentially include its own
opposite. The making of a small timereversal zone where such
things happen is as simple as involving a predominance of
antiphoton interactions with the charged particles in that zone,
rather than a predominance of photon interactions. What we are
saying is that the notion of irreversibility in thermodynamics is
not necessarily absolute. It usually assumes a "time forward"
situation, and may not hold in a "time-reversed" situation. In
our chapter on cold fusion, we will present some specific and
quite startling nuclear interactions that occur as a result of
the time reversal of the coulomb barrier (repulsion of like
charges in a forward time situation) into a coulomb attraction
between like charges in a time-reversal zone and time-reversed
situation.
If Serway's statement were reversed, it would then be a statement
of the law of negentropy. It would state that self-ordering
(i.e., freely receiving energy from the active environment) in a
system could indeed "push heat uphill from a cold object to a hot
one", and the system could simultaneously emit energy in the
process. Every charge does it!
We did find it necessary to correct the classical thermodynamic
definitions of "open system" and "closed system". To define a
closed system as closed only to mass transfer, but open to energy
transfer, is a gross non sequitur. Since general relativity was
published in 1915, energy and mass are known to be the same thing
(mass is just a special form of energy), hence the term
"mass-energy" (mass as energy) in physics. Whenever energy
crosses the boundary of a system, the system's mass changes and
mass (or certainly mass change) has also crossed that boundary.
Indeed, as we shall point out, in 1917 Hilbert specifically
pointed out that in general relativity there can be no energy
conservation equations of the kind usually employed elsewhere.
The fact that general relativity falsifies much of the present
foundations of classical thermodynamics seems to have been either
ignored or missed by most of the scientific community, although
we will quote leading Russian scientists who have noticed it and
are aware of it.
The reader is thus warned that, henceforth, when we use "open
system" we mean one where either energy or mass or both exchanges
across the system boundary. When we use "closed system" we mean
one in which neither energy nor mass exchanges across the
boundary. In short, the notion of a "closed system" has been
redefined into what classical thermodynamics calls an "isolated
system". We already know from particle physics and the active
vacuum (and from general relativity and the change of spacetime
curvature with every change of spatial energy or mass-energy),
and from the giant negentropy involving time energy transduced
into 3-space energy and vice versa, that there is no such thing
in all the universe as a truly closed system. In Appendix A, we
have discussed how extension and change to classical
thermodynamics must be made. We do this by extending the first
law, refuting any absoluteness of the second law and third law,
dealing with the zeroth law in a new way, etc. We also urge the
better theoreticians to reexamine classical thermodynamics along
such lines, to modernize and upgrade it. We believe that the
present scientific work to extend thermodynamics so it fits those
situations now known to violate it should include additional
considerations such as we present in Appendix A. In short, with
the new definitions Serway clearly states the difference between
classical equilibrium thermodynamics, where no excess energy from
the environment is received, and the thermodynamics of systems
far from equilibrium with their active environment (using the new
definition of open system for clarity), in which case excess net
energy from the environment can be received and used in
electromagnetic systems, providing COP>1.0 systems or even COP =
... systems. The windmill, sailboat, and waterwheel are age-old
examples of disequilibrium systems where of course the energy of
mass in motion is what is transduced. It is our objective in this
book to point out the use of electromagnetic systems in energetic
disequilibrium with their active environment (the active vacuum
and curved spacetime) to provide just such negentropy.
1.1.3 Time Is Energy and Must Be Considered As Such In a physics
model, one's choice of fundamental units is arbitrary.10 As an
example, in one type of physics only a single fundamental unit -
length - is employed. All other entities then become functions of
length.
We are also free to choose the joule as the single fundamental
unit in our physics model. The result that mass is a function of
energy is now familiar and quite accepted, by the famous formula
E = mc2. Indeed, as can be seen, in that equation mass and energy
are one and the same thing, since c2 is a dimensionless constant.
However, in our new model time becomes a function of energy
similarly, and thus time is identically energy.
Let us perform a thought experiment. Suppose we take some spatial
EM energy in 3-space, and compress it by the factor c2. What can
we do with it? If we leave it there in 3-space, it is known as
"mass". If we place it on the fourth Minkowski axis ict, it is
known as time because t is the only variable on that axis, and
the only "place we can set it".
So to first order, time has the same energy density as mass.
Multiplying an amount of time t (in seconds) by c2 gives the
decompressed spatial energy E that the time t will transduce
into. In short, E = tc2 also.
(footnote 10 E.g., see Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd
Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 811- 812; ibid., 3rd Edition, 1998, p.
775. Jackson wryly remarks on how much excess heat and passion
have been unnecessarily expended on that subject.)
Now we notice what special relativity has to say about the
relationship between time-energy and mass-energy. When the
mass-energy increases (e.g., as a function of velocity), time
"dilates" or "decreases". In other words (hint), there is a sort
of special new extension to the conservation of energy law: If
mass (3-space) gains some 3-spatial energy, then time loses some
time-energy. Since time is spatial EM energy compacted by c2,
then the relativistic energy changes in the time domain are
enormously greater than the corresponding relativistic changes in
spatial energy in the photon. To the external 3-space observer,
this is the injection of negentropy with respect to the present
3-spatial conservation of energy law. In the reverse case (as
when the object reduces its velocity), if mass (3-space) loses
some energy, then time gains some time because the time dilation
reduces - i.e., time contracts or densifies (less time has more
energy). To the observer, this is the production of entropy with
regard to 3-space energy conservation. Yet the observer misses
the fact that, accompanying entropy in 3-space is negentropy in
time energy on the 4th Minkowski axis, and vice versa.
We believe this to be a rather dramatic extension to the previous
concept of entropy in thermodynamics. We get 3-space entropy in
physical processes only by gaining 4th dimensional negentropy
accordingly. One can thus appreciate the impact upon the entire
subject of thermodynamics, once time-energy is accounted and the
new interplay of entropy and negentropy are accounted. We believe
that this mechanism may involve the fundamental mechanism for
both entropy and negentropy. Neither is produced alone; both are
always produced in tandem. This of course is not what we
"observe" since all observation is 3-spatial. Hence to observe
the system and see 3-space entropy or negentropy is to hide the
simultaneous 4th dimensional negentropy or entropy that
unobservably accompanied the observable that we did see.
Again we call attention to the original meaning of entropy: the
dissipation of potential (i.e., potential energy).
Once we understand that time is a special form of energy (we
discuss this shortly), we may input the energy required to "move
heat energy backwards" - i.e., we may directly engineer
negentropy - by transducing some time-energy into 3-spatial
energy. We can do it easily by time reversal, and every charge in
the universe does it already. On the other hand, we can do it by
breaking the symmetry of time-energy flow - which is as simple as
forming a little dipole. The broken symmetry of unlike charges -
and therefore the dipole - was discovered by Lee and Yang
{13a-13c}, who strongly predicted it in 1956. Wu et al. {14}
confirmed it experimentally in early 1957. This was such a
revolutionary change to physics that Lee and Yang were awarded
the Nobel Prize in the same year, 1957 - an almost unprecedented
action.
Its broken symmetry tells us that the dipole's unlike charges
continuously absorb virtual photon energy from the active vacuum,
transduce it into real observable energy, and pour out real,
observable EM energy in all directions in 3-space. That puts an
entirely different perspective on what really powers every
dipolar EM circuit; i.e., what produces the flow of energy
pouring from the terminals of every generator and battery,
filling all space around the external circuit and its conductors.
The EM energy pouring from the generator or the battery is not
due to the generator outputting some of its own available
internal energy (from the shaft energy input to the generator,
transduced into magnetic field energy inside the generator, and
then dissipated to separate the charges and form the source
dipole between the generator terminals) or the battery
transducing and outputting some of its available chemical energy
(which is only dissipated inside the battery to separate the
internal charges and form the source dipole between the battery
terminals). We will explain that later, and explain how any
dipole or charge simply pours out real, observable energy
continuously in all directions, without any observable input of
energy. The input energy is there, but it is in unobservable
(virtual) form.
In 1971 while a graduate student at the Georgia Institute of
Technology, I realized the mechanism that generates the "passage
of time" insofar as the observer is concerned {15}. With a little
more work, this gave the clue in the 1990s for the mechanism
generating little momentary time-reversal zones (TRZs) {16} in
the electrolyte utilized in cold fusion experiments. Hence we
proposed the use of little time-reversal zones forming
momentarily in the electrolyte after loading of the palladium
lattice of the electrodes with hydrogen or deuterium. Such
time-reversal zones can form in the region of excessive positive
charge accumulation, since positive charge can be said to receive
negative EM energy from the time domain and output negative EM
energy in 3-space.
This led to uncovering an entire class of new nuclear reactions -
fusion reactions at low spatial energy but high temporal energy -
in these little temporary time-reversal zones (TRZs), in which
like charges attract and unlike charges repel {17}, followed by
rapid decay of the TRZs where the normal law of attraction and
repulsion is restored again.
In theory, a fermion cannot be time-reversed because the Pauli
exclusion principle prohibits it. However, a boson can be
time-reversed, so fermions can be time-reversed in pairs, where
each pair acts as a quasi-boson. The TRZ completely overcomes and
reverses the "coulomb barrier" between a pair of like fermion
charges.11
As an example, two deuterium ions in a little TRZ would
momentarily form a quasi-nucleus of helium, since the two
positive deuterons are attracted so closely that each enters the
strong force region of the other. At the same time, the strong
force is weakened by the partial time reversal of the gluon
forces, so that the quarks are nearly freed. As the other ions in
the surrounding solution then move to destroy the momentary
timereversal zone, their movement forces the TRZ to decay back to
a timeforward zone - with the decay action starting from every
point in spacetime inside the nucleons themselves12. The TRZ
decay-induced action thus strikes the nearly freed quarks first,
and decay can occur by easy quark flipping while the gluon forces
are still much reduced and not back to normal strength. Hence as
the gluon forces return toward normal, the quasi-nucleus decays
by the strong force increasing and overpowering and drawing the
quasi-nucleus into a full-blown helium ion - i.e., an alpha
particle -flipping the partially-freed quarks as necessary to do
so (that is not necessary in equation [1] below.
During decay of the TRZ, the weakened strong force grows much
more rapidly than the Coulomb force zeroes and then increases.
Consequently, the quasi-nucleus of two D+ ions merely draws
together due to the rapidly increasing strong force, forming an
alpha particle without quark flipping. Four H+ ions - four
protons - in a quasi-nucleus in a TRZ will undergo quark flipping
twice when the TRZ decays, thereby resulting in an alpha
particle.). So that explained the anomalous formation of the
alpha particles in the experiments. The interaction for two ions
of deuterium is given by: 2H1^+ + 2H1^+ . 4He2^++ [1]
(footnote 11 In a TRZ, the law of attraction and repulsion of
charged particles is reversed. footnote 12 Any moment in time
exists everywhere simultaneously throughout the universe. In
short, time is a multiple connection in 3-space. Hence in any
time-reversal zone (a TRZ) where time is reversed, then starts
fading away and back to a time-forward zone (TRZ), the changes
induced by the "fading back to TFZ" simultaneously involve every
point in the 3-space of that TRZ that is changing (decaying). An
easy change is quark flipping, since the quarks are almost freed
in the TRZ to begin with. The reason the reaction proceeds in
that direction is that the recovery of the strong force is much
faster than the restoring of normal electrical repulsion, hence
the quasi-nucleus is drawn further together into a full nucleus,
constituting a legitimate nuclear transmutation at low spatial
energy but high time-energy.)
This interaction between two deuterons in solution does not occur
in a normal time-forward zone because of the coulomb barrier
preventing the two deuterons from entering each other's strong
force region and acting as a quasi-nucleus of helium, so particle
physicists have missed it. It does exist in a time-reversal zone;
such zones form and then decay back into normal time-forward
zones. This is possible because the coulomb barrier is
momentarily reversed. The use of such TRZs in particle physics
opens up thousands of new nuclear reactions, all at low 3-spatial
energy, but involving very high time-energy. Because of the
extreme energy density of time, these time-energy-induced
reactions are actually much higherenergy reactions than
high-energy physicists presently consider and utilize! Indeed, it
opens up a new kind of far more energetic "high energy physics".
Cold fusion experimenters have unwittingly opened a window upon a
vast new particle physics, previously overlooked by our
scientists because they have disregarded the use of time-energy,
time reversal zones, and transmutation of time-energy into
3-spatial energy in their nuclear reactions. However, a few
physical theorists attempting to better explain particle physics
have recognized the importance of the time domain, and probing
work in that respect is occasionally done {18}. In our view, it
is not accidental that more than 600 successful cold fusion
experiments have been obtained, by a variety of researchers in
many labs in several nations. We strongly suggest that much of
the conventional physics community has firmly placed its
collective head in the sand, and is refusing to grapple with the
startling new time-energy physics that is being initiated by cold
fusion research.
In 1999 (published in 2000) {12} we finally discovered a great
new symmetry in EM energy flow, whereby time-energy flow symmetry
and 3-space energy flow symmetry are each individually broken,
while an overlooked and more fundamental 4-symmetry energy flow -
between the time-domain and 3-space - is sustained. The result is
that all EM energy in 3-space comes from the time domain locally
and returns to the time domain locally, in a giant negentropic
circulation.13 Together by the discovery of relevant quantum
field theory work by Mandl and Shaw {19}, this now lends strong
support to the use of time-energy in physics as a practical
matter for strenuous investigation.
(footnote 13 This is also understandable from the implications of
the observation process, which yields a frozen 3-space snapshot
existing only at a single instant. Thus any 3- space energy
existing there in that frozen instant, had to just come from
4-space (from the time-domain via the giant negentropy process,
if we take the view that "the past exists only in time itself".).
For the frozen snapshot to "change", time must be added to it,
which converts it to a 4-space process again. So the "3-spatial"
observed energy must come from an immediately previous 4-space
process, and must return to an immediately following 4-space
process. )
As an example, Mandl and Shaw {19} treat the four polarizations
of the photon. Neither the longitudinal nor the scalar photon is
directly observable, but in the presence of charge the two are
observable in combination, where they manifest as the
"instantaneous" Coulomb (i.e., electrostatic) potential. This
argument, translated from particle terminology to wave
terminology, directly fits our re-interpretation {12} of
Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential {85}. For
the combining mechanism of the fields of the photons, we must
account for the field as a ubiquitously assumed interaction with
the detecting/observing unit point charge. Thus we must account
for the absorption of the incoming time-polarized wave or photon,
the transduction of that excitation energy of the charge into
longitudinal EM wave/photon energy, and subsequent emission of
that excitation energy in 3-space. That is what happens for a
negative charge. For the positive charge, the process is
time-reversed, hence occurs in opposite fashion. Or as an
alternative, the positive charge can be said to continuously
receive negative time-energy from the time domain and emit
negative spatial EM energy.14
(footnote 14 As we will find in our chapter on antigravity, there
is good reason to treat the positive charge as a source of
negative energy and negative energy fields. However, this is
pertinent only prior to observation of the charge, while it is
still a 4-spatial unobserved negative energy electron entity. For
the observable charge, one has already conjugated - after all,
the positron is observed as if it were an electron going
backwards in time, which we observe as an electron with its
charge reversed and with parity reversal (of its spatial
direction). For the observable charge, we have already reversed
the negative energy fields into positive energy fields by simply
reversing their direction and the time associated with the photon
(quantum of the EM field).)
There is an energy polarization transduction function of charge,
whereby it transforms received time-polarized photon energy into
emitted longitudinal photon energy in 3-space (for the negative
charge, and vice versa, for a time-reversed positive charge).
This transduction appears to have been overlooked in physics
prior to our recognition of it. It can in fact be used to
generate an acceptable definition of charge itself. Charge is the
continuously active entity which performs that ongoing process or
those ongoing processes of energy transduction between the time
domain and 3- space (between the causal unobserved 4-space
process and the observed 3space snapshot). Or in other words, it
is an active process connecting 4- space cause and 3-space
effect, and connecting the unobserved (such as virtual) to the
observed (such as mass).
So for a dipole, the "causal" time-polarized EM wave or photon as
a 4- space entity comes to the dipole15 (3-spatial as observed)
and is absorbed by the detecting negative charge or dipole, then
is re-emitted as the longitudinally polarized EM wave or photon
in 3-space. That absorption and remission is what charge does,
since it is an entity for performing that process. The emitted
energy in turn is absorbed by the nearby positive charge,
retransduced into time-energy, and reemitted back to the time
domain. This ongoing very special 4-space energy circulation
(even with a virtual charge in the vacuum) is what a scalar
potential identically is and is doing, at every spatial point of
itself, inducing vacuum polarization and "point dipoles" in the
virtual state in the process. Recognition of these missing
functions allowed at last a solution to the long-vexing problem
of the source charge and its associated fields and their energy,
often called the most difficult problem in both quantum and
classical electrodynamics {68}. We discuss that solution later.
1.1.4 The Search for COP>1.0 Circuits and Systems A very long
search and much intense study and reflection eventually revealed
the concepts and principles of those long-neglected
disequilibrium Maxwellian systems that permissibly output more
energy than the operator inputs. The active environment - not the
operator - simply inputs the rest of the energy. Such
disequilibrium systems are indeed permitted in Maxwell's theory
{20}, and are also still prescribed by Heaviside's severe
curtailment of it {21} into what is two vector equations with
variables unseparated, rather than Maxwell's 20 equations in 20
variables.
(footnote 15 Prior to interaction of the incoming time-energy
with the observable charge or dipole, it interacts with the
virtual particles of the vacuum, generating vacuum polarization.
Neither the virtual particles nor the time-energy are observable;
only the effects of their conglomerate interactions with
observable charges are observed. Hence one can take the particle
view that virtual particle energy is continually absorbed, or one
can also take a quantum field theory view that time-energy is
continually absorbed. The two are always present in combination.)
When Lorentz16 symmetrically regauged the Maxwell-Heaviside
equations, he arbitrarily discarded the entire class of
Maxwellian systems that are far from equilibrium in their
exchange with their active (vacuum) environment. Lorentz revised
(symmetrically regauged) the Maxwell- Heaviside equations to make
them amenable to separation of variables and closed analytical
solutions, thus reducing the onerous chore of numerical methods.
This Lorentz symmetrical regauging is given in most EM textbooks
{22}, and we show it in Chapter 2. The symmetrically regauged
Lorentz equations are not Maxwell's equations, nor are they the
truncation of Maxwell's theory by Heaviside et al. Considering an
active environment, under our altered thermodynamics definitions
Lorentz implicitly selected and retained only the equilibrium
class of Maxwellian systems, while arbitrarily discarding the
entire disequilibrium class. He thus discarded all those
Maxwellian systems permitted to produce COP lying in the range
1.0 < COP .. ...
Maxwell's electrodynamics is a material fluid flow theory and it
assumes a material ether. Anything that fluid systems can do,
electrodynamics systems can do, at least in theory, because their
mathematical models are the same form. So when one cites known
examples of fluid-driven physical systems where the energy to run
the system is freely furnished by the active environment,
analogous electrodynamic systems in active environments - and in
disequilibrium exchange with that environment - must also exist
in nature. Indeed, particle physics requires it and proves it.
These are the very systems arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz
symmetrical regauging in every university.
So there exists a direct analogy between fluid systems and
classical electromagnetic systems. The common windmill,
waterwheel, and sailboat demonstrate by analogy that open EM
systems far from equilibrium - powered by free EM "winds" and
"energy flows" in the active vacuum environment - also exist in
consonance with natural law. They are no more mysterious than a
solar cell power system, which is after all a recognized "free
energy" or "overunity" system, as is the humble charge (thought
to be the source of all EM energy, fields, and potentials). In
physics, the powering of systems by receipt and use of energy
from their active environment leads directly to the
thermodynamics of systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium in
their energetic exchange with that active environment.
(footnote 16 Actually first accomplished by Ludwig Valentin
Lorenz in 1867, then by H. A. Lorentz much later. Lorentz was
given the credit erroneously. Lorenz actually derived
electromagnetic theory independently in his paper. See J. D.
Jackson and L. B. Okun, "Historical roots of gauge invariance,"
Rev. Mod. Phys, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680.)
It follows that the seeming absence of such electrodynamic
systems arises not because they are impossible but because
present-day circuits and systems are ubiquitously designed to
self-enforce an inherent energy equilibrium with their active
vacuum environment. The closed-current loop circuit turned out to
be the Lorentz self-regauging demon involved in destroying the
COP>1.0 capabilities of every EM circuit. So little by little, we
unraveled the long tedious trail of Maxwell's electrodynamics and
what had happened to those missing Maxwellian-Heaviside systems
far from equilibrium with the active vacuum.
(footnote 17 For the discerning reader, of necessity we have
revised the foundations of the ancient classical thermodynamics,
as further discussed in Appendix A. We refer the reader to
Bimalendu N. Roy, Fundamentals of Classical and Statistical
Thermodynamics, Wiley, New York, 2002, and to any good book on
the history of thermodynamics. Also particularly good is
Kondepudi and Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines
to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, reprinted
with corrections in 1999. The foundations of classical
thermodynamics (and its fundamental definitions) were basically
frozen prior to the advent of Maxwell's 1865 seminal theory, and
well before the 1880s discovery (modeling) of the flow of EM
force field energy through space. Some of the fundamental
definitions of thermodynamics now will not withstand critical
review in terms of "meshing" with the Heaviside/Poynting material
fluid energy flow theory. Neither will they withstand the new
concepts of energy such as mass-energy, timeenergy and
transduction between time-energy and spatial energy by every
charge. E.g., thermodynamics defines an open system as one that
exchanges energy and mass with its surroundings. Yet it defines a
closed system as one closed only to mass exchange, not to energy
exchange. If the energy exchange is analogous to material energy
flow and changes the mass of the system, then that definition of
closed system is a non sequitur. From general relativity, mass is
simply energy anyway, and so "mass" exchanging across the
boundary of the system is actually energy exchanging, and vice
versa. Since Maxwell's theory is a material fluid theory, the
Poynting and Heaviside energy flow models are material fluid flow
energy models by analogy. The specialized thermodynamics
definition of closed system rigorously will not logically allow
the exchange of "material fluid energy flow" (or energy as
matter)) since it prohibits matter flow, but the specialized
definition of open system would and does. In short, with respect
to material fluid energy flow, the concept of the "closed system"
in thermodynamics has forced itself to become the isolated system
instead, which is unacceptable since we must model EM energy flow
exchange between the environment and the system. So we must
change the thermodynamic definitions of open system and closed
system. Else there cannot be any EM energymass or mass-energy
flow between environment and system, which totally violates what
is well known to be happening in all EM systems. In modern
physics, every charge and every dipole already have such energy
exchange with the active vacuum environment, and it is never
zero; instead, it is of enormously high magnitude. Without that
exchange, as we advance in this book, there cannot even be a
"source charge" or associated EM fields and potentials and their
energy, reaching across space. In other words, without it we can
have no electrodynamics at all. So we have uncovered a
fundamental and major contradiction between classical
thermodynamics and general relativity, as well as between
thermodynamics and the "material EM fluid energy flow" model used
in electrodynamics. What classical thermodynamics calls a "closed
system" permitting energy flow exchange, we must now logically
regard as an open system because it is open to energy exchange
across the boundary! The previous notion of the isolated system -
with no exchange of either energy or mass - is what we must treat
as a truly closed system. And there is none such in the universe,
as we know in particle physics (e.g., because of the discovery of
broken symmetry in 1957 and because of the well known active
vacuum exchange with every EM charge and dipole). So we have
corrected these direct contradictions between "EM as a material
fluid energy flow theory" and the old classical thermodynamics.
As the reader will later see, this strongly affects our new
definitions of efficiency and coefficient of performance. The new
definitions we advance are rigorous, and they also apply to
COP>1.0 EM systems, and even to self-powering (COP = ..) EM
systems. They also hold for very novel new energy processes such
as quantum potential energy in a multiply connected space,
multiple retroreflections and re-use of the same energy,
conversion between time energy and spatial energy, and 4-space
giant negentropy energy flow circulation.
But one can no longer be allowed to equate efficiency with
coefficient of performance. Now they are never the same thing,
just as a six-foot tall man and a six-foot tall doorway are never
the same thing, even though they have the same height magnitude.
We warn the reader that a great deal of thought and study must be
put into appreciating these suddenly encountered changes to the
quite old classical thermodynamics definitions. The changes are
absolutely necessary. Bluntly put, in light of much more modern
knowledge, a rigorous foundations analysis reveals the classical
thermodynamics as well as disequilibrium thermodynamics to
contain logical contradictions, such as its direct contradiction
with general relativity and the EM material fluid energy flow
theory. Either we give up or dramatically change the present EM
energy flow theory, or we must make the necessary foundations
changes to thermodynamics. We have chosen the latter option in
this book, and the reader is forewarned of that dramatic change.
The specific changes and rationale are discussed in Appendix A.)
We learned how, where, and by whom those permissible overunity
Maxwellian systems were discarded. That is, we found what
happened to all those Maxwellian open disequilibrium systems -
originally included in Maxwell's and Heaviside's theories - where
such a system receiving and using excess energy from its active
environment17 is permitted by the laws of physics,
electrodynamics, and thermodynamics to: (1) self-order, (2)
self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the
operator inputs (the excess being freely received from the active
environment), (4) power itself and its load simultaneously (all
the energy being freely received from the active environment),
and (5) exhibit negentropy.
We vigorously pursued those long-lost Maxwellian systems, and we
eventually found them. We also found real experiments {23, 24,
25, 26, 27, 28} and real devices {29a, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35a,
36a, 36b} that performed one or more of those fabulous five
functions, though there was often no realization by the
experimenters, inventors, and scientists of the actual mechanism
involved. Eventually my colleagues and I were also able to
produce a successful experimental device {37, 38a-38c, 39}, the
motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG), which outputs more
energy than we input to it. We cover the MEG in Chapter 7.
Presently a cooperative research program is ongoing with the
National Materials Science Laboratory of the National Academy of
Sciences of a friendly foreign nation, to develop and market
commercial power systems based on successful laboratory
experiments with the MEG. At this writing, we are also strongly
seeking the extensive funding required to set up a physics lab
and complete the final research allowing production of power
systems.
1.1.5 Additional Very Important Implications We also formally
proposed {40} that the vast nondiverged EM energy flow component
- Heaviside's "dark" nondiverged energy flow component,
accompanying every reaction of a charge with a field or a
potential, but arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz and modern
classical electrodynamicists - is the generatrix for the extra
gravity holding the arms of the spiral galaxies together, after
all the dark matter is accounted.18
(footnote 18 Heaviside himself recognized the gravitational
implications of his extra component of energy flow, which is in
closed circular loops. Beneath the floorboards of his little
garret apartment, years after his death, handwritten papers were
found where Heaviside used this component for a unified EM
approach to gravitation. See E. R. Laithwaite, "Oliver Heaviside
- establishment shaker," Electrical Review, 211(16), Nov. 12,
1982, p. 44-45. Laithwaite felt that Heaviside's postulation that
a flux of gravitational energy combines with the (E..H)
electromagnetic energy flux, could shake the foundations of
physics. Quoting from Laithwaite: "Heaviside had originally
written the energy flow as S = (E ..H) + G, where G is a
circuital flux. Poynting had only written S = (E ..H). Taking p
to be the density of matter and e the intensity of a
gravitational force, Heaviside found that the circuital flux G
can be expressed as pu .. ce, where u represents the velocity of
p and c is a constant."
In addition, my close colleague Bedini and I have filed a patent
application upon a very special process to "freeze-frame and
lock-in" a disequilibrium Maxwellian system in its otherwise
far-from-equilibrium state, so the apparent disequilibrium
operation of the system can be maintained stably as a new
equilibrium condition. This appears to be a method to produce and
utilize what Kondepudi and Prigogine refer to as a nonequilibrium
stationary state. This stabilization is necessary in order for
such a system to maintain its COP>1.0 excitation and steadily
output more energy than the operator inputs, or to steadily power
itself and its load {41}.
We also found that COP>>1.0 EM systems (and some COP>1.0 systems)
produce (as a function of the COP) a current of Dirac sea holes
(positrons) in the local vacuum environment itself, from the
output section back to the input section. At COP<1.0 and COP not
too greatly above 1.0, a Dirac sea hole in the vacuum almost
immediately interacts with an orbital electron in the material
lattice of the system. This converts the negative energy,
negative mass "vacuum hole or state" into a lattice hole, which
is attached to the large positive mass of the ion left by the
disappearance of the electron. This "lattice positron" type of
problem has been known in semiconductor design for some decades.
Normal EM circuits do not usually meet the phenomenon overtly
because the semiconductor designers controlled it in the
semiconductors themselves by use of appropriate donors and
acceptors.
There is a great difference between the actions of Dirac sea
holes in the vacuum prior to observation, and lattice holes in
materials (after observation). So there is a great difference
between the action of a "positron" on spacetime before its
interaction with mass and observation, and its action on
spacetime after it interacts with mass and is observed.
For COP>>1.0, significant phenomenology and novel effects occur
because a substantial fraction of the Dirac sea holes (unobserved
positrons) sweeping from output to input do not convert to
lattice holes (observed and bound positrons) along the way. For
substantial values of COP above 1.0, Bedini's invention (patent
application filed by Bedini and the present author)19 covers the
master process for intercepting and transducing this appreciable
flow of negative energy from the output section back to the
input. Otherwise, that flow - if not intercepted and not
converted - will "eat" extra input electrons from the power
supply, thus acting as a novel "extra load" appearing in the
input section. That extra load then draws additional current and
power from the external power supply by electronhole
annihilation20.
With the Bedini invention, the negative energy (unobserved
positron) flow appearing at the input section is transduced into
a flow of positive energy (a flow of electron current) from the
input section back into the system. The process deliberately uses
the "interaction and observation" process to phase conjugate the
charge and reverse its direction of flow! In that case, the
otherwise detrimental negative energy output back through the
COP>1.0 system (which is nature's decay process for COP>1.0
interactions) is changed to a beneficial positive energy input
within the system itself, freely received from the vacuum
environment. This process is then used to close-loop the system
for self-powering in a "locked" and stabilized disequilibrium
condition - a nonequilibrium stationary state. If we consider
mass to be a special kind of positive energy state, then positive
energy states represent curvatures of spacetime that are positive
gravity. Negative energy states generate antigravity (the
time-reversal of gravity).
(footnote 19 Bedini personally discovered and implemented the
solution before the exact nature of either the problem or the
solution was recognized! My contribution was to recognize the
nature of the problem and the mechanism used in the solution. We
also stress that, contrary to conventional treatment, all EM
circuits do involve not only lattice holes in the conductors and
components, but also Dirac sea holes in the local vacuum. That
the Dirac sea is involved whenever there are EM fields is clearly
shown by Felix Finster, "Definition of the Dirac Sea in the
Presence of External Fields," Adv. Theor. Math. Physics, Vol. 2,
1998, p. 963-985.
footnote 20 With a proper change in the curvature of local
spacetime, pair annihilation can occur with no accompanying
photon radiation. The condition is that the part of the curvature
of spacetime representing the energy change of the otherwise
emitted radiation, does not "relax" even though it is an "excited
state". Rigorously, the emission of the radiation from pair
annihilation occurs in two steps: (i) first the local spacetime
is curved for and by the energy excitation, as a static change of
the curvature, and (ii) then that curvature relaxes back to its
former value, propagating that specific curvature in space, which
is recognized as the radiation propagating in space. If the
spacetime curvature excitation does not relax, there is no photon
emission and propagation.)
Before their interaction and observation, the Dirac sea hole
(positron) currents - produced in natural COP>1.0 processes in
the universe - are still negative energy electrons in 4-space.
They are not 3-positrons until interaction with matter has
occurred. These "negative energy electrons" generate negative
energy EM fields, including both the Poynting energy flow
component and the Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component.
These negative energy EM fields appear to be generating the
antigravity whose effects are seen in the distant parts of the
universe. They produce far more powerful effects than the
accounted electrogravitation effects in astrophysics, which only
uses the gravitational effects of the very much smaller Poynting
energy flow component. Also, astrophysicists do not use the
"positron before observation," when it is still a negative energy
electron with negative mass. The accumulation of the negative
energy (Dirac holes) in space (in the surrounding vacuum) is
connected with massive objects and violent processes, where very
strong gradients are produced.21 As a result, very large negative
energy fields and potentials are produced. In turn, this results
in cumulating antigravity. This cumulating and interacting
antigravity appears to be the mechanism for the forces
accelerating the expansion of the universe - rather than it
decelerating as would be the case if the net gravity there were
positive. In Chapter 8 we propose this explanation for the
observed acceleration of the expanding universe - and the basis
for the explanation can be and has been successfully demonstrated
in a legitimate overunity EM circuit or system {42}. We offer
this in honor of Heaviside, who first discovered the
gravitational aspect of his huge nondiverged energy flow, but did
not live to publish it. He also did not consider the Dirac sea
prior to hole interaction with matter, as it was not yet
formulated, so he had not yet recognized the way to produce and
utilize the practical antigravity potential of his discovery.
(footnote 21 Kondepudi and Prigogine, ibid., p. 459 already point
out that strong gradients produce situations that violate present
thermodynamics. Research in these and other situations violating
present thermodynamics is going forward under the caption of
"extended thermodynamics" research. A discussion of the area is
given by D. Jou, Extended Irreversible Thermodynamics,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.))
(<snip>)
continued in
http://www.cheniere.org/books/efv/Chapter_1.pdf
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed?? |
22 Mar 2005 12:33:39 PM |
|
|
Bohl wrote:
People are subject to make mistakes. Dr. Bearden may be wrong in
the past but he has learned and as a result created a masterpiece.
In this message is the first 25 pages of his worldwide
bestselling "Energy from the Vacuum"
[snip 1080 lines of crap]
1) Bearden is an empirical idiot.
2) You are an idiot for having no knowledge of empirical
observation.
Theory contradicting reproducible observation is wrong. You cannot
muster the mentality to handle that simple declarative sentence.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed?? |
22 Mar 2005 04:29:36 AM |
|
|
Bohl wrote:
People are subject to make mistakes. Dr. Bearden may be wrong in
the past but he has learned
Why do you think so?
and as a result created a masterpiece.
According to whom? Do you think you are in the position to judge
what is a "masterpiece"?
In this message is the first 25 pages of his worldwide
bestselling "Energy from the Vacuum" book
Bestselling to whom? Gullible laymen or actual knowledgeable
physicists?
A *lot* of cranky stuff becomes a bestseller.
beng crazed over by European scientists
By whom, for example?
which is also available for free (from 1-74
pages of the 997 pages book) at
http://www.cheniere.org/books/efv/Chapter_1.pdf
This message is shared for scrutiny and to encourage those located
in hidden corners of the world with no direct internet to check
the free Chapter 1 above as well as for quotation purposes when
replying and addressing the possible fallacies in bearden's
hypotheses. Many great scientists like Einstein, Feynman seek to
know the answers and Bearden is just suggesting the answers many
asked. Therefore let us treat Bearden as just an advanced student
of physics and subject to mistakes as well as making sense at
times and giving out wonderful insights at least.
Your "therefore" is a non sequitur. If he wants to make money with
that stuff, he should pay attention that he is right. He does not
have special privileges - he should be subject to the same merciless
peer review as every other scientist.
In our attempt in the coming years to unravel the hidden richness
of electromagnetism, let us treat Bearden as just one material
for reference and ensure we avoid the same pitfalls that may have
befallen some of the wrong concepts he has made or may be making. What
the mistakes are and what the theoretically possible ones are are
what we are here to figure out. Should we found out Dr. Bearden
is intentionally giving out false information or disinformation
We already found that.
then we (or I) would construct an anti-bearden web site informing
people of his motive. But before judging him. Let us judge his
work first (note: there are many independent researchers
unraveling the hidden richness of electromagnetism and Bearden
is not representative of them so if he is wrong 90%, it doesn't
mean there is no hope to learn the truth)
Qion/Cinquirer/Landle, this is you again, right? Having yet again
fallen for a crank, and asking other people to prove you wrong,
as usual.
Starting 1-25 pages quote from Dr. Bearden "Energy from the
Vacuum" (1-75 pages are available free at his web site mentioned
above) which is in demand in many scientific establishments
around the world.
Dr. Bearden, a future Nobel laureate (?)
LOL!
wrote:
Chapter 1 Foundations and Scientific Mindset
"...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which
he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever
is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his
concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more
exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something
obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value
of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to
be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over
and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental
concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by
them." [Albert Einstein]{1}
1.1 Introduction Einstein's quote is a beautiful statement that
scientists should never take the present understanding - and the
present models - as absolute.
Fortunately, no scientist I'm aware of does do that.
That is the approach the present
author has taken for some 30 years, in a struggle to comprehend
that class of electromagnetic (EM) systems that are open systems
in disequilibrium in their virtual photon energy exchange with
the active vacuum,
Whatever that is supposed to mean.
and exhibiting a broken symmetry in that exchange.
And that.
[snip a lot rhetoric]
Excellent scientists - Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge, Evans, Barrett,
and many others - have indeed pointed out that classical EM
theory is seriously flawed. In the words of Bunge {3}:
"...it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both
classical and quantal, are in a sad state."
I never heard of Bunge, so he can't be that excellent.
The author also found it imperative to return to many of the
original seminal papers of physics, particularly in
electrodynamics. The major concepts in those papers led to the
present classical EM model. This was particularly true of the
work of Poynting {4a, 4b} and Heaviside {5a-5c}, who
independently and simultaneously arrived at the notion of the
flow of EM energy through space5. Their work occurred in the
1880s, after Maxwell was already deceased. It also necessitated
reviewing Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside
equations, where Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all permissible
COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems.
"COP>1.0"???
(footnote 5 As we shall point out later, the concept of energy
flowing through 3-space is a non sequitur
Err, then how does Mr. Bearden explain how the sun's energy gets
to Earth?
and requires
substantial revision today, to be consistent with the nature of
observation and the fact that no observable continuously
persists.
Huh?
Any observation is an instantaneous frozen 3-space
"snapshot" at a single instant,
What a nonsense. Every observation takes a finite amount of time.
One never gets a snapshot at a single instant. One always gets
a value averaged over a finite amount of time.
gone the next instant when almost
immediately replaced by another such frozen snapshot. In between
observations, not mass but masstime exists.
Whatever that is supposed to mean.
[snip]
The science of this "EM energy flow through space" is
controversial to this day.
Perhaps among cranks, not in the least among real physicists.
Which is the real "EM energy flow
vector" as such has never been adequately resolved,
Huh? What exactly is his problem with the Poynting vector?
and there
continue to be polite debates about it {6}. One should also be
aware that physicists really do not know what many things -
including energy - are. The definitions of these fundamentals are
still uncertain,
What a nonsense. Energy is defined as the ability to do work.
as stated rather poignantly by Feynman {7} in
this quote:
"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no
knowledge of what energy is."
That does in no way imply that the *definition* of energy is uncertain.
Merely its interpretation! But the latter is part of metaphysics
and philosophy, not of physics!
As another fundamental example, Feynman {8} also pointed out that
we really do not know what force is6 either! Quoting:
"One of the most important characteristics of force is that it
has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. ... If
you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get
it!"
Indeed. So what?
[snip more nonsense]
Why on earth did you quote all that? A reference would have been
enough! Don't waste bandwidth!
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed?? |
21 Mar 2005 10:09:04 PM |
|
|
Bohl wrote:
People are subject to make mistakes. Dr. Bearden may be wrong in
the past but he has learned and as a result created a masterpiece.
Thank Bearden for registering at crank do net for us...
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tom+Bearden%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed?? |
22 Mar 2005 11:53:59 AM |
|
|
Bearden, and for that matter Sweet, have long been recognized as not
only flakes but con-artists. A quick visit to Bearden's website should
quickly reveal this to anyone having average or above intelligence.
Evidently it's a very profitable scam, since Tom Bearden has been
active in promoting the sale of his products for a number of years now.
Had his sales not been profitable, he would have long since vanished
from the pseudo-science mechandising scene.
Note that in all this time he has not produced one verified or
documented erg, joule, or watt-second of free energy or equivalent
excess heat. (Not counting the hot air that he vents.) Tom 'talks the
talk', but cannot 'walk the walk'!
In a way, Bearden's activities are sad, but also funny at the same
time. For me, it's sad to see a retired Colonel perpetrating such a
scam because a military officer is supposed to have qualities of
character, integrity and honor. Obvious this is not true in Bearden's
case since he persists in attempting to sell concepts that are entirely
based on 'smoke and mirrors', and I find it difficult to accepts that
he believes in the silly nonsense that he sells.
For anyone who doubts this, simply do a Google search on 'Tom Bearden'
and read what pops up!
For example: http://www.cheniere.org/
As a physicist, it would be trivial for me to fabricate a free-energy
scam that would be totally credible to technology deficient readers.
Still, as an honest and upright person with some measure of character,
I could not in good conscience perpetrate such a profit making hoax.
Evidently Tom Bearden can, while privately laughing at the well
intentioned fools who send him money!
Recently Bearden has transitioned from being Col. Bearden to Doctor
Bearden. I seriously have to wonder what university awarded him an
earned PhD, and in what subject. (This assumes he actually earned a PhD
at a recognized university in a directly related field of study.)
Oh well, the fact that Bearden has been successful in ripping-off fools
is no skin off of my back, but still it's troubling to realize that in
2005, a significant quantity of ignorant people exist to make such a
breach of ethics and honor sufficiently profitable to breach one's
integrity.
It troubles me to see the many people who are strongly interested in
the availability of some sort, in fact any sort, of a free energy
system or device yet lack sufficient motivation to learn enough of the
basic, real physics that will reveal to them why this concept, like
that of perpetual motion, is impossible.
Without both sides of a debate being versed on the essence of the
subject degrades the topic to that of a drunken bar room debate about
whose sport team is better than the other.
The above is simply my view of the subject.
Harry C.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed?? |
23 Mar 2005 08:40:09 PM |
|
|
wrote:
It troubles me to see the many people who are strongly interested in
the availability of some sort, in fact any sort, of a free energy
system or device yet lack sufficient motivation to learn enough of
the
basic, real physics that will reveal to them why this concept, like
that of perpetual motion, is impossible.
In other words, theory trumps observation? If Bearden discovered an
energy source, and if according to known physics this source cannot
exist, therefore his device doesn't exist?
Wrong, since "if it happens, then it must be possible." If Bearden
actually has a working "FE Machine," then physics must be modified in
order to encompass the new discovery. But this first requires some
working hardware which is open to inspection by anyone interested. If
someone CLAIMS to have made an earth-shaking discovery in physics...
but they refuse to allow outside access to the working hardware, then
we should assume that they're lying or delusional. Hidden evidence is
no evidence at all. And since there are so many scammers and hoaxers
out there, it becomes unwise to take any claim seriously unless the
claimant shows that they really want to prove their claim (by for
example making several copies of the claimed device and sending
them out to universities and testing labs. The hardware speaks for
itself.)
Scammers do this:
- I claim to have made a valuable discovery, but it's a lie...
- ... and I give many sensible reasons for refusing to loan out copies
of hardware for independant 3rd-party testing.
- ...and I troll for financial assistance to let me develop a product
to sell (but then I pocket the money while never offering any finished
product.)
Crackpot inventors do this:
- I claim to have made a valuable discovery (and I've convinced myself
that it's real.)
- ... and I have many sensible reasons for refusing to loan out copies
of hardware for independant 3rd-party testing
- ...and I troll for financial assistance to let me develop a product
to sell, then I actually spend the money on my project, yet keeping
everything secret.
Creators of revolutions do this:
- I claim to have made a valuable discovery (and I've convinced myself
that it's real.)
- I demonstrate the hardware in ways which leave no doubt in anyone's
mind that my claims are genuine (example, the Wright Brothers taking
their flyer to Paris and demonstrating it before a crowd of hundreds.)
- ...and then I take orders for copies of the hardware I've just
demonstrated. I'm not selling some future pie-in-the-sky version, I'm
selling the crude BUT GENUINE AND FUNCTIONAL device that everyone is
testing. Part of the money I use to develop better versions, but I
sell the initial crude experimental version right now, give me cash and
haul it away.
((((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( (o) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty Research Engineer
beaty@chem.washington.edu UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
billb@eskimo.com Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
ph206-543-6195 http//staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bohl" |
|
| Title: Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed?? |
21 Mar 2005 11:14:09 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Bohl wrote:
People are subject to make mistakes. Dr. Bearden may be wrong in
the past but he has learned and as a result created a masterpiece.
Thank Bearden for registering at crank do net for us...
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tom+Bearden%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Space-Time is a fabric, stretchable, curvable, shrinkable, etc.. Time
is part of Spacetime. At relativistic speed, time slows down and
mass is effected.. as if the energy in time is converted to mass
energy or sora.
Logical isn't it. Bottomline is. What forbids the existence of Time
Energy?? Or EM energy compressed or located in time since time is
just a "thing" in Einstein space/time continuum???
Anyone can explain?
Bohl
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed?? |
22 Mar 2005 12:41:36 PM |
|
|
Bohl wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Bohl wrote:
People are subject to make mistakes. Dr. Bearden may be wrong in
the past but he has learned and as a result created a masterpiece.
Thank Bearden for registering at crank do net for us...
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tom+Bearden%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Space-Time is a fabric, stretchable, curvable, shrinkable, etc..
[snip crap]
*****. There is no defendable theory of spacetime that contains a
coordinate background. There is no fabric by definition. There is
only self-consistent mathematics constrained by observation.
Kindergarten models such as a stretched planar rubber membrane with
masses added to deform it are loathsomely incorrect. Draw a Eucliean
triangle on the flat membrane then add a mass within its sides. The
sum of the interior angles of the triangle will change from exactly
180 degrees to less than 180 degrees. In real world spacetime, the
sum of the interior angles of a triangle defined by three light rays
would change to more than 180 degrees. The deformed stretchable
membrane model is crap.
So are you. You are ignorant stupid prolix boring crap by
demonstration.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed?? |
22 Mar 2005 04:31:48 AM |
|
|
Bohl wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Bohl wrote:
People are subject to make mistakes. Dr. Bearden may be wrong in
the past but he has learned and as a result created a masterpiece.
Thank Bearden for registering at crank do net for us...
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tom+Bearden%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Space-Time is a fabric,
Define "fabric".
stretchable, curvable, shrinkable, etc..
Suggestion: forget popular science accounts. Learn what the theory
(GR) actually says.
Time is part of Spacetime.
Indeed.
At relativistic speed, time slows down and
mass is effected..
Indeed.
as if the energy in time is converted to mass
energy or sora.
What on earth is "energy in time" supposed to mean?
Logical isn't it.
No.
Bottomline is. What forbids the existence of Time
Energy??
Define "time energy".
Or EM energy compressed or located in time
What is that supposed to mean?
since time is just a "thing" in Einstein space/time continuum???
Time is not "just a thing". It is a dimension of the 4D spacetime
continuum.
Anyone can explain?
Would you listen? Would you understand?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "zzbunker" |
|
| Title: Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed?? |
28 Mar 2005 11:50:41 AM |
|
|
Bohl wrote:
People are subject to make mistakes. Dr. Bearden may be wrong in
the past but he has learned and as a result created a masterpiece.
In this message is the first 25 pages of his worldwide
bestselling "Energy from the Vacuum" book beng crazed over by
European scientists which is also available for free (from 1-74
pages of the 997 pages book) at
But was very previously known, though.
Physicists and magnets, are like chemists and hydrogen.
Both are stupid enough to believe that hydrogen energy
is different from Lithium energy, since they
are inseparable morons. Both are stupid enough
to believe that DNA is a mathematical code.
Both are stupid enough to believe that Dr is something
more than an honorary title conferred upon Jesuits.
http://www.cheniere.org/books/efv/Chapter_1.pdf
This message is shared for scrutiny and to encourage those located
in hidden corners of the world with no direct internet to check
the free Chapter 1 above as well as for quotation purposes when
replying and addressing the possible fallacies in bearden's
hypotheses. Many great scientists like Einstein, Feynman seek to
know the answers and Bearden is just suggesting the answers many
asked. Therefore let us treat Bearden as just an advanced student
of physics and subject to mistakes as well as making sense at
times and giving out wonderful insights at least.
In our attempt in the coming years to unravel the hidden richness
of electromagnetism, let us treat Bearden as just one material
for reference and ensure we avoid the same pitfalls that may have
befallen some of the wrong concepts he has made or may be making.
But the richness of electromagnetism has already
revealed by Maxwell, rather than by idiots like Feynmann.
Who believe that Quantum computers, Einstein refereed papyrus,
and Cantor\..... crap, are somehow pico-mysteriously anti-different
than mathematics.
What
the mistakes are and what the theoretically possible ones are are
what we are here to figure out. Should we found out Dr. Bearden
is intentionally giving out false information or disinformation
then we (or I) would construct an anti-bearden web site informing
people of his motive. But before judging him. Let us judge his
work first (note: there are many independent researchers
unraveling the hidden richness of electromagnetism and Bearden
is not representative of them so if he is wrong 90%, it doesn't
mean there is no hope to learn the truth)
Starting 1-25 pages quote from Dr. Bearden "Energy from the
Vacuum" (1-75 pages are available free at his web site mentioned
above) which is in demand in many scientific establishments
around the world.
Dr. Bearden, a future Nobel laureate (?) wrote:
Chapter 1 Foundations and Scientific Mindset
"...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which
he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever
is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his
concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more
exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something
obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value
of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to
be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over
and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental
concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by
them." [Albert Einstein]{1}
1.1 Introduction Einstein's quote is a beautiful statement that
scientists should never take the present understanding - and the
present models - as absolute. That is the approach the present
author has taken for some 30 years, in a struggle to comprehend
that class of electromagnetic (EM) systems that are open systems
in disequilibrium in their virtual photon energy exchange with
the active vacuum, and exhibiting a broken symmetry in that
exchange. The statement beautifully expresses that the major
problems encountered in grappling with such EM systems have been
the existing errors and nonsequiturs in classical electrodynamics
and other parts of physics. Many difficulties have resulted from
the continued propagation of a 137-year old classical
electrodynamics model formed before electrons, atoms, nuclei,
positrons, the active vacuum, special and general relativity,
quantum mechanics, etc. were discovered or known.
1.1.1 EM Foundations Are Incomplete and Contain Errors In any
model, there are many assumptions. Even when a model is
wellfitted and well-developed, it still applies only when the
foundations assumptions on which it is based are true or are not
too much in error. Whenever one or more of the fundamental
assumptions is violated by phenomena uncovered, then there is a
new class of phenomena where the model does not hold, or does not
hold well and is only an approximation at best. In that case,
either the existing unsatisfactory model must be improved and
advanced, or a new model must be constructed.
Great scientific minds continue to point out Einstein's beautiful
principle in different words. E.g., expressing the thought of
Stephen Hawking, one of the great physicists of our day:
"All we ever know is our models, but never the reality that may
or may not exist behind the models and casts its shadow upon us
who are embedded inside it. We imagine and intuit, then point the
finger and wait to see which suspect for truth turns and runs.
Our models may get closer and closer, but we will never reach
direct perception of reality's thing-in-itself." [As stated by
George Zebrowski] {2}.
Excellent scientists - Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge, Evans, Barrett,
and many others - have indeed pointed out that classical EM
theory is seriously flawed. In the words of Bunge {3}:
"...it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both
classical and quantal, are in a sad state."
The author also found it imperative to return to many of the
original seminal papers of physics, particularly in
electrodynamics. The major concepts in those papers led to the
present classical EM model. This was particularly true of the
work of Poynting {4a, 4b} and Heaviside {5a-5c}, who
independently and simultaneously arrived at the notion of the
flow of EM energy through space5. Their work occurred in the
1880s, after Maxwell was already deceased. It also necessitated
reviewing Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside
equations, where Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all permissible
COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems.
(footnote 5 As we shall point out later, the concept of energy
flowing through 3-space is a non sequitur and requires
substantial revision today, to be consistent with the nature of
observation and the fact that no observable continuously
persists. Any observation is an instantaneous frozen 3-space
"snapshot" at a single instant, gone the next instant when almost
immediately replaced by another such frozen snapshot. In between
observations, not mass but masstime exists. The same is true for
3-space, which only exists as the output of an observation
process. Prior to observation, spacetime exists.)
The science of this "EM energy flow through space" is
controversial to this day. Which is the real "EM energy flow
vector" as such has never been adequately resolved, and there
continue to be polite debates about it {6}. One should also be
aware that physicists really do not know what many things -
including energy - are. The definitions of these fundamentals are
still uncertain, as stated rather poignantly by Feynman {7} in
this quote:
"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no
knowledge of what energy is."
As another fundamental example, Feynman {8} also pointed out that
we really do not know what force is6 either! Quoting:
"One of the most important characteristics of force is that it
has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. ... If
you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get
it!"
1.1.2 Physics Is Not the Mathematics, But What It Manipulates
Following Feynman's ansatz, one should realize that the physics
is not really in the mathematics itself, but in the physical
meaning of the concepts that the mathematics manipulates. Here
again, the inimitable Feynman {9} cautioned against
over-attachment to the mathematics itself. He said it very
clearly:
(footnote 6 The problem is the ubiquitous and erroneous use of a
"separate" force acting on a "separate" mass. Actually mass is a
component of force, as can be seen from F .. d/dt(mv). Hence
there is no such thing as a separate force in empty space, acting
upon a mass. Instead, the massless 4-field in space acts upon
mass to produce force in that interaction. Force is not a cause,
but an effect of an ongoing interaction - as is any observable.
An observable is a continuing series of frozen 3-space LLL
snapshot entities given by the result of continual application of
../..t (LLLT) .. LLL by photon emission. The formation of the
LLLT (spacetime and masstime) in between observed m as LLL, is
produced by photon absorption of the previous m = ../..t (LLLT).)
"Mathematicians or people who have very mathematical minds, are
often led astray when "studying" physics because they lose sight
of the physics. They say: "Look, these differential equations -
the Maxwell equations - are all there is to electrodynamics it is
admitted by the physicists that there is nothing which is not
contained in the equations. The equations are complicated, but
after all they are only mathematical equations and if I
understand them mathematically inside out, I will understand the
physics inside out." Only it doesn't work that way.
Mathematicians who study physics with that point of view - and
there have been many of them - usually make little contribution
to physics and, in fact, little to mathematics. They fail because
the actual physical situations in the real world are so
complicated that it is necessary to have a much broader
understanding of the equations."
Such matters and similar thoughts had bothered me even back in
the early 1950s, when I could not find a single professor or
dictionary of physics that logically defined a field or a
potential. Considered rigorously, the definitions all fell apart
and violated elementary logic. Improper, insufficient, or just
plain wrong definitions in physics have continued and are still
widespread to this day. To give a single example from an
excellent book by Kraus {10}: On p. 60, Kraus gives the formula
for a potential referred to as the "absolute potential" of a
charge source. Quoting:
"This potential... is, by definition, the work per coulomb required
to bring a positive test charge from infinity to the point r1."
Kraus erroneously "defines" the scalar potential identically as
work, which is equating the cause with the effect. The work that
dissipating a potential does or can do, is not the potential
itself! Else "human" means nothing but how well one can chew
one's food or drive an automobile. Actually, Kraus gives one
theoretical way to measure or calculate the effect of the
potential's local intensity at a point.7 Note that what is
measured is the energy diverted from the potential at that point,
around that test charge. This does not specify the entity (the
potential itself) at all, but only what has been diverted from
it. It is rather like confusing the whirlpool (water diverged
from the normal river flow) in a river as being the river itself.
(footnote 7 To show the non sequitur, a million more positive
test point charges could be brought from infinity to that same
point, and the potential - without any change in it - would cause
the same amount of work to be done upon each of those charges. As
can be seen, even noted professors can speak rather casually when
they "define" the potential's point intensity as "the" potential
(which extends over all space, not just at that one point). There
may be different intensities at different points in the
potential, but the potential itself remains one-and-the-same
thing regardless of which one or all of the point intensities are
discussed. And neither the point intensity of the potential nor
the potential is the work that is done upon a moving charge by
that potential or its intensity.)
Integrating what has been diverted from it does not yield the
potential itself! At best, the measurement gives an indication of
the intensity of the potential at a point, insofar as its
reaction with charge is concerned. More rigorously, what is being
utilized is the potential's reaction cross section presented to a
unit point static charge at that point. The same unit point
charge, if placed in particle resonance, will sweep out more
geometrical area and exhibit a greater reaction cross section.
That will increase the energy collected divergence of the energy
flow that is being moved around the particle itself. By normal
calculations, the resonant charge may collect some 18 times as
much energy as is possible at the same point by the same charge
in static mode - e.g., as shown by Bohren {24, 25}.
A definition must present an identity. Examining the proposed
definition as "the potential is identically ... work" one sees the
problem immediately. The potential exists whether or not there is
a positive test charge, or whether one moves such a charge in
from infinity or not, and whether there is any work done or not.
None of that is what a potential identically is, but only one
aspect of what it does or can do or can cause. One leaves as an
exercise for the reader the task of further examining
dictionaries of physics and textbooks, to try to find a
satisfactory definition of that common scalar potential.8 We do
not believe the reader will find it.
(footnote 8 The scalar potential identically is actually a
harmonic set of phase conjugate longitudinal EM wavepairs, as
shown by E. T. Whittaker in 1903 {85}. Even Whittaker, however,
misinterpreted his wavepairs only after interaction with that
ubiquitous unit point charge assumed at every point in space. He
gave two effects of that interaction, not the cause (which exists
prior to interaction) and the effect (which exists only after
interaction). Reinterpreting to get at the causal wave, each
wavepair is a matched set of two waves; an incoming EM
longitudinal wave in the time domain prior to interaction with a
charge, and - after the time-energy wave is absorbed by the
charge, an emitted outgoing EM longitudinal EM wave in 3-space.
The so-called "static" potential is not static at all, but is a
dynamic, ongoing 4-space process. This follows the
re-interpretation by the present author {12} of Whittaker's
decomposition - a reinterpretation then found to be consistent
with quantum field theory {19} and with broken symmetry of
opposite charges in particle physics {73}.)
Yet any good textbook will also contain some real gems of great
insight, simply said. As an example from Serway {11}, we
eventually took a most marvelous cue, of how to get around
classical thermodynamics' prohibition against heat energy
"running uphill" from hot to cold. In an insightful statement,
Serway said {11}:
"The second law [of thermodynamics] does not rule out the
possibility of pushing heat uphill, as it were, from a cold
object to a hot one, or of creating order out of disorder. It
merely states that such a reversal of the natural flow requires
an influx of energy..."
(footnote 9 Now notice what Serway's statement means with respect
to the classical thermodynamics "definition" of closed system.
Thermodynamics defines a closed system as one in which mass is
not exchanged across its boundary, but energy can be. That
definition permits a closed system to receive excess energy from
its active environment, and thereby reduce its entropy. A
specific example is simply potentializing a circuit, prior to
movement of the current. Hence the entropy of a closed system
does not necessarily increase, but may decrease or increase if
the system is in disequilibrium (difference in energy received
from its active environment and energy escaping back to the
active environment from the system. For the same system, if
energy exchanges across its boundary equally in both directions,
the system is said to be in "equilibrium" with respect to
external energy exchange. One must be very careful in
interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics! One has a
very different "closed thermodynamic system" when it is in energy
exchange disequilibrium, than when it is in energy exchange
equilibrium. Equilibrium is the condition of maximum entropy. For
substantial disequilibrium condition, entropy cannot be computed,
but is less than the entropy of the same system in equilibrium.
The entire ansatz of thermodynamics may be violated once
time-energy is transduced into internal EM energy inside the
system. That is a fundamental disequilibrium, performed by every
charge in the universe. Hence of necessity we have advanced and
utilized new definitions of "open system" and "closed system"
in
our approach in this book, as discussed in the Appendix.)
This essentially states the law of entropy, where to reverse
entropy (disorder), one must apply ordering (energy).9 We also
note that the original concept of entropy was as dissipation of
potential. There are of course different ways to apply the
energy, and it need not be by the operator himself. Chapters 4,
5, 6, 7, and 8 of the present book give some unusual ways. A
special paper {12} published by the author in 2000 gives another.
Indeed, when the flow of time is predominantly reversed, so is
the "entropy" of a situation, since the "videotape is running
backward", so to speak. In that case, the entire classical
thermodynamics must be extended to essentially include its own
opposite. The making of a small timereversal zone where such
things happen is as simple as involving a predominance of
antiphoton interactions with the charged particles in that zone,
rather than a predominance of photon interactions. What we are
saying is that the notion of irreversibility in thermodynamics is
not necessarily absolute. It usually assumes a "time forward"
situation, and may not hold in a "time-reversed" situation. In
our chapter on cold fusion, we will present some specific and
quite startling nuclear interactions that occur as a result of
the time reversal of the coulomb barrier (repulsion of like
charges in a forward time situation) into a coulomb attraction
between like charges in a time-reversal zone and time-reversed
situation.
If Serway's statement were reversed, it would then be a statement
of the law of negentropy. It would state that self-ordering
(i.e., freely receiving energy from the active environment) in a
system could indeed "push heat uphill from a cold object to a hot
one", and the system could simultaneously emit energy in the
process. Every charge does it!
We did find it necessary to correct the classical thermodynamic
definitions of "open system" and "closed system". To define a
closed system as closed only to mass transfer, but open to energy
transfer, is a gross non sequitur. Since general relativity was
published in 1915, energy and mass are known to be the same thing
(mass is just a special form of energy), hence the term
"mass-energy" (mass as energy) in physics. Whenever energy
crosses the boundary of a system, the system's mass changes and
mass (or certainly mass change) has also crossed that boundary.
Indeed, as we shall point out, in 1917 Hilbert specifically
pointed out that in general relativity there can be no energy
conservation equations of the kind usually employed elsewhere.
The fact that general relativity falsifies much of the present
foundations of classical thermodynamics seems to have been either
ignored or missed by most of the scientific community, although
we will quote leading Russian scientists who have noticed it and
are aware of it.
The reader is thus warned that, henceforth, when we use "open
system" we mean one where either energy or mass or both exchanges
across the system boundary. When we use "closed system" we mean
one in which neither energy nor mass exchanges across the
boundary. In short, the notion of a "closed system" has been
redefined into what classical thermodynamics calls an "isolated
system". We already know from particle physics and the active
vacuum (and from general relativity and the change of spacetime
curvature with every change of spatial energy or mass-energy),
and from the giant negentropy involving time energy transduced
into 3-space energy and vice versa, that there is no such thing
in all the universe as a truly closed system. In Appendix A, we
have discussed how extension and change to classical
thermodynamics must be made. We do this by extending the first
law, refuting any absoluteness of the second law and third law,
| |
