Sunday, May 28, 2006 7:11 PM
RE: Your statement: ZPE Is
not 'energy from the vacuum'
conventional scientists can drive all the way to the zero point, where
things are still observable and MEASURABLE. But they risk their scientific
reputation and their livelihood
if they try to find some way to go on below that
to the virtual state fluctuations
of the vacuum, which are NOT individually observable and therefore not
individually measurable. So to maintain their positions and not destroy
their careers, they have to stop
at the lowest end of the
observable state – with Zero
CHANGES. That is what
an instrument measures: a change in something, where that
change is sufficiently large to generate
an observable reaction in an instrumental system. There is a “minimum
size” change required in order to evoke an instrumental response that
“physical reality as empirically observed ” is comprised of what
is called “action”, which is energy x time, or angular momentum. So a
change is a change in “action” or in “energy x time”.
constant h, when divided by 2 pi, is fundamental. Half that
size (1/2 of h/(2 pi) is the smallest anything can be and be a piece of
something quantized and
therefore observable. In short, that
is the smallest change that is
measurable or observable. And it is not just a change in energy or a
change in time, but a change in the
product of the two.
change E x T is equal to or greater
than h/(4 pi), it is now large enough and persists long enough that
the combination can be OBSERVED
observable things and the observable world (i.e., its
changes, which are all we
observe) are thus comprised of such QUANTA, according to quantum
of E x T = h/(4 pi) is said to be the QUANTUM Threshold (in some cases, as
I remember, it is h/(2 pi). I would have to go back and check the niceties
of that, for exactness. It’s
“observable state” or
“observable universe” is thus comprised of action changes of that
magnitude and greater – and our
instruments, if fine enough, can detect them.
But if a
change occurs and its E x T < h/(4 pi), it is not observable. The
instruments cannot detect it individually, even in theory,
according to quantum mechanics. That
real but nonobservable subquantal
change is thus referred to as a VIRTUAL STATE change, and that
entity is said to exist in the virtual state
but not in the observable state.
The virtual state becomes
is a “collection” of such ongoing subquantal changes where each change is
less than a quantum and therefore is VIRTUAL rather
entity can have any energy magnitude, so long as the corresponding time of
its existence remains sufficiently short that
the product (E)(T) < a quantum.
(empty space itself) is comprised of just such virtual changes – a
seething, incredible cauldron of them. But not one is individually
observable or measurable. If they were observable changes, then our
instruments in free space would go bananas all the time and be absolutely
useless, from their continual detections and incessant measurements of
“active spacetime itself”. They do not do that,
so we know that
spacetime/vacuum is comprised of VIRTUAL STATE changes (subquantal
changes) in a seething mess.
So space is
not “nothing” (i.e., it is not “emptiness” as was classically believed).
But it is comprised of VIRTUAL STATE CHANGES – INCREDIBLY SEETHING
CAULDRONS OF THEM.
STATISTICALLY, that overall
cauldron or any appreciable portion of it is both nonobservable (i.e.,
virtual) and also DISORDERED. After all, if these virtual changes were
group-coherent and were thus to start coherently adding, they would
incessantly and coherently add (integrate)
above the quantum threshold, and our senses would be barraged and
nullified by the thunderous bombardment and flashes of their continual
particle or entity can thus only be observed to change by QUANTAL amounts.
Its VIRTUAL changes are not individually observable, even though they are
there with a vengeance.
is used to describe the quantum mechanical fact that
an observable particle
at its “lowest rate
of change – i.e.,
at absolute zero degrees temperature”
is still violently dithering. You can cool it to “absolute zero degrees
temperature” and it’s still
dynamically shaking incredibly. And it has been shown experimentally that
these changes are OBSERVABLE, although extremely minute in energy. But
they are real. So one can speak of the “Zero Point” energy – where the
Casimir effect and other work is already in the literature
and has proven there is a “real, observable, known” effect there. In
short, there is a tiny bit of real (observable) energy still going on
there, and it is indeed possible to extract a bit of energy from it.
And so one
can keep one’s scientific reputation
if one studies that measurable
and proven “zero point energy” and tries to gather
it together and integrate it
further, so as to get something “useful” out of it to big (macroscopic)
systems. The problem is that so
far only extremely minute amounts of energy can be obtained, even in
theory. So if one tries to apply it (at
least with what is presently
known) to the Big World and to real electrical power units for homes etc.,
one is very far removed in one’s results from what
is needed and required. But one can maintain one’s scientific reputation,
and not get tarred and feathered
and ridden out of town on an academic rail, so to speak.
particle physics, all forces in and on particulate
matter are generated
by the exchange of virtual particles, oddly. So obviously, since these are
OBSERVABLE forces on OBSERVABLE particles and matter,
even in big systems, then there has to be some kind of mechanism for (1)
virtual energy from the disordered virtual state
(hey, that’s a Maxwell’s
Demon!), and (2) coherently integrating
(adding) consecutive absorptions of these little virtual state
additions into quantal size, resulting in real, observable, quantized
change (hey, that’s a Feynman ratchet!).
implies that a particle such as
an electron can absorb ordered virtual energy from the disordered virtual
state vacuum, and integrate
it to quantum size. This violates
the present (sad old) second law of
electrodynamics, because it involves a NEGATIVE ENTROPY production
of things violate the dickens
out of the hoary old second law; to see a few of these areas that
permit second law violation,
see Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat
Engines to Dissipative
Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999.
Areas known to violate the old
second law are given on p. 459. One area is strong gradients (as used in
the MEG) and another is memory of materials
(as used in the MEG in the nanocrystalline core materials
and structure to freely obtain the Aharonov-Bohm effect). We strongly
comment that these known,
recognized mechanisms allow macroscopic and significant violations
of the Second Law that are
directly usable in real systems and circuits.
distinguish between two kinds of thermodynamics! There is the “near
equilibrium” type taught to most engineers etc., and there is the “far
from equilibrium” type as pioneered by Nobelist Prigogine and others.
"Entropy ...cannot in general be expressed in terms of observables such as
temperature and density. This
is only possible in the neighbourhood of equilibrium... It is only then that
both entropy and entropy production acquire a macroscopic meaning."
[Ilya Prigogine, "Irreversibility as a symmetry-breaking process," Nature,
Vol. 246, Nov. 9, 1973, p. 70.].
instruments can show that any
charge (e.g., any electron in the universe) even when confined in one
position, just sits there and continually emits real, observable photons
(real light quanta) in a steady and unceasing stream,
at light speed in all
directions. And yet no instrument known to man can measure any OBSERVABLE
energy input to that source
charge (the electron). Scientists were (and are) so terribly conditioned
to never suggest coherent integration
of virtual changes that they
dared not to even consider integrating
a steady stream of ORDERED virtual state
absorptions (e.g., continual virtual photon absorptions). Thus – being
ordered – these virtual energy changes of the source charge (actually to
its mass-energy) would add repeatedly
to the quantal level and be emitted as a quantum of EM radiation
(a real observable photon). So this “source charge problem” was
acknowledged as the greatest
problem in all electrodynamics, and it was just pushed out of all the
textbooks so the young students coming along would never realize the
problem. Most of the students are never even introduced to the “foundations”
literature, where such problems
are pondered and puzzled over. As Bunge put it:
“…it is not usually acknowledged that
electrodynamics, both classical and quantal, are in a sad state."
[Mario Bunge, Foundations of
New York, 1967, p. 176].
thing, the standard CEM/EE model used in electrical engineering implicitly
assumes that the source charge
freely creates – from nothing –
all that energy it freely pours
out to form and continually replenish its external fields and potentials
at light speed.
Sen put it
"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still
is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics."
[D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press,
New York, 1968, p. viii].
"A generally acceptable, rigorous definition of radiation
has not as yet been formulated."
…. "The recurring question has been: Why is it that
an electric charge radiates but
does not absorb light waves despite the fact that
the Maxwell equations are
invariant under time reversal?"
[B. P. Kosyakov, “Radiation in
electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory,” Soviet Phys. Usp.,
35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141].
that source charge problem
(albeit a bit crudely) in 1999, and published it in
T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proceedings
of Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p.
86-98. Also published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000,
p. 11-23. Also carried on website
www.cheniere.org and published in Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and
Principles, Chapter 3, 2002. It is also discussed in M. W. Evans, T. E.
Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The Most General Form of the Vector Potential
in Electrodynamics," Foundations
of Physics Letters, 15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261. We have also
slightly improved the solution since then.
to solving the problem is in the way we have to represent a “statistically
disordered vacuum”. Maxwell was a thermodynamicist as well as an
electrodynamicist. Quoting Maxwell in 1878:
"The truth of the second law is … a statistical,
not a mathematical,
truth, for it depends on the fact that
the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second
law of thermodynamics is continually being violated,
and that to a considerable
extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real
[Maxwell, J. C., “Tait's Thermodynamics II,” Nature
17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].
words – and this is extremely important – the individual totally ordered
pieces of the greater statistical
disordered medium are usually continually violating
the old second law of thermodynamics.
turns to modern quantum field theory to get
at the interaction of virtual
quanta interaction of the vacuum with a real particle. As Aitchison points
"...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in relativistic
quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions between
'the particle' and the vacuum fluctuations
(or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored."
[I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field
Theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 57.].
it very nicely:
"What might appear to be empty
space is, therefore, a seething ferment of virtual particles. A vacuum is
not inert and featureless, but
alive with throbbing energy and vitality. A 'real' particle such as an
electron must always be viewed against this background of frenetic
activity. When an electron moves through space, it is actually swimming in
a sea of ghost particles of all varieties – virtual leptons, quarks, and
messengers, entangled in a complex męlée. The presence of the electron
will distort this irreducible vacuum activity, and the distortion in turn
reacts back on the electron. Even
at rest, an electron is not
at rest: it is being
continually assaulted by all manner of other particles from the vacuum."
[Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature,
New York, 1984, p. 105].
key as to how to get a source charge can produce “real” observable energy
from its incessant interaction with the “virtual” state
“conceive” the seething virtual state
vacuum, filled with particles appearing and disappearing so fast that
they are virtual state entities
and not observable entities, we have already conceived of “momentary order
appearing incessantly in that
medium”. That is, each single
virtual particle (as, e.g., a virtual photon) is
totally ordered while it
briefly exists as such a particle (as just such order!). So we have an
analogy to Maxwell’s statement:
The entire virtual state medium
is quite statistically
disordered, but it is also
filled with momentary bubbling “individual particles”, each of which
exists briefly and is also briefly
totally ordered. So the “virtual bubbling entities” of the
virtual state vacuum are --
individually – totally ordered!
the source charge (electron) absorbs virtual photon after observable
photon from the vacuum interaction, it is absorbing
totally ordered virtual
bits of EM energy from the seething disordered vacuum. In short, this
process provides a true “Maxwell’s Demon”. It is already inherent in the
very notion of an observable charge absorbing a virtual photon from the
coherent bits of virtual energy change are also changed individually to
virtual bits of virtual mass-energy change of the electron. As change
after change occurs, these ordered virtual changes of virtual mass-energy
of the absorbing observable charge coherently integrate
until sufficient “energy x time” is reached to comprise a quantum of
change. Whereupon the incessant zitterbewegung (buffeting) of the vacuum
on the electron will “knock out” the emission of a real, observable
photon. So the charge also acts as a true “Feynman Ratchet”,
coherently integrating virtual
state energy up to quantal
abrupt emission of an observable photon, the excitation
of the source charge abruptly decays to zero again, and the cycle repeats
– over and over, incessantly. Hence the charge can sit there and spew out
real, observable EM energy – real observable photons – continually. Every
charge in the original universe has been doing it for some 13 billion
years, and it will do it for 13 billion more years if the universe lasts
functions as both a true Maxwell’s Demon and a true Feynman Ratchet.
suddenly we have solved the long-vexing source charge problem. And we have
dramatically changed our notion
of entropy and such in doing so.
example, a rigorous thermodynamics proof that
real physical systems can in theory produce continuous negative
entropy, in total violation of
the sad old second law of thermodynamics – is given by D. J. Evans and
Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States,"
J. Stat. Phys.,
109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. Startled by their results, the authors
suggested that, well, physical
systems might not do this (since none seem to be known
at present), but “the problem
remained” for deterministic systems.
energy densities of the fields and potentials from a source charge are
deterministic as a function of
radial distance from the source charge. So I nominated
the source charge (and any source dipolarity) as the first physical
systems found to be actually producing continuous negative
entropy by the Evans-Rondoni criterion.
can be experimentally established that
a source charge does this, as does any dipole. In modern physics, a source
charge also polarizes its surrounding vacuum, and hence the charge and its
altered vacuum form a dipolar
ensemble. Further, that
dipolarity is comprised of two infinite charges of opposite sign, each
having infinite energy also, and where the two have a finite difference
(both in energy and in charge). Or as Nobelist Weinberg puts it:
"[The total energy of the
atom] depends on the bare mass
and bare charge of the electron, the mass and charge that
appear in the equations of the
theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and reabsorptions.
But free electrons as well as electrons in
atoms are always emitting and
reabsorbing photons that affect
the electron's mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge
are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that
are listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to account
for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass and
charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be
infinite. The total energy of the
atom is thus the sum of two
terms, both infinite: the bare energy that
is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and
the energy shift … that is
infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of
[Steven Weinberg, Dreams of
a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110.].
“finite classical charge” in electrical engineering is actually the finite
difference observed by our instruments, between TWO INTERACTING INFINITE
CHARGES, EACH OF INFINITE ENERGY ALSO. And that
includes both the vacuum charge (alteration
of the vacuum by its polarization)
and the bare charge (infinite) of the particle. Each of those charges also
has infinite energy.
dipolarity – being two infinite entities – can furnish any FINITE amount
of energy, no matter how large,
for any FINITE amount of time, no matter
is free, free, free, anywhere in the universe,
at any time, for peanuts! Just
make a little assembly of charge and pay for it once, thereby making two
infinite charges each with infinite energies. Then leave it alone and do
not allow anything to scatter
and destroy it. And that source
dipole will continuously exhibit “broken symmetry”, for which Lee and Yang
were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1957. And broken symmetry means that
“something virtual has become observable”, as Lee himself pointed out.
implications of modern quantum
field theory and broken symmetry have not made it across the university
campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering
department, in the nearly half century they have been with us.
complete the story, recall that
the standard Heaviside-Maxwell used in electrical engineering was put
together in the 1880s, and sharply curtailed from Maxwell’s true 1865
theory [see James Clerk Maxwell, The Dynamical Theory of the
Electromagnetic Field, edited by Thomas F. Torrance, Wipf and Stock
Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 1996. Contains Maxwell’s original dynamical
theory paper and commentaries. Or to see the original, see James Clerk
Maxwell, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," Royal
Society Transactions, Vol. CLV, 1865, p 459. Read Dec. 8, 1864. Also
in The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, 2 vols. bound as
one, edited by W. D. Niven,
New York, 1952, Vol. 1, p.
526-597. Two errata are given
on the unnumbered page prior to page 1 of Vol. 1. In this paper Maxwell
presents his seminal theory of electromagnetism, containing 20 equations
in 20 unknowns. His general equations
of the electromagnetic field are given in Part III, General Equations
of the Electromagnetic Field, p. 554-564. On p. 561, he lists his 20
variables. On p. 562, he summarizes the different subjects of the 20 equations,
being three equations each for
magnetic force, electric currents, electromotive force, electric
elasticity, electric resistance, total currents; and one equation
each for free electricity and continuity. In the paper, Maxwell adopts the
approach of first arriving
at the laws of induction and
then deducing the mechanical
attractions and repulsions.
worse. In 1892, Lorentz also
symmetrized (and further greatly
simplified) the already-curtailed Heaviside equations,
thereby arbitrarily discarding all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. Nature
does not discard those systems; Lorentz did and every EE department,
professor, and textbook still arbitrarily discards them. If that
Lorentz symmetry is again discarded, one recovers those long-neglected
asymmetrical Maxwellian systems – the very class of systems that
includes energy-from-the-vacuum systems, which are asymmetric a priori!
For rigorous proof, see M. W. Evans et al., “Classical Electrodynamics
without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,”
Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.
the energy problem is solvable very quickly and permanently – and cheaply
and cleanly – if our scientific community will just fund some of the sharp
young doctoral candidates and
post doctoral scientists to correct the sadly flawed old CEM/EE model and
go after collecting and using free EM energy extracted continuously from
the vacuum by any and every charge and dipole in the universe. For a
listing gathered together of
these grave falsities in the standard electrical engineering model, as
pointed out by eminent scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge,
Margenau and many others, see my
“Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE
Model”, available freely from my website.
paper was reviewed by the
last year, and – miracle of miracles! –
it passed their review! Now if we
can just get the NSF to fund those grad students and post docs to correct
the CEM/EE model and to work in “energy from the vacuum” systems, the
universities will permit the work, but only if they receive the extra
money to do it. But if such funding can be established, the entire energy
crisis can be corrected in two to three years, and
forever. It will also dramatically
clean up our environment, reduce the present contribution of energy system
byproducts to global warming, etc. as well.
Leslie R. Pastor [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Your statement:
ZPE: Is not 'energy from the vacuum'
Can you clarify the
"Factoid: Energy from
is NOT zero point energy, since the latter
is an observable state
and the vacuum energy is nonobservable." -
T. E. Bearden
The problem, as you
already know, is that ZPE is
already acceptable.....a la Bernard Haisch and Hal Puthoff. Describing
the virtual state as 'energy
from the vacuum' is understood by me already, I don't have a problem
with it. But how do you describe 'virtual states'?
All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor