|The Tom Bearden
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:17 PM
Subject: Item - virtual vs observable
Here’s a little informal write-up on virtual state versus observable (quantized) state, etc. and about how to go about extracting free EM energy from the seething virtual state vacuum itself.
Virtual State (Subquantal) Reality, Quantal (Observable) Reality, and the Source Charge Action
So any change in action (change in angular momentum) of that magnitude is “observable”. It will generate a “real”, observable reaction in an instrument; e.g., an observable change in an electron, etc.
The observable EM field is also comprised of quanta, called “photons”. Rigorously they are not “quanta of energy”; they are “quanta of action”. The widely misused term “quantum of energy” is a non sequitur.
If a change to the angular momentum (action) occurs that is less than a full quantum, it is not observable. It is called “virtual”, meaning it is real, but not observable. That is, it is there, but it will not move an electron or change an instrumental reading/measurement.
The subquantum magnitude of changes (entities) is the virtual state. A virtual change just means a change that is there and that is real, but is not observable a priori. It does not and cannot individually make an instrument react observably.
The world (reality) is conceived as a construction of 4-dimensional spacetime, not just 3-space. In other words, before observation occurs we are looking at “spacetime” alone. We have had no “interaction” yet with any physical detector or instrument. Hence we as yet have no “observation”.
When we have an “observation”, a d/dt operator has been introduced to interact with L3t spacetime reality. So it gives us a “frozen snapshot” that is d/dt (L3t) = L3 (3-space) in nature.
Note particularly that we cannot observe fundamental L3t reality, but only a time derivative of it. We cannot observe a moving horse per se, but only a series of 3-space “fixed frame snapshots” of that horse. Then our minds integrate a sequential series of such “3-space” changes, interpreting the changes of the horse (in our memory) as the “flow of time”.
When we are “observing physical reality and the physical universe”, we are interacting with systems that are collections of quanta; i.e., they are said to be “quantized”.
That part of reality that is comprised of subquanta cannot be “observed” because no instrument interacts observably with a subquantum.
So there is another “world” – a “virtual” world reality – that is comprised of subquantum changes.
A subquantum change can have incredible energy momentarily, if it exists only for a sufficiently short time so that the product (E)(t) < h/(4 pi). In other words, where the product (E)(t) is less than one quantum in magnitude.
We may call the nonobservable world of virtual changes the “vacuum” (particle physics view). In the dynamics of geometry (general relativity view), it can be taken as the same thing as “the active spacetime” itself, although most relativists do not really like the equating of the two and will resist it. The separation of the two concepts appears to be one of the main factors that is responsible for the failure to provide an acceptable unified field theory.
So the huge “virtual state vacuum” or subquantum universe of the physicist is real, but it itself is nonobservable, else it would not be a “virtual state” vacuum. It is comprised of incredible numbers and densities of subquantum changes (appearances and disappearances of virtual particles). One can imagine it as a seething sea of bubbles – i.e., of real particles appearing momentarily and then disappearing so rapidly those they never resulted in a quantum of change, but only in a subquantum of change.
In quantum field theory, there is a very fundamental connection between “observable” and virtual. E.g., force can only exist in and on mass, since mass m is a component of force F by the little equation F = d/dt (mv). In that equation, just substitute m = 0, and immediately you see that F = 0 so that force is zero. So force does not exist in the absence of mass, but only in the presence of mass.
We now must consider the difference between “virtual force” and “observable force”.
So tightening up a bit: virtual force (not observable) exists on virtual mass, and it also may be said to “interact” with (and exist on observable mass, but nonobservably). No change is observed in the interacting observable mass so long as the change is subquantal in magnitude. Nonetheless, the observable mass can be said to be “virtually excited”, though not “observably excited”.
If sequential virtual excitations (interactions of virtual energy with an observable mass) add coherently and reach the quantum level, then suddenly that is an observable change to the observable mass. So to turn virtual state vacuum energy into observable “real world” energy, we need a coherent integration process that integrates (sums) sequential virtual changes.
The process which converts something virtual to something observable is – astoundingly! – the broken symmetry predicted in the 1950s by Lee and Yang, and experimentally proven by Wu and her colleagues in Feb. 1957. This was such a great revolution in physics that with unprecedented speed the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang the same year, in Dec. 1957.
In quantum field theory (QFT), all observable forces (in observable matter, that is!) are caused by virtual particle interaction and exchange with that observable matter. In short, QFT simply assumes a coherent integration process to integrate virtual changes into observable changes – and virtual forces into observable forces.
This brings us to a problem that has been swept out of the textbooks. The problem is that of the “source charge” in EM. A single electron, e.g., sits there and continually pours out real quanta of EM energy – real observable photons – at a steady and continual rate. Yet no instrument known to man can detect any observable energy input to that “isolated” charge.
This continuous and steady outpouring of real quanta – real, usable EM energy in the form of observable photons – by any fixed and isolated observable charge, generates the associated “static” EM fields for that observable “source” charge. So a “static EM field” is actually not static at all in the usual sense. Quoting Van Flandern on the question of a static field actually being made of finer parts in continuous motion:
“To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. …So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter.” [Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9].
Struggling with these concepts and facts, the electricians – both in classical electrodynamics and in the quantum theory – just gave up on the source charge problem (that is, any explanation of “where the input energy comes from, unless the charge is freely creating energy from nothing at all!). So now they simply ignore the problem, in most cases. Nonetheless, a few scientists have pointed out this still-unsolved eerie source charge problem. Quoting Sen:
"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,
"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].
The failure to solve that problem – of where the energy comes from that continually and freely radiates at light speed from every source charge, to continually establish and replenish its associated “static fields” – has resulted in the problem just being swept out of the textbooks and ignored.
But the answer lies in the nature of broken symmetry. Quoting Nobelist Lee:
"Since nonobservables imply symmetry, any discovery of asymmetry must imply some observable. The experiment of Wu, Ambler,
Showing how to interpret that, Lee puts it this way:
“…the violation of symmetry arises whenever what was thought to be a non-observable turns out to be actually an observable.” [T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood Academy Publishers, Chur, New York, and London, 1981, p. 181.].
So to successfully turn virtual state vacuum energy into observable EM energy, one needs a proper broken symmetry. The single charge is in fact part of such a required broken symmetry.
In short, a single charge polarizes its surrounding virtual state vacuum, with charge of the opposite sign. Hence the “isolated classical charge” is actually a component of a dipole ensemble, and that ensemble exhibits broken symmetry.
That means that the assembly (the observable charge plus its virtual state vacuum polarization) receives a continual input of virtual state (subquantum) energy from the virtual vacuum, converts it to observable (quantal) EM energy, continually emitting that quantal EM energy as real photons that continually produce and replenish its associated real EM fields.
The “static EM field” then is not a “static thing” at all. Instead, thermodynamically it is a nonequilibrium steady state (
So we ourselves do not have to discover how to physically extract usable, real EM energy from the active virtual state vacuum! Instead, we simply have to discover how to build a proper “windmill” to intercept, collect, and then asymmetrically dissipate some of that free and continuous EM energy flow from every charge or assembly of charges, in order to power the external loads.
This has to be an asymmetrical system a priori, else it would have to use half its collected energy to do nothing but destroy the source dipole! But since 1892, our EEs are trained to only design, build, and deploy symmetrical Maxwellian systems. And a priori, those systems self-produce two new free forces: (1) the forward emf that powers the external circuit and its losses and loads, and the back emf that destroys the source dipole itself inside the generator. Thus the silly symmetrical system destroys the source of its free energy flow output, faster than it powers its loads. We thus have to continually crank the shaft of the generator, in order to forcibly restore the source dipole!
Since 1892, the inane symmetrical systems to which the Heaviside-Lorentz symmetrized equations are limited, have all self-enforced COP<1.0 and do not and cannot freely power their loads with energy freely extracted from the vacuum – even though all EM energy is freely extracted from the vacuum by the source dipole’s broken symmetry and always has been!
Now we bring in a further confusion point that of all things has been introduced and sustained by the physicists.
An isolated observable particle – such as an electron – is fiercely battered continually and violently by the bombardment of the virtual state particles of the seething virtual state vacuum in which it is embedded and with which it continually interacts. For very large numbers of these “random” particle batterings, a certain very small fraction will momentarily be “coherent” in their virtual force actions and thus will momentarily add to quantum size. This produces a real observable force and a quantum change in the electron, and this tiny “momentarily real force” is indeed observable and measurable as a “random jittering” of that observable particle.
In quantum mechanics, this random “jittering” motion of an observable particle that is at zero degrees temperature absolute is known as the “zero point energy”. Instead of all motion and wiggle of that particle vanishing at zero temperature (as it would do so for the classical model), at absolute zero degrees temperature there is still a small “jittering” of that particle – a jittering that is observable and measurable with sufficiently keen instruments. The jittering movement itself is known as the “zitterbewegung” of that particle, due to its continual buffeting by virtual changes, a very few of which are sufficiently coherent to reach quantum size and thus physically move the observable particle.
As Puthoff rather eloquently observed:
"It's ridiculous, but theoretically, there's enough [zero point] energy in the volume of a coffee cup to more than evaporate all the world's oceans. …"But that's if you could get at all of it, and you obviously can't. So, when it comes to a practical amount of ZPE [that might be extracted from the vacuum], you're still talking about maybe 10exp26 joules/cubic meter.