The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


To: "Discover" <>
Subject: Corrected Letter to the Editor, with solution to one of the 11 unsolved physics problems
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 11:55:51 -0600

Letter to the Editor (corrected)

Unfortunately my previous letter was mangled by Outlook in the transmission process, so I am sending another.  In this one, we attach the letter as a Word 2000 file, so that the endnotes will not disappear, etc.  Also we made a slightly clearer explanation in a place or two.

This gives a testable solution to the Dark Matter problem -- i.e., detailing
what produces the excess gravity observed in the spiral galaxies to hold
their arms together, and also accounts for the movements of large clusters
of galaxies.  It is something arbitrarily discarded from electrodynamics by
Lorentz in the 1880s. As we stated, it is testable, as shown by the Bohren
experiment and Letokhov's negative absorption of the medium, among others.

If you are interested, we can also provide in a second letter the solution
to a second of those 11 problems, the problem of what is causing the
anti-gravity responsible for accelerating the expansion of the universe.
Here again, it involves a bit of application of  Dirac electron theory, and
it also requires rejection of Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrical regauging and
curtailment of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, just to get simpler
equations that were easier to solve analytically.  Again, this is a testable
solution, and a successful experiment by Sweet, demonstrating it,  is
actually in the literature.  The AIAS has also prepared a paper on how
antigravity emerges, and submitted it to a leading physics journal.
Anyway, one must keep one's sense of humor!  Many of the problems of present physics spring from still-uncorrected foundations flaws in mechanics and electrodynamics.  Slowly those corrections are being made and published in the hard literature, but it is a very slow and painful process, and
thankless as well.  The Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study
(AIAS), directed by Dr. Myron Evans (who has more than 600 papers in the literature), is doing such work, as are others.  Sadly, such desperately
needed work simply will not be funded by normal scientific funding channels. Dramatic changes to the status quo are still not very welcome, particularly if they involve foundations flaws.


T. E. Bearden, Ph.D.
Fellow Emeritus, AIAS

Solution to One of Hazeltine's 11 Greatest Unanswered Questions of Physics


 We believe we have the answers to two of these "unanswered questions" as given by Hazeltine, and some thoughts on a third -- just in case you are interested.  Since they have not previously been solved even after tremendous work on them, obviously the missing solutions will take a bit of explaining.  So your forbearance is requested.  A good sense of humor also definitely helps! 

 In this letter we attach the solution to the dark matter problem, by explaining what is generating the excess positive gravity observed in the arms of the spiral galaxies and in large clusters of galaxies.  We throw in the solution to the "source charge problem" just for free (it's not on Hazeltine's list, but it has been a formidable problem for some time). 

 If you are interested, we will also write another letter to the editor with the solution to the "dark energy" problem --- actually a "dark negative energy" problem --- responsible for the antigravity that is accelerating the expansion of the universe.


What is dark matter?

 "Dark matter" is the tentative name assigned to whatever is making the extra gravity responsible for holding the arms of the spiral galaxies together, and causing the observed movements of large clusters of galaxies.  Astronomers seek some exotic kind of matter, since matter obviously produces gravity.  More exactly, mass-energy --- the compacted energy in mass --- produces positive gravity.  Any positive change of the energy density of space is a curvature of spacetime, hence produces positive gravity by standard general relativity. So what is actually sought is a hitherto unobserved energy source of additional gravity --- lots of additional gravity.  Enough unaccounted energy will do the trick, whether or not that energy is condensed into mass.  However, energy can be either positive or negative, so for the excess positive gravity we will need to uncover very substantial amounts of positive energy in space.


Can We Find a Great Deal of Unaccounted Positive Energy?

 That additional energy --- lots of it --- was arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz in the 1880s, in order to prevent having acknowledge that every generator outputs far more EM energy pouring from its terminals  than the amount of mechanical shaft energy we input to it.  It is this long-discarded huge energy flow component, surrounding every field-particle interaction and every potential-charge interaction, that has been missing.  The astronomers have just not sought in the history of electrodynamics and found where that huge excess of energy for the excess of gravity was discarded.  Indeed, there is not a single university in the United States that teaches what actually powers an electrical circuit!  The real source of the circuit's energy does not appear in electrical engineering, though it has been known but not touted in particle physics for more than four decades.  We explain by discussing how a circuit attached to a generator is actually powered.


How the External Circuit Attached to a Generator Is Actually Powered

 To power the generator (as in a conventional commercial power plant), we may burn hydrocarbons in a boiler to make steam, then use the steam to power a steam turbine attached to the shaft of the generator, thereby rotating the generator armature.  Inside the generator, the rotation of the armature transduces the input mechanical shaft energy into magnetic field energy.  So what happens to the magnetic energy?"

 All the magnetic field energy is then expended upon the internal charges inside the generator, to force the positive charges in one direction and the negative charges in the other, thus forming a source dipole between the terminals.  And that is all that burning the hydrocarbon and rotating the generator does.  It does not directly add a single joule of EM energy to the external circuit attached to the generator.  While  such a statement is astounding to electrical engineers, it is true nonetheless.  Its basis is well-known in particle physics as evidenced by the award of a Nobel Prize to Lee {[i]} and Yang in 1957, for their discovery of broken symmetry {[ii]}, including the broken symmetry of opposite charges --- as, e.g., the opposite charges on the ends of a dipole, including that source dipole formed inside the generator.

 So the formed source dipole between the terminals has a broken symmetry in the fierce virtual photon energy flux of the vacuum.  What does that mean?  It means that the charges on that formed dipole continuously absorb lots of virtual (fleeting) EM photons from the vacuum itself, transduce (integrate) the absorbed fleeting EM energy "pieces" into real, observable EM energy in 3-space, and then re-radiate that EM energy away.  Just like collecting and integrating gobs of blowing grains of sand into buckets of sand, and then sending these buckets of sand on their way for usage.  In this case, the source dipole pours out that integrated, real EM energy flow from the terminals of the generator, filling space around the external circuit, and flowing through space outside the external conductors and parallel to them.

 The surface charges (and their fields) in the conductors intercept part of this passing flow of EM energy, and diverge part of it into the wires to power the electrons, thus powering the circuit.  The vacuum asymmetry provides the fundamental power, the source dipole collects and transduces it, and then re-radiates and transmits it from the terminals.  The external circuit intercepts and "catches" some of the transmitted energy by diverting it into the conductors to power the electrons, giving current and power.


What Our Power Engineers Do With the Energy Their Power Lines Catch

 Every circuit ever built, and every one today, is powered by EM energy extracted directly from the seething vacuum by the source dipole, once that dipole is formed.  The external circuit catches some of the available energy flow surrounding it, and just wastes the rest.  So what is done with the component of energy actually intercepted and collected by the circuit?

 The electrical engineers ubiquitously employ the closed-current-loop scheme for that external circuit, and its sub-circuits.  These "standard" circuits pass the spent electrons in the ground return line back to the ground terminal of the generator and forcibly ram those "passive" electrons back through the source dipole to re-potentialize the spent electrons, knocking the dipole charges asunder and destroying the dipole.  Whereupon we have to burn some more hydrocarbon to make more steam to power the turbine to rotate the generator shaft again, to restore that dipole that our engineers deliberately designed the circuit to destroy --- and to destroy it faster than the load is powered {[iii],[iv]}.

 It is easy to show that, in the closed current loop circuit, half the collected energy in the external circuit is used only to destroy the source dipole in the generator, and less than the remaining half of the collected energy is used to power the loads.  Hence that system will always output less work in the load than the energy that must be continually input to the shaft of the generator.  Add the inefficiencies of the generator-transducer, the turbine, the boiler and combustion process, etc., and one has power systems which have woeful performance.  And no one even counts all that huge amount of EM energy flow outside the conductors, that is not intercepted and collected, but is just wasted.

 So the consumer pays the power company to deliberately have a giant sumo wrestling match inside its own generators and lose.  It's inexplicable.  One can easily extract from the vacuum all the EM energy one wishes, anywhere, anytime, simply by paying once to make a little dipole.  Then leave it alone, and that dipole will sit there and extract EM energy from the vacuum and pour it out indefinitely.  In the matter that has been around since the beginning of the universe, the dipoles have been steadily extracting and pouring out EM energy from the vacuum for some 14 billion years, and not a single dipole has yet "run down" or quit doing it.


Solving Another Formidable Problem (That Hazeltine Did Not List)

 In 2000 we used that broken symmetry of the dipole to solve {[v]} another of the most formidable unsolved problems in  electrodynamics that was not on your list but should have been: the long-vexing problem of the source charge.  Quoting Sen {[vi]}:

 "The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics."

 We simply took from quantum electrodynamics the known vacuum's reaction to a so-called "isolated" observable (enduring) source charge in space.  Clusters of virtual (fleeting) charges of opposite sign in the vacuum will surround the source charge, being drawn from the vacuum over all space.  Taking a differential piece  of the observable charge and one of the fleeting virtual charges of opposite sign, we called the two a "composite dipole".  Hence a source charge is the enduring end of a steady, ordered production of fleeting dipoles.  Each of these dipoles, while it exists, has a scalar potential between its ends.  We used Whittaker's well-known decomposition of the scalar potential {[vii]} to show that this "observable-charge assembly" continuously pours out EM energy in all directions in space, producing the associated EM fields and potentials and their energy, over all space.  In short, we established the condition for giant negentropy --- simply produce a charge or a dipole.  Once produced and let alone, that charge or dipole will continuously pour out EM energy in 3-space in all directions, indefinitely.  One must pay to make it, only once, if one does not allow it to be destroyed by the ubiquitous external closed current loop circuit.  Proper reinterpretation {[viii]} of Whittaker's decomposition shows --- surprisingly! --- that all the EM energy in 3-space comes from conversion of EM energy from the time domain {[ix]}.  Very powerful support was obtained from quantum field theory {[x]}.


Now Let's Go After that Missing "Dark Positive Energy" That Makes the Extra Gravity

 The propagation of EM energy through space was discovered independently and simultaneously by Heaviside and by Poynting in the 1880s, after Maxwell was deceased.  Before this discovery, the concept of energy flowing through space did not exist in physics.  Poynting was an academician, and published prestigiously {[xi]}.  Though a brilliant man, Heaviside was self-educated  and never attended university {[xii]}; he published more obscurely at first {[xiii]}, then later more prestigiously {[xiv]}.

 In his theory, from the outset Poynting assumed only that fraction of the EM energy flow outside the conductors that actually gets intercepted and diverged into the conductors to power the circuit.  He considered only what enters the circuit, and totally ignored what remains there but misses the circuit.  On the other hand, Heaviside's theory was more complete, for it included not only Poynting's intercepted, diverged component that enters the circuit and is "used" to power it, but also the remaining non-intercepted, nondiverged component in surrounding space that misses the circuit and is just wasted.  This latter Heaviside nondiverged component of the available energy flow is many orders of magnitude greater than the Poynting diverged component {[xv]}.  Every circuit "misses" far more energy flow than it "intercepts" and collects.

 When we "measure a circuit", we actually measure some energy dissipated from it.  Energy dissipated from the circuit had to first enter it, so our circuit measurements will always agree with the Poynting component and theory, since that is what enters the circuit.  We do not measure the remaining Heaviside component of energy flow that misses the circuit entirely and is wasted.

 Heaviside accounted for the component missing the circuit as well.  But this presented him with a formidable problem: The magnitude of the total energy flow from the terminals of a generator was shockingly large.   Particularly, it was orders of magnitude greater than the mechanical energy that was input to the shaft of the generator --- a very startling discovery in the 1880s.  Joules of energy were handled like "bricks" and anyone suggesting that an electrical device could output more energy than the operator input to it, was considered the epitome of an idiot.  With no academic credentials anyway {[xvi]}, Heaviside dared not speak too openly about the actual magnitudes, lest he be labeled a "perpetual motion nut" and an advocate of violating the energy conservation law.  So he spoke obliquely of the angles the two components made with a reference direction, etc.  Quoting Heaviside {[xvii]}:

 "It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire... .  Prof. Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure from the vertical.  This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current.  The lines of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire.  Their departure from perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken of them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized the great physical importance of the slight departure.  It causes the convergence of energy into the wire."


What Happened to the Huge Heaviside Nondiverged Energy Flow Component?

 H. A. Lorentz, perhaps the greatest electrical scientist of the period, then entered the picture.  He perfectly understood both the Poynting theory and the Heaviside theory, and he specifically understood the startlingly large magnitude of Heaviside's extra energy flow component that misses the circuit.  But he had no explanation at all as to the possible source of such a huge and unexpected energy flow.  To the scientists of the 1880s, there was no such thing as the modern active vacuum, broken symmetry in that active vacuum, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics, etc.   The electron and the atom had not yet been discovered.  So even the great Lorentz dared not champion that inexplicable and enormous nondiverged Heaviside energy flow component, or he too would have been scientifically destroyed.  Contrary to popular opinion, science often does not progress by sweet reason, but by a vicious dogfight with no holds barred {[xviii]}.

 Unable to solve the problem, Lorentz tacitly disposed of it with a neat mathematical trick.  He stated that the nondiverged energy flow component "had no physical significance" (Lorentz's words), since it powered nothing and was not used.  So he integrated the entire energy flow vector around a closed surface assumed around any volume element of interest {[xix]}.  That effectively (and arbitrarily ) discarded the bothersome Heaviside nondiverged energy component, while retaining the diverged Poynting component.  Voila!  Now the retained Poynting energy flow theory and component would agree with all  the circuit measurements.

 To this day, engineers and electrodynamicists still use that same little Lorentz integration trick to unwittingly dispose of far more EM energy than they retain.  The energy is real and it is there; it is just unaccounted.


Erroneous Definitions of EM Field and EM Potential

 The conventional engineering "definitions" of EM field and EM potential are also interesting -- and totally erroneous.  Let us use the EM scalar potential as an example.  The "magnitude of the potential" at a point in space is erroneously defined as the EM energy that is diverged from the potential by a unit point static charge placed there at the point.  This is a non sequitur and substitutes the effect (what results from the interaction and is diverted from the potential, after the interaction occurs) as the cause (the potential without any diversion as it exists before it interacts with the charge).  As a comparison, the magnitude of water that is diverged around a fixed "standard rock" in a river, for example, is certainly not the magnitude of the river!

 The potential and the field have each been defined erroneously as some part of itself that is diverted from it, and not as itself at all {[xx]}.  This is one of the great non sequiturs still propagated in electrodynamics and physics.  And it plays a major role in hiding that missing "dark positive energy" responsible for that observed excess gravity.


Unaccounted Positive Energy: The Solution to the Dark Matter Problem

 We now have the solution to the dark matter problem in hand:  Surrounding every EM field and potential interaction with charge, there exists enormous additional field energy and potential energy that has been arbitrarily and erroneously discarded, and which unwittingly is not accounted.  This has been hidden in the erroneous definition of field and potential.  From every charge and every dipole, there also pours forth at the speed of light a far greater flow of EM energy, forming its associated fields and potentials, than is accounted for in the Poynting theory.  This extra Heaviside "dark positive energy flow" component was just arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz, and it is still unwittingly and arbitrarily discarded by electrodynamicists and astronomers.

 This Heaviside nondiverged energy flow --- discarded by the ubiquitous practice of integrating the energy flow vector around an assumed closed surface --- is the source of the "dark" (unaccounted) EM energy, and  therefore is the source for the excess observed gravity in galaxies.  Further, this solution is testable.  As an example, the Bohren experiment {[xxi]} results in a medium that outputs 18 times as much energy as one inputs.  The conventionally calculated "input" is the Poynting component of the input energy, with the remaining Heaviside component unaccounted --- even though it is there and actually input.  By placing the intercepting charges in resonance, each resonant charge sweeps out a greater geometrical cross section in space than the assumed static charge involved in the field definitions used in the Poynting component.  Hence the resonant charges "sweep out" the Poynting component and on beyond it into the usually non-intercepted Heaviside component.  The resonant charges thus interrupt and collect additional energy --- 18 times as much as the same static charges in the same energy flow input.  The experiment, of course, has been validated by Paul and Fischer {[xxii]} and works every time.

 So in the arms of those distant spiral galaxies, there are many resonant charges interacting with fields and potentials.  These interactions give not only the "Poynting-valued" fields and potentials, but also the "Heaviside-valued" fields and potentials.  The fields that the astronomers recognize and use are the "static charge defined" Poynting energy flow fields.  A great percentage of the fields in violent phenomena are "resonant charge defined" Poynting fields with added Heaviside energy field components.  Even with resonant-defined fields, there still exist additional Heaviside nondiverged energy flow components, and thus even more energy.  So there really does exist enormously far more EM field energy and potential energy in space --- real, positive EM energy --- than has been accounted by the astronomers, using the flawed old conventional electrodynamics theory.

 This excess positive EM energy in space creates excess positive gravity --- holding together the arms of the spiral galaxies and fulfilling the observed movements of large clusters of galaxies.

 In short, this is the unaccounted "dark EM positive energy" solution to the "dark matter" problem.  Further, it is verifiable on the laboratory bench.

 T. E. Bearden, Ph.D.
Magnetic Energy, Ltd.
Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists
Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study

[i].          For example, see T. D. Lee, "Weak Interactions and Nonconservation of Parity," Nobel Lecture, Dec. 11, 1957.  In T. D. Lee, Selected Papers, Gerald Feinberg, Ed., Birkhauser, Boston, 1986, Vol. 1, p. 32-44.

[ii] .         T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, "Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions," Phys. Rev., 104(1), 1956, p. 254-258; ----- "Parity Nonconservation and a Two-Component Theory of the Neutrino," Phys. Rev., 105(5), 1957, p. 1671-1675.

[iii].         T. E. Bearden, "Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum," in Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, edited by M. W. Evans, Wiley, 2001, Part 2, p. 639-698.

[iv].         Half the collected energy in the external circuit is used to destroy the source dipole.  The other half of the collected energy is dissipated in the external circuit losses and the load.  Hence more of the collected energy is dissipated in destroying the source dipole than is dissipated in powering the load.  For that reason, the common closed current loop circuit yields systems that destroy their dipolar source of vacuum energy faster than they power their loads.  That is really not a very good way to build an electrical power system!

[v].         T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proc. Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98.  Also published in J. New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23.  Also carried on DoE restricted website and  on

[vi].         D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.

[vii].        E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,” Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.

[viii].            Bearden, in ref. {3}, p. 647-648.

[ix].         How the charge transduces EM energy input from the time axis into energy output in 3-space, is given in {3) above, p. 650-651.

[x] .        F. Mandl and G. Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Wiley, 1984, Chapter 5.

[xi].         J. H. Poynting, “On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 175, Part II, 1885, p. 343-361.

[xii].        A good biography of Heaviside is given by Paul Nahin, Oliver Heaviside: Sage in Solitude, IEEE Press, New York, 1987.

[xiii].       Oliver Heaviside, "Electromagnetic Induction and Its Propagation," The Electrician, 1885, 1886, 1887, and later. A series of 47 sections, published section by section in numerous issues.

[xiv].       Oliver Heaviside,  Electrical Papers, 1887; ----- Electromagnetic Theory, 3 vols., Benn, London, 1893-1912, second reprint 1925; ----- "On the Forces, Stresses, and Fluxes of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., 183A, 1893, p. 423-480.

[xv].        See T. E., “Energy Flow, Collection, and Dissipation in Overunity EM Devices,” Proc. 4th Internat. Energy Conf., Academy for New Energy, Denver, CO, May 23-27, 1997, p. 5-51.  In Figure 5, p. 16 the Heaviside component that misses a nominal circuit and is nondiverged and wasted, is calculated to be about 1013 times as great in magnitude as is the Poynting component that is intercepted and diverged into the circuit to power it.

[xvi] .      See Ref. {12}.  Heaviside was later awarded an honorary doctorate because of his brilliant contributions to electromagnetism. It is Heaviside's curtailment of Maxwell's theory, as further symmetrically regauged and curtailed by Lorentz, that is taught in universities as "Maxwell's equations".

[xvii].      Oliver Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94.

[xviii].            Unfortunately the history of science is replete with hundreds of examples of ruthless suppression of scientists who departed too far from the prevailing interpretation and dogma.  Mayer, discoverer of the modern form of the law of conservation of energy, was so strongly attacked that he contemplated suicide and suffered a nervous breakdown.  Later, his work was accepted and he was lionized toward the end of his life.  Wegener, discoverer of continental drift, was severely suppressed, and his very name was used as a synonym for "utter fool".  Respected physicists at Columbia predicted to Charles Townes that the maser would never work.  The first laser paper was soundly rejected by the journal to which it was submitted.   Ovshinsky, discoverer of the amorphous semiconductor, was called a charlatan --- the scientific community accepted amorphous semiconductors only after the Japanese funded Ovshinsky and he placed the semiconductors in thousands of copy machines.  Scientific suppression of new ideas and new discoveries has been so bad for so long that Max Planck, at the time one of the leading physicists of the world, stated: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul.  What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." [Max Planck, in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.]

[xix].       To see an example of Lorentz's use of this trick, see H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, "Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186.  Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element.

[xx].        At best, the common definition is an indicator of the local intensity of the potential at that point, as a good electrodynamicists knows.

[xxi].       Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?"  Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327.

[xxii].      H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327.