The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Subject: RE: 4-Symmetry
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:01:35 -0600


Dear Jason,


No, from ANY positive charge in the universe to any negative charge in the universe, there is a field and a broken symmetry in the vacuum interchange.  What spreads out from the dipole one makes, e.g., is just that circulation.  The CIRCULATION is what spreads at the speed of light, the moment you make a dipole or charge (set of composite dipoles).


The question is also a bit more complex.  Think for a moment:  Although we have all been taught to think that "things move in 3-space" as being an obvious universal truth, that is an utter impossibility!  What exists is 4-space, before observation.  "Observation" is a d/dt operator imposed upon an ongoing 4-space process, yielding an instantaneous frozen 3-space snapshot by d/dt(LLLT) => LLL.


The problem is that change itself is a violation of Aristotelian logic, which we imbibed with our mother's milk, so to speak.  Unfortunately, Aristotelian logic "eats itself" and is incomplete.  The age-old problem of change, e.g, is an example.  Heraclitus said it this way:  "For a thing to change, it must turn into something else.  But how can a thing be itself and something else also?"  That problem has not been solved, either in philosophy or physics --- in physics, it's the old "wave-particle duality" problem that they debated furiously until they finally realized they were getting nowhere and were not going to get anywhere.  So they just left it as "Well, it's somehow both a wave and a particle and neither just a wave or just a particle, before it is observed.  Depending upon the conditions of observation/measurement, it will be observed as either a wave, as a particle, or as a mix of both."  And they called that the "duality principle" and shook hands and quit arguing.


For the same reason, the philosophers never solves their own fundamental problems (nature of being, nature of time, nature of mind, nature of existence, etc.).  Instead, they split into "schools" each of which had a "position", usually very smoothly and elegantly worded.  In short, they substituted "truth according to authority or position".  And all the positions differed.  Still do.


In physics, we do not know what force, mass, time, charge, and length really are.  No one does.  And no definition of any of these, in any dictionary of physics, is correct or even adequate.  For such questions, to see the thinking and positions and notions, one will have to read the literature of foundations of physics.  Here are some very good ones, e.g.:


  1. Robert Bruce Lindsay, “The concept of energy and its early historical development,” Foundations of Physics, 1(4), 1971, p. 383-393.  Investigates the concept of energy from its early historical origin, from ancient times through the 18th century.  Points out that the heart of the concept of energy is the notion of  invariance in the midst of change.  Hey!  There we have that accursed "identity of opposites" again.  Ultimately everything when pursued far enough turns into its own opposite.
  2. Robert Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau, Foundations of Physics, Dover, NY, 1963, p. 283.  Emphasizes that a “field of force” at any point is actually defined only for the case when a unit mass is present at that point.  Note also: p. 217: When a system departs from equilibrium conditions, its entropy must decrease.  Thus the energy of an open system not in equilibrium must always be greater than the energy of the same system when it is closed or in equilibrium, since the equilibrium state is the state of maximum entropy.
  3. Whittaker, E. T., A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, London, 1958.
  4. Jammer, Max, Concepts of Mass, in Classical and Modern Physics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1961.
  5. Jammer, Max, Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics., 2nd Edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969.
  6. Jammer, Max, Concepts of Force.  Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1957.
  7. Michael J. Crowe, A History of Vector Analysis, Dover, New York, 1985.


And many others, of course.


For anything to "move" in 3-space, it must use some time in moving.  Hence it actually moves in 4-space.  More exactly, it is perceived to have changed position in space between two or more 3-space frozen snapshots.  If there is absolutely no time, anything in that 3-space (frozen instantaneous snapshot of the universe) is fixed and does not move at all, but is just a single frozen snapshot (3-spatial) at one instant.


We mentally perceive movement in 3-space by a process very similar to how we perceive "motion" in a so-called motion picture.  The actual film (observations) is just a series of frozen instantaneous snapshots.  At any one instant, there is only a single frozen frame on the screen (in this case, further passing onto the screen of the observer's mind).  The mind continually recalls the past (particularly the immediate past), and compares the "now" snapshot with the "then" snapshot just before.  Nonetheless, since we continually recall past snapshots and compare, we "remember" any change and therefore "see" movement (actually seeing continual different positions, and comparing them in the mind).


It is the very notion of "movement of an object through 3-space" that is massively in error in physics, right across the board. E.g., for this very reason, the common "illustration" of the EM wave in 3-space, used in all elementary texts, is just flat wrong and is in fact a terrible thing that confuses the dickens out of most students and professors.  For a succinct statement of this, here is what the previous Editor of American Journal of Physics has to say about that stupid diagram:


In an article, Robert H. Romer, "Heat is not a noun," American Journal of Physics, 69(2), Feb. 2001, p. 107-109, in endnote 24, p. 109, Dr. Romer takes to task "…that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. …it is a horrible diagram.  'Misleading' would be too kind a word; 'wrong' is more accurate."  "…perhaps then, for historical interest, [we should] find out how that diagram came to contaminate our literature in the first place."

Very few professors in university make their students aware that there exists a literature dealing with the foundations of physics, or that there are very serious problems in physics itself.  Physics theory is a set of models, not a set of absolutes.  There is no definition of charge, energy, or force, e.g.   There is no such thing as a separate force acting upon a separate mass, as taught in mechanics.  One easily sees that mass is a component of force, from F => d/dt(mv), where I use the => as meaning "is identically".


The EM field in mass-free space is a quite different beast from the EM field in matter!  Yet nowhere in Maxwell-Heaviside EM does that difference appear, because the Maxwellians all believed in a material ether.  To them, there was no single point in the entire universe where observable mass was absent. Today we know that is false (shown by the Michelson-Morley experiments in the 1880s).  But the equations still assume that same material ether, by assuming that E(vacuum) is identical to E(mass medium).  That is totally untrue.  Higher group symmetry electrodynamics such as O(3), is beginning to identify the E-field in mass free space in a general relativity fashion: as a curvature of spacetime, and dynamics of that curvature.


So things do not move in 3-space.  Things moves in 4-space, and we take continual "frozen 3-space snapshots" of it.


Hence the entire notion of an "EM wave in 3-space" is a non sequitur.


No observable "exists in time!"  No observable (such as mass) continuously persists in time, or even in 3-space.  To overcome the notion of the concreteness of mass, one needs to read -- e.g. -- Max Jammer.  By definition (quantum mechanics), observation is 3-spatial;  it is that d/dt operator imposed on an ongoing 4-space process, at one single point in time.  So instead of an observable "existing" (implied, continuously in time), it continually reappears in 3-space, as time passes.  We may say that appears continually, but does not exist continuously.


The real debate (and it is still ongoing and unsolved) is how to deal with that situation.  Do we say that it really does continuously exist in 4-space, as a continuous dynamic process, and that the discontinuities are an artificial anachronism of the peculiar differentiating process used for observation?  Or do we say that observably it does not continually exist?  Or are they both true somehow, and just different sides of the same coin -- analogous to the wave-particle duality principle?  After all, a wave has to exist in time, else it is not "waving". A particle, however, is an observable and hence a 3-space object.  And so on.  Again, this is the old "accursed necessity for the identity of opposites" that so defeated the philosophers (because it defeats Aristotelian logic, in that the law that "A or not-A" is somehow violated and not violated at the same time, so that we must somehow understand how "A or not-A" is identical to "A and not-A" simultaneously.  I can give an analogy of a black marble and a dark red marble.  To a color-blind observer, he cannot distinguish any difference between the red and black marble, hence they are "identical" if by identical we mean "indistinguishable".  On the other hand, they are easily distinguished by an observer with color vision.  I used this sort of thing to take a position that identity was not absolute, at least "observed identity" wasn't, but a condition of the observation process.  Change the process, and two things that are identical need no longer be identical.  At least this agreed with the duality notion of physics, and it also allowed a five-law logic as an extension of Aristotelian logic, which became very valuable in that many otherwise intractable problems suddenly became tractable.


As you can see, much of physics still needs a very dramatic overhaul.  Sadly, the very ones who should be insisting on this great revision and overhaul, and funding it, are the ones who would not touch it with a 10-foot pole: the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Science.


Meanwhile, we struggle with many little notions that we "imbibed with our mother's milk", to quote Einstein, and which are just not true.  He said it beautifully, as follows:


"...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. 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, "Foreword," in Max Jammer, Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969, p. xi-xii.] 


So "movement through space" and "3-space propagation" etc. are concepts that are seriously flawed -- and desperately need revision.  You can have change of 3-space position in 4-space, but not in 3-space alone.

Hope this helps a bit.


Tom Bearden

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 22:08:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Jason P
Subject: 4-Symmetry

Dear Dr. Bearden,

In a previous correspondence, Dec. 25, you elaborated on a proposed
mechanism for how time domain energy changes form to 3-space EM energy by way of the interaction between an observable negative charge and the surrounding cluster of virtual positive charges. 

Although your answer was especially helpful to my understanding, I don't
think you got to the heart of Trond's question of how a dipole radiates
net EM energy into 3-space from the time-domain considering your
assertion that 3-space EM energy is transformed back to the time domain
via the observable positive charge in the dipole.  I also wondered, at
first, why 100% of the 3-space EM energy radiating from the negative
charge would not get immediately changed back to the time domain by
way of the observable positive charge.

Would you agree with the view that as the observable negative charge
radiates this real EM energy in all directions, only that incident
radiation in the direction of the positive charge gets converted back
to the time domain, therefore resulting in a net conversion of time
energy into real 3-space energy??

One final question - I'm very interested in continuing my education and
was hoping you could point me in the direction of a university where they
teach higher group symmetry electrodynamics.  Any suggestions? :)

Thanks for all that you have given to us and I wish you luck in your
continued recovery.

Best regards,

J. P.