The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Subject: RE: Phase conjugate replica waves
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 12:33:05 -0600


It is not in the 1904 paper.


It is in the 1903 paper.  Also, one must reinterpret the phase conjugate wave in general.  This has to do with the universal substitution of the effect for the cause in physics, which is the greatest problem in all physics.


E.g., in mechanics the notion of a separate force acting upon a separate mass is completely false.  Easy to show: Force may be defined (with the identity symbol, not with the = symbol which is a mere equation and defines nothing) as d/dt(mv).  So mass is a component of force, not something separate.  Check out Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 1975.  He has to waffle all over the map and finally states that most electrodynamicists believe the electromagnetic field exists as such in vacuum, but is force free.  That is false.  What causally exists in spacetime, prior to observation, is 4 dimensional.  The observation process (which we can also explain) applies a d/dt operator upon LLLT, yielding an LLL output (effect, observation).  The causal "entity" (which a priori must exist prior to the interaction) is the LLLT ongoing 4-process.  Observation produces a 3-space "observable" which is a single frozen 3-space snapshot at a single instant.  It doesn't even exist at the next instant, where a new observation d/dt operator has been applied.


All observables are 3-spatial, as is well-known.  No observable can exist continuously in time.  That  is the major flaw in physics, in still hanging on to the hoary old 400 year old notion that an observable continuously exist. It does not and cannot.  Instead, an observable continuously recurs, at an incredible rate, due to the sum total of all photon interactions with the previous observable or "state" to move to the next.


When the founders of electrodynamics laid out their models, there were less than 3 dozen around the world.  All believed in the ubiquitous material ether.  They thought that there was not a single point in all the universe where mass was absent, because the material ether was there.  Hence to them the "field" in space was a real forcefield in matter --- in the material ether. So they (including Maxwell) wrote a material fluid flow theory.


When the Michelson-Morley experiments of the 1880s finally falsified the material ether (they did not falsify an ether per se, as Dirac pointed out, but just a material one), every Maxwellian equation for the material ether space was then falsified and also wrong.  But special and general relativity had not yet been born, the electron and atom had not been discovered, and most of particle physics was yet unborn.  So one day they just sorta announced, "Well, since there is no ether, we are not using one!"


Feynman and Wheeler dealt with this; Feynman pointed out that the EM field as such does not and cannot exist in mass-free space.  Instead, as he put it, the "potential" for the EM field exists there, IF a charge should be brought in and interact.


In other words, the effect (the Maxwellian force field) does not yet exist in a reaction-free space containing a 4-space causal nonmaterial field.  AFTER the reaction (the observation), then the Maxwellian force field exists, because it is an effect and the effect now exists.


So electrodynamicists, in persisting with the SAME FIELD in the same form exists both in mass and out of mass, except with force arbitrarily declared zero when mass is not present, is the grossest non sequitur in all of electrodynamics.


That this mess continues to be defended and taught to all our electrical engineers, decades after Nobel Prize winners and great physicists have pointed it out, is inexplicable.  It clearly shows how ingrained the "accepted models" and the dogma are.


Nowadays the trend is to defend the dogma (the current models) and viciously attack and destroy the experimental scientists who produce experiments falsifying the prevailing model.  This is most ironic, since -- as Evans puts it -- no amount of theory can falsify a single replicable experiment, but any theory can be falsified with a single replicable experiment.


That used to be known as scientific method --- ultimately the experiment is king.


The place to really see the time-polarized photons and their relation with longitudinal photons, and with observation and non observation, is in quantum field theory.  E.g., Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, 1984, Chapter 5.  Neither the time-polarized photon nor the longitudinal photon is individually observable.  Yet their combination is observable as the instantaneous scalar potential.  Now switch to the language of waves.  This means that the scalar potential is comprised --- in Whittaker's 1903 biwave pairs -- of "coupled" time-polarized EM wave/longitudinal EM wave pairs.  In short, Whittaker unwittingly interpreted both waves "after being observed or interacted", which means he used two effect waves, not a cause and effect waves.  This is wrong; one cannot have an effect without a cause and an interaction to produce the effect.


But the confusion of cause and effect in electrodynamics has resulted in the eerie fact that no electrodynamicist has previously solved the single most difficult problem in quantal and classical electrodynamics:  The problem of the source charge and its associated fields and potentials and all that energy in them, reaching across all space.


All EM energy in an EM circuit comes from those source charges, a priori -- even in the conventional U(1) view.  Hence if one does not understand where the energy input to the source charge -- to produce its steady outpouring of EM energy at the speed of light in all directions -- comes from, one accepts the energy outpouring (the output) as an effect without a cause. Hence one has accepted the "creation of energy from nothing" -- indeed, that all EM energy in the universe is created from nothing.  In short, one has accepted the absolute destruction of the conservation of energy law.


So either the conventional electrical engineers and electrodynamicists are the biggest perpetual motion advocates in history, or they must find an explanation of the source charge problem.


Further, if one does not understand where the energy to the source charge comes from, then one has no understanding at all about what powers any electromagnetic circuit.


That is precisely the situation today.  There is no textbook and there never has been one, which explains what powers and electromagnetic circuit.  There is no electrical engineering department or professor, or student, or electrical engineer, and there never has been one, that teaches what powers an electrical circuit.


In short, as to where the EM energy actually comes from, in all electrical engineering and power science, there is a great and resounding silence and ignorance.


This is extraordinarily odd, since the basis for the answer has been in particle physics for more than 40 years.


It would be exceedingly nice if those who so confidently state that energy cannot be usefully extracted from the vacuum, would simply read (and understand) what broken symmetry is (which Lee and Yang strongly predicted in 1956, Wu et al. experimentally demonstrated in 1957, and for which a Nobel Prize was awarded to Lee and Yang in that very same year, 1957).


One of those "broken symmetries" of physics -- now proven, and one does not have to reprove it to any skeptic who simply has not read the literature -- is the broken symmetry of opposite charges, such as on the ends of any dipole or involved in any dipolarity (potential).  Hence once the dipole between the terminals of the generator is made, the shaft horsepower does nothing further.  It does not add a single watt to the external circuit, and never has.  Instead, unless we wish to revoke the Nobel Prize and broken symmetry, that dipole now continuously absorbs VIRTUAL photon energy from the vacuum, and continuously re-emits it as OBSERVABLE EM energy in all directions.


So the vacuum powers every circuit ever built.  And most of science has egg all over its face, because most still proclaim that "you cannot extract useful EM energy from the vacuum!)


We simply need to think more deeply about it -- and unleash some of those sharp young grad students and post-docs on the problem.  If we did, the energy crisis would be totally solved, permanently, within two years.


So when will we have a National Science Foundation or a National Academy of Sciences that advises the Department of Energy and the Administration of such things?  Not in my lifetime.  They are far too committed to the status quo. They simply will not fund any work at all on the single most fundamental electrical problem: What powers an external electrical circuit or the power grid, once the source dipole is made in the generator?


And they will not fund the second most fundamental problem: What in our circuits self-enforces that treacherous Lorentz symmetrical regauging universally applied by electrical engineers to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations?


Unfortunately, electrical engineers have not yet recognized that the Lorentz regauging arbitrarily assumes that excess potential energy has been added to every circuit now in the equations, twice.  However, one has arbitrarily selected only those cases where the energy was added in such manner that the two free force fields produced were equal and opposite.  Contrary to the electrical engineer's beloved "cancellation" of a resultant zero vector system, that system is a real, present, energetic system.  But the energy is bottled up as a stress potential, with net zero force field.  This means that the EXCESS energy received from the external vacuum and added to the system, freely (by the gauge freedom principle in quantum field theory), cannot and will not be dissipated only in an external load.


So the solution to the energy crisis has not even been recognized.  It is not being worked on by any university, any major national laboratory, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, or the Department of Energy.


It would be very nice if it were being worked on.  And it would be nice if we finally -- after more than a century -- began to teach in our universities what actually powers every EM circuit and system.


Best wishes,


Tom Bearden


P.S.  Incidentally, one also needs to recognize that the Lorentz regauging arbitrarily rotates the frame of the system, away from the laboratory frame.  The dissipation of half the excess energy in the source dipole, and the other half in the external circuit's loads and losses, is a re-rotation of the system back to the lab frame.


Also, anytime the energy density of the local system is changed, that means a change in the energy density of the local vacuum. That is a curvature of spacetime, a priori -- totally violating the assumption in classical EM and electrical engineering of a flat spacetime and an inert vacuum.


When one discards both the local active vacuum effects and the local curvature of spacetime effects in one's system analysis (as with the Lorentz symmetrical regauging), then one has effectively assumed no net energy effects from the system's external local environment.


So our electrical power engineers have been taught to design systems that self-defeat any attempt to get net useful work out of the ongoing vacuum and curved spacetime environments.   In effect, they have placed all their electrical windmills in a closed barn, so the free electrical winds cannot get to them and do any free work in the load.



Subject: Phase conjugate replica waves
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 04:00:56 -0600

Dear Tom,

I fail to see where the existence of the phase conjugate replica wave is
shown in Whittaker's 1904 paper.

I have only skimmed his 1903 paper.  I admit that I should read and
understand it completely before sending this e-mail.  But I've studied his
1904 paper inside and out, and know it very well (it took me quite some
time, and I don't want to tackle the other one until I know this one
completely!).  If it's something I'm missing, then please point it out.  If
it's in his 1903 paper, then please let me know.

(When I refer to the 1903 and 1904 papers, I'm referring to the ones you
usually reference that he wrote in those years).

By the way, I've started development on a graphical computer simulation of
the scalar potentials described in his 1904 paper.  It will support circuits
of arbitrary geometry with arbitrary electron velocity functions.  It will
support multiple, independent circuits which can interact.  In this first
version, the conductor of the circuit will have a cross-sectional area of 0
(i.e. electrons move single-file) to simplify the integration.  However, the
free electron density per unit of length can still be set, so it can
simulate particular gauges of different wire materials.  A future version
will model the wire with the actual cross-sectional area.  A still future
version will model free volumes of electrons.

I'm shooting for a real-time simulation.  I'm not quite sure yet how my
Athlon 700 MHz is going to handle a double precision evaluation of an
integral at a bunch of points.  I may have to switch to single precision.
Even then, this may become an offline simulation that will produce real-time
animations that can be viewed with a viewer program.  That would work fine,
but it would require a lot more work on my part.

I don't know if such a simulation has been done before.  After the initial
development and toying with it, I intend to extend it to solve certain
complex problems involving scalar waves like time-reversal (which is why I
need to understand the phase-conjugate part).  It may also be a good way to
explore phenomenoligies without spending a bunch of money :-).

I'm not sure how user-friendly I should make this thing.  If you think it
might be of use as a learning tool, then let me know, and I'll put some
user-friendliness in.  I know that I'm certainly still learning, and the
development of this tool is a learning experience in its own right.

Thank you.