The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Subject: RE: The circulation in 4-space
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:11:01 -0600


Dear Karsten,


Yes, the standard assumption is that the positive charge is a source of observable energy flux or flow.


That is purely an assumption.  Started way back when Benjamin Franklin guessed that the current flowing in a circuit was positive.  Hence we still have the crazy thing that much of electrical engineering still treats "positive current" flow by assumption!  Of course you get the right answer if the entire model is made to fit.  But in electronics, often we have to use the electron flow, and so there exist two ways of modeling and looking at the standard circuits.


Charge in electrodynamics (and physics) has been completely undefined.


One has to look in more advanced models (other than classical EM) such as quantum electrodynamics, particle physics (some very good and advanced EM developed there) and quantum field theory.  As we explained, there is no such thing as an "isolated charge" anyway, in the sense modeled by classical EM.  Instead, the observable charge is clustered around with virtual charges of opposite sign. Indeed, the "shielding" effect of the clustering opposite charges is taken into account in the standard value of charge put into the handbooks.  The "bare" charge in some ways winds up being an infinity (that's when treated as a unit point charge, e.g.).  The physicists actually subtract the infinite clustering charge from the infinite bare charge and get the finite handbook value.


So charge is far more complicated that the 137-year-old classical EM theory and electrical engineering treat it.


Also, no real foundation problem can be solved as long as one believes that an observable travels continuously through space in "propagating".  That non sequitur alone will defeat every attempt to gain a concrete definition of charge, time, energy, force, etc.  Read Feynman; he bluntly tells even the sophomores that we really have no definition for force or for energy.


Here is a proposed definition for charge, that at least meets all the criteria that I use in my own work (including COP>1.0 systems).


charge.       Charge is the ongoing circulation of EM energy flow between the time and 3-space domains, as "seen" by the observer.  Negative charge is (i) the ongoing absorption, by a mass particle, of EM energy input from the time domain (from ict), (ii) transduction of the absorbed energy into 3-space EM energy, and (iii) re-emission of the EM energy in all directions in 3-space.  Positive charge is (i) the ongoing absorption, by a mass particle, of EM energy input from 3-space, (ii) transduction of the absorbed energy into the time domain, and (iii) re-emission of the EM energy in the time domain.  Time reversal of EM energy can be seen to result from the combined broken symmetries of EM energy flow (in 4-space) between time and 3-space, of two opposite charges and thus of dipolarity itself.  See paragraph 3.1 of Chapter 3.


Now let us annihilate the usual notion of charge.  The Nobel Prize was awarded in 1957 to Lee and Yang for their prediction of broken symmetry.  Wu et al. proved it experimentally in early 1957, and that was so profound a change to all of physics that the Nobel Prize was awarded to Lee and Yang in December of that very same year.


One of those broken symmetries --- long proven; one does not have to reprove it --- is the broken symmetry of opposite charges, as on the ends of a dipole.  Rigorously, in particle physics terminology this means that every dipole and dipolarity is receiving and absorbing virtual photon energy from the vacuum, transducing it (coherently integrating it, most probably by the spins of the observable charged particles) into observable energy, and radiating that observable EM energy outward in all directions.  So the conservation of energy law for a dipole has to be applied between the virtual state and the observable state!


Now look at the conventional "observable energy flow" assumed for the positive charge as a gushing source (with absolutely no statement of what furnishes this energy TO the positive charge) and the negative charge as a sink (with absolutely no statement of where this energy flow goes when it disappears into the negative charge.


You see the point.  That's about as gross a set of violations of energy conservation as one can imagine.  Even in a flat spacetime (leaving the frame alone).


So either one solves that problem, to explain the fields and the potentials from that dipole, reaching across the universe, or one accepts the total death of the law of conservation of energy.  In conventional classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering, the problem has not been solved.  So all our universities -- sorry, but it's true -- assume that the source charge (in this case, the positive charge as they see it) freely and continuously creates all that EM energy from nothing.  And the universities also assume that the negative charge -- as they see it -- continuously destroys EM energy and converts it to nothing.


By considering not only the "isolated" charge but its virtual charge clusters of opposite sign, the charge (either positive or negative) becomes a set of composite dipoles.  Each of these dipoles has a scalar potential between its ends, and that potential decomposes via E.T. Whittaker's 1903 paper.   But we still have a problem.  Whittaker gave us longitudinal EM waves going in each direction.  Well, there's a problem.  The longitudinal EM photon (and wave) is nonobservable (check out quantum field theory).  So suddenly the standard model, even with Whittaker's decomposition, falls apart.  We can prove the energy is observable, by simply intercepting it with charges.


Also, Whittaker (and all classical electrodynamicists until quite recently) continue to confuse effect with cause.  We explained that elsewhere; it's true.  There can be no such thing as "movement in 3-space" since to "move" requires movement in 4-space.  Observation is a d/dt operator applied to an ongoing NONOBSERVED 4-process.  So it gives d/dt(LLLT) => LLL.  And that LLL is a single frozen 3-space snapshot at a single instant of time.  NO MOVEMENT!  NO CHANGE!  NO PROPAGATION.  A priori, no observable (which is 3-spatial by first principles) continuously exists.  Instead, it continually recurs as a continual result (effect) of the continually applied observation d/dt operator.


We "see" motion through space by a series of such d/dt snapshots, much as the rapidly occurring frames of a motion picture film.  Several foundations of physics books and papers talk all around this, and do not come to grips with it or solve it.  Even Romer,  the former editor of Am. J. Phys., castigated the standard "illustration" of a so-called EM wave in 3-space.  Here is the exact quotation: "…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."


Anyway, we explain all this elsewhere, so will not repeat the explanation. We will just leave it to you to consider those things.  The challenge is to find a solution that is consistent with particle physics and broken symmetry, Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential (as reinterpreted to give cause and effect rather than two effects), instrumental measurement, and the fact that neither time-polarized nor longitudinal EM waves and photons are observable but the combination of the two is observable (as the scalar potential).


Take your own solution (the conventional one), e.g., and try to fit it to Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, 1984, Chap. 5 and to the broken symmetry of opposite charges (not a single charge).  If the virtual state is not in your model (and it isn't), then your model is incomplete and still very much behind modern physics discoveries.  And then make it consistent with quantum mechanics, where all observables are 3-spatial, hence that ongoing 4-process is nonobservable.  The "Cause" of observation is nonobservable a priori, since it exists prior to the effect (prior to observation outputting the observable, which is the effect).


Best wishes and please hang in there and keep thinking -- but outside that single classical EM model!  Get into quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, etc.  The classical model you are citing from, does not even model the local active vacuum and its exchange, or the local curvatures of spacetime and their exchange back on the EM system. Hence that model absolutely discards the "active environment" of the EM system, insofar as any net interaction from it occurs.


Hence that model absolutely cannot solve the charge problem, since it cannot answer where the energy returns to (that missing environment) or from whence it came (that same missing environment) in the first place.


Either one has a circulation between environment and system and back, or one violates the entire conservation of energy law.


Tom Bearden

Subject: The circulation in 4-space
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:56:54 +0100

To Dr. Bearden
From Karsten
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Aalborg University
Dear Dr. Bearden
First of all let me thank you for your generosity in sharing your knowledge and experience so freely through this website. I find that the ideas you put forward are very inspiring.
I have a comment regarding your ideas about circulation in 4-space.
If I understand you correctly you state that virtual (non-observable) energy is flowing into the negative pole of a dipole, where it is transduced (integrated) into observable (3-spatial) energy. At the positive pole observable energy is transduced (differentiated) into virtual energy. What is spreading in 3-space at the speed of light is the interaction between the poles, due to this 4-flow.
What is your definition of af negative or positive charge?
My own understanding is that a positive charge is a source (from an an observers point of view) and a negative charge is a sink. This definition follows from a model, where a gradient exists from positive to negative and the direction of the flow is from positive to negative. >From this definition it follows that the positive charge is transducing non-observable energy into observable energy and the negative charge is transducing observable energy into non-observable energy in a 4-flow where the direction of the current is from positive to negative.
Such a 4-flow can be illustrated by a simple analogy. Given a water source at the top of a mountain, flowing down along the mountain side into a pond in the valley, there is a potential gradient from the mountain top to the valley due to the gravitational acceleration. For an observer situated above the ground the source is the positive pole and the pond in the valley is the negative pole or the sink. At the same time a pressure gradient exists along which the water is elevated from ground level to the mountain top in the first place. This gradient is not observable from above ground, but it can be inferred from the fact that water is flowing freely from the source. Thus it can be stated that the source is a virtual (non-observable) sink. At the same time water is flowing from the pond and eventually dissipated into the ocean. If the observer can only observe the interaction between the source and the sink, the pond is to him a virtual (non-observable) source.
In the setting of vacuum/observable-space interaction the pressure gradient corresponds to space-time curvature. The flat space-time limit (which according to the Sachs theory is an asymptotic limit that can never be reached in a practical situation) is the ultimate source, being a pure field-free potential, whereas a point in space-time with infinite curvature (if such a thing was possible) would be the ultimate sink.
From this reasoning it follows that the charge is only defined as being negative or positive relative to a given observer and relative to the average curvature in his reference frame. A point with less curvature will be observed as a positive charge, whereas a point with more curvature will be observed as negative charge. To observers in different reference frames the same charges could be observed with opposite signs.
Of course, if the material flow component is an electron the flow direction is reversed.
I apologize if my comments are based on improper understanding, but I think a precise definition in these matters is necessary if dubious statements are to be avoided.
With kind regards