The Tom Bearden Website Help support the research

 Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:40 PM   Hi Marcia,   Keep learning more about the thermo, particularly since uncovering Michael Leyton's work.  So it's been learn, revise, learn, revise, etc.  Dog labor in a way, but making much progress.  Here's a little summary. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition to the second law of thermodynamics being terribly flawed (it's an oxymoron implicitly assuming its own contradiction has first occurred), there is also a fundamental error in thermodynamics in the formulation of the first law.  There the thermodynamicists equate energy to work, which is false.  Rigorously, work is the changing of the form of energy, not the changing of the magnitude of energy in a given form.  In the first law, it is assumed that a change in the magnitude of an external parameter  (in an EM system, e.g., some external parameters are the scalar potential and the field) is work.  That is flatly false.  E.g., it would exclude gauge freedom, which assumes the ability to freely change the potential and thus the potential energy of a system, without doing any work.  The second law then really states that, if you have a system performing work (changing the form of some energy), the energy that is going to be changed in form has to be input to even be there and available for changing!  Stated that way, the second law is correct; in its present form, it is incorrect.   Energy cannot logically be equated to a change in form of energy!  So physics errs completely when it assumes both energy and work are in units of the joule.  Rigorously, energy is in joules, and work has to be in the CHANGE OF FORM of joules of type one energy into joules of type two energy.  The two things --- joules and change of form of joules --- are not the same thing at all.  Adding "joules" and "change of form of joules" into a sum and calling it joules is a non sequitur.   So we have found appreciable errors in the present thermodynamics.  Fortunately, we have also run across the astounding work of Professor Michael Leyton.   Here are some rough but startling and revolutionary things that come out of my initial review of  Leyton's rigorous new group theoretic methods establishing hierarchies of symmetry.  In my opinion his work is going to initiate the next great revolution in physics, almost certainly, as profound as was the discovery of broken symmetry with Nobel Prize awarded to Lee and Yang in 1957.   1.       With the Leyton effect, a broken symmetry at one level now also GENERATES a new symmetry at the next higher level, as well as "infolding" all the lower symmetries and broken symmetries.  The present group theoretic methods used since the prediction and discovery of broken symmetry in 1957 generate only the LOWER level symmetry. They do not generate a higher reordering and higher symmetry.  Hence the present symmetry theory wrongly excludes nature's fundamental negative entropy mechanism, the direct generation (from disorder at one level) of order at the next higher level. This work by Leyton totally destroys the present second law of thermodynamics, which of course has been falsified experimentally to quite a significant degree already (to cubic micron in size, and for up to two seconds in duration, based on statistical fluctuation alone).  My solution to the source charge problem (which Leyton's work beautifully fits and GENERATES) also falsifies the second law totally, because it includes the negentropy.   2.       This work by Leyton also resolves the present greatest problem in all of thermodynamics: Its asymmetry.  In other words, for a century it has been severely puzzling that, if entropy can only remain the same or increase in progressive interactions, then how in the dickens did the entropy ever get so low in the first place, to provide the initial order?  In other words, if one puts it bluntly, the presently accepted second law of thermodynamics is an oxymoron, implicitly assuming its own contradiction has first occurred to provide the initial controlled order that is supposed to either remain the same or be progressively disordered and decontrolled. Now for the very first time we have the answer, rigorously, with rigorous group theoretic methods establishing it.   3.       This work by Leyton also solves what is perhaps the greatest problem in modern physics today: the problem that, with the uncovering of new broken symmetries, puzzlingly there also do appear new symmetries at higher levels.  As Weinberg points out, this problem has been driving much of the particle physics work for some years.  There has previously been utterly no theoretical justification for that appearance of new higher symmetry (a priori a negative entropy operation of consuming positive entropy at the lower level to form negative entropy and order at the higher level), since negative entropy was prohibited except for short statistical fluctuations as "temporary little flukes".  Now there is a rigorous, continuous process, guaranteed mathematically, repeatedly from one level to another.  So what is perhaps the greatest problem in particle physics today is also solved by Michael Leyton's work.   4.       Note that D. K. Evans and Rondoni were startled to find that a NESS (nonequilibrium steady state) system theoretically could produce negative entropy, and this negative entropy could increase more negatively toward negative infinity as time passes.  They were rather startled at such results, and felt that no real physical system could exhibit such a Gibbs entropy.  However, being careful scientists, they also pointed out that "the problem remained" for deterministic dissipative systems.  I noticed that the source charge is indeed such a dissipative system (emits observable photons in all directions continuously), and the resulting macroscopic fields comprised of those emitted photons are deterministic (ordered, hence a Leyton effect has been evoked) as a function of radius, to any size level desired and for any time duration desired. Hence that production of negative entropy accomplished by every source charge completely destroys the present second law of thermodynamics.  I've already written the formal resolution of the second law, by changing it so the new form is consistent with experiment and known violations of the present second law formulation.  The new statement is also consistent with Leyton's effect of hierarchies of symmetries, and in fact Leyton's work can be taken to predict that revised form of the second law.   5.       I also found a flaw in the first law.  Presently the first law defines the change of magnitude of an external parameter as work, and that is false for electrodynamics.  The change of MAGNITUDE of potential energy in a given form, is just regauging and is freely permitted by gauge freedom.  It is only the change of FORM of the energy that constitutes work.  So the present first law is flawed, and it too must be revised --- as presently stated, it specifically excludes gauge freedom, which exclusion is contradicted by a vast part of physics, both theoretically and experimentally.  So we corrected that statement of the first law also.  Energy and work CANNOT be logically equated!  Work is the change of form of energy, not energy itself.  There should never be a balance equation equating work to energy, and the units should actually be different.  Energy is in joules, but work should be in CHANGE OF FORM OF INITIAL JOULES INPUT TO THE WORK PROCESS OR MECHANISM.  All thermodynamics is flawed by this error, endemic throughout its entire structure. In an energy balance equation, work terms should only appear so as to mark where and when the FORM of energy is changed. A separate energy term should be used to represent the energy in its new form after work has been done to change it from its previous form.  All balance should be done with energy terms only, without any of the work terms being added, even if they are used to show where energy form is changed. E.g., when energy is dissipated in a load, it is true that energy form is changed and work is done.  However, the work has nothing at all to do with the ENERGY BALANCE.  When the work is done and the form of the input energy is thereby changed, one still has all the energy remaining in its new "dissipated" form.  THAT is the term -- the remaining energy in different form -- that must be used instead of the work done, in any energy balance equation.   6.       We also did a neat little analysis on the old saw of forbidden perpetual motion, which usual prohibition is just plain stupid.  Newton's first law requires and prescribes perpetual motion, once an entity is placed in any state of motion (including rest or zero motion), until the moving entity is acted on by an external force to change it.  So perpetual motion is not only not forbidden, it is REQUIRED for every object set in motion. Else all mechanics and physics is destroyed.  What is logically wrong is that the usual statements then equate "perpetual motion" as being a system performing work continuously, with zero energy input.  That such a latter "continuous working system with no energy input" is forbidden, is quite true. But that has nothing to do with perpetual motion, for an object in perpetual motion (say, a mass moving in an inertial frame) requires no energy input and does no work at all.  To equate the two statements (work-free perpetual motion, and continuous working machine without any energy input)  is to commit a logical non sequitur.  So the standard stupid statements dealing with "dirty old forbidden perpetual motion machines" advance a false premise, then a true statement, then equate the two and assume that the true statement proves the false one!  I use Planck's statement as the perfect example of this. That is the simplest logical error that could be made; it is inexplicable that more than a century of thermodynamicists and physicists have just accepted such nonsense and logical violation without simple logical analysis.  A machine that perpetually does work, e.g., but also perpetually (continuously) receives the necessary energy (from whatever source, including from the active environment), is jolly well permitted; we use that principle every time we power up an electric motor or electrical machine.   7.       Leyton's hierarchies of symmetry now clearly show the procedure for electrodynamics, from start to finish --- from the virtual particle flux of the vacuum to the production of the fields and potentials to the conservation of energy in the universe.  Starting with the present virtual particle flux of the vacuum and the source charge, one can directly show the prediction and experimental emergence of those internested hierarchies of successfully higher symmetries.  In the latest work I've fiddled with on it, it covers the waterfront from the virtual energy of the vacuum throughout all intervening levels, to how the energy turns into observable energy on the charge, is radiated from the charge (deterministic dissipation process) to have deterministic ordered macroscopic fields and potentials (external parameters of the source charge as a system), how these "orderings" can then be dissipated (new broken symmetry at that level) to generate useful work in engines and devices, and then --- and this is shockingly new --- the automatic generation at the next higher level (the entire observable universe) of a great new symmetry and ordering --- and that is the conservation of energy law itself! Now realize that if we posit that the universe came from something else, then there is something outside the observable universe.  In that "larger superuniverse", then, there also is a symmetry generated  by broken symmetry in the observable universe.  This allows the big bang (assuming it happened), inflation, all sorts of things, while retaining balance and conservation (and symmetry) in the superuniverse, yet creation and expansion of the observable universe.   8.       The beautiful, beautiful thing I realized is this: Leyton's effect means that the electrical charge as a thermodynamic system GENERATES its own external parameters, negentropically!   Steam in a steam engine cannot do that, for it cannot generate the cylinder of the steam cylinder, the boiler, the piping, etc.  But the photons emitted by the charge can and do form ordered macroscopic EM fields and potentials, ordered as a function of radial distance. Negentropy is now not a dirty word, but that half of the thermodynamics process that the old guys left out, because the steam in a steam engine does not generate its own external parameters (the cylinder, boiler, etc. to bound it and establish ordering).  In electrodynamics, the fundamental system --- the source charge --- does indeed GENERATE its own system external parameters --- the associated EM fields, potentials, and joules of observable EM energy of the universe.  And that does not previously explicitly appear in thermodynamics and physics anywhere, except for the odd and erroneous assumption in electrodynamics that all EM fields and potentials and their energy are somehow CREATED FROM NOTHING AT ALL by their associated source charges (the long-vexing source charge problem, which I fundamentally solved in 1999 and published in 2000, but now have found rigorous support and proof for, in Leyton's work.   9.       The energy conservation law -- that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can be changed in form -- should have shown us something long ago.  Positive entropy, being in effect a kind of "lost energy", can be changed in form (else there can be no conservation of energy law at all).  But the only other form is negative entropy!  So one can change entropy into negative entropy, and negative entropy into positive entropy, and Leyton's work clearly shows and proves exactly how that works, and the exact mechanism by which it works.   10.   I believe Leyton's work is the next great revolution in physics, equal to or even greater than the discovery of broken symmetry in 1957. It "cinches" this business of practical EM energy being available from the vacuum. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Y'all have a good one,   Tom (Edited)