|Energy from the Vacuum Can Solve the Imminent Energy
September 21, 2001
Let me call attention to one thing well-known in particle physics, but totally absent from classical EM theory, i.e., from U(1). The award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in 1957 was nearly unprecedented, being awarded the very same year (1957) that Wu et al. proved the broken symmetry predicted by Lee and Yang (strongly predicted in 1956).
One of the proven broken symmetries (simply check the Nobel award citation to Lee) is the broken symmetry of opposite charges. This means that a common dipole --- two opposite charges separated a wee bit -- does indeed exhibit broken symmetry in its energetic exchange with the virtual photon flux of the active vacuum. Further, it also means that "something virtual has become observable", to put it in Lee's words, since asymmetry implies observation.
This means that the dipole charges continually absorb virtual photons from the vacuum (no argument here, physics agrees), but some of the absorbed energy is NOT reradiated in virtual photon form, but is reradiated in integrated, observable photon form. That is the broken symmetry involved. So that is why any dipole continuously radiates observable (3-space) EM energy, without any observable 3-space EM energy input. Again, this can easily be tested; simply arrange instruments along a line at separations corresponding to 1 microsecond of EM energy travel in space. Then at the origin of the line (in the lab), suddenly produce a dipole. One microsecond later, the first instrument suddenly reads, and the READING REMAINS, showing that this was not a passing pulse, but was the passing of the front of a continuous EM energy flow. At the end of another second, the second instrument reads, and continues to read -- and so on.
If one waits one year, that silly little dipole has changed the energy density levels in a volume of space that is a light year in radius. And at the edges, the energy flow is still moving outwards at the speed of light.
There is no problem at all in extracting all the energy one wishes from the active vacuum exchange with a dipole. Every dipole already does it, as such a gedankenexperiment (and it can be done for real) shows.
We can use asymmetry of the dipole to solve what has been called the most difficult problem in electrodynamics: the problem of the source-charge, i.e., the problem of the association of the fields and potentials with their source charge, including all that energy in those fields and potentials reaching across the universe (for charges around since the creation). Even the received view accepts that the fields and potentials -- and their energy -- do come from the source charges, but it has no solution as to how the source charges furnish all that energy, or where it gets all that energy.
First we quote Sen:
"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics." [D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.]
The solution is fairly straightforward, once we make a proper model to examine. As is well-known in quantum electrodynamics and in quantum mechanics, any observable "isolated" charge is actually surrounded by a clustering set of virtual charges of opposite sign. These even have a shielding effect on measurements of the "isolated observable charge", so that the shielding must be taken into account to calculate the "bare charge'" of the particle (if not shielded) and the measured charge of the shielded "charged particle".
If we take a differential piece of the "isolated observable charge" and one of the virtual charges in momentary existence, then we have a "composite dipole", with one end persistent and the other not persistent but recurring due to the fluctuations of the vacuum virtual flux. In short, as a first approximation we can treat the "isolated observable charge" as a set of such composite dipoles. Voila! Each of the composite dipoles is a broken symmetry, and hence must output observable photons, else opposite charges do not exhibit broken symmetry and the Nobel Prize was improperly awarded.
Further, one can decompose (per Whittaker 1903) the scalar potential existing between the ends of each of those composite dipoles (for a single "isolated observable charge"), and also for the ends of a real dipole comprised of real opposite charges. This decomposition then yields (for each such scalar potential decomposed) a harmonic set of bidirectional EM longitudinal phase conjugate wave-pairs. Here we must reinterpret Whittaker. If both the longitudinal EM waves in one of his wavepairs are considered to be in 3-space, that means that both are being considered after interaction with an assumed unit point static charge (the standard assumption in classical EM theory). That is a non sequitur. It is "two effects without a cause", because the scalar potential being decomposed has not been given a "cause". Indeed, the scalar potential in space is not even defined; what is defined in classical EM theory is the divergence of EM energy FROM that scalar potential, at a given point occupied by it, by an arbitrarily assumed unit point static charge at that point. Again, that is an effect, the result of an interaction, not the cause of the interaction. The point is, the CAUSE of an interaction with a static charge in 3-space, exists in 4-space prior to its interaction, and even during its interaction. The "observation" produced in 3-space (all observation is 3-spatial) is an effect, never a cause. It is a d/dt operator, so to speak, impressed upon an LLLT interaction, yielding a momentary LLL or 3-space frozen snapshot. A priori, 3-space entities do not continuously persist in time, for the very concept of their 3-dimensions implies a froze instant snapshot. Instead of continuously existing, any observable (3-space entity) must continue to be observed. I.e., it continually RECURS in the continual observation process. But that is not the form it exists in when there is no observation.
The phase conjugate wave, prior to its interaction with that assumed unit point static charge, is not an observable, hence is not 3-spatial. If it WERE an observable, then our instruments would clearly measure a 3-space input of EM energy to that charge or to that dipole.
So we reinterpret Whittaker's decomposition as follows: Either we must totally discard the conservation of energy law altogether, or there must be a precisely equal flow of EM energy into the charge. Shifting to classical EM theory, we can show by actual measurement that there is no observable input of EM energy in 3-space, to the charge. Hence, if we retain the conservation of energy law, then the only available Minkowski spacetime portion from where the input energy must come, is from the fourth axis, and in ict the only variable is t. Hence the flow of input energy to the charge has to be from the time domain. Otherwise, we have just destroyed the conservation of energy law completely, as evidenced by every charge in the universe.
Since there can be no such thing as a "transverse EM wave" along the time axis, the input is a longitudinal EM wave along the time axis; in short, a time-polarized EM wave. So we reinterpret Whittaker's phase conjugate half as the converging set of precisely correlated time-polarized EM waves along the time axis, into the charge. The charge, which spins 720 degrees, then does a unique thing. During its "360 - degree spin" in the time axis, it reacts with the time-polarized input energy, absorbing it as a pure "time-excitation" or "time-energy" charge. Further, the 360 degree rotation, while absorbing virtual energy all the while, is an integration process of sorts. If virtual energy is coherently integrated, it can exceed the quantum threshold and thus turn into real photons. That is in fact the broken symmetry process in this case. Anyway, after absorbing and integrating that incoming time-domain EM energy, the charge then spins 360 degrees in 3-space, and since it is already energetically excited, the decay occurs in 3-space. It thus re-radiates observable photons, and in fact they are longitudinal photons, as shown in the Whittaker decomposition into longitudinal EM waves.
Since the longitudinal photons are radiated in all directions, then along any radial line through the assumed charge, longitudinal photons are traveling in both directions. However, time-polarized photons are associated also at every point along that radial, as can be seen from quantum field theory.
We now refer to Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, 1984, Chapter 5. They strongly argue that neither the time-polarized (scalar) photon or the longitudinal photon is individually observable. However, the combination of the two is observable, and is observed as the instantaneous scalar potential. Voila! If I think backwards, I would decompose that "instantaneous" scalar potential back into a 100% correlated scalar and longitudinal photon pair -- or if you wish, a graviton since the combination has spin 2.
In short, the reinterpreted Whittaker decomposition agrees and is consistent with quantum field theory. It is also consistent with the known broken symmetry of opposite charges, in particle physics. And finally, it is totally consistent with experiment. Further, it finally -- at long last -- removes the terrible glitch from classical EM theory of assuming that every source charge and every dipole is a perpetual motion machine, freely creating its continuous EM energy output without any EM energy input at all. So we also salvage the conservation of energy law.
Now, however, we have also come up with some very startling implications.
It follows that indeed EM energy can be and is extracted from the active vacuum (or in GR terms, from the curvature in spacetime induced by the presence of a charge or dipole). Every charge in the universe already does this, and electrodynamicists -- in holding to the realm of "effects", i.e. 3-space conservation of energy flow only -- have missed the most primary and higher form of symmetry in EM energy flow, between the time-domain and 3-space.
The AIAS work is clearly leading in that direction, since time-like energy flows etc. have been rigorously shown.
The received view that energy conservation cannot be violated in 3-space is a total non sequitur, already demonstrably violated by every charge in the universe.
The nature of the "flow of any observable through space" should be re-examined. It cannot be a completely continuous flow of some observable, else one must discard quantum mechanics. Instead, the "observable' must continuously "recur" in 3-space, at successive positions, as the observations so recur. More on that later.
Since all EM energy in a circuit comes from the source charges in that circuit a priori, it follows that all the EM energy in a circuit is already provided by the vacuum, via the charges as transducers of vacuum energy.
We say that again. All the EM energy in a circuit or electrical power system, comes from the vacuum via the charges in the circuit. Energy from the vacuum powers every circuit and EM system we build or have ever built.
It follows that a generator and a battery do not furnish any of the EM energy that pours out of their terminals and roars through space surrounding the external circuit's conductors. Instead, the shaft energy input to the generator is changed internally to magnetic field energy, which then is totally expended upon the internal charges in the generator itself, separating them (lattice holes and electrons) to form the source dipole between the terminals. Rigorously, once this dipole is formed, then the broken symmetry of that dipole in its active exchange with the vacuum provides the outpouring of EM energy flow out of the terminals and through space along the circuit and outside the external circuit conductors.
The interaction of these spreading EM fields and potentials from the source dipole, then impacts the fields of the surface charges in the conductors, by the well-known S = EXH interaction. In the conductors the electrons are longitudinally constrained by the repulsion of the electrons ahead of them, and so they can move longitudinally down the wire only with a small "drift velocity", typically a few inches per hour (this is well-known). Instead, the electrons move mostly radially, since they are spinning and --- during the spatial 360 degrees of their spin --- they act as gyros and precess at right angles to the longitudinal forces produced on those surface electrons. That is what gyros do. We measure that transverse electron current, of course.
The flow of EM energy in and surrounding an external circuit connected to a battery or generator, is a transmission-reception problem, not a current flow through the conductors problem. The energy is obtained from the active vacuum via the dipole's asymmetry, and is transmitted by the dipole out of the terminals and into surrounding space. The energy intercepted by the circuit and used to power it, is only one component of the available energy flow there in surrounding space.
In the 1880s, two scientists independently and simultaneously discovered the flow of EM energy through space: Heaviside and Poynting. Heaviside published obscurely at first, in a whole series of papers. Poynting published prestigiously, and so his theory came to be accepted. Poynting got the direction of energy flow wrong by 90 degrees, and he only considered the intercepted portion of the available energy flow in space around the conductors. He never considered at all the huge remainder of that energy flow that misses the circuit entirely and is not intercepted --- but is totally wasted --- in every circuit.
Heaviside corrected Poynting's direction error, and also included the vast component of the energy flow that does not get intercepted and is not diverged into the conductors to power the circuit. That remaining, wasted energy flow component is so much larger than the Poynting intercepted and diverged component, that it hardly deviates from being parallel to the wire. Heaviside spoke of it in these cautious words, in his later prestigious publication in the Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond.:
"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." Oliver Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94.
When we measure a circuit, of course, we measure energy dissipated from it. That energy has to have first entered the circuit. Hence the total energy measured "in" a circuit will always match the Poynting component, for that is the component of available energy flow that is intercepted and diverged into the wires, to enter the circuit and power the Drude electrons.
A simple examination of the ubiquitous closed current loop circuit shows immediately that one-half the Poynting component caught by the circuit is utilized to destroy the dipole, by forcing current back up through it and scattering the charges. The other half of the Poynting energy intercepted, is dissipated in the loads and losses of the external circuit. In a real circuit, then, less than half the caught energy is used to power the load, and a full half is used to kill the dipole that is extracting the entire EM energy flow -- both the Heaviside nondiverged component and the Poynting diverged component -- from its asymmetry with the active vacuum.
Every scientist and engineer has been trained to use a closed current loop circuit that kills the source dipole (and the source of electrical energy in the circuit) faster than it powers the load. In short, we have deliberately built all our circuits and EM power systems to self-enforce the Lorentz 3-space symmetry condition, and to kill their extraction of EM energy from the vacuum faster than they can use some of it to power their loads.
To restore the dipole and re-energize the circuit, even in a perfect generator with no losses we must input at least as much energy to force the charges back apart -- and remake the dipole -- as was used to kill it. That means we have to continually input more energy to the shaft of the generator, to continually restore the dipole, than is produced in the load to power it.
For more than a century, our universities have been teaching every scientist and engineer how to design and use a closed current loop circuit that will deliberately kill its own extraction of EM energy from the vacuum faster than it powers its load. That is the reason and the only reason that our electrical power systems -- all of which already extract all energy in the external circuit's loads and losses, from the active vacuum -- universally exhibit coefficient of performance (COP) less than 1 --- COP being defined as the ratio of the work produced in the load divided by the energy input to the system by the operator.
We have to pay to make the transducer, (the dipole), not to power the circuit once the transducer is made. No generator puts out on the line a single transduced watt of its mechanical shaft energy input. Not a single watt of the chemical energy dissipated in a battery is output onto the external circuit. Generators and batteries do not power circuits; they make dipoles. Once the dipole is made, the dipole receives energy from the vacuum, transduces it, and pours the transduced energy out of the terminals and into space surrounding the external conductors.
Every battery and every generator is also already a COP>>1.0 transducing system. It is our own rather inane circuit design that prevents it and its external circuit from being a COP>1.0 system.
Further, there is not a single electrical engineering department at any university in the United States that even teaches what powers the electrical power grid, a circuit, or the loads in the external circuit. The standard U(1) classical EM model used by electrical engineers erroneously assumes a flat local spacetime (falsified by general relativity for nearly a century) and an inert local vacuum (falsified by particle physics for nearly a half century).
The AIAS work is already clearly pointing in this direction. The above discussion is also solidly founded in physics.
However, Lorentz -- the greatest electrical scientist of that time (in the 1880s after Maxwell's death) --- had a real problem. He clearly understood the difference between Heaviside's more comprehensive total EM energy flow theory and Poynting's theory dealing only with the component that was intercepted by the circuit and entered it. The problem was this:
If one takes into consideration the huge entire Heaviside component, including both the diverged and non diverged components, then the source dipole in every generator and every battery already outputs far more EM energy flow than the feeble rate of mechanical shaft energy input to the generator or the feeble amount of chemical energy dissipated in the battery. As we stated, as an energy transducer, every electrical power system is and always has been a system exhibiting COP>>1.0. My own crude "estimate" of the comparison, for one particular circuit, yielded almost 1013 times as much energy in the nondiverged Heaviside flow component as is in the intercepted and used Poynting flow component. I would welcome a much better technical look at that, and a rigorous functional calculation that is not "ad hoc", as mine was. Nonetheless, there is lots more energy pouring out of that battery or generator terminal than is being input by the chemical energy dissipation or the shaft mechanical energy input.
In the 1880s, even the great Lorentz would have been savaged and destroyed by his peers as a "perpetual motion nut", had he continued with the strong recognition of all that excess energy pouring out of the power source terminals. So he did a most unusual thing: He admitted that excess flow, but stated that "it had no physical significance" (his words) since it did nothing to power the circuit. He thus took the entire energy flow vector (which contains both the nondiverged and diverged components) and integrated it around a closed surface assumed around any volume element of interest. This of course completely discards that worrisome nondiverged Heaviside component that misses the circuit and is wasted. It retains the Poynting component that enters the circuit. Hence it is still consistent with the circuit measurements made directly on and in the electrical circuit itself.
After the Lorentz integration trick is applied, then there can never be an accounted energy flow (the accounted part is the part that enters the circuit) greater than the shaft energy input to the generator or the chemical energy dissipated in the battery. Understand, the arbitrarily discarded nondiverged Heaviside component is still there around every circuit, and it is still far greater than the Poynting component that is caught and accounted by the Lorentz integration trick. But that discarded nondiverged component is totally ignored. Being unable to solve the problem, Lorentz just came up with a clever trick to avoid it.
We should not be harsh in our judgment of Lorentz! At the time, the electron had not been discovered, and neither had the lattice hole -- the positron (which has a current in every circuit, usually ignored by power engineers but also which can be manipulated by special techniques). The atom and nucleus were unknown, there was no such thing as the active vacuum or its exchange or the broken symmetry of a dipole in that exchange, there was no special or general relativity, no quantum mechanics or quantum electrodynamics, very little "particle physics", etc.). So there was absolutely no basis in physics on which Lorentz or anyone else --- including Heaviside, which was why he wrote so obliquely of it, in terms of "angles" --- could draw, to provide an acceptable source for that enormous nondiverged Heaviside energy flow component. It simply made sense to discard it and "get on with the job" of developing electrodynamics.
Since that time, electrodynamicists have just continued to apply that little surface integration trick, and thus avoid the same problem. We can, however, blame them, because the things necessary to explain the huge Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component are now there in physics and well-known -- and experimentally proven, with Nobel Prizes awarded.
To borrow a phrase from Tesla, the continued teaching of, and near-universal insistence on such a terribly flawed theory, without correcting these known errors in it, is one of the "most inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind that has ever been recorded."
Anyway, we urge each interested researcher to check the original sources themselves, including Heaviside, Poynting, and Lorentz. That is what really happened, and how we wound up with such a fanatical dogma that no EM circuit can be powered by energy extracted freely from the vacuum, and that no EM circuit can exceed COP>1.0.
Both are non sequiturs, long falsified by physics itself.
Finally, it only takes one small white crow to prove that not all crows are black. Here we exhibit an extraordinarily large number of "white crows" -- every charge and dipole in the universe. Every charge (or dipole) is an open system far from thermodynamic equilibrium with the active vacuum (and in GR terms, with its local spacetime), and so it permissibly and continuously emits 3-space EM energy at the speed of light in all directions. There is no question of the emission, since it can be experimentally established with ease by any researcher.
Either we completely discard the conservation of energy law entirely, or we explain that "open disequilibrium system" aspect of the charge. If the charge creates the energy out of nothing, the conservation of energy is dead. If it gates the energy, it can only receive it from the time domain, since experimentally it receives nothing in 3-space.
And here's the bottom line: Either way one chooses, COP>1.0 electrical power systems are permissible.
For an update on our own experimental system: We have taken the MEG (motionless electromagnetic generator) to the National Materials Science Laboratory of the National Academy of Sciences of a friendly foreign nation, under a joint agreement and nondisclosure, where they will complete the research necessary to place the first commercial unit (should be about 2 kW) on the market about one year from now. We were very pleasantly surprised to find that their scientists already utilized higher symmetry electrodynamics instead of the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz theory, and in fact have been teaching higher symmetry EM theory in their universities for more than a dozen years. We are deliberately withholding the name of the country. There are also several other valid COP>1.0 electrical systems known to me personally, but built by other inventors, that may well go on the market even before that. I am doing some work on one of those systems, and am a sort of consultant on another.
EM energy from the vacuum is a long-delayed concept whose time has come, and the AIAS is blazing the theoretical way to get it addressed and accomplished. It is now on its way, struggling to becoming a technology.
This is particularly important, considering the war we have just entered. This war will be very difficult and lengthy, and some surprising weapons are likely to come out from under the rug, with destructive potential seldom dreamed of. The terrorists are almost certain to unleash biological agents such as anthrax, smallpox, and bubonic plague upon our cities and elsewhere. This is not to be lightly dismissed. Smallpox alone, if released in a single substantial city on this planet, will likely eventually kill almost one-third of the human species. Here is a reference for that statement:
"Were a terrorist to disperse the smallpox virus, for example, populations that were once universally vaccinated would now be horribly vulnerable. Today the U.S. government stows only about 15.4 million doses of the smallpox vaccine—enough for less than seven percent of the American population. The World Health Organization (WHO) keeps another 500,000 doses in the Netherlands, and other national stockpiles total about 60 million more doses of varying quality and potency. If the smallpox virus were released today, the majority of the world's population would be defenseless, and given the virus' 30 percent kill rate, nearly two billion people would die." [Laurie Garrett, "The Nightmare of Bioterrorism," Foreign Affairs, 80(1), Jan./Feb. 2001, p. 76-89. The quote is from p. 77.]
We are likely to see frightful American casualties, once this war gets more fully underway. Another aspect of that is the endangerment of oil supplies from the MidEast, for most of the nations on earth. In that respect, I most strongly recommend that you read Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage, Princeton University Press, 2001. There you will find documentation that the world oil supply will peak between 2004 and 2008, even without the war we have now entered. Considering the war and its possible impact on the availability of MidEast oil, the peak could come as early as 2003 -- the year actually pointed to in Prof. Deffeyes' analysis.
Never was there a period when practical power systems freely taking their energy from the vacuum were more sorely needed. With a Manhattan-style project and funding, they can be produced for mass production in 6 months. I know of one which can be rolling off the assembly lines in 3 months under such circumstances. I know of a COP>1.0 burner which can be put into production right now, or scaled up a bit to replace the present fuel burners firing the boilers to power the steam turbines at many of our electrical power plants. With a crash program and protection of the inventors' rights, there can be several different systems, in various power output ranges, already mass produced in large quantities in one year.
We can only urge the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences to awaken from their long slumber, get these non sequiturs in electrodynamics corrected as one of the highest priorities in the nation, and get cracking with funding the very rapid development of COP>1.0 electrical power systems freely taking their energy from the vacuum.
Best wishes and God be with us all,