The Tom Bearden

Help support the research



Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 17:20:52 -0500

Dear Dr. B*****,

 Because of hypoxia and limited work schedule, I am unable to take the time your very nice letter truly deserves, but will try to give a quick response covering some important points.

 Always in any endeavor we have the "accursed necessity for the identity of opposites," which was the bane of the philosophers and now is the bane of the mathematicians and physicists.  Venn diagram "proofs" so widely used, e.g., simply "eat themselves" if the same Aristotelian logic is applied to them (the third law eliminates any and all boundaries, so one cannot even have a boundary between A and not-A, e.g. or a boundary to define the "universe" that is utilized in the Venn diagrams.).  I liked your approach of using a physics model to derive a logic; actually the Aristotelian system is derived (unwittingly) from perfect fitting to the single photon interaction.  Aristotelian logic is at best incomplete, and if limited to just the three laws, it is wrong, as every boundary already demonstrates.  The other problem is that few if any logicians seem to have noticed that their very thinking, observing, perceiving, etc. are themselves processes (certainly at least in the time-domain)  and the mental output of any of them is the effect of a set of temporal operations, most of which are simply "assumed" as if infinitely correct.  To correct and extend Aristotelian logic, one simply  numbers and accounts for each "perception" or "observation" snapshot (there is no "A" but an "observed A" or "perceived A", e.g.)  and suddenly one can see how opposites can be opposites in one case and identities in another.  A trivial example is normal vision used to perceive a black marble and a dark red marble, side by side.  The person with color vision has no difficulty distinguishing them, so he can identify them as an "A" and a "not-A".  On the other hand, a totally color-blind person would be unable to distinguish them.  And so on.  If we then perceive both the red and black marbles with our "color vision" turned on, they are not identical.  But if we go back to perceive them again, with our color vision turned off, the same entities previously found nonidentical are now "identical" with respect to the decision algorithm applied by that perception operation.

 The final clue is that identity is not immutable, but is the result of a decision operation (algorithm) performed by comparing two (or more) former individual perceptions in perception or observation "all at once".  The very act of comparing (multiple, simultaneous) is a violation of the third Aristotelian law "A or not-A" exclusively, which allows only a single observation or perception.  Again Aristotelian logic eats itself, for it does not even allow the comparison necessary to decide "identity" or "nonidentity".  So it is not nature that has the problem with wave-particle duality in physics; it is our archaic way of thinking and an overly simplified logic.

 Pursuing this approach, I came up with a five-law logic as an extension to Aristotelian logic.  With that logic, there then become logical solutions to essentially all the paradoxes in Aristotelian 3-law logic.   This was of much practical use to me, along the way in free energy systems and elsewhere.

 Here's a little trick.  Working in Minkowski spacetime, take some 3-spatial energy and compress it by the factor c-squared.  Now what can be done with it?  If we leave it there in 3-space, in x,y,z, it becomes what we call "mass".   If we move it and place it over on the fourth Minkowski axis, ict, it becomes what we call "time".  There is only one variable on that fourth axis, and that is t.  Further, Lee already showed that time is a dynamic variable across all physics, from quantum to universal realms.

 So time is intensely compressed spatial energy, and has essentially the same energy density as mass.  Indeed, we found that all EM energy in 3-space is simply transduced and decompressed "time-energy".

 In quantum field theory, there are four polarizations of the photon, two being in x and y, which are transverse polarizations (as are combinations of the two).  Thirdly, there is the longitudinal photon in 3-space.  Fourth,  there is the time-polarized or "scalar" photon.  Interestingly, Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, 1984 argue very strongly that neither the scalar nor longitudinal photons is individually observable, but their combination (interestingly, the combination would have spin 2 and be a graviton) is observable as the instantaneous quantum potential.  One can transform this into wave language and representation, and then correctly reinterpret Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential by inserting the always-assumed ubiquitous "interacting unit point static charge" at any point in space and accounting for it.  In that case, a very strange thing emerges: All 3-space EM energy, at any point in space, comes there from the time domain, and involves that "combination" interaction of a time-polarized photon with the "assumed source charge" prior to observation. After observation (which is a d/dt operator imposed upon the ongoing 4-space interaction), time is destroyed and one observes the longitudinal photon or wave in 3-space.

 This introduces a new kind of "charge" or energetic excitation: time-charging or time-energy charging.  The scalar photon and time-polarized EM wave are heavily involved in such energetic excitation. We were able to propose a solution and precise mechanism generating the transductions of cold fusion, using that concept.  Indeed, we wrote the specific nuclear reactions for production of the excess deuterium, tritium, and alpha particles.

 We found that the body's cellular regeneration system uses a very similar mechanism involving time-charging (and time-polarized EM wave pumping, as an extension to phase conjugate optics) in its healing process.  Using this, we were able also to explain and give the mechanisms for the Priore work, Becker's work, some of Popp's work, Kaznacheyev's experiments, Rife's microscope for amplifying the virtual state into observable state, etc.  We were also to uncover the scalar electromagnetic nature of mind and mind operations and the coupling mechanisms that couple the mind to the body and the body to the mind, respectively.  These mechanisms are testable and engineerable; sadly, the KGB/Russians have long weaponized this area most heavily.

 With this, I was able in 2000 to resolve the long-vexing problem of the source charge; i.e., the problem of the fields and potentials and their energy (reaching across all space) associated with the source charge.  Look at it this way.  Suddenly dissipate a little energy to form a dipole, right in the lab.  Along a radial line reaching to infinity, in this gedankenexperiment we have already placed perfect and infinitely sensitive detectors, at regular "one-second of light travel time" distance.  One second after formation of the dipole, the first instrument reads -- and the  reading remains, showing that this was not a pulse that passed, but the front of a continuously current of EM energy.  At the end of the second second, the second instrument reads, and so on.  One year later, the instrument a lightyear distant reads, and that reading remains.  Further, the energy is still flowing outward in all directions at the speed of light.

 In that year, that little dipole for which we paid very little energy dissipation to make, has changed the energy density in a volume of space a lightyear in radius.  And it is still pouring out EM energy in 3-space in all directions, unceasingly.

 Mandl and Shaw almost had it, but forgot that ubiquitously assumed unit point charge which does the "combining" between an incoming scalar photon and an outgoing longitudinal photon.  They dwelt upon the scalar and longitudinal photons "as if observed" which right away is a non sequitur because observation invokes that charge and that interaction.  But their work has great merit indeed, when we add in that missing charge.   The scalar photon becomes the nonobservable "cause", which is absorbed in an interaction with a "previously observed" (frozen 3--space charge snapshot) charge, is transduced into 3-space energy, and re-radiated by the charge into 3-space.  This is why the source charge can continuously emit EM energy in all directions in 3-space, without any 3-space energy input.

 A trivial observation:  Certainly the charge and the dipole must be accepted as elementary Maxwellian systems; one has no electrodynamics without them.  But we input only a little energy to initially make the dipole, and then we input no more.  Yet the dipole poured out (and continued to pour out) vastly more energy than the feeble amount we utilized as our input.

 Either the dipole is creating energy from nothing, or else it has to have an energy input.  Either way, 3-space EM energy flow conservation is dead, because the dipole violates it, as is easily shown experimentally.

 So the previously unresolved source charge problem is important.  Either we must explain where the energy comes from, with it coming from outside 3-space, or the conservation of energy law is dead.  Happily, energy conservation is okay.  What has happened is that the charge (I showed how to treat it as a set of dipoles, following well-known quantum electrodynamics) exhibits and is a broken 3-symmetry (and also a broken t-symmetry) simultaneously.  The broken symmetry of a dipole (of opposite charges) was one of the discoveries for which Lee and Yang received the Nobel Prize in 1957.

 This led to many advances, such as the fact that every charge (special set of composite dipoles) and every dipole already involve simultaneously broken symmetry in energy flow in both 3-space and the fourth Minkowski axis (time domain), but exhibit a higher symmetry in 4-space, between incoming energy in the time domain and outgoing energy in 3-space.

 Once a charge or dipole is "produced", if let alone it will thus exhibit giant and continuous negentropy, so long as the charge or dipole exists.

 And the energy is extracted directly from the known particle physics broken symmetry of the dipole in its exchange with the active vacuum virtual photon flux, so the solution is consistent with the findings (both theoretical and experimental) of particle physics.  It is also consistent with quantum field theory, as shown by Mandl and Shaw, e.g.,  It is also consistent with a corrected reinterpretation of Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential into a harmonic set of longitudinal EM phase conjugate wavepairs.

 This has had many applications in our work, and has a great many more we have not yet worked out.  It is far easier to engineer negentropic systems (just make a dipole, pay for it once, then leave it alone and do not destroy it) than the present entropic systems we almost universally engineer.  It has led us to legitimate EM mechanisms whereby the electrical power system becomes an open system far from equilibrium with its active environment.  As is well-known, such systems permissibly violate classical (equilibrium) thermodynamics.  Instead, they obey the thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium in their energetic exchange with their active environment.  As such, they are permitted to exhibit five "magic" functions:  Such a system can (1) self-order, (2) self-rotate or self-oscillate, (3) output more energy than the operator must input (the excess is freely received from the active environment, via the broken symmetry), (4) self-power both itself and its load simultaneously (all the energy is freely received from the active environment, via the broken symmetry), and (5) exhibit negentropy.

 Every charge and dipole in the universe already performs all five functions, and those that are in original matter have been doing it for some 14 billion years.  There is absolutely no problem at all in extracting all the EM energy flow one wishes, directly from the active vacuum, using a simple charge or a simple dipole.  That our dipolar circuits then are deliberately wired up to destroy their own dipoles, by ubiquitous use of the closed current loop circuit (which uses half the energy caught in the circuit to destroy the dipole) is probably the most stupid thing that science and engineering has ever done in its entire history.

 So one must keep one's sense of humor.  There is not a single university in the West that even teaches what powers an electrical circuit or an electrical power distribution line.  It is not the generator or battery, which expend all their energy just to continually force their own internal charges apart, to restore their source dipole -- that the closed loop circuit is specifically designed to keep destroying faster than it powers the load.

 It does not have to be done that way.  So we have used such principles to produce a prototype successful laboratory experiment which does exhibit items (1), (3), and (5) of those five magic functions of open dissipative systems far from equilibrium.  We have moved our research on the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG) to the National Materials Science Lab of the National Academy of Sciences in a friendly foreign country (we are keeping secret the name of that nation).  There to our pleasant surprise we found excellent scientists already utilizing higher symmetry electrodynamics, already aware of the serious flaws and errors in the standard U(1) classical EM theory, etc.  We also found scientists who understand that the MEG is not a transformer, although built like one.  As an example, it is not necessary to switch any flux at all in the MEG core, to achieve overunity operation.

 There are certain novel phenomena involved in all overunity systems, however.  (I have been associated with  some five legitimate COP>1.0 systems, and all exhibited this phenomenology that is not in electrical engineering at all).  The overunity state is an excited state, and nature provides a special decay mechanism to restore equilibrium and underunity.  A close colleague and I, after some years of struggle, have succeeded in solving that problem, and even in transducing the decay mechanism into a powering mechanism.  We have filed the first-ever patent on the novel process required to close-loop an overunity EM power system, into stable and sustained COP>1.0 operation.  Several other patents are likely to come out of it.

 Meanwhile, our MEG should complete its research and go on the world market about a year from now.

 We have two rigorous papers on the MEG, which are:

 M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(1), Feb 2001, p. 87-94; ----- "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(4), Aug. 2001, p. 387-393.  As you might expect, these papers were vigorously refereed.

 Any critic who applies U(1) classical EM theory -- where the Lorentz symmetrical regauging already discards all that vast set of Maxwellian systems that are in disequilibrium with their active vacuum -- is simply na´ve and very unknowledgeable.  Such systems are not in his model at all, which only chooses systems obeying classical thermodynamics with its infamous second law.  To call open dissipative systems "perpetual motion machine" is to call a windmill, a sailboat, and a watermill "perpetual motion nonsense".  It is rather stupid on the critic's part, and such a scientist knows so little he is not worth wasting time to answer.  Instead, he should read the Nobel Prize citation to Prigogine in 1977.

 The best addition I can make to "normal circuit theory" used by engineers, is that their EM model a priori assumes (erroneously) a flat local spacetime and an inert vacuum (or without net exchange).  Both assumptions have long been falsified in particle physics and general relativity.  So to give a complete analysis, one must include the missing "two active environments that actually do energetically exchange with the circuit or system.

 This leads to the supersystem concept.  The supersystem consists of three parts: (1) the electromagnetic system and its dynamics, (2) the local active vacuum and its dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics.  No system analysis is complete until an analysis of the supersystem has been performed.

 Immediately one sees why one can have a COP>1.0 Maxwellian system.  If there is broken symmetry between the system and the other two components, then the system is an open system far from equilibrium.  It is not bound by classical thermodynamics at all, but can exhibit any or all of those previously listed five "magic" functions.

 There are many mechanisms available to utilize in developing open dissipative EM systems in disequilibrium with their other two supersystem components.  In our paper, M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T.E. Bearden et al., "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517, we give a dozen or more such promising mechanisms.

 Very much appreciate your wide-ranging interests and work.  If possible, please put a few sharp young grad students or a post-doc or two on the "Theory of Legitimate COP>1.0 EM systems as open systems far from equilibrium in their supersystem" or some such.  The necessary proofs and mechanisms are already there in physics, just needing to be drawn together with the proper higher group symmetry electrodynamics.

 Very best wishes,

 Tom Bearden

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 15:29:29 +0200
Subject: Letter to Tom Bearden

Dear Mr. Bearden,

some years ago a friend of mine and collaborator of the
biofield lab made me aware of one of your writings and since then I have
read some of your articles and comments on free energy, scalar fields,
military events and similar topics. So I thought it might be alright if I
send you a letter and introduce myself.

While reading some of your homepage and letters from the mailbox of
J.L.Naudin Labs I saw that you were seriously ill. Let me therefore at
first congratulate you to your recovery and also wish you the best for
further improvement of your condition.

I am Univ. Doz. at the department of sociology where I am teaching and
doing research into old age matters. But my first study was theoretical
physics and mathematics with Walter Thirring and Hans Hlawka, Univ. of
Vienna. Some years ago I refreshed my mathematics and founded the biofield lab. Much of my work centres around the multivectorial approach, that is, geometric algebra and spin gauge.

But the second and more serious event I wish to respond to is the attack on the world trade centre in New York. I am very sad about this happening, but beyond my sadness there is something that moves me. In 2000 I have written a book titled 'time reversal' (I attach a copy of the front page, Verlag Sonderzahl) which is mostly cultural anthropology, but also bases much on multivector considerations. According to that a time reverted view into the past instead of the future and vice verse is natural. In some cultures we do not plan the future (while concentrating on the past as experience), but we concentrate all awareness on the past to reconstruct it (while not concentrating on the future in any way). The old Egypts are a good example for such a culture (with hardly 2% literacy rate) or even the Kabyles of today. Vision and prophecy may be understood as reactions to symmetry breaking. That is, symmetric gound states are nontemporal. Anyway, I wonder whether it is possible that information about makroevents enters that which is past relative to these events. Some years ago my wife gave me a book with the title "Vision 2004" published 1994 in Upper Austria. There is a section in it with the title "The Destruction of New York". I have translated that chapter to you and ask you about your opinion about such visions. Most good prophecies are usually interpreted after the occurrence of events. But this one was given as it is seven years before. According to it "The destruction of New York is not a particular event in world war III, but it is definitely an event which occurs briefly before the war. Because of its heavy impetus there is dedicated to this event an own brief chapter.  New York will be destroyed because of revenge. The wire-pullers and executers are arabic-islamic circles. With a very high probability this is connected  with the american engagement in the second (not yet happened, see ch. II, 4) near east conflict, in any case it happens as a response to something which the americans shall have done to the arabs. Our visionary saw the dectruction of New York in all details. At the time of the stroke there is in east Austria a beautiful wheather like in early summer. Most probably it is lunch time (local time)".

I feel your idea to base field theory on the Whittaker decomposition of
scalar fields (1903, 04) is a good one. I once had an odd experience while
doing a Kundalini meditation: all of a sudden isotropic energy flowed in
and out in every point of my body (whatever was the feeling which gave me  the evidence there were "points" in my body. Those points must have been structured regions). May be I should rather speak of a fractal decay of bioenergy at microscopic levels. There was no time involved, psychologically. May be it is related to scale relativity.

I agree that U(1) is not the symmetry of the electromagnetic field. Is it
U(2)? Most of my recent works with which I was able to reenter the quantum physicists community 20 yrs after I left hephy for sociology, concentrates on the multivectorial structure of 4-spaces such like the Minkowski space in ordinary or reverse metric. Their geometric algebras are Cl1,3 and Cl3,1 respectively. I have been succesful to lead back the chromodynamic symmetries of SU(3) entirely to the multivectorial symmetries (as automorphisms of idempotents) of the Minkowski spacetime. Surprisingly this approach discloses a field theoretic origin of logic, that is, there are models in those spaces that describe QCD and a geometry of logic at the same time. I send you abstracts in the attachment.

Some years ago I  made experiments with bifilar and Moebius coils in the
biofield lab in Vienna. Those were very interesting experiences carried out
essentially with an R&S Wobbler (- 1,2 GHz) and a HP spectrumanalyser (-40 GHz.) and sensitive hands. As a result we constructed 'the scalar field
coil' and some small devices. I did not know J.L. Naudin then whose
beautiful website I came upon only a few days ago. I have also investigated
the small scalar field coils working in the lower frequency band. But I am
not sure that the bifilar coils store magnetic energy (we don't see) into
the ferrite. The whole situation seems to become more interesting when
negative resistance comes in and oscillations comprise conductivity of
dielectric material. But this seems to be good old microwave business,
anyway. I wonder if it would make sense for me and in the present world
situation to contact the other people around you and to allocate some more
efforts into this new type of experimental physics.

Lastly I wish to end my letter by remembering that there is a member in our
association who actually worked out the microwave scalar field coil, that
is, he produced the photographic prints for us, in his office at the Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna, Gerhard Tributsch who said he had visited you. Okay Mr. Bearden, I'll send you cordial greetings and wish you the best,