The Tom Bearden

Help support the research

Subject: RE: Autowaves and Scalar waves, Are they the same?
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:51:53 -0600

Dear Kollol,

I have not studied the autowaves you refer to, so cannot make any valid comparison, but only a comment possibly of relevance and possibly not.

Self-organization does occur in living systems extensively, because the systems are energetically open and far from disequilibrium.  There is a branch of thermodynamics dealing with the unusual properties of such systems.  Further, systems that are in disequilibrium steady state can also exhibit very exotic phenomena, such as negative Gibbs entropy increasing negative toward negative infinity as time passes.  A reference on the latter is just in process of publication; it is Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., Vol. 109, Nov. 2002 (in press).

Many thermodynamicists (including Evans and Rondoni) assume that no physical system could actually have such a Gibbs entropy; in short, they ASSUME that it cannot "really" do that.

Indeed it can, and every charge in the universe already does it. The charge steadily pours out real, observable photons in all directions, and there is no input of real, observable photons to the charge.  This is easily established experimentally and in fact is just assumed in classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering anyway, as the method by which the source charge produces its associated fields and potentials and their energy, expanding in 3-space in all directions at the speed of light.  Since it is experimentally established, no amount of theory can refute it.

That used to be called the "most difficult problem in electrodynamics" and still has no solution in electrodynamics itself, or in electrical engineering. Then --- apparently because of the embarrassment --- they just scrubbed from the textbooks any mention of the source charge problem, circa the late 1960s.

So, ironically, the Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics and electrical engineering implicitly assume that every charge is a perpetual motion machine, freely creating EM energy from nothing at all.  Further, they implicitly assume that all EM fields and potentials --- and every joule of EM energy in the universe --- is freely created from nothing at all by the source charges in creating its associated fields and potentials and their energy.

We argue, of course, that the solution to the source charge problem was achieved in 1957 with the proof of broken symmetry, which initiated a giant revolution in physics.  We know now (it is long since proven) that the charge --- considered in the modern view with its clustered virtual charges of opposite sign and thus a dipolarity --- continuously absorbs virtual energy from the vacuum, transduces (coherently integrates) the virtual energy into real EM photons, and emits those EM photons in all directions in 3-space.  We pointed out this solution to the source charge problem in 2000.

Nonetheless, the standard EM model and electrical engineering model are in flat contradiction of the conservation of energy law (first law of thermodynamics).  Either one has to totally give up conservation of energy in electrodynamics, or one has to change the rather inane present EM models to include the active vacuum's exchange with the charge, and the proven asymmetry in that exchange.  Yet in the nearly half a century since Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize for their strong prediction of broken symmetry, this epochal discovery in physics has not made it across the university campus to the electrical engineering department, and the EE professors have not updated their seriously deficient, century-old EM model.

The point is that the present standard (classical) EM theory is in serious need of modern updating.  We will get a radical new electrical science, whenever the present community leaders who so adamantly defend the hoary old model and its terrible omissions and flaws, die off and cease their adamant opposition (that's simply taking a statement about such situations that Max Planck made many decades ago: you don't get a new science until the old dogs who so adamantly oppose it die off and get out of the way). Until they, they simply use their prestige, position, and control of funding to destroy the careers of any scientists trying to do it, and they adamantly block any funding for the sharp young graduate students and post docs for work in extracting EM energy from the vacuum.

These same dogmatists also pose a serious threat to the continued survival of this nation.  Since 1903 and 1904, there has been known to exist a far more fundamental electrodynamics that is "infolded" inside ordinary EM waves and fields and potentials, and in fact CREATES and comprises the normal "envelope" stuff we teach in our universities.  Some 10 nations of the world have now highly weaponized this strange new longitudinal wave electromagnetics, which could also have tremendous impact and contributions to healing, computing, superluminal communication, etc.  But presently it has been used primarily to build better killing systems. So one must have defenses, whether one wishes it or not, if one is to survive.   By adamantly opposing such "new" innovations and destroying or hamstringing the careers and opportunities of any professor, grad student, or post doc who tries to work in that area, the leaders of the present scientific community sometimes pose a greater threat to the survival of the United States than do our enemies.  For that reason, anything that really has to be done quickly and that is "out there on the forefront", is usually just placed in a "skunk works" program to bypass the scientific community and its "big monkey" games.

Scientists are no better and no worse than any other distribution of people. It's like a bell-shaped curve.  Which means that some 9% have no ethics at all, are conniving and manipulative, ego-driven and power-centralized.  This percentage then spawns great volumes of ad hominem attacks, savaging, and what can only be called "cur dog pack attacks" on legitimate researchers trying to work in such areas as cold fusion, energy from the vacuum, internalized electrodynamics, etc. Any historian of science can easily cite a hundred examples, including modern examples today.

The real problem and the real answer is "control of scientific funding".  He who controls the funds, controls what research is allowed and what shall be developed and what shall be taught in our universities.  You simply control science by controlling the funding.  That has been marvelously done, and today the professors and grad students and post docs are under immense pressure to get outside funding (else they will shortly be parked on the trash heap) and thereby conform with current dogma.  If they do not do that, their careers falter then fail, and they have been consigned to the trash heap.

The fault lies directly in the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the great national laboratories, DARPA, etc.  They determine where the money is to be spent and what kind of research is to be done.  They also thereby determine what shall largely remain in our textbooks and what shall be taught.

Not to pretty a picture, but that is the way it really is.

The energy problem, for example, can be solved for $100 million and in three years time, if we were to turn loose and fund the sharp young grad students and post docs on the problem, specifically charging them to range far afield and be innovative (and do not destroy their careers for doing so).

But till then, the same mentioned agencies are enforcing and upholding the teachings and textbooks and models which continue to implicitly assume that every charge in the universe is a perpetual motion machine freely and continuously creating EM energy from nothing at all.

Sadly, the greatest perpetual motion "nuts" (their own epithet, held back up in the mirror to them) in human history are and continue to be that same set of scientific leaders.

In science, the experimental results are supposed to be the scientific decision authority, not the prevailing theory or prevailing dogma.  No amount of theory or dogma can refute a single replicable experiment that contradicts them.  At least that is the way the scientific method is supposed to work.  It doesn't work that way at all, or at least it often takes from 50 to 100 years for the bulk of the scientific community leaders to quit being strident dogmatists and turn back into scientists believing proven experiments.

So yes, if the nation survives, we will eventually get the new EM science we should already have developed 40 years ago.  We will get electrogravitation, unlimited free EM energy from the vacuum, superluminal communication, and a new medical therapy that simply reverses the damaged or diseased cells --- damaged or altered genetics and all -- back to a previous earlier state. All these things are laboriously working in the hands of independent inventors.  They are not working in our great labs, universities, and research agencies because they are not allowed to be working there; they simply are not tolerated.

As an example of a silly little thing with incredible implications, consider the recent paper by Nakanishi, Sugiyama, and Kitano, "Demonstration of negative group delays in a simple electronic circuit", Am. J. Phys., 70(11), Nov. 2002, p. 1117-1121.  One can develop circuits that emit the effect prior to the cause being introduced!  It's real, there's even a quantum theory that covers it, and the circuits are simple.  So how many agencies in DoE are leaping on that, to apply it to electrical power circuits?  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that, if I can introduce the effect (say, the output energy into the load to do work) before I introduce the cause, then I can accept the effect and in the meantime also go back and undo the cause and my payment for it.  Works sorta like the two-slit experiment; yes, an electron really can go through two separated holes at the same time, and it does.  Further, you can change the situation there even after the electrons have passed through the holes already (the delayed choice two-slit experiment, about which Wheeler has written so much).

But if one continues to think classically in physics terms that are more than a century outdated, one will just pooh-pooh such demonstrated experiments and their results.  We accent again that all the theory and dogma in the modern world cannot refute a single replicable experiment that contradicts it.

And the contradictions are there, richly scattered throughout physics.

So why are not the same named leaders of our scientific community concentrating on exploiting these far-flung and rich  (and mind-boggling) new avenues in physics, directly in electrical power circuits?  Why is the Fogal semiconductor not funded and in production?  My God, do they have any inkling of what Fogal's semiconductors and special circuits can really do? Can they even understand the potential impact on all electronics and on science itself?  Can they understand what directly seeing and engineering the virtual state and engines comprised of spacetime curvatures can do and what it portends?  Apparently not.  Do they understand that, if you can pass a single electron through two separated holes at once, with the electron emerging intact on the other side, you can also pass (at least in theory) a human body through a mass such as an intervening wall?  After all, mass is mostly empty space, with a particle here and another way over there, very similar to a solar system's spaciousness.  With the proper control, mass can pass through mass (since it continually turns into masstime, with wave characteristics, and the group waves comprising one mass can pass through the group waves comprising the mass of the wall).  So why is that not being examined, particularly with respect to controlling it?  Who is so blithely confident that the virtual state cannot be engineered?  It can.  It is.  Why is such a potential great breakthrough not being exploited or researched? Simply think of the impact on surgery, e.g.  Wouldn't it be nice to remove a damaged or diseased part without even opening the body?  Yes, it may sound wild, but tell it to the electron when it passes through those two holes and automatically reassembles on the other side of the barrier.

Science has only scratched the surface so far; the best is yet to come, by far.

But science development languishes and slows to a snail's pace because of the fierce enforcement of dogma.  Because today science often defends a falsified model to the death, usually to the figurative death (career wise) of the proponent or proponents advocating that kind of heretical research.

So it's still all about money and power and prestige, even in science.  It's still the "big monkey" game of primate dominance.  For that 9% of manipulative entities, it isn't experimental results or new innovations or new discoveries. It's "Who is to remain the big monkey?"

As the French say, the more things change the more they are the same.

Very best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Subject: Autowaves and Scalar waves, Are they the same?

Dear Sir,

I happen to be an electronics undergraduate from India who is extremely interested in the study of vacuum engineering. I have been through your entire website trying to grasp much of the scalar wave theories.

 Recently, I came across this book called "Self-Organisation. Autowaves and structures far from equilibrium", by V.I. Krinsky, which was the proceedings of an international symposium in Puschino,USSR. Most of the matter in the book was way above my level of understanding, but I managed to grasp a few things- In the foreword it says "Autowaves are a specific, yet very important, case of spatio-temporal structures. The term 'autowave' was coined in the Soviet Union in analogy to the term 'auto-oscillator'". it seems to be a part of the science of SYNERGETICS. Is the author referring to scalar waves? Later in pg-9 a Table of properties of waves and autowaves are given

Properties                             Waves     Autowaves
Conservation of energy                     +          -
Conservation of amplitude & waveform      -          +
Reflection                                +          -
Annihilation                              -          +
Interference                              +          -
Diffraction                               +          +

The properties seem to be similar to scalar waves. It is also said that autowaves can occur in diverse active media - physical, chemical, biological. The author points out that the second law of thermodynamics is not universal. The book is divided into several sections which deal with various aspects of autowaves. I could not understand much of it but it became clear to me that autowaves are very much a part of biological systems.

  Right now I am thoroughly confused about this entire phenomenon. I would be very grateful if you can clarify the differences between the autowaves and scalar waves ( ..if they are different).

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully

Kollol D