Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:55:36 -0800
Dear Dr. O'Kuma,
I do not wish to complete the survey, because it doesn't have much meaning with respect to today's critical needs in physics or teaching physics.
Let me give you a strong example, which unfortunately physics teachers continue to ignore, as they have for 100 years (and particularly since 1957 and the discovery and proof of broken symmetry).
The classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics model, taught to all electrical engineers, medical researchers, etc. is so seriously flawed that it defies human imagination that physics teachers have not changed it.
E.g., the model assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the observable world is and has been created by the source charge, right out of nothing at all. It is simple to experimentally separate a charge and measure its immediate outpouring of EM energy at light speed in all directions, thereby establishing and continuously maintaining its associated EM fields and potentials. The charge will and does continue to do that, as long as it exists.
Yet no instrument known to man can detect any observable energy input to the source charge.
So what happened to that horrendous "source charge problem", called by Sen and others "the most difficult problem in electrodynamics, both quantal and classical"? It has just been scrubbed out of the university textbooks so the students will not know it, and therefore will not ask "embarrassing" questions.
The same flawed EM model assumes an inert vacuum having no net exchange with the EM system (and that has been falsified for many decades). It also assumes that spacetime is flat -- falsified since 1916 by general relativity. Specifically, every time the potential energy or field energy in a system changes, that curves the local spacetime in complete violation of the standard classical EM model. It also changes the local virtual flux activity of the vacuum, again in violation of the assumption of an inert vacuum.
What happens when one "potentializes" a charge q, by a scalar potential (phi) or common voltage V? What really happens is that the vacuum -- since it is energetic and filled with dynamics -- may be regarded as a special kind of scalar potential. Any scalar potential in EM thus is a change to that vacuum potential, and that is precisely why only the "difference between two potentials" is definable. So in the standard equation W = Vq, where q is the charge being potentialized with extra energy W by scalar potential (voltage) V, the local vacuum potential Z is changed by V to (Z + V). The flux activity of the vacuum is changed accordingly. The interaction between the altered local vacuum and charge q thus also changes, so that q will be outputting more field energy and potential energy (we discuss that in a moment). That is not even approached in the EE textbook or in the sophomore physics book, etc.
So the classical M-H EM model assumes a net inert environment with the source charge, and that has been tremendously falsified by physics for many decades. It is only maintained by not being able to teach the mechanism that really happens in the simple equation W = Vq.
Now either the source charge completely falsifies the entire conservation of energy law, and creates all the EM energy in the universe right out of nothing at all, or else there has to be a nonobservable (i.e. virtual state) input of the energy since one can prove experimentally that there exists no observable energy input to it. This critical and central problem has been totally ignored by our physics and EM teachers now for a century, and it is still ignored. Most just get angry if it is pointed out to them.
As we know in thermodynamics, a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system that is deterministic is theoretically permitted to produce negative entropy continuously, so that the entropy starts negative and continues to decrease toward negative infinity as time passes (Evans and Rondoni). THat of course totally falsifies the present form of the second law of thermodynamics. We know experimentally that in certain fluids the second law is violated by fluctuations alone, at the cubic micron level for up to two seconds (Wang, Evans et al.). Ordinary fluctuations violate the second law for less time and small level, and that has been known since nearly a century.
But the source charge, as presently taught by the physics teachers and classical electrodynamics, completely destroys the second law and also the first law (law of energy conservation). This is why teachers usually just get angry when it is pointed out to them. It's true, experimentally, and they do not wish to face the consequences.
Fortunately physics contains the answer, but no one will apply it or call it to the student's attention. The discovery of broken symmetry in 1957, leading to the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, contains -- among other things -- the asymmetry of opposite charges. That's proven and accepted, so one does not have to "reprove" it.
Now examine the QFT view of a classical "isolated charge". It's not an isolated charge at all, since it polarizes the vacuum. The "bare" charge in the middle is infinite, but in its vacuum polarization it surrounds itself with virtual charges of opposite sign, appearing and disappearing. This charge of opposite sign is also infinite, in QFT, but the difference between the two is finite and is the sign of the inner "bare charge".
Voila! When the active environment (falsely assumed away by classical Maxwell-Heaviside equations and by electrical engineering) is accounted, the "source charge" is actually a very special dipolar ensemble. As such, it is absolutely required to exhibit the asymmetry of opposite charges.
So now we have it. By the very definition of asymmetry, something virtual must become observable (Nobelist Lee). The source charge dipolar ensemble continuously absorbs virtual state energy from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates it, and re-emits real, observable photons in all directions, thereby establishing its associated EM fields and potentials at light speed and continuously replenishing them. It is also easily proven experimentally by actual set-up and measuring.
We published (obscurely, normal journals would not touch it) that solution in 2000, and again in my book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, 2002, Cheniere Press, available from my website www.cheniere.org.
In 2003 I also published the exact mechanism that accomplishes the continuous negentropy of the source charge. I.e., the charge continuously absorbs totally disordered virtual EM energy from its vacuum exchange, and coherently integrates it to observable size. The mechanism is this: Each absorption of a virtual photon increases the mass of the absorbing observable charge by a differential amount dm. Note that mass is unitary. Each succeeding absorption of a virtual photon further increases the mass of the charge by another dm. The mass increases unitarily (increasing its virtually excited state) until the magnitude of the differential is equal to the amount of mass-energy that will provide the energy of a real, observable photon. At that point the zitterbewegung of the vacuum initiates the prompt decay of the excited charge, triggering the emission of an observable photon. The process continuously repeats, so that real observable photons are continually radiated in all directions.
Energy is conserved and the first law is saved. However, the second law is violated completely, to any size level and any time duration desired. The original charges of the universe have been doing this for some 17 or so billion years, and have not run down yet.
Note that the associated EM fields and potentials are deterministic as a function of radial distance from the source charge. Hence this "source charge EM system" fits the theoretical continuous negentropy requirement laid down by Evans and Rondoni.
So all our physics teachers and electrical engineering professors continue to teach and advocate (and use to design our energy systems) with an archaic old EM model that is horribly fouled and does not describe what actually powers an electrical system (it is not the cranking of the shaft of the external generator!). All EM field energy and potential energy in the external circuit of the generator or battery comes from the local vacuum, via the actual Drude charges in the external circuit, acting as source charges and freely extracting the energy from the vacuum.
Now note what is meant by "gauge freedom". The potential (and thus the potential energy) of any EM system can be freely changed at will. All electrodynamicists and even staid old electrical engineers accept that and use it. But they arbitrarily insist on symmetrical regauging, so that any excess energy freely added to the system by freely changing the potentials, is "bottled up" in the system in the form of stress (equal and opposite force fields, hence no net force field to translate electrons as current through the loads, to power the loads "freely" from the regauging energy).
If one just increases one potential -- the voltage, or scalar potential -- then that is asymmetrical regauging and it does produce a net nonzero EM field "for free" in the system, as well as collected excess "free" potential energy. That field can then act as emf on the also excess-potentialized Drude electrons to drive current through the load, powering the load freely by dissipation of the excess energy being transported. Energy conservation is not violated, and thermodynamically such a system is an open system far from equilibrium, freely receiving excess energy from its active environment, the seething vacuum.
In that case, similar to a common heat pump with an extra environmental energy input, the asymmetrically regauging power system is free to develop COP >1.0, even though the system's overall efficiency will still be less than 100% and some of the input energy freely received will be "wasted" in the losses. The common home heat pump, e.g., has an efficiency of about 50%, but in design conditions will exhibit a COP = 3.0 to 4.0. The common solar cell, e.g., may have an efficiency of only 17% and waste 83% of all the energy it receives from its environment. However, its COP = infinity, because the operator need not input any energy at all; all the input energy freely comes from the environment.
Please note that, if the river's flow is included, a hydroelectric power system in its entirety -- including the distribution lines and the loads -- is a COP = infinity system, although its overall efficiency is far below 100% and leaves much to be desired.
Note also that the present first law of thermodynamics taught to students also contains an error that should be corrected. It equates any change of magnitude of an external parameter of a system -- such as the potential or field of an EM system -- as identically being work. That is false. So long as the magnitude of a field or a potential is changed by adding more of the same, and the form of the input energy is therefore not changed in order to change that magnitude, then that is work-free because it is mere regauging, and that is already recognized and proven to be free. So the present first law would exclude gauge freedom, falsifying much of physics, were it actually true. There is never an work involved in change of magnitude of energy per se, but only in change of form of the energy. This is something that teachers should have noticed long ago, and none seems to have seen it.
Here is the really astounding thing that the physics teachers and the electrical engineering professors are to be criticized for. The imposition of the standard closed current loop circuit means that such a system a priori self-regauges symmetrically. In the vernacular, it makes the back emf equal to the forward emf, and with system losses, that self-enforces COP < 1.0.
How on earth thousands of teachers and professors have not discussed and corrected these things, which are already in physics, thermodynamics, quantum field theory, etc. -- is inexplicable. Of course, we also sympathize with the professors: they have a tough job. They just attract extra funds for the university, or they are "persona non grata". All the universities are now greedy for outside money flowing in, and for attaining patents. Also, the professor has to attract money to pay for his grad students and post doctoral scientists. All the research packages put together by our vaunted National Academy of Sciences and our National Science Foundation, and made available for competition, already specify what research is to be done.
So in fact, our own scientific community -- and particularly our academic community, which simply has not done its homework in electrical power systems and in the terrible faux pas that exist in the standard Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics -- is directly responsible for the energy crisis, the ever increasing pollution of the biosphere, and global warming.
Since the scientific community will not react to these long-cherished great errors being taught in our electrical power engineering classes, then the only hope of solving the energy crisis is for independent inventors to do it. All who attempt it are savaged beyond belief, as being "perpetual motion nuts", by the very scientific community that still unwittingly assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created from nothing at all, by the associated source charges.
This is my entry to your survey. This is the truth; merely get in there and check it out. There is much more, of course, but the only hope now is to independently reach the sharp young grad students and post doctoral scientists who still think openly about foundations and will in fact re-examine them.
Sadly, the scientific community doesn't seem to wish to "wake up", but only wishes to continue to mouth pablum about hot fusion (hasn't put a single watt on the power line in 50 years after many billions of dollars, and won't for at least another 50 years and many more billions). It also pushes large nuclear power plants, etc. -- with no solution to the every increasing nuclear wastes problem.
Every EM circuit and system every built, and built today, is indeed powered by real EM energy extracted directly from the vacuum, not by burning hydrocarbon fuels, consuming nuclear fuel rods, catching the wind in windmills, or catching the river's flow in hydroelectric power plants.
Sadly, our own academic community still doesn't realize what actually powers an EM circuit, although it's been nearly a half-century since Lee and Yang (and experimentally by Wu et al.) laid the groundwork for understanding it.
Your comments would be appreciated.