The Tom Bearden
Amherst College, Box 2262
Amherst, MA 01002
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 01:42:07 -0600
Dear Dr. Romer:
This is not a submission of a manuscript, but a personal communication to
you on a matter of great importance in physics, directly related to endnote
#24 of your seminal editorial "Heat is not a noun," American Journal of
Physics, 69(2), Feb. 2001, p. 107-109.
It will take a little exposition, so please bear with me and read this when
you have the spare time to do so. We are going to show you how your keen
insight can be extended to solve some extraordinarily formidable foundations
problems in present electrodynamics. We will also show how to apply the
implications of your insight to totally solve the present electrical energy
In your endnote #24, you took to task (quoting) "...that dreadful diagram
purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a
function of position (and/or time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every
introductory book. ...it is a horrible diagram. 'Misleading' would be too
kind a word; 'wrong' is more accurate." "...perhaps then, for historical
interest, [we should] find out how that diagram came to contaminate our
literature in the first place."
Dr. Romer, you have lifted the corner of a dark cover concealing one of the
most important flaws in electrodynamics and in fact in all of physics: the
unwitting and pervasive substitution of the effect for the cause. A
marvelous extension to the present physics is enabled if one removes this
terrible non sequitur in physics, and particularly in electrodynamics. For
openers, one solves what has been called the most important problem in
electrodynamics (the problem of the source charge and the association of its
fields and potentials and their energy). I will solve that problem for you
in this informal write-up. I will also explain how to extract enormous EM
energy from the vacuum, anywhere and anytime, easily. Extracting it is
easy; catching it and using it to power loads without killing the extraction
process, is another matter.
One also gets a unified field theory, engineerable by novel electrodynamic
means, as is steadily being shown by a series of rigorous AIAS papers
published in various leading journals (and more than 90 of them carried on a
Department of Energy website restricted primarily to DoE scientists). Dr.
Myron Evans, Director of the AIAS, has over 600 papers published in the
literature, including such journals as Physical Review, Foundations of
Physics, Physica Scripta, etc. Many of the other AIAS co-authors are noted
theoreticians and scientists.
The early pioneers (Maxwell etc.) of electrodynamics all assumed a material
ether filling all space. To them, there was not a single point in the
entire universe that was devoid of matter, because the ether was present
there. Hence their outlook as to the nature of EM fields etc. was quite
material. Faraday conceived his "lines of force" as physical, taut strings,
so that perturbations were "plucking these taut strings". Maxwell himself
points out in his famous "Treatise" that he specifically captured the
thinking of Faraday in his theory. In fact, Maxwell wrote a material fluid
flow dynamics theory.
In the light of more modern knowledge, let us see the impact of these and
similar early but still retained erroneous electrodynamics assumptions.
First, observation/detection is totally spatial, as is well known in quantum
mechanics. In fact, observation is a d/dt operator imposed upon 4-space
(LLLT spacetime), yielding a frozen instantaneous snapshot LLL of an
on-going 4-space dynamic process. At the very next instant, that particular
previous observation no longer persists. Why?
Well, no observable persists, since it is only an instant frozen 3-space
snapshot, at a single point in time, a priori. Here again we have another
horrendous non sequitur in all of physics: the assumption that observables
"continue to exist" and therefore persist in time in a passive manner. In
fact, there is an interactive process that generates their persistence,
involves time, and continually changes mass into masstime and back to mass,
etc. Wit your permission we will pass discussing that mechanism till
another time (pun intended!).
So what we conceive as "an observable such as mass, traveling through space
and persisting in time while doing so", is actually an iterative, continual
series of these frozen 3-space snapshots or observations, much like the
frames of a motion picture film. We ourselves mentally add the "continuity"
to provide "the sensed motion", but rigorously what is actually "observed"
is not continuous, but is a vast continual series of those frozen 3-space
We're getting directly at that atrocious diagram!
Each snapshot is an effect, not a cause, because it was the output of the
observation process whereby a 4-space causal entity (non observed a priori)
interacts with a previously observed frozen entity (say, a unit point charge
at some point in space) to produce the observation (change or effect
generated in that interacting observed charge) as the "next instantaneous
The usual "representation" of a "3-space EM wave" propagating in 3-space is
indeed atrocious, just as you stated! It is actually just an iterative
succession of such instantaneously frozen snapshots in 3-space, one after
the other. There is no such thing as that set of snapshots independently
existing in spacetime, prior to interaction with charge in that series of
interactions and observations, unless we wish to discard quantum mechanics
and the laws of logic.
There is, however, a continual iterative stream of those observations --
those frozen 3-space snapshots -- that we interpret (erroneously) by recall
from memory as the "EM wavefront propagating in 3-space". As you eloquently
pointed out, that is not so, and it is atrocious. An observation, being an
absolutely frozen entity, cannot "move through time" anyway, since it cannot
persist anyway, nor can it move. A change to an observable can only be
another observable snapshot of the ongoing 4-space entity and action, which
is then compared to the first snapshot and a difference noted.
In short, a great stream of "frozen effects" (frozen instant observations)
does not constitute a "picture" of the ongoing 4-space action, but only a
series of frozen 3-space intersections involving the interaction of that
fixed observed (3-space) charge with the ongoing causal 4-space entity. If
we add and integrate a series of 3-space pieces, we do not get a 4-space
entity! Instead, we get a longer or bigger 3-space slice/piece, but one for
which each piece of it only existed at a single point in time as a 3-space
"slice" at that moment. That is precisely what is wrong with that horrible
But it is also "wrong" with electrodynamics itself! Electrodynamicists
mistakenly conclude that the same effect "series of static 3-slices" --which
they might call, e.g., the "field" in a case where the field is the
subject -- is the same as the 4-space continuous causal field prior to
observation interaction with charge at all. Well, LLLT is definitely not
LLL, nor is it n(LLL) where n is some large but finite number of 3-slices
So the field concept is dichotomously used in two completely contradictory
manners in electrodynamics:
(1) it is considered to be in 4-space prior to the observing/detecting
interaction with the observable (such as a unit point 3-space charge), and
it is also considered to be a 3-space entity after that interaction. The
dimensions of the two entities are not the same, and neither are the
dynamics. The causal EM wave is dynamic and 4-spatial, the effect "3-space
EM wave" (ugh!) is static and 3-spatial. Assuming that the two are the
same thing is a gross non sequitur.
In fact, it substitutes the effect for the cause, a rather gross violation
of the causal principle itself.
(2) then a feeble attempt at glossing over the illogic is used by the trite
statement that "the field (meaning that atrocious series of frozen 3-space
snapshots) remains in the absence of charge, but the force goes to zero."
Well, if the field is a force-field, it cannot be a "non-force field!" Else
opposites are identical.
So of what importance is all that?
It is of great importance. Let me show you one very startling thing that
comes out of correcting this "biggest foundations non sequitur in physics,
that of substituting the effect for the cause".
Consider a very special paper by E.T. Whittaker in 1903, "On the Partial
Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Mathematische Annalen, Vol.
57, 1903, p. 333-355. [I can send you a pdf of the paper if you do not have
it and are interested]. In this much-neglected paper, E.T. Whittaker
decomposed the so-called "static" potential into a harmonic set of
bidirectional longitudinal EM wavepairs, where each pair consists of a
longitudinal 3-space wave (an as-observed wave) and its longitudinal phase
conjugate wave (considered unwittingly as having also interacted with
charge, and therefore as being shifted into 3-space as an "as-observed" wave
with inversed parity). In short, Whittaker -- as has everyone since him --
unwittingly assumed that "iterative continual observation" interaction in
there for the phase conjugate wave also. In so doing, he came up with two
effect "waves" that are the outputs of the assumed observation process.
Neither of these waves is a wave in spacetime at all, but the two in
ensemble are an example of the same thing you objected to in your cogent
commentary on that abominable "illustration".
In short, Whittaker invoked observation as a process with two effects,
rather than with a cause and an effect, with the interaction with the
observing/interacting unit point charge being assumed for both waves. Both
Whittaker and everyone since then has made the same error in interpreting
that seminal Whittaker decomposition. This misinterpretation of the
decomposition has until now hidden one of the greatest secrets of all times
in Nature's electrodynamics!
Let us correct the interpretation, and uproot that great secret to the light
First, for observation to occur, one must have cause acting upon the
affected (observable) entity, and an effect (observable change) must be
produced in, on, or of that affected (interacting) entity. One must not
have two effects (two observables) and the affected entity (another
observable and therefore another effect)! Again, assuming that one has
three effects (observables) constituting the observation process is a
logical non sequitur of first rank.
Let us now correct that logical non sequitur made by Whittaker and other
physicists and electrodynamicists, and see where it leads us.
First, we go to particle physics, where broken symmetry was discovered in
the 1950s. Lee, e.g., received a Nobel prize for his work in that area.
Lee also showed that any dipole is a broken 3-symmetry in its violent energy
exchange with the active vacuum.
Well, a scalar potential is a dipolarity; always a potential is actually a
difference between two potentials, so to speak. So the potential itself
represents a broken 3-symmetry in an energy flow exchange with the active
Let us further examine that interesting broken symmetry aspect. It means
that the "static" potential is a process whereby energy is received from the
vacuum in one form, not observable and hence unusable, but is output in
observable (usable) form. In short, the dipolarity or dipole receives and
absorbs (QM view) virtual photons, integrates them into observable size, and
emits real, observable EM energy ("continual observation" snapshots of the
latter being assumed).
In physics, all observation is 3-spatial, as is well-known. And 3-space is
the realm of the observed. The EM energy from the vacuum is not received in
3-spatial (observable) form, else there would be no broken 3-symmetry of the
We can also experimentally verify that there is no 3-space input of EM
energy to the potential -- e.g., to the potential between the ends of any
source dipole, because we cannot measure any 3-space observable energy
feeding the charges of the dipole. Instead, observable 3-space energy is
continuously pouring out of the dipole.
Let us continue now with the notion of a real dipole of separated source
charges, with our "scalar potential" between its ends, so we have something
concrete in mind.
Our instruments prove that, first, there is a continual emission of EM
energy in all directions in 3-space (of the kind in that atrocious diagram;
a "series of iterative film-snapshots"). That is the way it is
conventionally represented, as if observed at each and every point
successively in that 3-space, and along every radial.
But our instruments also prove that, secondly, there is no such observable
input of EM energy in that same 3-space to the dipole. Bummer! That is
precisely what has stopped the electrodynamicists from solving that vexing
problem of where all the energy pouring out of the source dipole is coming
from, and how! They unconsciously assume that the only EM energy input is
in 3-space. That it totally wrong. And further, the conservation of energy
law does not require that energy be conserved in 3-space! Instead,
rigorously -- if we are using a 4-space (i.e., spacetime) model -- it
requires that energy be conserved in 4-space. The assumption of the extra
condition of 3-space energy conservation is an added and arbitrary extra
Since electrodynamics has not resolved this "source dipole and its
associated fields and potentials" problem, it has stopped work on the
problem and implied that every dipole in the universe is a perpetual motion
machine, freely creating all that EM energy it continuously pours out across
space, in all directions, creating its associated fields and potentials.
That implicit assumption, if true, of course destroys the conservation of
It isn't true, and the energy conservation law is alive and well!
We can experimentally prove that the source dipole does continuously pour
out energy in all directions in 3-space, without ceasing, as follows:
In a gedanken experiment, we set instruments every 300 million meters or so,
along a radial line from an origin in the lab. With the instruments and
clocks synchronized, we suddenly form a dipole at the origin. One second
later, the first instrument reads. A second later, the second instrument
reads. And so on. But it is not a "passing pulse", because whatever
reading the instrument makes as the forward edge of the energy flow reaches
it, is then continuously maintained thereafter. This proves that the energy
is poured out continuously and at the speed of light, and in any (and all)
directions in 3-space, and it continues to pour out at exactly the same rate
so long as that dipole remains intact.
Dipoles in the original matter of the universe have been pouring out EM
energy in that fashion for some 15 billion years, and they have not
"exhausted" their unobserved energy input source yet.
A newly formed simple dipole, e.g., in one year will have poured out energy
into a spherical volume of space that is a light-year in radius. Wait
another year, and that volume of space whose energy density has been changed
will be two light years in radius. The dipoles in the original matter have
filled the universe itself with that energy outpouring from them.
In other words, an incredible amount of EM energy has been and is being
poured out into space from every dipole in the universe. And
electrodynamicists have had not the foggiest notion of where that
mind-boggling amount of outpoured EM energy has come from.
Unless we wish to totally discard the conservation of energy law, the we
must have an equal input of energy from outside 3-space, going into each and
every dipole continuously. In 4-space, that only leaves the fourth axis,
along which and from which the input energy must move into the dipole.
And so it does. If we re-interpret that phase conjugate half set of the
Whittaker decomposition, before observation has occurred, it then is a
harmonic set of longitudinal EM waves moving in the time-dimension, into the
source dipole (parity is not inversed because no interaction with charge has
occurred to shift it into 3-space.
So voila! We have strangely (but quite rigorously) solved what Sen referred
to in this manner: "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.].
We express our reasoning as follows: (1) We know from particle physics that
the source dipole is a broken 3-symmetry in its flux exchange with the
vacuum. This means that we know the energy is received from the vacuum in
an unobservable form, absorbed by the dipole, and emitted as observable EM
energy. It remains to translate that into classical electrodynamics rather
than quantum physics. (2) The time domain is the only domain outside
3-space, in the standard 4-space model. (3) Anything in the time domain
exclusively, is indeed nonobservable, since the d/dt observation operator
destroys time and all its internal structure and dynamics whenever
observation occurs. (4) looking for a "3-space" input is looking for an
"observable" EM energy input, which would in fact violate the known broken
3-symmetry of the source dipole.
Let me digress now to speak of fundamental units. As is well-known, the
fundamental units one chooses to make his physic model from, are an
arbitrary choice. One can, if one wishes, make a perfectly valid (but
mentally nightmarish!) physics using only a single fundamental unit. In
that case, all other "fundamental units" in the present model become
functions of that single fundamental unit.
Suppose, e.g., that we make the joule our only fundamental unit. Then
"mass" becomes totally a function of energy -- and we have no heartburn with
that one since the Einstein revolution and the nuclear age. But then "time"
also becomes totally a function of energy -- and that surprises us, because
we have unconsciously been taught (erroneously) that "time is a flowing
river down which a mass drifts like a drifting boat". That is not the
nature of time at all; the totality of the photon interactions with a mass
create that mass's "motion through time". I can later explain that to you
also, if you wish, but let us pass it for now.
It turns out that time is spatial energy compacted by the factor c-squared,
so it has the same energy density as mass, but in the time axis instead of
3-space. Intuitively, if we are interested in cause and effect, the energy
of the cause should be equal to the energy of the effect (in this case,
mass). After one reflects a moment, one also sees that "time energy" is
required to "drive" a mass through time, just as "spatial" energy is
required to "drive" a mass through space. The notion that mass in an
inertial frame moves through "empty space with no reaction" is false; it
continually moves through the energetics of spacetime, and interacts
continuously with it.
Anyway, from still another viewpoint there is no magic in EM energy currents
moving in the time domain! Quantum field theory already recognizes multiple
polarizations of the photon, including transverse, longitudinal, and
time-polarized. Thus it implies a time-polarized EM wave also. A
longitudinal EM wave moving in the time domain oscillates along its line of
travel which is indeed oscillating in the time domain, or "time-polarized".
Hence it is a proper time-polarized EM wave.
The solution to the "source dipole" problem is that the phase conjugate wave
halfset of the Whittaker decomposition, when reinterpreted, is the incoming
EM energy in the time domain, continuously input to the charges of the
dipole. The charges interact in the imaginary plane (the time domain), and
absorb the time-energy, then transduce it into 3-space, and emit it in all
directions as Whittaker's set of real observable longitudinal EM waves in
all directions in 3-space (as observed). The time-energy waves input to the
dipole cannot be observed, since observation destroys time and its
So all 3-spatial EM energy comes from the time domain! Broken 3-symmetry of
the source dipole immediately releases our arbitrary additional restriction
on nature's energy conservation law -- i.e., our insistence that the energy
input for conservation must be input in 3-3-space. By removing these
arbitrary "shackles" from nature's feet, we allow nature to joyously resume
here much-preferred 4-symmetry in EM energy flow: the circulation of EM
energy from the time domain into 3-space, and outpouring of that energy in
all directions in 3-space, at the speed of light.
Now let us solve the source-charge problem as well. That one is now easy to
We know from quantum mechanics that any "isolated" observable charge is
actually clustered around by virtual charges of opposite sign. So we simply
take one of these clustering opposite charges while it exists, and a
differential piece of the observable charge, and we have a composite dipole.
Hence the "isolated charge' may be represented as a grouping of such
momentary dipoles, each (while it exists) with a scalar potential between
its poles, and hence each subject to the same decomposition and
reinterpretation we have done.
So that is why the source charge can "sit there" and pour out EM energy in
3-space (as observed) continuously, and indefinitely. It is also
continuously absorbing EM energy from the time domain. As a set of
composite dipoles, it is a broken 3-symmetry in EM energy flow. Hence it
exhibits nature's preferred 4-symmetry in energy flow, between the
time-domain and 3-space.
Note also that, to the 3-space observer, this 4-symmetry is pure
negentropic. It is a continuous and ongoing (and spreading) reordering of
the vacuum energy, in the form of the reinterpreted Whittaker decomposition.
We can easily engineer negentropy! Just make a little dipole, and nature
happily starts pouring out energy and reordering part of the vacuum, with
that reordering spreading at the speed of light, steadily increasing all the
So reinterpreting Whittaker's marvelous decomposition tells us many things:
(1) the source charge or dipole does indeed continuously receive and absorb
its input energy from the time domain, (2) it continuously transduces its
absorbed energy to real 3-space energy (as observed!), and (3) it
continually outputs its absorbed and transduced time-energy as 3-space
energy emitted in all directions in 3-space (as continually observed).
So the terrible foundations problem of the source charge and source dipole
is resolved, and the energy conservation law is maintained.
We have also uncovered a most important thing: Given a little broken
3-symmetry in EM energy flow, a more primary 4-symmetry emerges
automatically. In short, every potential and every dipolarity and every
charge is such a broken 3-symmetry and an example of the new, preferred
4-symmetry of EM flow, with input flow in the time-domain (nonobservable!)
and output flow (as continually observed in a series of 3-snapshots) in all
directions in 3-space.
This also resolves the logical cause and effect problem for observation.
This 4-symmetry is a purely negentropic process, once the dipole is
established! Well, we should have known that from the gauge freedom axiom
in gauge field theory anyway! That axiom says that we are free to change
the potentials anytime, freely and at will. In electrodynamics, that means
we can freely change the potentials at will, anytime we wish. But that
means we can freely change the potential energy of a Maxwellian system at
will, whenever we wish. It costs nothing -- at least in theory; in the real
world we have to pay a little for switching -- to suddenly potentialize an
EM system, prior to the time the Drude electrons relax and current flow
I have applied this great new 4-symmetry in EM energy flow, that is freely
evoked and persists indefinitely after one pays a little to make the dipole
and thus a little broken 3-symmetry, to produce EM energy freely from the
vacuum. Without going into it, I refer you to our forthcoming paper, M.W.
Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T.E. Bearden et al. (15 authors), "Explanation of
the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator in O(3) Electrodynamics," Found.
Phys. Lett. 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94. Indeed, we can use this negentropic
process to extract as much EM energy from the vacuum as we wish, anywhere,
anytime, for peanuts. Let us now move to discuss that area.
First, let me point out another astounding result that comes from resolving
this "source charge and source dipole" foundations problem.
Generators do not use any of the shaft energy input to them -- even in
transduced form -- to power their external circuits! A generator itself
does not add a single watt to the power line, and neither does a battery's
chemical energy dissipation add a single watt to its attached circuit.
Neither does burning all those hydrocarbons, consuming all those nuclear
fuel rods, building all those dams, etc. to provide our conventional power
systems and grid. None of that enormous destruction of the biosphere and
pollution of it has ever directly produced one watt on the electrical power
Am I insane? No. Just follow the energy flow, in light of what we now
know. Here's how it works.
Typically we burn some fuel to boil water and make steam, and use the steam
to power a steam turbine which forcibly rotates the shaft of the generator,
thereby inputting mechanical shaft energy into the generator. So far so
good. That took care of all the hydrocarbon burning and fuel rod consuming,
extraction and transport of the oil, etc.
This input of the shaft energy forcibly rotates the rotor against internal
resistance, forming an internal magnetic field. Assuming a 100% efficient
generator with no internal losses whatsoever, this means that the mechanical
shaft energy input has now been totally transduced into internal magnetic
field energy. So far so good.
So what does that magnetic field energy do? It is totally dissipated upon
the internal charges of the generator, performing work on them and forcing
the positive charges in one direction and the negative charges in the other
direction. That dissipation of the energy in the internal magnetic field
forms a source dipole inside the generator, connected to the terminals.
And that is all the generator does. Period. None of the energy transduced
from that shaft input, went roaring out of the terminals and down through
space outside the conductors of the power line. Not a single watt. So let
us turn to particle physics to find out what happens next, because it does
not yet appear in the electrodynamics model, even though proven.
The internal source dipole, once formed, is a great broken symmetry in the
vacuum flux, as we discussed and as is well-known in particle physics. But
the proven and well-known vacuum interaction with the generator and the
dipole charges is not even modeled in the classical EM theory used by the
scientists and engineers to build electrical power systems -- much less a
broken symmetry in that active exchange! That's atrocious, since it's been
proven in particle physics for nearly a half century, Nobel prizes awarded,
etc. But the hoary old 136-year old Maxwell-Heaviside model, further
curtailed by Lorentz symmetrical regauging, does not incorporate what has
already been proven in physics. It does not accurately -- or even -- model
the situation as it is and as it is known to be.
Let us continue.
Once that dipole is formed, it extracts enormous EM energy from the vacuum,
and pours it out of the terminals of the generator, filling space
surrounding those conductors of the attached external power line. It is a
truly mind-boggling EM energy flow, trillions of times larger than what we
account after Lorentz taught us to disregard almost all of it.
Only the tiny little bit of that EM energy flow in space along and
surrounding the conductors -- the little "boundary layer" that skims down
the surface of the conductors -- will strike the surface charges in the
conductors and get diverged into them to potentialize the Drude electrons
and "power the power line and its circuits and loads". All the rest of the
giant EM energy flow in space surrounding the conductors, and generally
parallel to them, misses that power line entirely and is just wasted.
Check the original papers by Poynting and by Heaviside, who independently
discovered the flow of EM energy through space (as if continually observed!)
in the 1880s, after Maxwell was already dead. I can furnish the citations
required. From the beginning, Poynting only considered that component of
the energy flow that actually enters the circuit. He considered only the
"boundary layer" right on the conductor surfaces, so to speak.
Heaviside considered that component that enters the circuit, and also
uncovered and recognized the gigantic component in the surrounding space
that does not enter the circuit, but just misses it entirely and is wasted.
But Heaviside had absolutely no explanation for the enormous and startling
magnitude of this energy flow that "misses and is wasted". [You can see an
elementary illustration of the "point intensity" of this Heaviside
nondiverged flow component in John D. Kraus, Electromagnetics, Fourth Edn.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992. Kraus's figure 12-60, a and b, p. 578 shows a
good drawing of the huge EM energy flow filling all space around the
conductors, with almost all of it not intercepted and thus not diverged into
the circuit to power it, but just "wasted." Kraus's numbers on the contours
represent the amount of power (watts per sq meter) a single unit point
static charge will collect at any point in space on that contour. If we put
100 unit point charges at that same point in space on that same contour, we
will diverge and collect 100 times as much power as the Kraus contour
number. And you can collect and augment the collection in that manner from
every point in space around that transmission line.].
So Heaviside spoke cautiously of the angles and relative directions of the
flow components; he did not wish to be scientifically destroyed for pointing
out such an inexplicably large EM energy flow, far larger than the known
input energy to the generator. There was then no such thing yet discovered
as the electron, the atom, the nucleus, special relativity, general
relativity, quantum mechanics, the active vacuum, etc. Poynting never even
thought of the "nondiverged component that misses the circuit" or
Lorentz, however, understood the extra Heaviside component and its vast
magnitude, but he also could not explain it in any fashion. Even the great
Lorentz could not risk publishing or advocating such an enormous energy
flow, lest he be called a "perpetual motion nut" and destroyed. So he
reasoned that, since that stupendous nondiverged energy flow component
missed the circuit and powered nothing, it had "no physical significance"
Jackson in his famous 1975 "Classical Electrodynamics", 2nd edition, uses
essentially the same phrase as did Lorentz. And so do almost all other
So Lorentz originated a little trick of integrating the energy flow vector
itself around a closed surface surrounding any volume element of interest.
Obviously that zeros all nondiverging EM energy flows -- including precisely
that inexplicable and enormous Heaviside "dark energy" component. The
integration trick does retain that small diverged Poynting component that
enters the circuit. Also, our instruments measure energy dissipation from
the circuit, and the energy has to enter the circuit to be dissipated from
it. So our instruments and their measurements will indeed agree with the
Poynting energy flow component. Lorentz in the 1880s thus arbitrarily
discarded accountability of trillions of times as much EM energy flow as was
retained and accounted.
In a later book by Lorentz, one can see that little trick that is still used
by electrodynamicists. The reference is: H.A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über
Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche
Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931,
"Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186. Figure 25 on p. 185.
The Lorentz trick does not cancel the actual flow of the Heaviside dark
energy component around every circuit! It just drops it from any
Indeed, we do precisely a similar thing for the "field" and the "potential".
There is not a single text in the U.S. that calculates the magnitude of the
field itself, prior to point interaction. Instead, we are taught to
calculate the reaction of that field at a point in it, with a unit point
static charge at that point. In short, we calculate what is actually
diverged from the field or potential by that little point static unit
charge, and call it "the magnitude of the field". At best, it is indicative
of the field intensity at a point, because we have prescribed the magnitude
of the static point charge's reaction cross section with the field, not the
overall magnitude of the entire field itself. Another major non sequitur!
By identifying the "field" as "that which is diverged from it", we gravely
err. We do the same for the potential, again using its reaction cross
section for a unit point charge at a point in the potential.
There is not a living electrodynamicist, it seems, who has ever calculated
the magnitude of the field itself, or of the potential itself! They
calculate the respective reaction cross sections (and the static reaction
cross section at that!) and erroneously call that the "magnitude of the
field". It is no such thing. No thing filling all space is identical to
one point in itself, else we discard all logic.
Well, now we can return to our source dipole and its extraction of an
enormous energy flow from the vacuum, once we account for the long-neglected
(for more than a century) Heaviside dark (nondiverged, unaccounted) energy
flow component. That is the essence of my paper, "Giant Negentropy from the
Common Dipole", Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. [Also
on DoE open website and my own website www.cheniere.org.].
The easiest thing in all the world to do, is to extract enormous usable EM
energy flow from the vacuum, from the time domain. Every circuit and every
electrical power system already does it, and every electrical power system
is powered by vacuum energy, not by burning all that coal and oil etc. None
of that does anything to actually power the circuit. It only makes dipoles.
If you will check the characteristics of the ubiquitous closed current loop
circuit, you will discover a diabolical thing: That closed current loop
circuit forces all the spent (depotentialized) electrons from the ground
return line back through the source dipole (the back emf). It is easily
shown that precisely half the energy collected in the circuit from that
feeble Poynting energy flow component, is then used to perform work on those
dipole charges and scatter them, thereby destroying the source dipole and
abruptly shutting off all energy extraction from the vacuum. The other half
of the collected Poynting energy is dissipated in the external loads and
losses. That means that half the collected Poynting energy is used to kill
the source dipole, and less than half is used to power the loads.
Well, we must input at least as much energy (assuming a 100% efficient
generator with no losses) to the shaft of the generator to restore the
dipole, as was used to destroy it. This means we shall always have to input
more energy to the generator shaft, than we get dissipated in the loads.
That is precisely what is responsible for our ubiquitous COP<1.0 systems,
where COP is Coefficient of Performance, and is load power output in the
external circuit divided by shaft horsepower input to the generator.
COP<1.0 comes from (1) the ubiquitous usage of the closed current loop
circuit, and (2) the prevailing notion that electrical power systems far
from equilibrium in their energetic exchange with the active vacuum are
impossible to build. In fact every electrical power system is already just
such a system. As is well-known in the thermodynamics of open systems far
from equilibrium with their active environment (in this case, the active
vacuum), such systems are permitted to: (1) self-organize, (2)
self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the operator
himself must input to the system (the excess energy is freely received from
the active environment, in this case the active vacuum), (4) power itself
and its loads simultaneously (all the energy is freely received from the
active environment, in this case the active vacuum), and (5) exhibit
But by designing all our systems so that they use more of their collected
energy to kill their source dipoles than they use to power their loads, we
have foolishly wasted the planets resources, vastly overcharged the
consumer, artificially created a great energy crisis, fomented wars for
precious oil and other energy resources, and polluted the planet and
In short, we pay the power company to have a giant wrestling match inside
their generators and lose! And we pay our electrical engineers to keep
designing and building such asinine systems!
And this sad state of affairs is what is now upon us as a great and
increasing energy crisis, polluting and destroying the biosphere, etc. and
threatening to eventually collapse the world economy.
It is astounding that, since the basis for the above has been in physics for
nearly a century (Whittaker decomposition) and for nearly a half century
(broken 3-symmetry of the source dipole, as well as the active vacuum), the
hoary old classical EM model has not been updated to incorporate what has
already been proven in particle physics. Such is inexplicable and
It is also astounding that no electrical engineer realizes that energy
extracted from the vacuum powers every electrical power system, and few if
any professors are aware of it either.
So this is where your cogent realization of the terrible non sequitur in
that atrocious "wave in 3-space" standard diagram leads.
Working with the AIAS (Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study)
advanced theorists, there is now a series of papers in the hard literature
pointing out the feasibility of extracting EM energy from the vacuum. In
addition to that paper previously quoted, I would also refer you to 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; -------- "Runaway Solutions of the
Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,"
Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409. About 20 other AIAS papers along such
lines or related, have been submitted to the various journals and are in the
I just wanted to contact you informally and, for your personal information,
show you how perceptive and correct your objection to that atrocious diagram
is. You have lifted the corner of the veil of electrodynamics confusion
between effect and cause, with effect being widely used as the cause. The
entire notion of a "separate force" acting on a "separate mass" in mechanics
is also a non sequitur. If we define force as F => d/dt(mv), where the =>
symbol means "is identically", then we see that mass is a component of
force! So here is another major and uncorrected non sequitur. And this one
was also largely responsible for the dichotomy of the field, where the "same
field" is used in both a force (mass containing) manner and a force-free
(without mass) manner, as if the two were the same!
I very much enjoyed your editorial, and would urge you to publish additional
material along that same vein. You are striking at the very heart of the
problem, and every bit of insight and change in those terrible non sequiturs
will result in enormous progress in electrodynamics and physics.
Tom Bearden, Ph.D.
Lt. Col., U.S. Army (Retired)
Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists
Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study
2311 Big Cove Road
Huntsville, AL 35801