|Subject: RE: The Kessler
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:59:00 -0500
Unfortunately the fundamental premise is incorrect. What is described in II is simply how to make a magnetic field in a coil, not electromagnetics per se nor the "force of electricity". One does not have to have a coil or current or voltage to have electromagnetics. Simply having a charge already provides all the electromagnetics, since the fields and potentials are produced by the source charges. In my forthcoming book we have lots to say on the fundamental mechanism by which the fields and potentials are produced by that source charge. Presently, the electrodynamicists implicitly assume that the source charge creates energy out of nothing, and pours it out continuously in all directions to make the associated fields and potentials and their energy, reaching across the universe. They freely admit that there is no observable EM energy input to the charge. We accent the word OBSERVABLE energy input. The broken symmetry answer to the source of the input energy and how it is input to the charge, has been in particle physics since 1957, but classical electromagnetics does not model the active vacuum, let alone a broken symmetry in the active vacuum's virtual particle flux. In failing to change their model to include the supersystem (the system, its active local vacuum, and its local curvatures of spacetime), the classical electromagnetics model already totally excludes gravitational and electrogravitational effects. It assumes an inert vacuum (falsified for decades by particle physics) and a flat local spacetime (falsified by general relativity for nearly a century). It is the fundamental classical model that is incomplete and seriously flawed. That does not mean we kill the model, which is perfectly useful to build a radio or TV or wire up a house, but it means we clearly state and specify its limitations and its shortcomings. All models are imperfect and have shortcomings; e.g., by the Godel proposition alone that is true.
Far better electromagnetic models have long been developed in particle physics, but they are not used in electrical engineering. These higher group symmetry EM models allow many things to be done with electromagnetics that are totally unthinkable in the standard electrical engineering curriculum. That includes unified EM and gravity; there are several very interesting "engineerable" unified field theories available also; I particularly favor Sachs's theory. That unified field theory is directly engineerable by Evans' O(3) electrodynamics, so it is possible to do and model electrogravity in a proper higher symmetry EM model. As an example, a beginning paper on the subject is M.W. Evans et al., "Anti-Gravity Effects in the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(6), Dec. 2001, p. 601-605. We would hope there will be more papers to come in that subject. With higher group symmetry EM models, one can and does model the "supersystem" and thus can engineer by electromagnetic means both local spacetime curvature and the local energetic active vacuum, as well as the system itself. Since all three of these components of the supersystem interact with each other, then one actively seeks that interaction to produce practical and engineering antigravity.
The electric force is generated upon a charged particle whenever that charge interacts with an electric field (a special curvature of spacetime with dynamics). Similarly, for a magnetic force, it is generated upon a charged magnetic charge (pole) when that charge interacts with a magnetic field (another special curvature of spacetime with dynamics). The EM field (both its electrical and magnetic aspects) is generated in actions on real charges, because the charges have spin and any electrical reaction producing an electrical force also involves a swirl or curl component force as well as the linear force component. The appearance of the electric force is because of the interaction stated, and that force is a linear force. The magnetic field also occurs and exists, because of the spin of the charged particle, and that is a "swirl" or "curl" force. The electric force exists upon the interacting charge, whether or not the charge is free to move. The charge is always spinning, so the swirl component is there anyway. If the charge moves linearly, then one speaks of "current". If it rotates about its axis or about an external axis, then the "swirl force" or magnetic force is produced. In a circuit, the electrons move down the wires at a snail's pace, e.g., in a nominal little circuit they may move longitudinally down the wire only a few inches per hour. The effect (force) of the interaction between field and charge, however, moves down the wire at nearly light speed, producing the force as it goes. The spinning electrons precess, however, much more rapidly than they move linearly down the wire. So most of their physical movement is laterally in the wire. The oldtimer's measurements of the lateral movement of this "electric fluid" before the electron or atom was discovered, together with Faraday's notion of the lines of force as physical taut material strings, is the only real basis for the notion of the transverse EM wave in space.
However, we point out the extreme and nauseous error perpetrated by textbooks in drawing a 3-spatial illustration of the "transverse EM wave in space". No such wave exists, and that beast is atrocious. E.g., Romer, former editor of American Journal of Physics, castigates it in these words: "…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." [Robert H. Romer, Am. J. Phys. 69(2), Feb. 2001, p. 109, endnote 24.].
Probably the greatest error of all in electrodynamics (and in the hoary old mechanics) is the notion that a separate force acts upon a separate mass or upon a separate charge. That is totally incorrect. Use the => symbol to mean "is identically" (as the identity symbol). Then F => d/dt(mv) and both terms of the expansion of the right side contain mass terms. So mass is a COMPONENT of force, not separate from it. There is no force at all if the mass is removed. Mechanics has been wrong for hundreds of years in its separate force on a separate mass notion (which merely came from medieval observation and experience of pushing on things with one's hand and arm, etc.). So a very great work is needed in all physics models to root out and change this ubiquitous assumption of a separate force acting upon a separate mass or charge. Just look at leading texts which try to define field, and the difference between field in matter (i.e., a force field where matter is actually a component of it) and field in mass-free space. Jackson, Classical Electromagnetics, 2nd edition, 1975, p. 28 wrestles nobly with it (Jackson is one of my heroes) but fails to resolve the problem. His statement is: ""...the thing that eventually gets measured is a force..." "At the moment, the electric field can be defined as the force per unit charge acting at a given point. … In symbols we may write F = qE."
As can be seen, if we write that as F => qE, then we have the electric force F consisting of the mass-free field E interacting with charged q which also has mass. Now divide both sides by q, and one has F/q = E, but there is NO MASS TERM in E now. So E is not really a "force field", since it has no force. Feynman stated that the field exists in mass-free space only as the POTENTIAL to have a force created, SHOULD one bring in a unit point static charge to interact with it. In other words, the assumption by Maxwell and subsequent of a material ether and a material force field in space was and is erroneous. Unfortunately the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz equations have never been changed to remove that material ether assumption from them. Instead, one day the electrodynamicists just announce, "Well, since there is no (material) ether, we are not using one!" and did not change a single equation. This serious non sequitur thus still exists in classical electrodynamics and especially in electrical engineering. The model itself is flawed.
Jackson manfully wrestles with that dilemma on p. 249 as follows: "Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge and field." Here he frankly admits they still assume the force field in mass free space, which is a non sequitur since a force field requires the presence of mass. If one wishes, one could use the virtual particle flux model of the vacuum (of space itself) and differentiate between a VIRTUAL force field in space, which would be consistent with Feynman's statement of the problem, and then use an OBSERVABLE force field in matter. That would make a consistent theory, except it might change the "spatial EM wave" to be a longitudinal EM wave instead of a transverse EM wave (which I believe is proper anyway, and think it can be fairly straightforwardly shown).
In general relativity, if one changes the energy density of spacetime, one curves it and thereby produces a gravitational change. If one curves it one way, one has produced positive gravity. If one curves it the other way, one has produced negative gravity or antigravitational field. (There is no difference between field and spacetime in GR; the spacetime is comprised of field(s) and the field is curved spacetime.) In the GR sense, all forces --- whether mechanical, EM, or whatever, are gravitational in nature since they are produced by the interaction of curved ST and charge or some other entity.
In quantum field theory, one of the axioms (stated or not) is the ability to freely change the potential energy of any system, or the vacuum itself, at any time and at any place. That is called "gauge freedom". The physicists are usually very careful to do two changes at once, and just so that the two free fields that are created (with all their energy also freely created) are equal and opposite. That way, the "regauging" produces a STRESS POTENTIAL and rotates the frame of the regauged system, but it does not allow us stupid consumers to have a NET force field that could forcibly move potentialized electrons through the external load and power it freely. In short, they deliberately though unwittingly do the "free changing of the energy" only in a manner whereby it does continuous internal work upon the system, increasing its stress, and IS NOT PERMITTED to do useful work in an external load for us. Our comment on that one is that it's a helluva way to run the energy railroad!
Note that the gauge freedom principle does not prescribe the source of the energy -- which has to come from the active vacuum, local curved spacetime, or both. It has to come from the environment external to the physical system so energized, and those two components make up that "external environment". Else the gauge freedom principle of physics totally falsifies the conservation of energy law, a priori.
Yet in the face of that, the classical electrodynamicists and electrical engineers freely regauge the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, continuously changing the potential energy of the system in two mechanisms, and locking all that excess free energy up in a stress potential, and having the external environment continuously do internal work in the system to stress it, and also rotating the frame of the system out of the lab frame. They the textbooks and professors blithely state that "this is the same system as before the regauging". That is a non sequitur of first rank!
All the above discussion is simply to point out that the models have grown somewhat haphazardly over the last century or more, and many non sequiturs are contained in those models. Some of these non sequiturs are precisely what discarded the ability to do antigravity and also to do overunity systems. What is heartbreakingly needed is a massive program by our very best theoreticians and foundations specialists to redo those terrible old models, and give us something better to work with and engineer with. Sadly, we see no recognition at all by the leaders of the scientific community that this is the most critical task in all of science. Instead, they will in fact literally crucify any young graduate student who wishes to do such for his doctoral thesis, and any young postdoctoral scientist who tries to do it. They also will now allow funding of such a project. Instead, the scientific mindset now is such that the hoary old models with all their errors are defended as if Moses brought them down from the mountain on those stone tablets. The real barrier to cheap, clean electrical energy and practical antigravity is the prevailing mindset of science itself. So we will have to see the usual grueling 50 year struggle of the young fellows against the old mossybacks running science, before we can ever get a new science and a new technology, no matter how much it is needed. The dogma has always been far more important than the science, to many scientific leaders. Hundreds of examples exist in the history of science, regularly pointed out by scientific historians.
There presently is much experimental work going on with lifters (e.g., see Jean-Louis Naudin's website for up to the minute reports, results, instructions for building your own, etc.) including the Biefield-Brown effect and others. Even NASA has a patent assigned to it which it is hawking as available for industry leasing. The patent is on a basic capacitor effect, a sort of improved T. T. Brown effect. Extensive patenting activity by the researchers in the field is also ongoing. Some of the most advanced work is being done by parties here in Huntsville such as: (1) Ning Li, who has returned to Huntsville Alabama and is still working on gravitational and antigravitational effects with superconducting circuits and materials (her little office is across from the Tom Bevill Center), (2) Transdimensional Technologies, http://www.tdimension.com/ [whose earlier work has been replicated by Jean-Louis Naudin and other associated researchers; their marvelous work is on Naudin's remarkable website http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm ]; Transdimensional has some very advanced work, is sweating out some of its filed patent applications, and expects to have working transportation units in five years or less, and (3) from time to time, Tim Ventura has worked with Transdimensional Technologies, etc. Tim has a most interesting website also, with some good results posted on it, and more being posted all the time. Check out his really neat website at <http://www.americanantigravity.com>
The NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Effort seems to be lagging a bit and woefully underfunded. It could provide a real stimulus and driving force if it were strengthened. Remains to be seen whether the bureaucracy will support it, and develop something really far better than "big rockets", or stay with its old standby rockets. Presently the bureaucracy is giving signs of abandonment, by more or less expecting 20 years results to come from ill-funded or unfunded efforts in a year or two. That is usually a sign of preparing to write off a project. We hope that is not true in this case, and we hope that NASA continues to fund this work.
But the real problem in achieving electrogravity as a practical technology lies in undoing the non sequiturs presently infesting our electrodynamics model and partially infesting mechanics. I also think that can be done and hope to get a chance to do it some day.
Meanwhile, the experimenters are leading the way in a torrential rush, so to speak, and they are pursuing the experiments and getting positive results. I really think they will see to it that this genie does not get put back into the bottle.
We will have more to say in this area in the future, but not just at present. At present we have to concentrate intensely on energy and the energy problem.
Electro-Magnetism and Electro-Gravitity: The Kessler Effect