|The Tom Bearden
|Subject: RE: Question for Dr.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:03:41 -0500
No, I've not taken the trouble to do all the conversions! However, physicists already routinely use a system whereby length is the only fundamental unit. So it's quite well known that there is no special "magic" in a particular set of fundamental units (although many staid physicists and most engineers will adamantly insist there is). Jackson discusses such models using only a single fundamental unit in his second and third editions of his Classical Electrodynamics. He comments quite wryly on the excess fuss and fury that has been generated over this simple thing.In the energy field, if we wish to deal successfully with systems far from equilibrium with their active environment, one absolutely must understand the solution to the source charge problem! In electrical engineering and classical EM theory, that problem remains unsolved, and begrudgingly admitted as the "most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics". Eerily, the basis for the solution has been sitting in particle physics since 1957, with the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang for their prediction (in 1956 and 1957) of broken symmetry. That was so startling a revolution in physics that it was immediately experimentally examined -- and demonstrated by Wu and her colleagues in early 1957. Again, so profound a change to all of physics was this, that the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang that very same year, in Dec. 1957.
In electrical engineering and CED, the models still assume that every charge in the universe is a perpetual motion machine of the very worst kind, freely CREATING energy from nothing continuously, and continuously pouring it out in all directions at the speed of light, establishing their associated fields and potentials reaching across the universe (or to whatever radial distance lightspeed has carried the energy flow since the charge was made). You see, all EM fields and potentials come from their source charges. It's easy to show that any charge does indeed continuously pour out real, usable, observable EM energy in all directions. The same instruments will clearly show that there is no OBSERVABLE electromagnetic energy input to the source charge.So there is a terrible, horrible, monstrous problem eating the vitals of CED and electrical engineering. Since those models ARBITRARILY do not model the active vacuum and its energetic exchange with the charge -- and with every EM system -- then those models cannot and do not even allow the steady input of VIRTUAL photon energy to the charge from the seething vacuum.
Consequently, CED and electrical engineering models EAT THEMSELVES by swallowing their own tail, so long as they remain unchanged and so long as they do not change to model the active vacuum exchange and therefore model the solution to the source charge problem.Of course, there is lots of scientific prestige and rice bowls to be damaged if the community strongly and openly admits that it has a terrible problem and has been teaching implicitly the very worst kind of perpetual motion machines for more than 100 years.
It's really bad, and I personally blame the leaders of the scientific community such as the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation. It is well-known that an "isolated charge", once one considers the vacuum exchange, is a very strange creature indeed. First, clustered around it are virtual charges of opposite sign -- from the well-known polarization of the vacuum when exposed to any charge. So around the "real" or "bare" charge in the center, there is a clustering of virtual charges of opposite sign. In short, the "isolated charge" is in fact a "dipolarity" of special kind. Indeed, the "bare charge in the middle" is infinite (standard theory, not Tom Bearden!). So is the shielding virtual charge around it. However, these two infinite different charges have a finite difference, and that finite difference is the normal value of charge than an external observer outside it will "see" or measure. That's the value in the textbooks and handbooks.So really, the energy available to a charge is infinite, absolutely unlimited. Further, by being that special dipolarity, it then has a broken symmetry in its exchange with the vacuum (the broken symmetry of opposite charges, such as on the ends of a dipole, was one of the proven asymmetries that Wu et al. proved in 1957. It's well known in particle physics, but usually quite startling to electrical power engineers.).
Well, the very definition of "broken symmetry" means that that crazy charge continuously absorbs virtual photons from the seething vacuum, transduces (coherently integrates) that virtual energy into real observable photons and energy, and then re-emits the energy as that real, observable EM energy pouring out of the charge in all directions, establishing its fields and potentials.That is totally missing from CED and from electrical engineering.
There is not now and there never has been a single electrical engineering department, professor, or textbook that even knew and taught what powers an electrical circuit! All EM fields and potentials -- and their energy -- come from their source charges, via that "giant negentropy" process. Every charge in the universe is the most fantastic "Maxwell's Demon" one can imagine. It's a wonderful little "free energy" energy source.And all the EM field energy and potential energy in every system and every circuit comes from those source charges via that mechanism. Since that mechanism does not even appear in electrical engineering, or in the CED model it uses, then it means that our electrical engineers do not now and never have known that energy from the vacuum already powers every electrical circuit, and always has.
If this were taught to those sharp young students and grad students, then very shortly they would also realize that the rather inane closed current loop circuit self-enforces COP<1.0 overall performance, even though every charge in their circuit or system already has COP = infinity.In short, we've all been had by the sleepiness and "business as usual" -- and arrogance -- of the scientific community.
Even the environmentalists have been asleep; they unfortunately get their scientific advice on the "energy problem" and the "environmental effects of that energy problem" from the very scientific community that has been responsible for those problems for more than a century.If the NSF and NAS would do their job, they would be funding and performing a crash study to change the hoary old decrepit electical engineering and CED models in a Manhattan Project. If the environmentalists had their heads on straight, they would absolutely demand it.
Absolutely no one -- including the Department of Energy -- is working on the only problem there is in electrical energy: How to CATCH in an external circuit some of that copious EM energy flow so easily evoked from the vacuum by every charge and dipole, then DISSIPATE the collected energy in an external load to power it, WITHOUT stupidly using half the caught (Poynting) energy to destroy the source dipole providing the energy from the vacuum via its broken symmetry.Alas, the positions are prestigious, and so we don't see that happening. It is not likely to happen unless the environmentalists wise up and forcibly drag the scientific community to that necessary program, kicking and protesting and pontificating all the way.
Anyway, when you pursue the source charge problem and its solution, from quantum field theory it turns out that all EM energy in 3-space does come in a giant 4-circulation form, entering 3-space from the time domain and returning to the time domain.That's why one needs to deal with time-as-energy. It is indeed the fundamental source of all EM energy in the universe. Crudely speaking, we "burn" a little time to get some EM energy, then return it after we use the energy to do some work.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:46:16 +0000
Subject: Question for Dr. Bearden
I'd be very grateful if you could pass this question on to Dr. Bearden.
I'm not expecting a quick answer and realize that his schedule may permit no answer at all, but it might help those of us below the PhD in physics level to understand a little more of his work:
In this paper: sweet%20bearden%201991.htm Dr. Bearden writes:
"As is well-known, the fundamental units utilized in physics are arbitrary. It is even possible to construct all of physics on a single unit, time."
He also frequently mentions flow of time and time reversals. Has Dr. Bearden ever thought of converting conventional physics equations like:
F = ma
...to equations in which time is the fundamental unit in a system of physics based on time?
Hamilton, Ontario Canada