ANNOTATED GLOSSARY
T. E. Bearden 1997, slightly
updated Dec. 2000
Latest editing and additions: 12th April, 2003
Foreword
This is an informal glossary originally prepared in 1997 for Gary
Hawkins to use on his web site, and informal definitions and discussions were
rather quickly jotted down in 1997. We
have been able to do a little updating now in Dec. 2000. Careful crafting and polishing for greater
rigor would require much more time than I am able to spare, but perhaps the glossary
can be helpful anyway.
We put in the gist of it, as we see it, and usually an annotation
or commentary to explain it. We tried to put in sufficient explanations and a
few references, so that the reader can see for himself or herself that physics,
mathematics, and even logic itself are not quite as cut and dried as is often
presented!
The only thing we absolutely insist on, that differs from the
normal physics and engineering approach, is that any true definition must be an
identity statement a priori. In this
view, since no equation is an identity, then no equation is a definition;
regardless of those "equations" universally advanced in physics as
"definitions." All an equation states is that the magnitude of the somethings on the right
is equal to the magnitude of the
somethings on the left. It does not at all define
any of the somethings on either right or left!
I've completed as much as I have time for now, and made some additions
and corrections to the 1997 version. As
time permits, we will try to add some more in the future . I hope these hasty
comments are helpful, and any errors in them are my own and not due to Gary
Hawkins or to Tony Craddock!
Tom Bearden, Dec. 2000
MATH AND SINGLE CHARACTER
ABBREVIATIONS
f The
electrostatic scalar potential, in units of joule per collecting coulomb.
Ñ The
mathematical operator 'del'.
Ñf The gradient
of the function f , mathematically.
In EM theory, use of the del operator produces an electric
field E given by E = - Ñf . An
electrical field is also generated by the time rate of change of the magnetic
vector potential A, where it is
given by E = - dA/dt.
Note that we have used that fact to assist us in producing the
motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG), with COP = 16 as of this writing.
fq Joules of
energy collected by a charge of q coulombs in an electrostatic scalar potential
having a
reaction cross section of f.
Since the collected energy is also usually the energy that
can then be dissipated as work, this expression often yields the work performed
in the circuit by the energy the surface charges collected from that part of
the S-flow in contact with the
conductors and components.
df /dt Time rate of change of the scalar
potential.
Also one form of displacement current.
dE/dt Time rate of change of the E-field.
Also one form of displacement current.
dp/dt Time rate of change of momentum, which
is a force F acting upon the system.
A force is defined as a time rate of change of momentum, or
F = dp/dt.
dP/dt Time rate of change of polarization.
Polarization displacement current.
dq/dt Time rate of change of charge,
otherwise known as "current".
Represents the normal current flow i of charges in a
conductor, i.e., i = dq/dt.
dq/dt-Isolated Load Loop A special current loop containing the
load,
...where i = dq/dt in that "load loop" is
isolated from the current i = dq/dt in the source loop containing the power
source, and the two loops are also field-coupling isolated. A transformer, e.g., does isolate the actual
current in the secondary from the current in the primary, but the field
coupling from primary to secondary and from secondary back to primary result in
the enforcement of COP = 1.0 as the maximum performance possible (in a perfect,
lossless standard transformer). In a
real standard transformer with some losses, COP<1.0.
The notion is that, even though current cannot pass from
the source loop to the load loop and there is no direct field coupling, energy
density flow S = E´H can pass. This is in
fact the definition of what we call bridging,
if in addition to current isolation the rigid back-field coupling is broken
between energy dissipation (power) in the source loop and energy dissipation
(power) in the load loop. In that fashion, overunity operation of the load can
readily be achieved.
E Electric Field.
Defined in older classical electromagnetics (CEM) as a force field, by E º
F/q. However, this only defines the entity after an interaction with
mass. In short, it defines the E-field
as an effect existing only in matter.
In the early days of electrodynamics, Maxwell and the other
"founding fathers" assumed a material ether filling all space. Hence any field in space was indeed such an
"effect" field existing in mass.
Maxwell died in 1879 of stomach cancer. In the 1880s, the Michelson-Morley experiments falsified the luminiferous
(material) ether as a material medium.
Hence the accepted use of the E
= F/q type of "effect"
electrical field as the electric field in space was also destroyed, but the
equations were never changed to eliminate this error in the foundations of
CEM. Instead, electrodynamicists more
or less announced one day that, "Since there is no (material) ether, we
are not using one!"
There is some rationalization mathematically for such an
approach, if the limiting process is used for the interaction of the
"causal field" in vacuum with the charged mass q, as q is allowed to
approach zero. However, from a
foundations view, it is still the interaction of the field in space with
charged mass that is being described in the limit, and therefore it is still
the "effect" entity rather than the "cause" entity.
This serious foundations problem is still unresolved in much of CEM theory and modeling to this day. The standard by which other EM texts are measured is J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd edition, Wiley, New York, 1975. In several places, Jackson opts for this avoidance of the use of the " effect" field for the "cause" field: quoting p. 28: "...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. It is a vector function of position, denoted by E." Quoting p. 249: "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."
The problem is further increased by use of this flawed definition of E-field to "define" the electrostatic scalar potential (Jackson, p. 34) by the equation E = -Ñf. First, no equation is a definition; it merely equates the magnitude of the entities on the left of the = sign to the magnitude of the entities on the right of the = sign. It has nothing at all to say about the definition or nature of any of the entities, but is merely a comparison of relative magnitudes. Any definition, a priori, must be expressed by an identity sign. In all of classical electrodynamics, there is no available proper definition of (x) in the identity E º (x). Indeed, there is no such identity available for force F. To quote Feynman: "…in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present… One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. … If you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it!" Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2.
In the Sachs unified field theory, O(3) electrodynamics as
spearheaded by Evans is an important subset.
Hence in that approach there is a solution to the problem of defining
force and field. The EM fields (E, B,
etc.) when in spacetime, are in fact curvatures of spacetime identically. When these ST curvatures interact with a
charged mass, the effects of the interactions are the well-known force-fields
in matter, which Maxwell started with in the 1860s. So in this way, the definition problem can be rigorously
resolved.
jf The Slepian
vector, representing the time rate of energy density dissipation in the current
loop
containing the jf.
This does not at all represent the energy flow in space and
along the outside of the circuit, which may be very, very much greater, on the
order of 1013 times as great.
It does match the Poynting energy flow component that enters the
circuit.
Mq or mq The mass of a charge q.
Instead of just using "q" and assuming it to be
unitary, we must include the fact that charge is a system of two coupled
components: (i) the mass mq of the charge q, and (ii) the virtual
photon flux exchange (i.e., fq) of the charge q
with the surrounding active vacuum. In particle physics it is already
well-known that there is no symmetry of a mass system anyway, unless the
vacuum's exchange with the mass is included. So the expression mqfq captures the vacuum-mass exchange. By continuing to assume
that charge is unitary, physics inadvertently holds to the hoary old notion of
the luminiferous ether (thin material ether) that permeates all of space.
Maxwell and other electrical physicists of his time believed in a material
ether, and Maxwell embedded that notion in EM theory. Inexplicably it has not
been rooted out of the equations to this day, even though the notion of the
material ether (not the ether per se!) was destroyed by the Michelson-Morley
experiment over 100 years ago. Foundations physicists continue to point out
such terrible defects in physics—and continue to be ignored. We quote Mario
Bunge, "A mathematical theory of the dimensions and units of physical
quantities," in Problems in the
Foundations of Physics, edited by Mario Bunge, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and
New York, 1971, p. 7: "The question 'What are dimensions?' is seen to be
ill conceived, for there are two concepts of dimension, namely those of
dimension function and dimension value. The correct question is: 'What are []
and d?' " {Note: [] is dimension function, and d is dimension value.} Bunge is clearly discriminating between the
function associated with the dimension, and the magnitude associated with it
Quoting Bunge, ibid.,
p. 8: "The concept of a unit is one of those scientific notions that has
remained obscure for want of a theory and excess of a coarse philosophy. Indeed
we know how to manipulate units but we do not seem to know what kind of
mathematical object they are. As a consequence units are sometimes confused
with dimensions, at other times with standards, and they are often introduced
in relation to measurement rather than to concept formulation."
And quoting Mario Bunge, Foundations of Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1967, p. 176: "Different
theories of CED [Classical Electrodynamics] are called for, both for charged
particles that can to a first approximation be regarded as electromagnetically
structureless (e.g., the electron and the m -meson) and for extended
systems with a charge distribution and spin (e.g., the proton). If fairly
satisfactory classical theories were available they could guide the
construction of the corresponding quantum theories. But no such theories are in
sight partly because it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both
classical and quantal, are in a sad state."
Again, Bunge, ibid.,
p. 182: "...the best modern physicist is the one who acknowledges that
neither classical nor quantum physics are cut and dried, both being full of
holes and in need of a vigorous overhauling not only to better cover their own
domains but also to join smoothly so as to produce a coherent picture of the
various levels of physical reality."
c The speed of light in ambient vacuum.
To discuss the speed of light, we point out that the vacuum
is highly energetic, as has been shown in modern physics. Since the vacuum has an energy density, it
can be modeled as a "potential" and particularly as a scalar EM
potential for EM purposes. Contrary to
convention, we recognize that the local energy density of the ambient vacuum
potential can vary, including seasonally within and close to the solar system,
etc. The average energy density of the
vacuum in space far from charged masses such as stars and planets may be
assumed as a "standard vacuum potential", and if this potential is
equated with the notion of "flat spacetime", then an increase in this
vacuum potential is an increase in the local energy density of spacetime, and
hence represents a curvature of the standard flat spacetime.
In fact the interplanetary radar probes' "ranges"
do show precisely such variation in the speed of light, with weekly and monthly
and seasonal variations, etc. In order to comply with the nearly universal
assumption in physics with respect to the constancy of c, the scientific staffs
averaged the readings over the entire month. This zeroed out the variations,
upheld the notion that space is a fixed type of thing, and that the speed of
light in it is also a rigidly fixed constant.
It does not agree with the actual measured speed of light from day to day.
The Russians have known and openly printed for about a
century that the speed of light in a hard vacuum in deep space, far removed
from solar and planetary masses, is a little slower than the speed of light in
a hard vacuum near the Earth or any other large charged mass. The huge
collection of charged particles in the earth have tiny separations, so that
looking at the Earth as a collection of tiny dipoles, one sees a collection of
enormous 4-symmetry energy flows from the time domain to the 3-space domain
(and vice versa for the time-reversed portions). The increased intensity of
this 4-symmetry energy flux in the vicinity of a massive planet or sun changes the
local energy density of the vacuum itself, increasing it in that vicinity.
Without elaboration, we will also point out that the Earth
and its dynamics structures the local spacetime and the spacetime out to some
distance. So do all other planets, stars,
etc. By whatever manner we model the
cosmos as having been created or initiated, the dynamics and structuring of all
the phenomena occurring in the universe is further impressed in the infolded electrodynamics inside the
vacuum potential.
The "laws of nature" in one sense represent the
most general results of the reactions of this internally structured
"common standard spacetime" or "standard vacuum potential"
with the various physical systems, devices, and measuring instruments utilized
in our experiments, etc. If one
deterministically alters the structuring
of the local spacetime, one can have a system which will function there
in a certain marvelous manner, but will not function that way elsewhere. Some decades ago, I participated in
experiments by Golden which over a period of some five years did condition
(dimension) the local vacuum potential.
The result was an engine which consistently exhibited COP = 1.67 at that
location, but when moved several hundred miles exhibited COP<1.0. Frank and
I were made aware of this "vacuum conditioning" effect by Prof.
William Tiller, who had himself conducted experiments exhibiting just such an
effect over several years.
EM waves in vacuum are actually longitudinal (sound-type) waves, but we do not belabor the point
since everything out there in the normal literature uses the transverse EM wave
model for the EM wave in space. Also,
the transverse wave is indeed what is detected in the interacting electron gas
in our measurement instruments—whose Drude electrons are restrained to simple
drift velocity longitudinally down the conductor, but are spinning and are free
to precess like gyros. So our
instruments detect the Drude electron precessions at right angles to the incoming
disturbing longitudinal force field, which means that they do indeed measure a
transverse wave. However, these are
actually the electron precession waves in the detector, and not the actual EM waves in space. See my paper, "Giant Negentropy from
the Common Dipole", Journal of New
Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23 for a discussion of how all EM energy
comes from the time domain, via the broken 3-symmetry of the source charge or
source dipole, and is emitted in 3-space in all directions as longitudinal EM
waves. This is based on rigorous demonstration
by E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical
Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57,
1903, p. 333-355 that the scalar potential is a harmonic set of phase conjugate
longitudinal EM wave pairs. We merely
applied the Whittaker decomposition to the scalar potential of a source dipole
or of a source charge, and the rigorous
proof that EM waves in space are longitudinal directly emerges.
Just as sound speeds up, say, in steel as a denser medium
than air, the EM "sound waves" in the ambient vacuum potential speed
up when that vacuum potential's flux density is increased. Consequently light
does move a little faster in a hard vacuum on Earth than it does in deep space,
because the vacuum itself has higher energy density near the earth than in deep
space. The comings and goings and orbitings of planets and the solar mass, etc.
do affect the local energy density of the vacuum between the planets, and hence
the speed of light through that interplanetary space.
So the interplanetary radar does show the periodic
variations of the local energy density of vacuum that are induced by these
factors. For a critical paper on this, see Bryan G. Wallace, "The Unified
Quantum Electrodynamic Ether," Foundations
of Physics, 3(3), Sept. 1973, p. 381-388. His discussion of the
interplanetary radar measurements of Venus, which did not fit relativity, are
particularly interesting, with respect to his finding that the data were simply
"averaged" to eliminate the variations and hence the diurnal, lunar,
and synodic periodic components actually measured in the variations of the
speed of light. See particularly Bryan G. Wallace, "The great speed of
light in space cover-up." Scientific
Ethics, 1(1), Feb. 1985. p. 2-3; — "Radar Testing of the Relative
Velocity of Light in Space," Spectrosc.
Lett. Vol. 2, 1969. p. 361.
Rigorously, the field is "defined" in
electrodynamics as the effect of an interaction of the force-free entity
(4-spatial!) existing prior to the interaction, with a 3-dimensional static
charge. This means that the field as
originally defined is an effect and
not a cause. To then use it as the cause is a grave non
sequitur.
This confusion of cause and effect is widespread in
physics. It was probably initiated by the hoary old assumption several hundred
years ago that a separate force acts upon a separate mass, which is false. In fact mass is a component of force, since
F º d/dt(mv) = m(dv/dt + v(dm/dt). As can
be seen, in both expanded terms there exists a mass term. To skirt the issue, electrodynamicists have
simply found a neat statement that "in massfree space the field continues
to exist, but the force is zero."
We point out that m = 0 makes the momentum vanish, and so F vanishes, and in the definition of E = F/q also vanishes because the numerator F becomes zero. Therefore that E-field vanishes.
Feynman and Wheeler pointed out that the field as it is defined does not and cannot
exist in massless space. Only the
"potential" for the field exists there, in case some charged mass is
brought in to interact with that entity that does exist there. That is accurate, since spacetime is totally
a potential and any "change" in spacetime is a change in that
potential a priori. In the Sachs-Evans unified field theory,
this problem is resolved because the fundamental field is defined as a
spacetime curvature (change in spacetime, hence change in the ST potential)
rather than E = F/q.
In empty space there are always myriads upon myriads of
interfering fields and potentials, from charges all over the universe, via
Puthoff's cosmological feedback principle [see
H. E. Puthoff, "Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Zero-point Energy," Physical Review A, 40(9), Nov. 1, 1989,
p. 4857-4862.] Thus any EM wave traveling through space is always involved in
enormously active interferometry. This alone results in violent momentary
variations in the speed of that wave, even from 0.01 c to 100.00 c. For a paper
showing this kind of "galloping" travel of an EM wave, see William G.
Harter, John Evans, Roberto Vega, and Sanford Wilson, "Galloping waves and
their relativistic properties," American
Journal of Physics, 53(7), July 1985, p. 671-679. While the average speed
of the wave is c(g ), where g is the local energy density of
the vacuum, the instantaneous speeds of the wave vary violently from instant to
instant.
In special relativity, "velocity" merely is a
rotation angle of the moving frame from the fixed laboratory observer's
frame. The speed "c" merely
represents a full right-angle turn away, toward the time-dimension (since other
than the 3 spatial dimensions that is the only other dimension available to
turn toward). In higher dimensional
space, there are many other "higher" dimensions toward which further
rotation can be accomplished. Hence
rotating in n-space is not limited to a single orthogonal turn, and therefore
velocities are not limited to speed c.
However, each orthogonal rotation also subtracts one spatial dimension
of the rotated object from the observer's 3-space. One rotation would be speed
c, two departing rotations would be speed c2, three would give c3,
etc. At three orthorotations, to the
lab observer the rotated object is now purely an internal structure inside his
time dimension, very similar to a mental object (mind is time-like, not
spacelike). The nature of mind and its
operations has a rather unexpected connection with matter, when one considers
such orthorotations in hyperspace.
The point is, the speed c
is not an "iron dictum" of nature, nor is it an "unchangeable
constant"! Nature herself
routinely violates that notion. As an
example, de Broglie waves from any mass always move at v>c, and easily as
v>>c. EM "surface"
waves—so-called transverse oscillations or upheavals and depressions in the
magnitude (energy density; actually the reaction
cross section) of the local ambient vacuum potential), move at a discretized average speed c(g ).
The longitudinal component, if freed from the transverse component, can move
much faster because it is a sort of "tunneling" movement. In actual
quantum tunneling experiments, e.g., music (Mozart's 40th symphony) has been
transmitted through quantum mechanical tunneling between two separated points
at speed v>4c. Fogal is likely to eventually place a superluminal
communication system on the commercial market.
We discuss superluminal communication elsewhere in this glossary.
C Capacitance.
Essentially, the charge per unit potential.
For an isolated conductor, C = Q/V and C is expressed in
farads. A farad is one coulomb per
volt.
A lower case c represents the speed of light in ambient
vacuum.
E The electric field.
Essentially, E =F/q, but that is not really a definition.
Conventionally, the units of electric field are considered
to be force per unit electric charge; i.e., force per coulomb. Note that the E-field even in this "classical definition" does not
actually exist at a point unless there is a unit point charge (a point coulomb
of charged mass) located at the point.
Hence contrary to classical electrodynamics, communications theory, and
whatnot, no electric force field (and no magnetic force field either) exists in
the vacuum, at least of the kind prescribed by Maxwell's equations and by the
Heaviside-Hertz reduction of Maxwell's equations. Since Maxwell assumed it,
these equations and models all still erroneously assume a material ether
filling the vacuum, in which case there would
be matter and charges, and there would then
be force-fields in the vacuum. We refer
the interested reader to discussions by Feynman and by Wheeler. Quoting: "One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a
material origin, and this is not just a definition. Y If you insist upon a precise
definition of force, you will never get it!
" [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, Lectures
on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2.]
Even worse, note that E
= F/q defines not the magnitude of
the field in space, but has to do with the divergence of energy from the field
around a unit point static charge there in space, as well as the pattern of the
diverged energy density. Actually, what
is used as "the electric field" itself is the reaction cross section of the field, for a unit point static
coulomb of charge. That is at best a
function of the "field density" or "field intensity" of the
actual electrical field in spacetime, and the direction and pattern of change
of that field density due to the intercepting and diverting charge.
The field problem is resolved in the forefronts of
electrodynamics by making the field a topological function. It is resolved in the Sachs-Evans O(3)
electrodynamics (as a subset of Sachs' unified field theory) by making the
field a function of the curvature of spacetime.
See also the discussion under c, above.
H Magnetic field strength.
B The B-field (loosely), or magnetic flux density (more
properly).
Conventionally, this is thought to be defined, analogously
to E, by the force it exerts. The
force exerted on a point charge moving in the magnetic field B is at right angles to the velocity
vector of the charge and also at right angles to B. Actually, the H-field
was originally named the magnetic field
and the B-field was named the magnetic induction (and is still
sometimes called that.) This is an annoyance because it is B which involves the force, and hence B should be named the
magnetic field. Other writers have noted this discrepancy, and Sommerfeld
called H the magnetic
excitation—which correctly describes its role—rather than calling it the
magnetic field. As the reader can see, lots of things in electrical physics are
still very untidy! There are also different ways to approach
the EM modeling problem. In
Kaluza-Klein unified field theory, all electromagnetics is modeled in the 5th
dimension, which is wrapped around each and every point in our normal
3-dimensional space.
For practical use, a far better approach is the O(3) symmetry
electrodynamics spearheaded by Myron Evans, which is also an important subset
of Mendel Sachs' unified field theory.
In the Sachs-Evans unified theory, electromagnetics has become general
relativity and general relativity has become electromagnetics. Further, very powerful general relativity
can now be directly engineered with this O(3) electrodynamics, as it further
develops. We refer the reader to
"The New Maxwell Electrodynamic Equations: New Tools for New
Technologies. A Collection of 60 Papers
from the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study," Special Issue
of Journal of New Energy, 4(3),
Winter 1999, 335 p. Also, particularly
see Contemporary Optics and
Electrodynamics, edited by Myron W. Evans, a special topical issue of I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice (series
editors), Advances in Chemical Physics,
Wiley, 2001 (in publication). Evans
gives a very long and detailed presentation, "O(3) Electrodynamics",
in that publication, and also gives the paper "The Link Between the Sachs
and O(3) Theories of Electrodynamics".
Q A quantity of electrical charge. Note that this statement does not define charge q itself.
We have tentatively proposed to redefine charge q as q º mqfq. The term fq captures the vacuum's violent virtual energy interaction
with the mass mq of the charge, which is presently missing in
classical EM theory and is an exceeding great flaw of omission. Further, fq may be decomposed into a harmonic series of phase
conjugate wavepairs, as shown by Whittaker, 1903, ibid. [In O(3)
electrodynamics, the internal structuring is dramatically extended, so that one
can get at the "inner electrodynamics" necessary to explain such
things as homeopathy, chi, ki, prana, etc.
To those scientists pooh-poohing such things as
acupuncture, we point out that acupuncture in a dramatic case can allow a
person without anesthetic to undergo a major operation with chest cavity
opened, while the patient remains alert, conscious, and talking. President Nixon's physician on Nixon's trip
to China witnessed such an actual operation, as well as other things. Nothing in our vaunted Western medical
science can equal that, nor can any of our medical schools, nor can our
National Academy of Science or our National Science Foundation. In short, acupuncture alone demonstrates how
woefully inadequate our medical science actually is.
Also, acupuncture works on animals as well, so it does not
involve hypnosis or deep suggestion. In
science, we must believe the repeatable experiment, not our dogma at the
moment. Yet the entire U.S. medical
research community has no higher symmetry EM investigation of how acupuncture
works, or of the infolded electrodynamics shown by Whittaker's decomposition of
the scalar potential in 1903. Hence our
scientists totally miss the vast electrodynamics of the internal structuring of potential and charge with vacuum engines
(spacetime curvature engines). As a
result, the entire U.S. scientific and intelligence communities were totally
unable to comprehend nearly five decades of Russian induction of health changes
and diseases in personnel in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, using weak EM
radiation. Internal structuring of the
activity producing what is called "charge"—including its internal
structuring and engines—can be modeled and in theory directly engineered in the
new Sachs-Evans approach.]
As shown in my paper, "Giant Negentropy from the
Common Dipole," Journal of New
Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23, the broken 3-symmetry energy
flow of any charge and any dipole allows a more fundamental 4-symmetry energy
flow solution for the century-old problem of
explaining the actual source of the EM energy that pours out of the source
charge in all directions in 3-space.
The 4-symmetry in EM energy flow explains its nature as longitudinal EM
waves, with the charge's absorbed energy being received from the time domain (complex plane), transduced into
3-space, and emitted in 3-space. The source of all EM energy at any point in
3-space is the time domain!
It has been known for decades in particle physics that
there exists no equilibrium in mass systems, unless the interaction of the
vacuum with the masses is included. It
has also been known that every charge and every dipole is a broken 3-symmetry
in the fierce vacuum energy exchange with the charge or dipole. Yet the vacuum interaction—and specifically
the source charge's and the source dipole's broken symmetry in it—are not even
included in classical EM as yet. That
this known total glitch in modern EM theory has not been previously corrected,
when the particle physicists of every university physics department of note
already know it is necessary, is inexplicable!
Here we must regretfully point out finger at our orthodox scientific
establishment, and particularly at our National Science Foundation and our National Academy of Science. These institutions are not even working on,
nor are they aware of, nor do they even care about, the most fundamental
science problems of our time. Bigger
accelerators, yes. Windmills, yes. EM energy from the vacuum and electrical
power systems which use it without destroying the source dipole, no. The greatest of all electrodynamics—the
infolded longitudinal EM wave dynamics inside all EM fields, potentials, and
waves—no. The correction of the dozens
of major flaws and non sequiturs in classical electromagnetics, no. The understanding of the longitudinal EM
wave interferometer weapons and quantum potential weapons already arrayed against
us, no. The development of EM healing
based on the Priore approach, which would totally revolutionize medical therapy
and handle attacks on our cities by weapons of mass destruction, no.
We have a scientific mindset problem of epochal
magnitude. And that costs the U.S.
taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the "status quo"
or "business as usual" scientific endeavors that are far inferior to
what can be done.
S Entropy. A quantity
which measures the extent to which the energy of a system is available
to do work.
Since in one sense energy is a function of ordering, then
fundamentally, entropy refers to
increasing disorder, which means increasing disruption of the ordering in our
collected energy. Unfortunately,
entropy is one of those concepts in physics for which there are several
differing major views. We avoid all
discussion of "information" etc., and prefer to deal only with the
energy and time aspects. For our work
in energy from the vacuum, we take the very simple view that an entropic process is like a
positive resistor: As forward observer time passes, the entropic process
continually disorders or "loses"—from further controlled conversion
of energy form—the collected energy in the system. We regard a negentropic
process as like a negative resistor: as forward observer time passes,
the negentropic process receives energy
in a form unusable to us, transforms, it, and outputs it in a form that is
usable. Quoting Ilya Prigogine,
Irreversibility as a symmetry-breaking process," Nature, Vol. 246,
1973, p. 70: "Entropy Ycannot in general be expressed in terms of observables such
as temperature and density. This is
only possible in the neighbourhood of equilibriumY It is only then that both entropy and entropy production acquire
a macroscopic meaning."
So basically, the notion of entropy will apply when we have a system in equilibrium or very near equilibrium. For open systems in substantial disequilibrium, the entropy cannot even be computed, and the classical equilibrium thermodynamics with its infamous second law does not apply. On the other hand, the loading of disequilibrium (negentropic) EM systems is a very nonlinear affair. Some direct indications of this were in the Russian work in the 1930s which produced overunity and self-powering EM generators, in several physics institute. [E.g., see L. I. Mandelstam and N. D. Papaleksi., "On the parametric excitation of electric oscillations," Zhurnal Teknicheskoy Fiziki, 4(1), 1934, p. 5-29. English translation, Feb. 1968, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Livermore, CA, performed for NASA]. The U.S. researcher G. Obolensky also has done appreciable important experimental investigation of the nonlinear load effects for negentropic systems.
S Poynting energy density flow. Not the overall or total energy flow by any means, but
just that component of it
that is intercepted, diverged,
collected, and used, where S is
given
by S = E´H.
The energy flow theory is rather thoroughly fouled, and has
been since the 1880s when the flow of energy through space was proposed by both
Heaviside and Poynting, independently and essentially simultaneously.
Since both E and
H are defined not as fields per se,
but as the reaction cross section of the fields with a unit charge, the S does
not refer to "energy flow" per se, but to the intercepted component
of the overall energy flow.
Poynting only considered the energy flow component around a
circuit that strikes the circuit's
surface charges and gets diverged into the conductors to power the
electrons. Heaviside, on the other
hand, also considered the startlingly enormous additional EM energy flow
filling all space around the circuit's conductors, generally parallel to the
conductors but missing them.
This huge Heaviside component is still there around every
electrical circuit, but almost entirely ignored and unaccounted. It misses the circuit, passes on off into
space, and is lost in most circuits.
Yet it is trillions of times larger in magnitude than the very tiny
Poynting component which actually gets intercepted, "caught" and used
by the circuit to power its loads and losses.
Since no one could explain where on earth such an enormous
nondiverged Heaviside component pouring out of the power source terminals could
possibly come from, Lorentz—reasoning that, since the nondiverged energy flow
did not do anything, it was "physically insignificant" (Lorentz'
term)—then just integrated the energy flow vector around a little closed
surface assumed around every volume element of interest. This efficiently discards the Heaviside
nondiverged component from all
accountability, leaving only the Poynting energy flow component vector
accounted. Of course the Poynting
energy flow will agree with the energy measured in the circuit, since we
actually measure energy dissipation, and the energy that dissipates from the
circuit must have first entered it.
Electrodynamicists today just continue to use Lorentz's integration of
the energy flow vector around an assumed closed surface surrounding any volume
element of interest. Thus, sadly our
electrical power system engineers unwittingly waste trillions of times more EM
energy actually produced from the vacuum by the source dipoles in their
generators, than what the feeble powerline is able to intercept and utilize.
We have nominated the vast unaccounted Heaviside energy
flow accompanying every field and charge interaction as the source of the extra
gravity known to be present in the arms of the spiral galaxies and holding them
together. See my paper, "Dark
Matter or Dark Energy?", Journal
of New Energy, 4(4), Spring 2000, p. 4-11.
Informally we have also nominated this dark Heaviside energy which fills
all space, as associated with the "quintessence" energy that is
responsible for the recently discovered antigravitational acceleration of the
universe. In this view the giant
negentropy process associated with charge (see my "Giant Negentropy of the
Common Dipole" paper, ibid.) is
ongoing in all the stars, galaxies, planets, nebulae, and other astronomical
entities. The ordinary energy we
measure in all these processes is gravitational; hence for symmetry and energy
conservation, the primary longitudinal EM wave energy from the time domain that
furnishes the energy to all these spatially energetic processes represents an
increasing curvature of spacetime in the time domain as we travel outward from
any origin point. This is an
antigravitational force, in this concept, which is cumulative as a function of
radial distance from the origin point.
Hence we see the distant parts of the universe as accelerating the
expansion of the universe. At present
this is of course an hypothesis, and must be further validated by laboratory
experiment and further theoretical work in a unified field theory
electrodynamics such as the Sachs-Evans O(3) symmetry electrodynamics.
S-flow is actually comprised of an organized, structured
flow of virtual photons or antiphotons and itself is not observable. Its
interaction with charged particles (electrical charges and magnetic poles),
however, is observable by the amount of energy
collected upon (diverged around) the charge or pole (formation of a
local potential), and formation of a translation force upon the charge or pole.
Again, the "E"
and the "H" in the
expression "E´H" are not really the "electrical field" and
"magnetic field" in space, but only their reaction cross sections at each point in space, should a little unit point static coulomb
be placed at that point to divert some of the E-field flow around it, or a little unit point static magnetic
charge be placed at that point to divert some of the H-field flow around it. So
even the Poynting energy flow S = E´H has been interpreted in terms of its reaction cross
sections.
It is worth noting that electrodynamicists today are still politely debating EM energy flow and the energy flow vector. As an example, a polite "debate" of this subject has been ongoing for over 30 years in American Journal of Physics alone. A particularly significant statement of the problem is given by Jones: "It is possible to introduce the Poynting vector S, defined by S = E´H, and regard it as the intensity of energy flow at a point. This procedure is open to criticism since we could add to S any vector whose divergence is zero without affecting [the basic integration procedure's result]." [D.S. Jones, The Theory of Electromagnetism, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1964, p. 52.] In short, here Jones is stating that an enormous nondiverged energy flow may accompany the Poynting flow component, and it will not be accounted for by S = E´H. After presenting the various elements required to solve the energy flow problem, Jones bows out with the statement: ""It does not seem likely that an expression satisfying all these conditions will be simple… …fortunately, we are rarely concerned with the energy flow at a point. In most applications we need the rate at which energy is crossing a closed surface." [Jones, ibid., p. 53.] Panofsky and Phillips warn against over-attachment to the Poynting vector: "Paradoxical results may be obtained if one tries to identify the Poynting vector with the energy flow per unit area at any point." [Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky and Melba Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, 1962, third printing 1969, p. 180.
We point out, however, that for gravitational effects of
energy flows in space, one must account the total energy flow per unit area at and surrounding any point, and
therefore one must restore the unaccounted enormous Heaviside nondiverged EM
energy flow component as well as the accounted tiny little Poynting diverged
energy flow component.
Dt An increment
(little piece of) time.
In special relativity, time can be considered a piece of
spatial length compressed by the factor c, so that L = ct, where L is in
meters, t is in seconds, and c is the speed of light. Time can also be considered as spatial EM energy compressed by
the factor c2. To comprehend
time and time rate of flow, one must first realize that a priori no observable
exists or persists in time. The
observable is a 3-spatial snapshot made at one instant in time, so that
"time stopped" momentarily.
The observable is thus a frozen snapshot of the 3-spatial intersection
of an ongoing 4-space interaction. At
the very next instant, that snapshot no longer exists. Hence for a mass (or any other observable)
to "propagate in time", there must be a process whereby Dt is continually added to the observable (such as to mass
m, converting it to masstime mt for a short duration) and then subtracted
again, leaving behind another frozen 3-space snapshot of the
"observable" that has seemingly now endured for that little Dt period, with respect to the observer. As we explain in several papers, the sum
total of the photon interactions with a mass m may be taken as the generator
that produces (1) the flow of the mass m through time, by changing from m to mt
to m to mt… continually, and (2) a substructuring of internal "time-flow
components". In short, any
time-flow ascertained in the macroworld or the microworld by the observer, has
an enormously rich internal dynamics and structuring. Again, in higher symmetry electrodynamics such as O(3), the
internal structuring of the photon, EM field, EM wave, and EM potential can be
modeled and eventually even directly engineered.
DE An increment
(little piece of) energy.
The photon is considered to be (unit-wise) composed of (DE)(Dt). However, in our view (as we explain in energy, energy collection, and energy dissipation) energy does not occur in "little fixed chunks" at all. One only has "little chunks" of energy when one is collecting energy in an ongoing process. In electromagnetics, the "collection" of energy is actually the ongoing collecting of energy from an energy flow deviating around an intercepting charge. It is a dynamic, ongoing process whereby a collector such as a charged particle intercepts and interacts with (undergoes virtual photon flux exchange with) an impinging energy density flow S= E´H. In an equilibrium (static) condition, the deviated flow remains very like a persistent, unchanging whirlpool in a river, and so is said to have a "static magnitude". If that Poynting flow is removed, then there is no excess collecting going on and the "magnitude of the deviated energy flow" is zero. EM energy collection/collecting is always like a rock in a high wind. As long as the wind is blowing on the rock, air is deviated to flow around the rock.