|
Engines and Templates:
Correcting Effects Confused as Causes Ó 2001
T.E. Bearden Adapted
from personal correspondence
Though deliberately informal, this is a
very difficult paper, both to write and to read.
We are struggling to explain and correct one of the great,
pervasive flaws in physics foundations, which is the confusion
of cause and effect, both in mechanics and particularly in
electrodynamics. The
reader is likely to find the going very rough; indeed, one will need
to continually reflect very deeply on the "operational
observation situation applying or not applying to what is being
discussed at this moment". I apologize for the density of the
subject matter and that in a single sentence it is necessary to switch
between two opposite operational situations.
The "implicitly assumed" operational situation has
been largely hidden and misunderstood for more than a century, and is
still vastly confused in the extant physics literature.
We attempt to point out how these assumptions (often quite
unconsciously) were included by the older pioneering physicists.
Some foundations quotations are added to show the problem and
that it has not been solved. So we advise
patience if the reader is truly interested in this important
foundations issue and a possible resolution.
We urge the reader to heed Einstein's excellent advice, which
he stated so beautifully as: "...the
scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed
practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of
the eternally problematic character of his concepts.
He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly,
these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably
given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly
even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted.
...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over
again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in
order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them." [Albert Einstein,
"Foreword," in Max Jammer, Concepts of Space: The History
of Theories of Space in Physics, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969, p. viii.] Lindsay and
Margenau, in their noted Foundations of Physics, make the same
point: "[Hypotheses
made without realizing that they are being made] …are what Poincaré
has called "unconscious" or "natural" hypotheses—a
type which one hardly ever challenges, for it seems too unlikely that
we could make progress without them.
Nevertheless it should be the endeavor of the physicist always
to drag them out into the light of day, so that it may be perfectly
clear what we are actually doing." Physicists
have indeed struggled with the "confusion of cause and
effect" but usually under different terminology—often speaking
of "dual" use or of a "duality" theory.
E.g., Sen states it as particle and field (but note that field
is usually intended to imply cause,
and particle is usually intended to imply effect).
Quoting Sen: "…it
seems to be a strange characteristic of the human mind that it is
forced to describe the physical properties of matter either as fields
or particles. The whole
history of physics appears as a struggle to either clarify or escape
from this either or dichotomy." "…a
theory [is] dualistic if it supposes that the source of the field,
i.e., the particles with their characteristic masses and charge, etc.,
form a separate entity apart from the field which they generate."
[D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and
New York, 1968, p. viii.]. Even in
recognizing the duality of a theory, however, physicists often have
not clearly recognized that they confuse effect as cause in their use
of the field concept itself.
So they have not resolved the issue, even with the
"duality" principle which was just an agreement to quit
fighting and use either the particle view or the wave view, as one
wished, if it worked. It
did not address or solve the confusion of wave and particle, and of
cause and effect. The field
concept itself is perhaps the most primary example of dual use of
a concept for two precisely contradictory things.
The concept of a force—which
is an effect and never a cause, but is used nearly universally as a
cause—is also a fundamental part of the confusion.
Force is an observable, and all observables are effects of the
observation process a priori. The d/dt
operation of the observation process was also not properly taken into
account. Insofar as questioning the "dual
field concept" is concerned, the problem certainly has been long
debated, but not resolved. As
we mentioned, there is fundamental duality involved even in the notion
of force itself. E.g.,
quoting 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.] Feynman and
Wheeler also pointed out that the force field assumed in classical EM
theory only existed where charged mass was interacting.
Hence it could not exist in empty space where no observable
charged mass exists. They
did not include mass as a component of force, but stopped short of it.
They attempted to correct electrodynamics by advancing an EM
model based on absorber theory. However,
the fields used in their theory still maintained their unacceptable
dichotomy, so the theory—though quite valiant—did not succeed. In various
places Feynman specifically pointed out that the field as conceived
could not and did not exist in mass-free space, but only the potential
for the field existed there, should there be some charged mass there
to interact with. E.g.,
in Feynman, Leighton, and Sands, ibid.,
p. 1-3, Feynman states: "We
may think of E(x, y, z, t)
and B(x, y, z, t) as giving
the forces that would be experienced at the time t by a charge
located at (x, y, z), with the condition that placing the
charge there did not disturb the positions or motion of all the
other charges responsible for the fields."
This is actually
a realization that the field is an effect (after interaction) rather
than the cause (what exists before the interaction occurs). It clearly reveals the dichotomy of using the word
"field" as both the entity existing in spacetime before the
interaction and thus the cause, and as the entity (the "effect
field" existing after the interaction of that "causal
field" with charged mass. That
is very much like saying the field—an effect—is also its
own cause. Also
note that Feynman still uses the charges as the "cause" of
the fields. Yet since charged mass is an observable, it is an effect.
Here again we meet the fact that an "effect" is
considered to be a cause. This
problem of the "association of the field with its source"
has long been recognized as a formidable problem.
Again quoting Sen ibid.,
p. viii: "The
connection between the field and its source has always been and still
is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum
electrodynamics." We solved
this long-vexing problem in our "Giant
Negentropy of the Common Dipole" paper, which is carried on
this website. It is
solved by reinterpreting and extending Whittaker's
1903 decomposition of the scalar potential (as between the ends of
a dipole) and by treating the charge with its clustered virtual
charges of opposite sign as a set of composite dipoles. Most
electrodynamicists have taken a pragmatic approach to the
"duality of the field concept" and simply
"bypassed" that tough problem.
One can be very sympathetic to this view!
After all, eventually one must use the electrodynamics model to
do practical things and get practical results, i.e., effects.
As an example, one of the finest electrodynamics books for two
decades is J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd
edition, Wiley, New York, 1975. Jackson
avoids confronting the field dichotomy in this fashion: "...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. [p.
28]. "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."
[p. 249]. These
statements recognize that the "field as it exists in charge-free
spacetime" is not a force field, but does not reconcile that
position with the definition of the (e.g., electric) field itself as For any
reader to begin, an excellent treatise on physics foundations is
Robert Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau, Foundations of Physics,
Dover, New York, 1963, previously quoted.
Lindsay and Margenau point out the difficulties in the
causality concept itself, and on p. 18-19 they state: "The
proper definition of the term cause has been a controversial
subject among philosophers for a long time…" …All that the
laws state is a relation among symbols which represent well-defined
operations in the laboratory, and no notion of precedence or
antecedence, or dynamic enforcement, is involved in them.
… [Difficulties with assumed certainty] …should by no means
be interpreted as denying the importance of a principle of
causality in physics. …It
is in itself a hypothesis concerning the behavior of physical
systems." As this small
cross-section of the foundations literature shows, the best physicists
themselves have great difficulty in clearly separating cause and
effect, specifically as they involve more terms. In the same sentence,
one often finds the same entity stated in the front as a cause, yet in
the back as an effect! We
merely have wished to show the extreme difficulty of properly sorting
out and clarifying one's own use of the terms "cause" and
"effect", as well as one's unconscious use of cause and
effect richly intermingled and erroneously exchanged in one's own
daily conversation and writing. In
Einstein's words, we imbibed
this confusion with our mother's milk! This informal
paper is certainly not intended to be the "definitive
statement" on the matter! Instead,
it is intended to merely point the way to a deeper consideration of
the field, and to its present erratic and erroneous usage in a
dualistic manner, and to how to solve the problem. We use a
simple "discriminating" notion:
We use "observation" as a process occurring in
ongoing spacetime, involving a cause acting on (interacting with) a
previously observed effect, generating a change (effect) in that
previously observed effect. Whenever
one says the word "effect," one assumes (usually
unconsciously) a continual iteration of observation.
In short, we assume the continual iterative production of
effects, each rigorously static and frozen, much like the frames of a
movie film. The
"progress of change" is added by perception, by our mind's
normal operation which is innate.
On the other hand, we point out the assumption,
in that notion of continual iterative observations, of
"time-forward" motion through time.
In a time-reversed situation, the exact opposite happens, and
we may think of the observation interaction as reversed in direction
in the iteration of the d/dt operator.
In short, we go back along the movie film, so to speak, rather
than forward. Thus perceptually we would "see" (not observe!) the
steady production of what had previously been the causal set, but
backwards, from what had previously been the effects set (but
backwards). We may regard
this as the production of reversed time-forward "causes"
from reversed time-forward "effects".
Only the reversed time-forward "effects" constitute
observables; the stream of "produced causes" is not
observable. Nonetheless,
that stream can be calculated, and in fact does appear in that manner
in general relativity. One must be
very careful when thinking "cause and effect" in reversed
time. It is not that the
"cause becomes the effect and the effect becomes the cause,"
because cause and effect have been named (standardized) in forward
time. So what we actually
perceive but cannot observe is the causal interaction running
backwards. So we perceive
the usual ordering of effect and cause reversed—but observation only
sees that reversed ordering of effects. Since the symmetry inherent in
Newton's third law implies both time
forward to produce the action observed,
and time-reversed to produce
the equal reaction observed,
it would seem that at the most fundamental level there always exists a
two-way symmetry between the ordering of effects, and thus the
so-called independence of physics to the direction of time (i.e., the
principal equations operate "backwards" as well as
"forward"). In fact,
general relativity does capture this very kind of symmetry between the
ordering of the continually observed effects, since a change in the
curvature of spacetime in turn produces a change in the mass-energy
with which it interacts, and the change in the mass-energy
correspondingly produces a change in the curvature of spacetime.
We have also constructed our approach largely consistent with
O(3) electrodynamics, which is an important subset of Sachs' unified
field theory. Hence time
(and spacetime) do play primary roles in the approach. We also
encourage bright young doctoral candidates and post-docs to consider
giving the entire "duality of fundamental concepts which use
effect as cause" problem a very rigorous and extended treatment.
Such is sorely needed in physics, because frankly the confusion
of cause and effect has been a wholesale epidemic for nearly four
centuries. But sadly it
is still little noticed or emphasized, even today. We are
attempting in this informal paper to "point the way" to
possibly how this long-vexing confusion can be resolved.
As the reader will appreciate as he or she goes through this
paper, the problem is complex. It
will require enormous effort and time to ever get physics (and
scientists in general) scrubbed of this ubiquitous problem we have all
inherited since our birth. This
reflection is related to the template
and engine concepts, and it
is related to other years of reflection.
The present stream of thoughts was stimulated by
nanotechnology's more mechanical use of the concept of template.
Abstract: As modified
and extended from a response to a scientist working in nanotechnology,
we discuss the concepts of template
(ordered form of multiple deterministic spacetime curvatures and their
impressed dynamics) and engine
(the actual curvature set itself and its ongoing dynamics). This is an extension to the more mechanical template concept
presently applied in nanotechnology and in forthcoming nanobots.
In the discussion we explain how longitudinal EM wave
technology is at the very heart of the new template and engine
concepts, in unified field theory in general and in the O(3)
electrodynamics approach in particular.
We discuss Becker's work and Prioré's work as having
unwittingly applied early engine technology and demonstrated its
effectiveness. We explain
how the template of a cellular disease or disorder can be utilized to
generate a specific anti-engine to reverse the condition and move the
cell back to a previous healthy condition.
In short, we advance a universal cure mechanism for all
cellular diseases and disorders, at least in theory, once the
technology sufficiently develops. We also point
out the urgent need to develop engine technology to treat and cure
mass casualties from the coming terrorist attacks on our population
centers. Without such
technology, triage—no
treatment at all for most of the casualties—will of necessity be
used and millions of Americans will be deliberately left to die
without any real treatment given or even attempted.
The flavor of the original
communication to a nanotechnology specialist is maintained, but
changes have been made to add headings for clarity, further explain
the major points, correct some typographical errors, etc.
Selected pertinent references have also been added at the end. As time permits, we will furnish color illustrations for some
of the main points, and these will be added to this article. Introduction (To
Correspondent). Just
found your nice work on nanotechnology, and I want to express my
appreciation for your efforts on this important subject, making the
information widely available. I
was also struck by your insight and use of the template
concept, and wish to comment on where the "templating"
concept and the associated "engine" concept lead. First, if we
can control the electrodynamics at very tiny positions, we obviously
can control the mechanical forces (or most of them), much of the
chemistry, etc. But we
also can control much more than that, if we examine higher symmetry
electrodynamics rather than the standard U(1) model.
The U(1) EM model is seriously limited, even flawed in many
respects. Our work with
the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS) has for
some time been laboring on a more effective, dramatically extended
electrodynamics known as O(3) gauge symmetry electrodynamics, or just
O(3) for short. This
electrodynamics has been spearheaded by Dr. Myron Evans, who has over
600 papers in the refereed literature, and is the editor of several
prestigious scientific volume series. Extended
Electrodynamics Engineers General Relativity Briefly, a
remarkable thing has happened to O(3) electrodynamics, and it bears
directly upon the notion of templating
that is being used for molecular templating in nanotechnology, but is
just more advanced. O(3)
has been shown by Dr. Evans et
al. to be an important subset of Dr. Mendel Sachs' unified field
theory, which covers everything from the smallest state (e.g., gluons)
to the entire universe in a comprehensive and unitary manner.
The union of Evans' O(3) electrodynamics and Sach's extended
general relativity unified field theory offers for the first time a
breathtaking vision of being able to directly engineer
spacetime curvatures in exact patterns and sets—the ultimate
templating—by novel electrodynamic means. In general
relativity there is a two-way interaction between spacetime curvature
and mass energy, including the dynamics.
As Wheeler states it, mass-energy
works on spacetime to curve it, and curvature of spacetime works on
mass-energy to change it. This
is true at any level, including in the interior of the nucleons of the
atomic nuclei. Indeed, a
similar vision in more primitive form was the early inspiration for
modern science. E.g.,
Francis Bacon stated it this way: "The
end of our foundation is the knowledge of causes, and the secret
motion of things, and the enlarging of the bounds of the Human Empire,
to the effecting of all things possible."
[Francis Bacon, 1561-1626.] Einstein also
commented about unified field theory as follows: "It
would of course be a great step forward if we succeeded in combining
the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field into a single
structure. Only so could
the era in theoretical physics inaugurated by Faraday and Clerk
Maxwell be brought to a satisfactory close." That goal
appears to now be in our grasp, using the Sachs' unified field theory
and the O(3) electrodynamics as a special subset of Sachs' theory
which makes it engineerable by electromagnetic means. The approach
is testable—more on that later, in discussing Becker's work and the
Prioré work. It appears
that one can directly produce exact templates of spacetime curvatures
and their dynamics. Once
the technology develops, these spacetime curvatures can be produced to
act in ensemble on mass and its dynamics in any fashion—at any
level, rising from local spacetime within the mass itself.
I have previously been referring to a specific set of spacetime
curvatures and their dynamics as an engine. I refer to the precise dynamic form for the engine as a template.
The simplest engine is the spacetime curvature causing a single
force, and its simple form is the simplest template. Hence, just
as you have foreseen at a mechanical level in nanotechnology, for
every cellular condition there is a template (exact form, to include
the dynamics). There is
not only a template of the "effects" (conditions of the
cell, continuous observation assumed), but there is also an ongoing
specific resident engine
involved in dynamic interaction with each cell and every tiniest part
of it, right down to the nucleons inside the atomic nuclei.
What Western science has missed is that not only is there a
mechanical template and dynamics for the functioning mass system itself as
continually observed at all levels, but there is also a precisely
correlated engine and template of dynamic
spacetime curvatures that are the unobserved causes in
the local spacetime in which the mass system (continual observation
assumed!) is embedded. This spacetime energy and the 3-spatial mass-energy are in
constant interaction with each other. The
Notion of Space Space in its most general sense
refers to our characteristic of perceiving things apart.
What we call "geometry" is very useful in physics for
the study of space and apartness.
Geometry is primarily the mathematical set of constructs
(axioms, theorems, mathematical functions, etc.) we use to arrange the
relationships (characterize the "apartness") of our
perceived separated things. As
Lindsay and Margenau point out in their Foundations of Physics,,
p. 71, there are in fact an infinite number of geometries!
There is even a valid geometry in which a straight line may be
perpendicular to itself, as shown by Poincaré in his Foundations
of Science, Science Press, New York, 1913, p. 63.
We point out
that when observation has occurred, the observed entity is already in
the "separation" or "separated" state.
It is therefore 3-spatial by the very definition of space.
But that single observation is a frozen 3-space snapshot.
It itself does not change, and never happens again; it is
already in the past when it has occurred.
This casts strong question upon the notion of an observable
(such as a mass) propagating through space, and changing its position
in apartness (in space). When
it was observed, it has an absolutely fixed position in space.
Hence to observe it in a different position is a different
observation. That is the
importance of realizing that an observable does not persist a priori,
physically, but that an iterative series of observations of the causal
interactions continuing to occurring with that single thing in that
single observation, gives a series of observations which has four
cases: (1) there is no distinguishable "change"
between one observation and another or in any separate observation of
the various features (parts) of the greater observable.
Hence that observable is "perceived to persist in the same
form" in the mind's perceptual iterative recall from memory.
(2) there is a distinguishable change in the object's features,
but not in its spatial position.
Hence, e.g., we might see a flower withering in its vase, in
the same position, but "aging".
We perceive in our recall comparisons that it changes in place.
(3) We distinguish in our iterative recall no change in the
internal features of the object, but we see its spatial position
changing in the iterative stream of perceptual recall comparisons.
So we perceive motion; e.g., a pitched ball moving through the
air. (4) In our perceptual recall and comparison stream, we see
its spatial position changing and also its internal features changing.
Therefore we see, e.g., an aircraft struck by a missile lose
its wind, falter, start to fall, catch fire and flame up, then
explode. We also
"file" in our experiential memories a huge catalog of such
observations and perceptual recall and comparison chains.
Hence we are able to "anticipate" a crouching tiger's
leap, by recall from our catalog. On the other
hand, we also find a need for using our geometries to model changes
detected in iterative observations.
Hence we must introduce another mode of abstract thinking of
our sensory impressions: we must have a way of ordering
our observations. Actually
the conscious mind is a serial process but very rapid.
So we have temporary registers (short term memory) and
intermediate registers (medium term memory) and also very long or
permanent registers (long term memory).
Just as any modern computer, the conscious mind is adept at
recalling and comparing the contents of these registers.
This ability and functioning is unconscious, inborn, and
innate. It is totally automatic and usually we do not even have to be
aware of doing such rapid processes. When we take
into account these iterative
processing functions of the conscious mind, the ordering becomes
an extraordinary capability of the human mind and perception. The
Notion of Time in Physics Time is a term we use in physics to
express the results and operations of a characteristic mode of
abstract thinking which orders the results of our sensory impressions.
It utilizes the memory, recall, and comparison functions we
mentioned. Because of the
ubiquitous photon interaction with each and every part of the
universe, all parts of it are continually interacted "as if
observed" and then again and again causally.
So "change" is the incessant characteristic of the
universe and all parts of it. Fundamentally,
time is the consideration of "everything at once"—all
sensory processes and all the "apartness" spatial orderings—at
any "moment" (that all-at-onceness).
But because of the physical changes in all these
photon-interacted "things apart", then "everything at
once" is seen to change because the various parts are changing
(remember, we are in extraordinary rapid recall and comparison
operations mentally, and can "switch" from all to one to any
group of compared perceptions instantly.
So we can think of the universe as totally separate things, as
totally separate changing things, as an instantly "entire
one-thing", as a totally changing instant "one-thing",
etc. without effort. The
sense of "all things as one-thing changing" gives us the
sense of physical time passing at a rate, for everything.
The sense of "a single thing changing" because of the
iterative comparisons of its previous observations, gives us the sense
of "that thing changing in time".
This is how we see "an observed thing persisting",
even though no observation persists.
We are integrating the continual iterative observations by
recall and comparison from memory. Regular
changes (such as the earth orbiting the sun, in a "year"),
in the ensemble of total changes, give us the sense of "the
regular flow of time", time intervals such as a year, etc.
In short, it enables clocks and the "measurement" of
time by comparison with some "standard time interval" (time
required for some standard process to make one or a certain number of
repetitions). Time is not
"observable", even in principle, because it is a sense of
ordering achieved by the human mind, as a synthesis of description of
two very important characteristics of our sensory impressions: (1) the
sense of "integrating everything into a one-thing", and (2)
observing the differences in the recall comparisons of previous
observations with the present observation. There is also
the question of whether the "flow of time" is continuous or
discrete. Here we point
out that it is both (we violate Aristotelian logic, but that is okay;
Aristotelian logic is incomplete.
See my extension and completion of it elsewhere
on this website). The
model we advance is a model containing a host of "discrete"
changes along a time line, but with all sorts of other "discrete
changes" simultaneously bridging the "gap" across any
two discrete changes in a single line. Even so, we
have not really defined
time, and neither has anyone else.
It may be that we have to remain satisfied with the fact that
the concept of time rises from our attempts to understand processes
which our own mind does innately, automatically, and unconsciously.
We are born to do it
that way! To deal with
the time concept, we have had to use the process itself, whatever it
may really be. After all, all our words are ultimately drawn from primitive
observation, and with the "time" concept we are attempting
to define the unobservable as if observed.
That cannot be done in Aristotelian logic, but can be done in
5-law logic where opposites can be identical (as perceived, because of
the extra mental recall and comparison functions and the mind's
ability to change these functions instantly and "during the
process" of comparison. So
we have had to define the thing in terms of itself.
This difficulty with time is the essence of the philosophers'
great frustration, when they were unable to resolve their fundamental
problems (nature of time, nature of being, nature of change, nature of
mind, etc.). Their term
"thing-in-itself" was actually a desperate term used to
imply, "Oh, twiddle! You
know, the thing as whatever it really is anyway!"
With that said, we must leave the notion of time without having
really "defined" it. We will
highly recommend the reading of Morris Kline, Mathematics: The Loss
of Certainty, for all those readers so enamored of mathematics
that they believe it captures "truth" and "absolute
truth". It doesn't. That
has been proven somewhat obscurely by the mathematicians themselves.
We also urge the reader to read something such as Thomas J.
Jech, The Axiom of Choice, American Elsevier, New York, 1973. The axiom of choice is an
advanced mathematical theorem that is further used in the proofs of
many other advanced mathematical theorems.
A great deal of advanced mathematics thus depends upon the
axiom of choice. Yet its
employment demonstrates that "absurd" results must be
expected. E.g., p. 3-6
contains the proof that it is possible to cut a ball into a finite
number of pieces and rearrange them to get two balls of the same size
as the original one. So we will
just accept the results of our reflection upon time, and accept that
we have not been able to completely define it but only characterize
the type of perceptual mind operations involved, and proceed. Working
in a General-Relativity-Based Unified Field Theory The beauty of
working in a general relativity-like format is that we can work in the
time domain [for energy
and curvature, electromagnetically since we are in O(3)] as
well as in the 3-space
domain. So not only can
we work on mass-as-it-is, but mass-as-it-moves or has moved in the
time stream. The entire
notion of external force acting upon a separate mass is quite
incorrect; a priori mass is
a component of force by its definition: Force F
º
d/dt(mv). There is also
a hidden assumption in the notion of an "observable
persisting". That
is, "observable persisting" is a non sequitur.
What is unconsciously assumed in the statement that "an
observable persists" is that the observation process is being
continually and consecutively applied to give a stream of d/dt outputs
(effects). If we
"observe no changes", then we perceive in our minds (by
recall and comparison at very great speed, automatically and innately)
the same observable (effect) with no change in our mental comparison.
An observable is a frozen snapshot as produced, and that frozen
snapshot does not and cannot exist at the next moment!
Instead, another snapshot exists at the next moment—again,
like the individual frames in a movie film. In short, we
never observe even the present, but only "the most recent
past". The observation process is finished when we have an
"observation", and that was the output of that process
(which is usually referred to as the "collapse of the wave
function" in quantum mechanics.
No wave "exists" as such unless it exists in 4-space.
But the d/dt operation of observation is in fact the
destruction of the time-domain momentarily.
That destroys the time-aspect of the wave, leaving a frozen
snapshot (an observable). As
we have stated elsewhere, the ubiquitous absorption of photons—both
of quantum and subquantum size—by a mass is what adds a
"time" dimension to the frozen 3-space entity mass.
The photon is comprised of a "piece of energy welded to a
piece of time, with no seam in the middle".
In short, the photon is comprised of
(DE)(Dt).
Upon absorption by a mass, the increment of energy DE,
divided by c2, gives a tiny bit of extra mass Dm that
is added to the mass m, to give (m+Dm)Dt.
Note that we did not and cannot just ignore that Dt
component of the photon in photon absorption.
Indeed, photon absorption changes the mass into masstime, which
is as different from mass as impulse (Ft) is different from force (F).
At the next instant, the excited (m+Dm)Dt
masstime emits a photon (DE)(Dt),
converting that little Dm
back into (DE).
So the reaction for photon absorption is:
(DE)(Dt) + m
® (m+Dm)Dt This is an
"integrating with respect to time" process. Note that "mass" (an observable) has been
integrated into "masstime" (unobservable). The reaction
for photon emission—which is from masstime, never
from mass, is:
(m+Dm)Dt ® m + (DE)(Dt) This is a
"differentiating with respect to time" process.
Note that "masstime" (a nonobservable) has been
differentiated into mass (an observable). This
fundamental process is what Einstein called an "event" in
his theory of relativity. Note that for
a quantum change, an interval (Dt)
exists between consecutive iterations of observation (productions of
observed mass from the unobserved masstime).
In short, the masstime stated occupies a specific interval of
time. But during that
interval, there are incredible numbers of smaller (subquantal or
"virtual") photon interactions that occur, and in each of
these "infolded" or "internal" virtual streams of
interaction (within that single macroscopic time interval), each of
the infolded little (Dt)
intervals has other even smaller infolded photon interactions within
it. The point is,
there is an incredible internal dynamic structuring of the ongoing
causal interaction and observation processes.
Hence the "quantum level" mass (effect) is in fact
comprised of a myriad of ongoing interactions!
These in fact constitute "engines" and their specific
formats and dynamics comprises the "template".
Any template has an internal structure of finer potentials.
Observation
thus is irrevocably linked with the virtual state, very precisely, via
the "nested engine" concept.
This means that, electromagnetically, by engineering this
internal structure (which also represent sets of dynamic spacetime
curvatures), we can engineer and change the resident engine of a mass
(continual observation assumed!). We can "get at" the ability to do this by using
Evans' O(3) electrodynamics, which is a subset of Sachs' unified field
theory. Mass
(continual observation assumed!) is of course highly compressed
spatial energy, compressed by the factor c2. By the
"engines with infolded engines" concept, we actually are
defining energy itself. We will attempt a new definition of energy, which of course
must still be further examined by foundations scientists for any
unperceived flaws: Energy at any local region of spacetime is the complete set of
differences in the engine-set of that region from the engine-set of
average or ambient spacetime.
Energy is thus a special form of "spacetime
excitation" or "spacetime charge".
It is also a difference engine.
It is also an "engine potential", so to speak.
Note, however, that the excitation and charge (the differences)
are not just in the 3-space domain, but also in the time domain as
well. Since energy
can be time-reversed in one form—e.g., in the well-known
time-reversal of uncompressed EM transverse wave energy—then it can
be time reversed in another form; i.e., in mass-energy (compressed)
form. We can do that with
a variation and extension of nonlinear optical pumping, but
we must pump in the time domain rather than in the 3-spatial
domain as is normally done. In short, we
propose time-pumping as the process for making a precise antiengine,
exactly corresponding to a resident engine, but time-reversed and
perhaps amplified. Time-Reversal
and Pumping As an
example, suppose we have a nonlinear mass that acts as a phase
conjugate mirror (PCM) (as
continually observed!). If
one pumps the mass in 3-space with normal EM waves, one can create an
exact phase conjugate replica wave—including one that is amplified—that
travels back in spacetime precisely over the 3-space trajectory
previously taken by the stimulating "input" or
"signal" wave itself. Since
one does not observe the time element but only 3-space, one observes a
3-space EM wave traveling backwards in 3-space precisely over the
previous 3-space path we observed the stimulating wave to have taken. We can think
of pumping as a sort of triode action.
As continually observed, if we input a 3-spatial energy wave
oscillation as the engine
stimulus, we have inputted its 3-spatial template
which is actually a 2-dimensional wavefront and its dynamics.
By pumping the PCM in 3-space with other 3-spatial energy wave
oscillations, we produce a time-reversed 3-space replica wave with parity
reversed. Hence we get
the poorly named "distortion correction theorem", which
states that the 3-space phase conjugate replica wave will
progressively appear point by point back over the spatial path
previously taken by the 3-space input signal wave.
Again, as continually
observed. We must
never forget that each and every 3-space "snapshot" exists
only at that exact moment in time.
The next instant, things are back to unobserved 4-space things.
Observed mass-at-an-instant, e.g., returns to nonobserved
masstime. In short, by
spatial template input and spatial energy pumping for a 3-space wave,
we time-reverse and amplify the 3-spatial input wave and its energy.
So we time-reverse a 2-dimensional object—the EM wavefront—and its
energetics. Similarly,
though not yet in nonlinear optics, if we input a 4-space template and
4-space energy, we will produce 4-space phase conjugate reversal. In
that case, we time-reverse a 3-dimensional object: the pumped mass
(the PCM) itself. Note
particularly that, for EM energy to be 4-spatial, it must exist at
least in the time domain, and it exists in nonobservable form.
Otherwise, it is normal 3-space energy as existing in some
observation being applied. 4-Space
Pumping and Time-Reversal of Mass First,
consider the 4-template of spacetime curvatures (the engine,
when its energetics as well as its form are considered) that is
resident in the pumped nonlinear "mass".
Elsewhere we have advanced the exact mechanism by which a mass
propagates through time, and thus even "persists" or seems
to, as we continually and
repeatedly observe it. In
that mechanism, the mass continually changes (in each part of it) from
mass to masstime to mass to masstime, and so on, due to the incessant
photon interactions at all levels, including the virtual photons of
the vacuum itself. When we pump
in spacetime (4-space), we must consider pumping the "persisting
mass" and every element of it down to the smallest level, during
the "masstime" state of every differential element of the
"persisting mass". More
simply, we may just say we are now pumping the PCM as a
"masstime" PCM, and we are pumping in 4-space rather than
3-space. In this
extended form of pumping, we produce a precise anti-template in
4-space mass-time-energy
rather than just in mass-energy.
The result of that pumping is an amplified anti-engine
that precisely returns that pumped 3-space mass—continual
observation now assumed!—back over its previous time-like
trajectory, changing its 3-space physical form (its mass) in the
process. So we may
time-reverse the pumped living cell itself, in situ, and in the
process we will time-reverse all its parts even down to the tiniest.
Mathematically, time is multiply connected; each and every
tiniest part of that cell exists in each and every single moment of
time simultaneously. Thus,
pumping in the time domain pumps the entire cellular mass-energy and
time-energy and all the dynamics of both forms of energy (time and
mass). Deviating
the Time-Pumped Mass from Returning to Its Past Condition As observed,
we can readily deviate the time-reversing mass off its "past time
trajectory" to any desired new physical state, by simply
inputting an additional "delta antiengine" that will move
the mass away from its past time path to the desired off-trajectory
physical state. This
gives a special kind of reality to "probability" and
"possibility", where they now mean "potentiality".
The point is, by adding additional engines as additional
"input" signals to the time-pumped mass, we can rigorously
control what the pumped mass becomes (changes into).
We can thus move it forward in time (redifferentiation) or
backwards in time (dedifferentiation), or off-trajectory in either
direction so as to reach "possible" states in potentiality
itself. Physical
Engines and the New "Signal Wave" Input In ordinary
nonlinear optics (NLO) there is no consideration of the structuring
and dynamics of the time element (time-stream) associated with the
visualized "flow of a mass through time".
This restricts NLO to a subset, since every element of the
mass-energy is in continuous interaction with its own local dynamic
spacetime curvature sets, and that may include time-pumping as well as
3-space pumping. The overall coordination of the local effects is generated by the overall coordination of the local causes. Considering
its masstime state also, every "mass" has a resident dynamic
4-space energy (energy in space and energy in time) with a dynamic
template, and there is an ongoing continuous two-way interaction
between the "mass-energy" on the one hand and the
"spacetime curvatures and their dynamics" on the other hand.
Every engine
involves structures and dynamics both in the time domain and in
3-space. Indeed, it is
not possible to "curve 3-space" alone, without
simultaneously "curving the dynamics of that space's
"persistence in time".
In short, one affects and alters the dynamics of both space and
time whenever one alters the dynamics of either of them. For a mass (momentary observed state!), one alters the
dynamics of the mass-energy and its associated time-energy,
immediately thereafter when the observed mass has returned to its
unobserved masstime state. Biological
Dedifferentiation and Redifferentiation In biology,
simply pumping the cell in the time-domain results in what is known
roughly as dedifferentiation
of the cell—return of the cell back to a more primitive form;
actually, back to an earlier physical state or condition. As an
example, Becker's bone-fracture healing experiments clearly showed
such initial dedifferentiation of red blood cells caused by having a
simple electrical potential across the fracture site.
Becker rigorously showed that, in the local fracture region
where "bone" was the cellular normal, so long as the
resulting cellular change state (first, dedifferentiation) differed
from the bone, the action of the potential continued to time-reverse
whatever "delta" existed between the exact condition of the
changing cells and the cells in the area. The red blood
cells first dedifferentiated
by shucking their hemoglobin and growing a cellular nucleus. They then redifferentiated
into the type of cells that make cartilage (which is
"approaching" the bone state but not there yet.
Then these new cells redifferentiated
further into the type of cells that make bone, and were then deposited
as bone cells to heal the fracture. We point out that
redifferentiation is actually "time-forwarding" the physical
state of the cellular mass-energy and its dynamics.
When the delta reverses, the time-direction of the anti-engine
reverses. Without a
clear understanding of it, that bone-healing procedure is used in many
hospitals today to heal otherwise intractable bone fractures. In short, experimentally
it has been proven to work. We also
comment that the entire foregoing topical discussion is as
continually observed. The
actual causes (the engines) were not observed, since they are in fact
nonobservables. The
Cellular Regenerative System Pumps Damaged Cells in the Time Domain Becker also
studied the cellular regenerative system of the body,
The regenerative system is an electromagnetic system, but one
of novel and advanced electrodynamic kind..
Unfortunately, Becker only had available to him the standard
U(1) electrodynamics, which does not include curved spacetime and
engines. Also, at the
time (1960s) he performed his seminal experiments, modern nonlinear
phase conjugate optics itself had not yet been born—it did not start
in this country until visiting Russian scientists briefed Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in 1972 about the "strange wave
that emerges and restores order".
Even then, it really was not well underway in the U.S. until
1978-1980. Hence Becker
was unable to complete the modeling of the regenerative system. Specifically,
with U(1) electrodynamics thoroughly confusing the effect wave as the
causal wave, Becker was unable to advance the complete EM unified
field engine mechanism that directly produced the cellular changes
necessary to reverse cellular damage, regrow missing cells, and change
cells from one form to another. He
did capture the biochemical aspects and cellular change aspects very
nicely. He captured the
accompanying EM aspects perhaps as completely as they can be expressed
in ordinary U(1) electrodynamics, which cannot deal with time-reversal
of mass-energy, or with spacetime curvature engines and templates.
Becker's work was epochal, however, and he was nominated multiple
times for a Nobel Prize. Becker
Was Suppressed for His Achievements and Courage Sadly, for
his noble efforts and also because he had the courage to speak out
against the biological hazards of non-ionizing weak EM radiation,
Becker was rather ruthlessly suppressed.
His funding and grants were withdrawn and not renewed.
Eventually he was forced to retire early.
Very powerful scientific forces were arrayed against him and
against others also speaking out. In police
work, there is an old dictum: To search for the culprit, follow the
money trail and look for the motive.
The continuous weak EM hash that is radiated from power lines
ubiquitously was the center of the issue courageously raised by Becker
and others such as Marino, including their testifying as EM bioeffects
experts in court cases. Whereupon institutes were set up and funded rather handsomely
by the electrical power industry to "investigate the biological
effects of weak EM radiation".
Needless to say, the scientists employed by these institutions
largely found that the effects were negligible.
This provided a large body of scientific papers and scientists
testifying that the entire EM bioeffects scare was a no-brainer.
And so it has largely remained to this day, in the
"official" scientific view.
Even an editorial in the journal Nature has raised a
question of the scientific open-mindedness of institutes funded by an
industry being investigated or held in question. However, now
that we understand templates and engines, let us explain the Becker
work and the mechanism utilized by the cellular regenerative system to
restore damaged cells back to normal. The
Immune System Heals Nothing The immune
system, so necessary to fight off pathogens etc., actually heals (restores) nothing at all, not even its own damaged cells.
Of course the immune system is absolutely vital; it is like a
great army that defends us against continuous and unending assaults on
all fronts. We could not live without it, and those unfortunate
persons having suppressed immune systems are forced to live in
environmental isolation, special suits, etc.
Otherwise, invading pathogens would quickly kill them.
When the
immune system battles against hostile invaders and wins, it usually
litters the battlefield in the body with dead cells and residue, and
there are many living but damaged (and even diseased) cells remaining.
The immune system's large cells "clean up the dead
residue", and then the immune system's work is finished. The array of
damaged cells in the body in that area are restored (within its
limitations) by the cellular
regenerative system, not by the immune system.
Since it must cause cellular restoration, its key functions
must operate in the causal
domain, not the effects
domain. Those causal
functions must also be highly and specifically organized and
correlated to the specific effects in (state of) the individual
damaged cells and all tiniest parts of them.
So how does the regenerative system prepare such marvelously
tailored, specific causal engines to restore a damaged cell back to
health? For that we shall have to re-examine the scalar potential. The
Unsuspected Dynamics of the "Scalar" EM Potential First, the
innocent-appearing little "scalar electrostatic potential"
is a real tiger in disguise. In
1903, E. T. Whittaker—one of the leading mathematical physicists of
his day—showed that in normal U(1) electrodynamics the scalar
potential decomposes into a harmonic set of bidirectional EM wave of
special kind. This
harmonic set is actually a set of longitudinal EM waves, in perfect "bidirectional" phase
conjugate wavepairs. That
is the way that Whittaker (and everyone since) interpreted it—as if continually and repeatedly observed.
Effect
Wave Versus Causal Wave We now meet
face-to-face a primary flaw in the conventional interpretation of
electrodynamics. That is
the ubiquitous use of the EM effect
wave in 3-space—produced after
the "causal EM wave-in-spacetime" is interacting with
charged 3-spatial mass and has had a d/dt operation imposed upon it—as
if it were also the causal
EM wave actually existing in (persisting
in) 4-space prior to interaction, and thus prior to imposition of
d/dt. In short, the causal EM wave is an LLLT entity existing not
only in space but also in time, while the effects wave is an LLL
entity that is observed only by repeatedly imposing d/dt(LLLT) = LLL 3-space intersection snapshots at successive "frozen
moments" in time. The effects
EM wave does not even exist or persist in
time, a priori. It "appears" to do so to the observer by the
observer's continual rapid reiteration of the observation d/dt
process. Actually a
series of 3-space snapshots—with memory recall—is how the observed
entity is "assumed to persist".
The snapshots themselves are not the "existent"
entity in the form that it does persist!
They are the continual perturbations and cuttings of
persistence. An entity
persists except when it doesn't.
It is persisting when unobserved, and is not persisting in the
form as repeatedly observed.
Without belaboring, we point out that the problem of being and
persistence are unsolved problems in philosophy as well as physics.
Centuries of philosophers struggled with the problem of being
and failed to solve it, because all of them continued to confuse the
"observed" instant which does not persist in such form at
all, with the unobserved persisting entity.
The forms of the observed entity and the "same"
persisting entity are dramatically different.
The existing entity may be said to be "the observable
entity multiplied by time". This is readily seen geometrically; the observable entity is
3-spatial (LLL) and instantly a frozen partial snapshot.
The nonobserved, persisting entity is 4-spatial (LLLT) and a
flowing process. The thing the
philosophers (and the physicists) have struggled with is that any
entity exists (persist) not only in a series of frozen instants
"as observed" and as "not persisting", but also as
an ongoing process which is not and cannot be observed a
priori. Elsewhere we
have shown that Aristotelian logic is incomplete and destroys itself
like a snake swallowing its own tail.
We advanced the completion, which is a 4-law logic with an
application rule which itself is a 5th law of logic.
Hence the problems the philosophers and physicists have
struggled with remain unresolved largely because of the use of an
incomplete logic. Such
fundamental foundations issues cannot be resolved in Aristotelian
logic, which does not model such solutions.
The issues can be resolved in 4-law logic. In 3-space
(i.e., after we "detect-as-observed" an effects wave from
the ongoing interaction of a causal wave with a previously observed
3-space charged mass), Whittaker's interpretation of the decomposition
does apply in those iterative "frozen momentary snapshots"
only. That is the effects
decomposition (the effect EM
waveset) that would be detected—by
continually interacting the actual causal decomposition waves in spacetime with charged mass. But such a pure effects
interpretation has omitted and altered something very vital indeed:
The actual form in which those waves exist prior to complete
interaction and observation is 4-spatial, not 3-spatial.
However, to have an "interaction" at all, that will
produce an effect, we must introduce not only the 4-space causal
interactant(s) but also a previously observed 3-spatial entity
steadily being "observed".
Reflect on that for a moment!
We cannot have a cause and effect action, unless we have a
causal set interacting with a previous effect (a previously observed
observable) to produce a change in that prior observable—i.e., to
produce a new effect. So a
"new snapshot" series (observations) taken of the persisting
interacting causal entity (the cause) and an ongoing series of
iteratively snapped sequences of the "interacting"
observable (initial effect) will iteratively reveal the changes
occurring in the "initial observable".
That is the "output effect" of the interaction
(observation) process. Note
the multiple use of observation infolded within observation (a
comparative process a priori) interacting with an ongoing unobserved
cause, to produce a steady series of effects which are
"changes" when compared to the initial observable. In the
comparative recall process of the observer, if iterative comparisons
between the continually outputted "changes" are zero, then
the initial observable is "seen or accepted" as
"continuing to persist".
But this very notion of "the observable continuing to
persist" involves this rather complex interaction process
ongoing, as well as the observer's continual recall from memory and
comparison. In our paper
extending and completing Aristotelian logic, we pointed out that
identity itself is a determination made by comparison of one
observable with a recalled previous observable.
This process of the observer is continuous and automatic; it is
the way that the operation of perception itself is designed and
functions. How
the Effect Wave Came to Be Confused as the Causal Wave In
electrodynamics, the founders (Faraday, Maxwell, Heaviside, etc.) all
conceived a material (as
continually observed!) ether. In
short, there was not a single point in all the universe—so they
thought—where mass was absent.
Hence the "EM field in space" was a very real and
material thing to them, and "massless" field was not even in
their minds. Indeed,
Maxwell modeled his electrodynamics as a purely material fluid flow
and dynamics theory, originally using a very mechanical model of the
"ether" replete with gears and wheels. Sadly, note
that this "material ether as if continually observed"
concept already completely substituted spatial effects for all
spatiotemporal causes. This
seemed natural; in confusing force as cause, "natural
philosophy" (as physics was known early on) had already
hopelessly confused effect with cause in mechanics, therefore in fluid
dynamics. And it was
material fluid dynamics that Maxwell utilized and adapted as the model
to capture his electromagnetic theory.
One cannot fault Maxwell; almost all scientists had already
confused cause and effect long before Maxwell was born. During the
same EM formative period (Maxwell in the 1860s and 1870s, and then in
the 1880s after Maxwell was deceased), special relativity had not yet
been born—it would be two more decades before it appeared.
The notion of "spacetime" did not exist as we
conceive it today, and neither did the notion that the flow of time
changed its pace. Indeed,
the very notion of the "flow of EM energy through 3-space"
appeared in electrodynamics (and in physics) only in the 1880s,
several years after Maxwell's death in 1879, and introduced by
Poynting and Heaviside independently.
Prior to that, the notion of energy propagating through space
did not even exist in physics. E.g.,
from an editorial, "The Transfer of Energy," The
Electrician, Vol. 27, Jul. 10, 1891, we quote as follows: "...the idea that energy is located at all, and that, when it changes its position, it must move along a definite path, is quite a new one. The law of the conservation of energy implies that energy |