__
Source Charge, Van Flandern Waterfall,
and Leyton Geometry__

T. E. Bearden (Dec. 2, 2003)

__Introduction__

In electrodynamics, some scientists do recognize
a grave foundations problem: That of the "source charge" and how it
produces its associated fields. We published a first proposed solution
to that problem in 2000 {[1]},
refining it in 2002 {[2],[3]}
and later.

In 2003 we finally found the exact mechanism by
which the source charge continuously consumes virtual state entropy of
the vacuum and produces observable state negative entropy via its
observable EM fields, potentials, and their energy. Van Flandern’s
waterfall analogy is very appropriate as an analogy for the mechanism
discovered.

The findings strongly impact thermodynamics,
falsifying the present second law and correcting a minor error in the
first law. The Leyton object-oriented geometry and advanced group
theoretic methods furnish the dramatic difference required to Klein
geometry and Klein’s methods. The results show that continuous processes
producing negative entropy are not only possible but also ubiquitous.

Some implications for electrical power
engineering are pointed out.

__The Source Charge Problem__

Electrodynamicists generally agree that the
fields and potentials are created and established by their associated
source charges. However, many assume that the static fields and their
potentials just "suddenly are there", all at once, and that there is no
motion or energy flow whatsoever, with respect to static fields.

Suppose we do a gedanken experiment. If one
merely separates a charge anew, one can measure its fields and
potentials being established outward at the speed of light. That is a
flow of energy steadily outward, from the charge. So, *experimentally*
an energy flow is outgoing in all directions. It is *observable, real
EM energy* since it can be detected and measured. Further, once the
forward edge of the energy flow reaches any distant radial point and
passes beyond, *the intensity of the fields and potentials that are
measured there at that point continuously remain from then on*. This
proves that a "transient pulse" was not what was emitted, but a steady
energy flow is continuously being emitted. In other words, the static
field is a *steady state* outflow of energy from its associated
source charge.

However, *our instruments cannot measure*
*any input of energy to the charge*. Thus we are faced with a
dilemma: Either the charge freely and continuously creates observable EM
field energy and EM potential energy out of nothing at all, or else
there must be a corresponding input of energy to the charge from its
active environment, but in *nonobservable* (virtual state) form.

Either we must totally surrender the
conservation of energy law itself—as being falsified by every EM charge,
field, potential and joule of EM energy in the universe—or else we must
find, model, and account for that nonobservable EM energy input to the
charge from its active ambient environment. The problem has not been
resolved in more than a century. It has, however, largely been scrubbed
out of the textbooks and hidden from the students.

This problem is especially critical in
electrical engineering. In the Maxwell-Heaviside classical EM model,
there is no active vacuum interaction. *In that model*, there is no
“input” to the charge from its ambient environment. So the model *
implicitly assumes* all EM energy is freely created from nothing at
all, completely violating conservation of energy and contradicting most
of present physics.

__Background__

Sen {[4]}
refers to the source charge problem in these words:

*"The connection between the field and its
source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in
classical and quantum electrodynamics."*

Bunge {[5]}
referred to it in this more subtle way:

*"In order to keep Maxwell's
second order equations and at the same time discard its advanced
solutions in a consistent way one must add the hypothesis that the
charged bodies are the sources of the e.m. field—a hypothesis that is
taken so much for granted that it is hardly stated explicitly.
...fields and currents are conjoined but not causally associated: only
field changes are causally associated with charged bodies in case there
are any in the region considered."*

One notes that Bunge actually refers to field
changes as due to currents. There are no overall field *changes*
due to static charges, but only the “static” fields themselves.

Bunge {[6]}
also pointed out that:

*"...it is not usually
acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and quantal, are in a
sad state."*

Kosyakov ([7])
states it very bluntly, pointing out that the theory of radiation is
incomplete. He stated:

*"A generally acceptable,
rigorous definition of radiation has not as yet been formulated. …"The
recurring question has been: Why is it that an electric charge
radiates but does not absorb light waves despite the fact that the
Maxwell equations are invariant under time reversal? "*

If an *observable* photon is absorbed by
a charged mass and the charge is thereby "excited", the charge usually
does indeed decay and re-emit an observable charge. But in the absence
of any bombardment by external *observable* radiation—i.e., in the
ambient vacuum environment—the “isolated” charge itself is continuously
emitting real, detectable, measurable EM field energy and EM potential
energy.

__Original Charges in the Universe and
Their Fields__

First, we address Bunge's point that *
changes* to fields are involved with charge *currents* (i.e.,
as compared to the static field from a static charge): In the original
formation of the universe (by whatever model one wishes), at some point
each original charge appeared. That was indeed a "change" or special
kind of initial momentary current. So the fields that appeared from that
charge (and that now—for the original charges—still appear from it and
reach across the universe) may be regarded as original "changes" to the
zero field that existed before the formation of the charge.

Even so, the appearing "change"
fields—subsequently known as the "static fields"—do not just instantly
appear "everywhere in the universe at once". The static fields must
appear (as "changes occurring" to the basic background zero field) at
light speed, spreading radially outward in all directions. Else the
conservation law, relativity, and communication theory are dead along
with much of present physics.

These “appearing” radial EM fields are
comprised of *observable* photons, because they can be detected.
A free observable photon in space must be moving at light speed. So from
the charge—from the moment of its appearance—there must be an outpouring
of a continuous stream of observable photons in all directions,
continuously establishing and replenishing the presence of the
associated "static fields". Thermodynamically the fields are not
actually static entities at all; they are *nonequilibrium steady state*
(NESS) *systems* because they consist of photons and photon energy
flowing outward in all directions.

__Van Flandern’s Waterfall Analogy__

We have arrived at the need for Van Flandern's
beautiful analogy. I originally used the notion of a perfect whirlpool
in the water as an analogy, but his waterfall analogy is much more
elegant and suitable! Van Flandern {[8]}
stated it this way:

*“To retain causality, we must
distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘static’. One meaning is
unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is
sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving
parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A
frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall
is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every
moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring
momentum, and is made of entities that propagate.*”

This gets us to the understanding that the
"static" EM fields are static only in Van Flandern's second sense. This
NESS system view of the static fields and potentials is now consistent
with the formation of the original charges of the universe and the
consequent formation of their static fields radially outward at light
speed, and with the continuous replenishment of the established fields
at every point in them. It is also consistent with replication of
similar experiments wherein one merely separates some "classically
unipolar" charge in fixed position, then watches and detects its
associated fields and potentials, as they grow radially outward from it
at light speed.

__Static Fields: How is the Energy
Conserved?__

What remains is the conservation of energy
problem. The source charge continuously emits observable energy to
establish and replenish its associated fields and potentials, without an
*observable* energy input. Fortunately, the basis for answering
that problem has been in physics since 1957, but it does not appear to
have been noticed as enabling the solution to the long-ignored source
charge problem. Let us examine this further.

In classical Maxwell-Heaviside
electrodynamics, there is no modeling of the active vacuum or of curved
spacetime. Instead, the vacuum (space) is assumed inert, and the local
spacetime is assumed flat. The first assumption has been falsified for
some time by quantum mechanics and particle physics, and the second
assumption has been falsified since the advent of general relativity
(almost a century now).

With these crippling assumptions, the
classical EM theory does not and cannot model the known virtual particle
interchange between the active vacuum and the source charge. It
therefore cannot model the charge as a special kind of NESS system
receiving nonobservable EM energy in virtual form, and outputting EM
energy in observable form.

Therein hangs the problem. Experimentally we
know that (i) the input energy to the source charge must be in virtual
state form, and (ii) when we produce a charge suddenly, the fields and
potentials are created at light speed outward in all directions. Once
they reach a distant point and pass beyond, the fields and potentials
and their intensities at that point are also continuously maintained
thereafter, showing that a continuous emission of real energy from the
source charge is occurring so that the static fields are continuously
replenished in place—precisely like Van Flandern’s waterfall analogy {8}.

__The “External” and “Internal” Energy
Flows__

We also add another observation regarding
energy flow: If one accepts Poynting energy flow theory, then any static
charge and any static dipolarity *a priori* exhibits an external
dynamic energy flow by simple S = E
´
H. Or as Buchwald {[9]}
states:

*"[Poynting's result] implies
that a charged capacitor in a constant magnetic field which is not
parallel to the electric field is the seat of energy flows even though
all macroscopic phenomena are static."*

This shows that one can make a “free energy”
generator that freely and continuously pours out real EM energy. One way
is to lay an electret or charged capacitor on a permanent magnet, so
that the E-field of the capacitor or electret is at right angles to the
H field of the magnet. That simple arrangement will continuously pour
out real EM energy flow at light speed, so long as it remains intact.

So there is no real energy crisis per se.
Instead, there is an energy-interception, collection, and usage problem.
Even the static magnetic field of a permanent magnet represents a steady
outpouring of real EM energy. How to extract and use it freely is the
problem.

Further, Whittaker {[10],[11],[12]}
showed in 1903 that any static potential decomposes into a harmonic set
of bidirectional EM longitudinal wavepairs. In 1904, he also showed {[13]}
that any EM field or wave (or other pattern) decomposes into two scalar
potentials with differential functions imposed. This latter paper
initiated what today is known as *superpotential* theory {[14]}.
The combination of the two papers demonstrates that any EM field,
potential, wave, or other pattern is comprised of a set of bidirectional
longitudinal EM wavepairs, with impressed differential functions. Thus
any field, potential, or wave does possess and is comprised of an
internal set of energy flows of the Whittaker type, in good
correspondence to Van Flandern’s analogy.

The static charge's electric field and its
magnetic field meet those Poynting and Whittaker energy flow conditions.
Hence, either the static charge really does emit real EM energy flow
continuously, or else we have to discard the Poynting theory and
superpotential theory. Since both are well tested, the external and
internal energy flows are substantiated.

It seems we really must look to particle
physics and find the charge's steady input of EM energy in the virtual
state—unless of course we surrender the conservation of energy law
entirely. If one accepts that energy must be conserved, then one
concludes that there does exist a virtual state energy input.
Accordingly, one must find it.

__Importance of Broken Symmetry__

Fortunately, Lee and Yang {[15]}
strongly predicted broken symmetry in 1956-57, and Wu and her colleagues
{[16]}
experimentally proved it in early 1957. So revolutionary was this
discovery that with unprecedented speed the Nobel Committee awarded the
Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in that same year, 1957.

*
Broken symmetry*
means that something virtual and nonobservable has become observable.
Lee {[17]}
states it as follows:

*"...the discoveries
made in 1957 established not only right-left asymmetry, but also the
asymmetry between the positive and negative signs of electric charge."
…“Since non-observables imply symmetry, these discoveries of asymmetry
must imply observables.”*

Lee even predicted the possibility of directly
engineering and structuring the vacuum itself {[18]}.
He also strongly pointed out that science has simply sidestepped the
internal structuring of electrodynamics, including of the vacuum
potential itself. He stated {[19]}:

*"…we have avoided the opportunity to study coherent
phenomena which may be connected with the vacuum."*

The clue for the missing energy input is that
we must find a proper *broken symmetry* exhibited by that
"classically isolated" source charge.

One of those proven asymmetries experimentally
proven by Wu *et al*. is the asymmetry of opposite charges—i.e., of
any dipolarity. It involves charge and will do the job nicely. So our
quest reduces to finding a dipolarity associated directly with the
source charge. However, we also must have a source for that virtual
energy, and this source must be a continuous source of input energy in
the virtual form.

For all that, we simply turn to quantum field
theory, and there it is.

__Energetic Charge and Vacuum__

As Nobelist Weinberg {[20]}
points out:

*"… free electrons as well as
electrons in atoms are always emitting and absorbing photons that affect
the electron's mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge
are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that are
listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to
account for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass
and charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be
infinite. The total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two
terms, both infinite: the bare energy that is infinite because it
depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and the energy shift
calculated by Oppenheimer that is infinite because it receives
contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy."*

The picture that results of the “isolated
classical charge” in its active vacuum environment is this: The
"isolated charge" is an infinite bare charge that has polarized the
vacuum, and is thus surrounded by an infinite charge of the furious
virtual charges of opposite sign in the vacuum, appearing and
disappearing at an incredible rate. The ensemble of the bare charge and
its associated virtual charges has a net *finite* charge of the
sign of the bare charge inside. That net finite charge is in fact the
classical "separated charge" that our instruments see of the infinite
bare charge through the infinite external screen of opposite virtual
charges.

The quantum field theory __ensemble__—classically
known as an "isolated source charge"—is thus a *very special kind of
dipolarity* when both charge and vacuum activity are considered. As
such a dipolarity, it exhibits the proven asymmetry of opposite charges.

This broken symmetry means that some of the
virtual photon energy continuously absorbed by the charge is not
reradiated as virtual photon energy, but instead is reradiated as
observable photons in all directions. There is no problem with how much
input energy is required to pour out the energy indefinitely, even over
a period of billions of years, since the energy of both the virtual
polarization charge and the bare charge is infinite.

__Impact upon Thermodynamics__

We have found the source of the charge’s
missing input energy: *The infinitely active polarized vacuum*. We
also have the mechanism that produces the outflow of organized photons (radially
ordered as to average intensity of the fields at every radial point in
3-space). But we still have a remaining dilemma: The input virtual state
EM energy of the seething vacuum is totally disordered (random), while
the output observable energy is macroscopically ordered, even eventually
across the entire universe. The charge’s transformation of the
disordered energy into ordered energy represents continuous negative
entropy production, totally violating the present form of the second law
of thermodynamics. Hence, we must also find the exact mechanism by which
such giant negentropy can occur, and we must restate the second law so
that it permits negative entropy reactions.

Fortunately, the relevant recent work is in
the literature. First, the present second law—which prohibits negative
entropy—is known to be violated by transient fluctuations, since the
second law is based on statistical mechanics and in *normal
statistical fluctuations* the reactions can and do "run backwards".

To deal with this "fluctuation production of
negative entropy", Evans and Searles {[21]}
formulated a most useful transient fluctuation theorem (there are
others), that has been very usefully applied in forefront thermodynamics
to a variety of fields. Wang *et al*. ([22])
also showed that, surprisingly, statistical fluctuation alone does
produce negative entropy excursions in certain chemical fluids for up to
2 seconds, at the cubic micron level. A cubic micron of water contains
something like 30 billion ions and molecules, so the effect of
negentropic reversal of chemical reactions in a zone containing 30
billion ions is certainly nontrivial. Reversed reactions such as *
momentary attraction* of two like charges (e.g., two H^{+}
ions to give a quasi-nucleus of deuterium or two D^{+} ions to
give a quasi alpha particle) is probably sufficient, e.g., to produce
most of the reported cold fusion transmutation results {[23]}
now demonstrated in more than 600 experiments worldwide {[24]}.
That is another related matter we have separately dealt with elsewhere
{23}.

Evans and Rondoni {[25]}
showed that, *theoretically* at least, nonequilibrium steady
state (NESS) systems can produce negative entropy continuously, so that
the entropy *starts* negatively and further decreases toward
negative infinity as time passes. Startled at their own results, they
felt that no real physical system could exhibit such results, but did
point out that "the problem remains for deterministic systems". In other
words, theoretically the "problem" of systems that continuously produce
negative entropy does remain.

We have therefore nominated the source charge
as the first such physical system known, continuously producing negative
entropy (order from disorder) in the manner theoretically predicted by
the results of Evans and Rondoni {25}. As we saw, the output energy is indeed
deterministic as a function of radial distance.

__Search for the Coherent Integration
Mechanism__

Thermodynamically, the problem is therefore
amenable. However, we still are lacking the exact mechanism by which the
source charge *coherently integrates* the continually received
disordered virtual energy into observable energy (observable photons).
In other words, *how does the charge consume the positive entropy in
the virtual state and integrate it into negative entropy in the
observable state?*

After a year of searching some intricate
things that did not work, the solution to the desired negative entropy
(coherent integration of virtual state disorder into macroscopic
observable state order) turned out to be surprising simple. First, the
receipt of “virtual EM energy" by the source charge is primarily via its
absorption of virtual photons. Mass *m* of the absorbing charge *
q* is unitary, and its absorption of a virtual photon thereby
constitutes the production of a differential *dm* of mass, yielding
(*m + dm*). As successive virtual photons are absorbed, we have *
m(t) = m*_{0} + dm_{1} + dm_{2} + ... + dm_{i}
+ ... and so on. In short, the *
differential **unitary mass*
of the charge is steadily and coherently increasing in its virtual state
toward the observable state. This mass-energy change becomes
increasingly unstable (excited), from the virtual state viewpoint, as it
nears the quantum level and the observable state threshold.

When this increasing total *dm* reaches
sufficient magnitude to constitute the energy *
DE*
of an observable photon (*DEDt)
*via* **
DE
= c*^{2}dm, the *
zitterbewegung* (constant fierce bombardment of the charge by
virtual particles) simply triggers the abrupt decay of the excited state
and release of the excitation energy. This results in the radial
emission of an observable photon from the charge, at light speed outward
into surrounding space.

The “virtual photon absorption and unitary
differential mass integration and summation” is the long-sought coherent
integration process. The zitterbewegung plays the role of forcing the
abrupt decay and quantum change that produce the observable photon
emission. The process repeats over and over at incredible speed, in all
directions, and this finishes the complete mechanism by which the source
charge continuously absorbs and coherently integrates virtual energy
from its seething vacuum exchange, and re-emits the integrated energy as
real, observable photons traveling outwards at light speed.

The result completes the full mechanism by
which the source charge produces and continuously maintains (at light
speed) its associated "static" EM fields and potentials. Also, it is a
mechanism that *conserves energy* during the process.

__Tidying up the Results__

We add that classical EM does not have this
solution even in its model, because it does not model the active vacuum
interactions or the ongoing process we described.

As a result, the classical EM model is in
serious and fundamental error, because—as it models things—it implicitly
assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the
universe is and has been freely created from nothing at all, in total
violation of the conservation of energy law.

Models are useful, of course, in that range of
phenomenology to which they "fit" the experiments. However, no model is
ever perfect, as proven by Gödel {[26]}.
Models are not useful—or even to be used—in those areas where they no
longer fit the experiments, and therefore no longer adequately describe
the phenomenology.

The old concept of "static fields" being
instantly full grown, and just being "everywhere at once" for all time,
is a notion that is seriously flawed and must be changed.

However, we still must correct the second law
of thermodynamics. The present second law can be simply stated as:

*“Given some available controlled
order (available controlled energy), this initial controlled order will
either remain the same or be progressively disordered and decontrolled
over time by subsequent entropic interactions.”*

Or, simply put, dS/dt ≥
0.

To include the negative entropy changes
required in an expanded second law, we restate the second law as
follows:

*"First a negative entropy
interaction occurs to produce some controlled order (available
controlled energy). Then that initial available controlled order will
either remain the same or be progressively disordered and decontrolled
by subsequent entropic interactions over time, unless additional
negative entropy interactions occur and intervene."*

Or, simply put,
-∞
≤
dS/dt ≤
+∞.

*
It only takes one white crow to prove that
not all crows are black*. The
source charge with its input virtual EM energy and its associated output
EM fields and potentials are an experimental example of a physical
system totally violating the old second law, to any size level desired
and for any time interval desired. The violation of the old second law
is complete, thus falsifying its formerly assumed absoluteness.

__Leyton’s Work Solves the Problem of
the Klein Geometry__

A final problem can still be raised: The
standard Klein geometry {[27]}
will not support the finding.

In Klein's geometry and with his group
symmetric methods, broken symmetry at a given level results in the loss
of symmetry information at that level, and hence reduces the overall
symmetry. Klein's approach applies successive restrictions from the
general case to the special case, e.g., from projective geometry down to
Euclidean geometry. In Leyton’s approach, one builds up from the special
case to the general case, e.g., from Euclidean geometry up to projective
geometry. This *reversal of fundamental methodology* allows the
creation of a higher order group as a result of symmetry-breaking. That
situation is impossible in the Klein approach, which fundamentally
opposes the building up process.

As shown by the source charge, just such a
different geometry is required with new, more advanced group symmetric
methods such that, when symmetry is broken at a given level, the
symmetry information for that level is retained and a new symmetry is
generated at the next higher level—thus *increasing* the overall
symmetry.

In short, one cannot model an observed
negative entropy process by assuming a foundational approach that only
permits positive entropy. This is precisely why the conventional form of
the second law excludes half the thermodynamics—specifically, it
excludes the negative entropy processes of nature.

But fortunately, the required geometry and
methods do already exist as rigorously shown by Leyton {[28]}.
From Leyton's work, a *hierarchy of symmetries* effect emerges,
and the old Klein geometry and methods are replaced (and reversed in
approach) by Leyton's more advanced object-oriented geometry and group
symmetric methods.

Leyton’s hierarchies of symmetry effect
implicitly includes a universal law and mechanism of negative entropy
production—and, in our view, it heralds a dramatic revolution in
physics, chemistry, electrodynamics, and electrical engineering.

__Solving the Central Problem of
Thermodynamics__

The epochal work by Leyton {28} also solves the tremendous central time asymmetry
problem of thermodynamics.

Price {[29]}
states the problem this way:

*"A century or so ago, Ludwig
Boltzmann and other physicists attempted to explain the temporal
asymmetry of the second law of thermodynamics. …the hard-won
lesson of that endeavor—a lesson still commonly misunderstood—was that
the real puzzle of thermodynamics is not why entropy increases with
time, but why it was ever so low in the first place."*

Many thermodynamicists add: *“Or
how could it still be so low now?”* Indeed, Price himself states {[30]}:

*"…the major task of an account of
thermodynamic asymmetry is to explain why the universe as we find it is
so far from thermodynamic equilibrium, and was even more so in the
past."*

Thermodynamicists have debated and fought, and
sought the answer for a century, to little avail. The problem *cannot*
be solved within the Klein geometry model and approach. The answer is
given by Leyton's geometry and methodology, and specifically by his
hierarchies of symmetry principle. *The temporal asymmetry is and was
possible because there do exist negative entropy processes in nature and
in physics after all, due to Leyton hierarchies of symmetry.* The old
second law and Klein geometry only addressed the entropic half of
thermodynamics and ignored the excluded negentropic half.

A rather astounding fallout of Leyton’s
approach is the potential for developing *negentropic engineering*
rather than the present exclusively *entropic* engineering taught
and practiced worldwide. If one considers many or most operating system
entropic losses as potentially harmful byproducts affecting the
environment negatively, then the coming age of negentropic engineering
will eventually allow reprocessing and “recovery” of entropic byproducts
into negative entropy resources once again. As the new engineering is
developed together with extracting energy directly from the vacuum, the
two will provide the real and final solution for the ever-increasing
biospheric pollution and contributions to global warming by present
energy and power processes.

__Correcting the First Law of
Thermodynamics__

In passing, we also found and corrected a
minor error in the present statement of the first law of thermodynamics.
The first law presently equates the *change of magnitude* of an
external parameter—such as the potential and the field—of the system as
work. If true, that would exclude *gauge freedom*, widely used in
electrodynamics and physics.

Even in the Lorentz-symmetrically regauged
Maxwell-Heaviside equations, the potential energy of a system can be
freely changed at will, by the gauge freedom principle. Put into
concrete terms, changing the voltage (and hence the potential energy
collected in the system) of an EM system—and changing nothing else—is
not work, nor does it require work. It merely requires work-free flowing
of excess potential onto the circuit or system.

__Correcting a Misunderstanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics__

We also corrected the long-prevailing but
erroneous scientific perception that the first law prohibits perpetual
motion. If that were true, then it would falsify Newton’s first law of
motion.

Newton’s first law simply states that an
object, once placed into a state of motion, will perpetually remain in
that state of motion unless and until acted upon by an external force to
change it. An isolated object not affected by net external forces thus
really does exhibit perpetual motion, requiring no input of extra energy
and doing no work. So either one accepts *perpetual motion* or one
gives up Newton’s first law. In that case, without any restraints, the
motion of an object would be totally random from moment to moment,
thereby destroying any organized universe such as we observe and live
in.

Inexplicably, for a hundred years a great part
of the scientific community has made a simple error in logic, so that
the phrase “perpetual motion” has become a dogma evoking a knee-jerk
reaction. We explain it by examining Max Planck’s statement as an
example. Planck stated {[31]}:

*"It is in no way possible, either by mechanical, thermal,
chemical, or other devices, to obtain perpetual motion, i.e., it is
impossible to construct an engine which will work in a cycle and produce
continuous work, or kinetic energy, from nothing."*

The statement contains two assertions and an
assumption. Paraphrasing, the two assertions are: (i) *“It is
impossible to obtain perpetual motion,”* and (ii) *“It is
impossible for an engine to perform continuous work or energy, from
nothing.”* The assumption (contained in the use of the “i.e.”), is
that the two assertions are identical.

The first assertion is false, since it
contradicts Newton’s first law of motion and common observation of the
organized universe.

The second assertion is true. No source-free
system can perform work or output energy, without the appropriate input
of the energy.

However, the second assertion has nothing at all
to do with Newton’s first law of motion, or with the first assertion.
The assumption that the first and second assertions are identical is
false. They are not even related, since an object in Newton’s
first law state of perpetual motion requires no extra energy input and
does no work. That is not the same as a hypothetical system doing work
without energy input.

Hence Planck’s statement asserts that *a
false assumption is identical to a true assumption, thereby proving the
false assumption to be true*. That, of course, is a logical non
sequitur.

So Planck’s statement is falsified completely,
as is the prevailing scientific attitude that perpetual motion
automatically means a continuously working system without any energy
input at all, and thereby creating energy from nothing.

The only scientists who unwittingly accept the
creation of energy out of nothing at all, are those who accept that all
EM fields and potentials as well as every joule of EM energy in the
universe, is and has been freely created *out of nothing at all* by
their associated source charges, without any energy being input to the
charges.

__Negative Resonance Absorption of the
Medium__

For an interesting
experimental phenomenon showing lack of accountability for an
unsuspected but massive EM energy component actually available in every
EM system, one turns to the established field of *negative resonance
absorption of the medium*. E.g., the Bohren-type experiment {[32]}
results in a resonant particle medium absorbing oscillating energy
furnished by the operator and then re-emitting some 18 times as much
oscillating energy from the medium! The charged particles of the medium
are in particle resonance at the frequency of the input energy (IR in
the case of insulating particles, and UV in the case of conducting metal
particles). In each case, far more energy is re-emitted from the medium
than the energy one inputs by *conventional Poynting flow calculation*.

Thus, either the
experiments falsify the conservation of energy law, or else there is
another previously unaccounted energy input from the environment itself.

Scientists in that area
have not recognized the source of the excess energy input. They
carefully refrain from speaking of *excess emission*, and from
discussing the thermodynamic coefficient of performance—which of course
is COP = 18 in this case. Instead, they carefully speak innocuously of
the *change in reaction cross section*. They do not recognize that
the *foundations* *definition* of the field intensity is being
altered, and that in electrodynamics the **E**-field or the **B**-field
(intensity) is defined only insofar as its own “point intensity” of **E**
or **B **at each spatial point. *The geometric regional ***E** or
**B** field is not defined at all in electrodynamics.

Even then, the
“intensity” of the field is considered to be measured by what is
diverged from the energy flow (comprising the actual geometrical field
passing through a given point), by a reacting unit point static charge
placed at that point. So it is not the “field intensity in mass-free
space” that is being dealt with at all, but the *field intensity in a
specific kind of charged matter consisting of totally static charges*.
It is in fact *what is being diverged from the actual intensity of the
energy flows comprising the geometrical field *{10,13}* by a static unit point charge at a point*. And
of course, that divergence is by a specific divergence reaction, and the
amount of that divergence is therefore determined by the nature of that
specific reaction as expressed in terms of its “reaction cross section”
(output divided by input, *for that reaction only*).

The practitioners feed
oscillating field energy into the particulate medium wherein the
medium’s particles are self-resonant at the input energy frequency. In
that case, the reaction cross section of course dramatically increases
(in this case, by a factor of 18) {[33]}.
But that is also an increase in calculated or measured *output*
divided by calculated or measured *operator input*. It therefore
represents a change in the thermodynamic COP of the process itself
(which includes both absorption and re-emission).

For its output to
exceed the operator’s energy input, any physical EM system exhibiting
COP>1.0 thermodynamically must have an extra or second energy input
furnished freely by the active environment itself (e.g., as in the case
of a common heat pump). The *efficiency*
x of a thermodynamic system
(system output divided by total system input) can never exceed 100%,
else the conservation of energy law is violated. The COP (system output
divided by operator’s input only) can of course be COP>1.0, even for a
system with efficiency x <<
100%, if the environment furnishes the excess energy. The common heat
pump in nominal conditions may have x
= 50%, but a COP = 3.0 to 4.0 because of the extra energy input by the
atmosphere and extracted and used by the heat pump process.

In the case of negative
resonance absorption of the medium, the resonant particles are also able
to diverge and absorb some of the huge but long-neglected Heaviside
energy flow component {[34],[35]},
arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz {[36]}.
Specifically, the resonant particles do diverge some of that normally
nondivergent Heaviside energy flow, thus increasing the absorbed EM
energy available to be re-emitted. The resonant particles thereby
increase their reaction cross section, and also the COP of the system,
because now the particular system has a second source of input energy: a
little of the long-ignored Heaviside component of energy flow that
accompanies every Poynting energy flow but is usually not diverged. The
ordinary vector divergence of the curl is zero *in a flat spacetime*,
but it is not necessarily zero in a *curved* spacetime. The
self-oscillating particles of the medium do provide sufficient spacetime
curvature to allow some of the normal divergence-free Heaviside
component to be diverged anyway, thus furnishing an extra Poynting
energy flow input (diverged) component. This is an extra environmental
energy input to the resonant charged particles, though unaccounted in
the present electrical engineering theory and therefore unaccounted by
the researchers in the field of negative resonance absorption of the
medium.

Since the resonant
particles absorb more energy than the operator himself inputs in his
Poynting energy flow input component, the particles are then free to
re-radiate all the energy they absorbed, in Poynting divergent form,
thereby providing COP = 18, while rigorously obeying
x
£ 100%.

We have previously
pointed out the advantage that could be gained by developing and
incorporating such a *heat amplifying* processor between the boiler
and the heat furnished by the hydrocarbon combustion flames (or the heat
radiated from a nuclear reactor). Even a “staging” amplification of 4 to
10 would enormously reduce the fuel burned, its cost, and the pollution
of the atmosphere.

__Rotary Motion from Static Fields__

According to
Whittaker’s work {10,13}, a “static” EM field is actually comprised of a
multitude of internal EM longitudinal wave energy flows. What we
calculate and call the “static field” is only the *observed* *
point intensity* of the sum of those flows at a point. That intensity
is a fixed value only for a given type of intercepting unit charged
particle and its given type of reaction. Since so-called static fields
actually are steady state dynamic flow systems, it follows that rotary
motion can be obtained by asymmetries produced by sets of receiving
circuits, objects, or particles in a static field.

This is experimentally
verified by the important Coulomb motor work of Khachatourian and
Wistrom {[37]}.
Three conducting spheres are suspended by torsion wires, with a fixed
potential applied to one sphere and the other two spheres at different
distances from the potentialized sphere. Angular rotation of the two
spheres is observed, and continues until stopped by the reaction back-torquing
force produced by their supporting wires. Thus, a net torque or motor
effect is observed on the two spheres. When the potential is removed
from the first sphere, the other two spheres are returned back to
initial position by the back torque from the wires.

Obviously one could
switch the potential on sphere 1 back and forth from positive to
negative, with timing precisely synchronized to the spherical excursion
of the two torquing spheres, and the two spheres would turn back and
forth. But now the torquing excursion would be even further, since in
each excursion the back torque of the wire is assisting the forward
torque from the asymmetrical potential forces on each torquing sphere.
In short, a motor that will do useful back-and-forth reciprocating work
on a load can be constructed, where the only energy required is the
switching energy. In such a system, the motor will continually perform
useful to and fro work, proving that the static potential does furnish
flowing input energy.

Conservation of energy is not violated, since—other
than a tiny switching cost—the energy is furnished work-free by free
asymmetrical regauging {[38]}.

__Some Energy Ramifications__

The flow of potential (or the transfer of
Poynting energy flow) is mere energy transfer, which is work-free. What
*does* require work is when the input of excess energy has to be
changed in form to change the magnitude of the external parameter (the
potential). Thus, inputting mechanical shaft energy to a generator does
require work to be done, in order to form the magnetic field energy that
is "regauged" or produced inside the generator. The work is required
because the mechanical shaft energy must be changed in form. *Work is
rigorously involved in* *the change of form of energy, not
necessarily in the change of magnitude of energy.* When a change of
magnitude of an external parameter requires work to change the form of
the input energy, then work is required. When it does not require a
change of form of the input energy, no work is required because that is
simply free regauging.

By asymmetrically
regauging the potential energy of a circuit from the static potential *
V* of an external source dipole, any amount of EM energy *W* can
be freely collected on charges *q* and utilized, by the simple but
well-known equation *W = Vq*. Similarly, any amount of emf *F*
can be furnished by any EM field *E*, according to the equation *
F = Eq*.

How one then dissipates
the freely collected potential energy *W* and emf *F* to power
external loads without destroying the primary source of potential *V*
and electric field *E*, is a matter of proper engineering and
developing the circuitry mechanisms. It requires that the dipolar source
of potential be used to only furnish potential energy flow to the
external circuit, in the absence of electron current flow, and nothing
else.

In short, here is the
“free energy from the vacuum” principle: *First potentialize the
circuit statically (without current flow) with the source dipole
connected and the circuit electrons “pinned”. Then switch and dissipate
the collected static energy dynamically (with accompanying current flow)
in the loads, but with the original source of potential disconnected.*

If one uses the dipole
only to furnish work-free flows of EM energy extracted from the local
vacuum, the dipole will last indefinitely. From the static potential *
V* between the ends of any nonzero dipole, as much EM energy *W*
can be collected on charges *q* as is desired and cleverly
arranged, by *W = Vq*. Simply adjust the available amount of charge
*q*, and apply the free energy principle. There is no energy crisis
after all, and never has been. Instead, there is a crisis of scientific
understanding and inadequate modeling in electrical power engineering.

The great advantage of the new approach is
that it now gives us the ability to use the direct mechanism by which
source charges already extract energy from the vacuum. *Every EM
field, potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe has been and is
freely extracted from the vacuum by the associated source charge(s) and
their dipolarities.*

The developed source charge mechanism is
consistent with experiment, with quantum field theory, with particle
physics, and with a corrected and extended thermodynamics. But it is
inconsistent with any model—such as the classical EM model—that
arbitrarily and erroneously assumes an inert vacuum and flat local
spacetime.

The mechanism advances a ubiquitous and valid
mechanism for extracting EM energy freely from the seething local
vacuum. It proves that such extraction of useful EM energy from the
vacuum is not only possible but practical and easily developed. Simply
pay to make a source dipolarity *once*, and use it thereafter as a
continuous source of energy flow and a means of furnishing static
potential energy flow only, to the receiving external circuit. During
potentialization of the receiving external circuit, do not permit any
current to be run backward through the back emf of the dipolarity, from
the ground return line to the potentialization line, since that current
performs detrimental work upon the dipole charges to scatter and
disperse them, destroying the dipole and cutting off the free flow of EM
energy from the vacuum.

This hopefully spurs us to examine why our
present circuits and power systems do not take advantage of this
fundamental mechanism that is ongoing in all of them. The basic problem
in electrical power systems is the ubiquitous use of the closed current
loop circuit, which self-enforces Lorentz *symmetrical* regauging
and violates the *asymmetrical *regauging principle required for
free extraction of EM energy from the vacuum and using it to freely
power external circuits. The closed current loop circuit containing the
main source of potential energy also destroys that source dipolarity
faster than it powers its loads.

The solution(s) to that power system problem,
of course, is (are) the solution(s) to the problem of constructing and
operating a circuit or EM system that does indeed comply with the
principle of free energy from the vacuum (free asymmetrical regauging).
That, however, is a different discussion we have already addressed at
length elsewhere {[39],[40]}.

__References__

[1].
T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," __Proc.
Congress 2000__, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000, p.
86-98. Also published in __J. New Energy__ 5(1), Summer 2000, p.
11-23. Also carried on
www.cheniere.org and on DoE restricted website
http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/.

[2].
T. E. Bearden, __Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles__,
Cheniere Press, 2002, “Chapter 3: Giant Negentropy, Dark Energy,
Spiral Galaxies and Acceleration of the Expanding Universe.” Available
from
www.cheniere.org.

[3].
M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The Most General Form
of the Vector Potential in Electrodynamics," __Found. Phys. Lett.__,
15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261.

[4].
D. K. Sen, __Fields and/or Particles__,
Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.

[5].
Mario Bunge, __Foundations of Physics__,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1967, p. 173.

[6].
Bunge, *ibid*., p. 176.

[7].
B. P. Kosyakov, "Radiation in
electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory," __Sov. Phys. Usp__.
35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141.

[8].
Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity –
What the experiments say,” __Phys. Lett. A__, Vol. 250, Dec. 21,
1998, p. 8-9.

[9].
Jed Z. Buchwald, __From Maxwell to
Microphysics__, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago and London, 1985, p. 44.

[10].
E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of
Mathematical Physics,” __Math. Ann.__, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.
This paper has largely been ignored.

[11].
However, see Richard W. Ziolkowski, “Exact Solutions of the Wave
Equation with Complex Source Locations,” __J. Math. Phys.__, 26(4),
April 1985, p. 861-863; I.M. Besieris, A.M. Shaarawi, and R.W.
Ziolkowski, "A bidirectional travelling plane wave representation of
exact solutions of the scalar wave equation," __J. Math. Phys.__,
30(6), 1989, p. 806; Rod Donnelly and Richard Ziolkowski, “A Method
for constructing solutions of homogeneous partial differential
equation: localized waves,” __Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A__, Vol. 437,
1992, p. 673-692.

[12].
For a practical weapon application utilizing the “inner”
electrodynamics, see Richard W. Ziolkowski, "Electromagnetic or Other
Directed Energy Pulse Launcher," U.S. Patent No. 4,959,559, Sep. 25,
1990, assigned to the U.S. Government; — "Electromagnetic or Other
Directed Energy Pulse Launcher," U.S. Patent No. 4,959,559, Feb. 23,
1993. The latter was a re-examination of the earlier 1990 patent, and
it verified the first 20 claims.

[13].
E. T. Whittaker, “On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to
Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions,” __Proc. Lond.
Math. Soc__., Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367-372. The latter paper
was orally delivered in 1903.

[14].
For an excellent overview discussion of superpotentials and related
things, see Melba Phillips, “Classical Electrodynamics,” in __
Principles of Electrodynamics and Relativity__, Vol. IV of __
Encyclopedia of Physics__, edited by S. Flugge, Springer-Verlag,
1962.

[15].
T. D. Lee, "Question of Parity Conservation
in Weak Interactions," __Phys. Rev.__, 104(1), Oct. 1, 1956, p.
254-259; T. D. Lee, Reinhard Oehme, and C. N. Yang, "Remarks on
Possible Noninvariance under Time Reversal and Charge Conjugation," __
Phys. Rev.__, 106(2), 1957, p. 340-345.

[16].
C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D.
Hoppes and R. P. Hudson, "Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in
Beta Decay," __Phys. Rev.__, Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413.

[17].
T. D. Lee, __Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory__,
Harwood, New York, 1981, p. 184.

[18].
Lee, *ibid*., p. 826-828.

[19].
Lee, *ibid*., p. 826.

[20].
Steven Weinberg, __
Dreams of a Final Theory__,
Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 111-112.

[21].
D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium
microstates which generate second law violating steady states," __
Phys. Rev. E__, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648.

[22].
G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra
J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans, "Experimental Demonstration of
Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and
Short Time Scales," __Phys. Rev. Lett__., 89(5), 29 July 2002,
050601.

[23].
See T. E. Bearden, __Energy from the Vacuum__, 2002, Chapter 10:
“Cold Fusion: Low Spatial-Energy Nuclear Reactions at High
Time-Energy.”

[24].
Hal Fox and Mitchell Swartz, “Progress in Cold Nuclear Fusion—Meta
Analysis Using an Augmented Database,” presented at ICCF-5, 1995. This
paper reviewed over 3,000 papers on cold fusion and found over 600
papers from over 200 laboratories in 30 countries that had replicated
or found cold fusion.

[25].
D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments
on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," __J. Stat. Phys__.,
109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920.

[26].
Kurt Gödel, "Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der *Principa
Mathematica* und verwandter Systeme" ("On Formally Indeterminable
Propositions of the *Principia Mathematica* and Related
Systems”), in __Monatshefte fur Mathematik und Physik__, Vol. 38,
1931. This is the publication in which Gödel's Proof first
appeared, of his theorem which states that within any logical
mathematical system there are propositions or questions that cannot be
proved or disproved on the basis of the axioms within that system. In
short, no mathematical system is complete, so neither is any
theoretical mathematical model.

[27].
Felix Klein, "Vergleichende Betrachtungen
über neuere geometrische Forschungen," 1872. Klein's Erlanger program
was initiated in 1872 to describe geometric structures in terms of
their automorphism groups. It has driven much of the physics
development in the twentieth century. Also see I. M. Yaglom, __Felix
Klein and Sophus Lie: Evolution of the Idea of Symmetry in the
Nineteenth Century__*, *Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1988.

[28].
Michael Leyton, __A Generative Theory of
Shape__, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.

[29].
Huw Price, __Time's Arrow and Archimedes'
Point__, Oxford University Press, 1996, paperback 1997, p. 78.

[30].
Price, *ibid*., p. 36.

[31].
As quoted by Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, __Modern
Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipating Structures__,
Wiley, Chichester, 1998, reprinted with corrections in 1999, p. 39.

[32].
Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light
incident on it?" __Am. J. Phys.__, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327.
For confirmation, see H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a
particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” __Am. J. Phys__.,
51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327.

[33].
Imagine a fixed “standard” rock in a river’s flow. That “static” rock
will divert a certain amount of water in streamlines around it. Now
suppose the rock is moved violently back and forth at right angles to
the river’s flow. Obviously it will divert more water from the same
river’s flow. Similarly, greater divergence occurs around the resonant
standard unit point charge than occurs when the charge is not resonant
but static.

[34].
See E. R. Laithwaite, “Oliver Heaviside – establishment shaker,” __
Electrical Review__, 211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45*. *
Quoting: *“Heaviside had originally written the energy flow as ***S**
= (**E**´**H**) + **G**,
where **G** is a circuital flux. Poynting had only written

**S **= (**E**´**H**).”

[35].
In our own work, we estimated that the extra curled or circuital
energy flow component discovered by Heaviside is nominally on the
order of a trillion or more times the diverged Poynting component. But
in a flat or nearly flat spacetime situation, the divergence of that
Heaviside circuital component is zero, so that it does not usually
react with anything at all. Hence the Lorentz argument that it “has no
physical significance”—which is false if the local spacetime has
non-negligible curvature.

[36].
H. A. Lorentz, __Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der
Universität Leiden__, Vol. V, __Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902)__,
Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, "Die Energie im
elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186. Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the
Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed
cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element. This is the
procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small component of the
energy flow associated with a circuit—specifically, the small Poynting
component being diverged into the circuit to power it—and then treats
that tiny component as the "entire" energy flow. Thereby Lorentz
arbitrarily discarded all the extra Heaviside circuital energy
transport component which is usually not diverged into the circuit
conductors at all, does not interact with anything locally, and is
just wasted.

[37].
Armik V. M. Khachatourian and Anders O. Wistrom, “Coulomb motor by
rotation of spherical conductors via the electrostatic force,” __Appl.
Phys. Lett.__, 80(15), April 15, 2002, p. 2800-2801; —
“Coulomb torque—a general theory for
electrostatic forces in many-body systems,” __J. Phys. A: Math. Gen__.,
Vol. 36, 2003, p. 6495-6508. For the latter paper, a Corrigendum is
published in __J. Phys. A: Math. Gen__., Vol. 36, 2003, p.
8359-8360.

[38].
In theory, with very efficient optically coupled switching the system
could produce COP > 1.0, much like a heat pump. With a little high
efficiency generator as part of the load, in theory the system could
also produce a self-powering (nonequilibrium steady state) system,
with a COP = ¥, powering a
small load as well. We strongly stress that energy would still be
conserved in all cases, and the overall efficiency
x would always be

x
£ 100%.

[39].
Bearden, __Energy from the Vacuum__, *ibid*., 2002. In this
book we addressed some 40 different COP > 1.0 “energy from the vacuum”
systems produced by scientists and inventors, and the initial theory
of such systems. See also T. E. Bearden, "Extracting and Using
Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum," in __Modern Nonlinear
Optics__, Second Edition, Edited by M. W. Evans, Part 2, Wiley, New
York, 2001, p. 639-698; — "Energy from the Active Vacuum: The
Motionless Electromagnetic Generator," in __Modern Nonlinear Optics__,
Second Edition, Edited by M. W. Evans, Part 2, Wiley, New York, 2001,
p. 699-776; — "On Extracting Electromagnetic Energy from the Vacuum,"
Proc. Congress 2000, July 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia; — "Bedini's
Method For Forming Negative Resistors In Batteries," __Proc. Congress
2000__, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000, p. 24-38; Floyd
Sweet and T. E. Bearden, "Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap
Vacuum Energy," __Proc. 26th Intersoc. Energy Conversion Engineering
Conf. (IECEC '91)__, Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375.

[40].
M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden *et al*., "The
Aharonov-Bohm Effect as the Basis of Electromagnetic Energy Inherent
in the Vacuum," __Found. Phys. Lett.__, 15(6), Dec. 2002, p.
561-568; — "Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The
Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," __Optik__,
111(9), 2000, p. 407-409; — "Classical Electrodynamics without the
Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," __Physica
Scripta__, 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517; — "Explanation of the
Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of
Electrodynamics," __Found. Phys. Lett.__, 14(4), Aug. 2001, p.
387-393; — "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator
with O(3) Electrodynamics," __Found. Phys. Lett.__, 14(1), Feb.
2001, p. 87-94. See also M.W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky,
"The Most General Form of the Vector Potential in Electrodynamics," __
Found. Phys. Lett.__, 15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261.