Subject: RE: note for Tom
Bearden Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:48:11 -0600
Dear George,
I always had much
sympathy with the Wheeler-Feynman absorber approach. One of my main
objections is that they missed the mechanism that generates the flow of
a mass through time. In my view, no observable -- being a frozen
instantaneous 3-space snapshot -- exists continuously in time, but only
RECURS CONTINUALLY in the continual iterative application of the d/dt
observation process.
I also fault any
theory which continues the "separate force acting on a separate mass"
non sequitur. If we accept the definition of force as identically the
time rate of change of momentum --- of F => d/dt(mv) --- then mass is a
component of force. The "force" consists of the massless causal field
(4-space entity) prior to observation, interacting with a previous
"frozen point" observable (m). Feynman understood, of course, that the
force field does not really exist in mass-free space, but only the
"potential" for a force, should a unit point charge (with mass) be made
available and interacting with the field). So he had the essence of
this part. But in mechanics, the global teaching of the "separate force
acting on a separate mass" is still a non sequitur.
There are many other
foundations difficulties, and no one has the solution to all of them!
The solutions to a few are, I believe, available.
What I recommend is
needed is a "Manhattan style" rework of the very foundations of physics,
adequately funded, and with our best and brightest (some of whom may be
bright-eyed newcomers with deep thinking minds).
I expect that more
scientific progress could be made in five years with such a program,
than all our national laboratories will make in the next decade.
The beauty of using
the mechanism that generates the "rate of flow of time" is that it is
engineerable on the bench. One is able to generate the reaction
equations, e.g., for the production of the excess deuterium, excess
tritium, and alpha particles in cold fusion. These are transmutations
at low spatial energy (but very high time energy).
When addressing
fundamental issues, it is often helpful to think in terms of a physics
model using only a single fundamental unit. Since I work in novel
energy systems, I particularly prefer the model where the joule is the
only fundamental unit. Mass then becomes a total function of energy
(which is comfortable to everyone, since the dawn of the nuclear age and
E = mc(2) But the fact that time (the second) is also now
totally a function of energy, seems startling to most, who still think
of time as a "mysterious river" down which we float. It isn't that at
all.
In my favored model,
time has the same energy density as mass. One takes some EM spatial
energy, e.g., and compresses it by the factor c-squared. If one leaves
that compressed energy in 3-space, it is known as mass. If one moves it
over to the fourth axis and places it there, the only variable in ict is
the t. So it becomes "time". In that view, one second is some 9 x
10exp(16) joules of compressed spatial energy.
From that, consider a
photon, which is a piece of energy welded to a piece of time, so to
speak. The present "high energy" photon is really the photon with the
"highest spatial energy" component. That is of course the high
frequency photon. But the low frequency photon has far higher TOTAL
energy, if the time-energy component's spatial energy equivalency is
considered.
Hence the present
"high energy physics" featuring high frequency photons is quite puerile
compared to low frequency photons and their extraordinarily high EM
energy.
The importance of cold
fusion is that it uses a bit of that time-energy to achieve easily the
nuclear transformations at low SPATIAL energy (but using a much higher
total energy physics than the present high energy physicists know or
use).
We will have all that
in the book, plus the use of time-reversal zones to enable the use of
that time-energy component.
However, let me point
out that any model is just a model, and it is also known to be imperfect
(by Godel's theorem and its proof, alone!). So one must not worship a
particular model, even one's own! Each will come up short as additional
phenomena are discovered.
Some of your cogent
observations are very close to some other things I will have in the
book, but cannot discuss presently. As an example, we will nominate
candidate mechanisms -- laboratory bench testable -- for the cause of
the excess gravity holding the arms of the spiral galaxies together, and
also for the excess negative gravity that is accelerating the observed
expansion of the universe. Then of course those will either be
validated eventually, or refuted. That is the way science progresses.
There is nothing wrong with proposing a hypothesis, just so long as one
labels it that. Then experiment decides whether it hit the mark or
missed the boat.
In the future I will
also have less time for answering correspondence, so wanted to get this
to you while I had a little bit of time. I very much encourage those
who are thinking deeply about these areas, and particularly those who
have more capability than I personally have. It will take many persons,
doing lots of thought and discovery, before we have the new science I
think is trying to get born. And one freely admits one advances such
things on the shoulders of giants, such as Feynman, Wheeler, Hawking,
Einstein, and many others. My own particular interest is in getting
COP>1.0 EM power systems developed and onto the world market, and also
getting a better type of medical therapy established along the lines
pioneered by Priore, but never understood. The rest I have to leave to
others better versed than I am. But physics is such a marvelous and
broad field, and there are so many really great things now unfolding and
possibilities envisioned, that it is a truly great time for the young
physicist to be alive. For the first time, I think, he or she has the
opportunity to help develop a physics that will free us from the energy
crisis forever, uplift those poor nations that will have to have cheap
clean energy to ever have a good economy, and eventually provide the
ships that take us to the other planets and perhaps even the stars.
So I may not see it in
my lifetime — being an old dog — but the young ones can. And hopefully
will.
Very best wishes,
Tom Bearden
-----Original Message-----
Delivered-To: craddock@west.net |