Greatly sympathize with you in your determined quest.  That's a hard road, but I do hope you negotiate it and get to your final goal.

The only work in Australian universities that is related is the thermodynamics work of Dr. Evans et al. at the Australian National University.  Basing their work on sheer statistical fluctuation, they have shown that in solutions there are volumes up to a cubic micron in size that violate the second law, for up to two seconds.  In water, e.g., that's some 30 billion ions and molecules in a little region where for up to two seconds the reactions can run backwards.  We assumed the formation of those zones in 1999-2000, for our proposed solution to cold fusion.  I believe the solution will hold and is rigorous.

But of course I've not seen Evans et al. mention cold fusion, etc. The closest to this field is a paper by D. J. Evans and Rondoni, where they theoretically show that a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system that is deterministic can also steadily put out negative entropy. In other words, it can consume positive entropy and produce negative entropy (energy is conserved in a negentropic operation, because all that happens is some disordered and unavailable energy gets ordered and available.   The energy itself is conserved, just changing from one "lost" form to a "usable" form.

Evans and Rondoni stated that "obviously" real physical systems cannot exhibit such Gibbs entropy.  Unrealized by them is the fact that every charge in the universe does exactly that.  So there are enormous numbers of systems already doing it.  But the standard electrodynamics assumes the charge freely creates out of nothing, all that EM energy it continuously pours out.  Thus our universities implicitly (and unwittingly) use a model that assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe has been freely created out of nothing at all.

Evans and Rondoni do admit that "the problem remains" for deterministic systems.  The fields and potentials formed from the source charge's pouring out its observable photons, are in fact deterministic as a function of radial distance.

Evans and Rondoni also apparently have not run across Michael Leyton's work, which dramatically affects and extends their own.  Most of particle physics has been driven by Felix Klein's geometry since 1872, and by Klein's Erlanger project.  Leyton has extended and improved that geometry (Klein geometry is a subset of Leyton's object-oriented geometry) and he also has used more powerful group theoretic methods.  His work has shown the hierarchies of symmetry, which in fact generate the very kind of negentropy reactions that Evans and Rondoni believe no physical system can.

Anyway, that's some insight into the problem.  As you noticed, the teaching of quaternions, Clifford algebra, and higher group symmetry electrodynamics embedded in such is largely a totally hit or miss proposition. Usually a class in something like that is taught by a single professor as his "thing". It just is not included in most curricula.

So the problem is to (1) study physics to the Ph.D. level, (2) take the additional higher group symmetry algebra mathematics to enable you to do self-education, and (3) get the rest of the education by such means as reading the AIAS (Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study, directed by Dr. Myron W. Evans) papers, printed in sources like Foundations of Physics Letters, etc.

You can see the formidable barrier that the universities have erected, to unwittingly prevent the students from acquiring the necessary skills to become proficient in COP>1.0 EM systems taking their energy from the vacuum and curved spacetime.

Unfortunately, unless some great crisis in energy intervenes, I don't see the scientific community changing this until a Herculean effort has been made by sharp young undergraduates, grad students, and post docs to get it changed from the ground up.

As an example, if we do eventually succeed with the MEG, we plan to set up just precisely such programs as you are looking for, fund chairs at various leading universities to teach the appropriate subject matter, etc. Unfortunately that will require some hundreds of millions of dollars, so it means we have to continue struggling to try to break through the barrier and succeed.  The normal channels and foundations and donors who fund chairs and research programs are simply not going to do it.  Neither is the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the Universities themselves, the great U.S. National Laboratories (many of whom are in rather a blight at present, and overly attached to "big nuclear power"), the Department of Energy (far too conservative and skittish; doesn't have a real, well-funded vacuum energy program anywhere and isn't going to), etc. Neither are the powerful environmentalists, who turn around and hire advice from the standard scientists who only know "oil, pipelines, power distribution lines, coal and gas, big nuclear power plants (now being strongly pushed again as the "answer"), etc.

So it's a sad thing.  The only way to change the scientific mindset is from the bottom up, not from the top down.  So lots of young fellows are going to have to do an arduous life's work, before this incredibly stiff system can be bent and cheap, clean energy from the vacuum allowed to result.

Anyway, my hat is off to you, and I very much admire your resolution, determination, and sacrifice.

Best wishes and God bless you in your quest,

Sincerely,

Tom Bearden

Hi Dr. Bearden,

Having kept up with the correspondence on your website for most of the past six months, I know you get these sorts of emails (requesting study advice) from time to time. However, I am hoping that you might find this one different enough that it warrants even just a few minutes of your time (I am certainly no stranger to time pressures!).

Allow me to proceed: I am 25 years old, work in the IT industry in Australia, and already have degrees in commerce (IT) and economics. After having something of a revelation, I am quitting the IT industry and returning to university, in order to study Physics and Mathematics and make something of the contribution you have often referred to on your website. I will start with an undergraduate degree at the start of the next academic year (February 2004 - although I need to apply for my place within the next couple of months), and aim for top honours in order to achieve a PhD (where I can set aim for the real contributions).

Having examined a number of universities and courses here in Australia, I know only too well that there are no courses on extracting energy from the vacuum, or indeed on much of the corrected physics and electrical engineering theory you discuss. Instead, there are numerous courses on classical thermodynamics, electrodynamics, particle physics, quantum theory, and an overwhelming amount of mathematical theory.

I am hoping that you might advise me on what areas of these sorts of _currently_ offered courses I would be best to study, with the stated goal of undertaking the groundbreaking PhD research you have often mentioned (for example, I am not sure I would consider quaternion mathematics or O3 electrodynamics "_currently_ offered courses" as I haven't seen them on offer _anywhere_ over here!).

I am really motivated to work for these breakthroughs, and moreover I am confident I have the ability to do it. Although it sounds crazy, I am giving up a 'high-flying', well-paying job to return to Uni for this! I would sincerely appreciate any advice you would offer - Many Thanks in advance, and keep up the inspirational work!

Alex

PS. As soon as I have gained my place at Uni (and have the documentation to show it), I will be shelling out for the student edition of your work "Energy From The Vacuum". I would like to get the Signature Edition, but first I'd better fix Uni!