Jon,

Glad you liked it!

Be sure to grapple with the electrodynamics "definition" of a field until you can see it in our sleep.  E.g., loosely speaking, the E-field is "defined" (ugh! no equation is a definition; a definition must be an identity!) as the force at any point occupied by that field, per a unit point STATIC charge, assumed at any point. In other words, that's called the "field intensity", so it's really the point intensity of the E-field as determined by a unit point static charge.  That latter is important, because the very definition of the "field intensity" is based on interception and divergence of energy FROM the field (which is an energy flow set), and is not the field (or the absolute field intensity) at all.

Look at that mess in the so-called "definition"!  The "field" per se occupies space and time, so really is 4-spatial. It's really a curvature of spacetime, may extend over all space, and it is not confined to that point or to a point intensity of energy that is diverted from it by a fixed interceptor/diverter.

In 1904, Whittaker showed that any field (such as this thing we're discussing) can be decomposed into differential functions of two scalar potentials --- thereby initiating what is called "superpotential theory".

But in 1903, Whittaker had already shown that a scalar potential can be decomposed into a harmonic set of bidirectional longitudinal EM wavepairs, where each wavepair is a phase conjugate.

So, combining Whittaker's 1903 and 1904 work, we can further decompose each of those two base scalar potentials (used in his 1904 paper) into those crazy bidirectional LW wavepairs. And then the "differential functions" are applied to those two sets of LW wavepairs, and voila!  One has decomposed that field into a mess of functions of longitudinal bidirectional wavepairs.

So that "field" is actually a great set of longitudinal EM wave energy flows, with differential functions impressed upon them.

NOW when we visualize intercepting that mess of longitudinal waves and functions called the "field", the unit point static charge actually diverts or diverges some of the energy flow in that set of flows, around it -- something like a fixed standard rock in a river diverts some of the river's flow around it.   The water in that divergence flow around the rock, roughly corresponds to the "intensity" of the river flow at that station (point), as measured by a static rock.

But now suppose the rivers flow is a bit turbulent and wavy and perturbed, like a mess of waves. Further, suppose that rock is not "fixed", but happens to be the correct size and correct weight to go into mechanical resonance at the main overall frequency of that mess of wavy river water flowing on it. That old rock will resonate side to side and churn away lots more water flow around it!

The point is, so will that "intercepting charge" for the E-field.  If one arranges the interception by particles which go into forced resonance at IR, then feeding it with IR frequency EM waves will "excite" it into forced resonance.  It will thus have a much larger reaction cross section than the same charged particle does when static.  So it will intercept and diverge MORE ENERGY around it than it would do if held fixed or static.

The Bohren experiment is one of the experiments in negative resonance absorption of the medium that does that.  It uses conducting particles which resonate at UV, or insulating particles that resonate at IR.  You feed it with a laser appropriately, and voila!  Out comes some 18 times as much energy re-radiated from the medium as you calculate you input to it via  the Poynting energy flow calculation. Early on, those guys apparently were constrained from saying "excess emission from the medium" and used that painful term "negative resonance absorption" of the medium.

But bluntly, by standard calculations you input some EM energy which the medium absorbs, then the silly medium re-radiates some 18 times as much energy as you calculate you input.

Hey!  IR is heat!  Why on earth does not the Department of Energy have a big project to use that long proven reaction (since the 1960s) for the heating of the water to make steam in conventional large power plants?  Suppose they just got units with COP = 4.0, instead of the COP = 18 of the basic reaction.  With a normal heating from a combustion heater and process of, say, COP = 0.5, a COP = 4.0 heating process would be eight times better. Said another way, it would reduce the combustion of the hydrocarbons (or use of the nuclear fuel rods) to one-eighth.  That would be a very dramatic benefit for the environment, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, combat the presently rising price of natural gas (you can see this winter's price explosion already being prepared!), reduce the cost of the electricity, etc.

But no way can such a suggestion be given to the DoE. Nothing like that is going to be funded.

Note that in the negative resonance absorption of the medium, one actually changed the fundamental definition of the field intensity. One did NOT use a "static" charge, but a charged particle in resonance.  Quite a difference in reaction cross sections -- and the "field intensity" is not really the local intensity of the energy flow per se, but an artificial intensity figure determined by a type divergence from the true energy flows comprising that field. Goose up the divergence of energy from those flows, by the same particle, and voila!  Extra energy for free or nearly for free.

I also consider the Bohren-type experiment the living proof that Heaviside's usually divergence-free huge energy flow component is real and present ubiquitously, just ignored and discarded since Lorentz taught us to do it in the 1890s or so.

Problem was, you see, that if the huge Heaviside circuital flow is accounted, then every generator and battery and power source is outputting far more actual energy flow than we ourselves input to the device.  And in the 1890s, that would get you destroyed as a perpetual motion lunatic.  So Lorentz reasoned that "it doesn't do anything, so it has no physical significance", and arranged the neatest little trick on earth to get rid of it.  He DISPOSED of the problem, rather than solving it.

The reason the Heaviside component doesn't normally do anything is that it is in curl form.  And as everyone knows, vectorially the divergence of the curl is zero.  OR IS IT???  Actually, the divergence of the curl is zero IN A FLAT SPACETIME. Get some reasonable curvature of the local spacetime, and the divergence of the curl does NOT have to be zero!

Seems that by the resonance of the charged particle, one is able to get enough local ST curvature to actually diverge some of that free but neglected and unaccounted Heaviside curled energy flow!

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

---

Tom,         

I was reading one of the new responses in the correspondence section, the part about magnetic fields around permanent magnets being made of photons, and something occurred to me. (Oh, no! Thinking again! I'm likely to be banished form the planet.)         

I have some incredible little surplus magnets (neodymium) about one CC in size that take a huge amount of effort to separate (lots of "work"). It is almost impossible to get a good enough grip on them to pull them apart, you have to slide them sideways. Anyway, they will drag each other a good three inches or more to stick together, and I realized that in doing this, they are "doing work" in the classical sense of that term. Yeah, well, where does the energy come from to do this "work?" If there is a finite amount of energy "stored" in their magnetic field, then it should be "depleted" by doing this "drag another magnet across the table" trick a finite number of times. That doesn't happen, though, and they keep pulling on the other magnet. (Unless I simply haven't done it enough times to deplete the field.) The energy keeps coming, but from where? Frozen photons? Yeah, right. Maybe in the freezer section right next to EM paradigms of the 1860s.         

If energy is "stored" in a field, then it is in some form that can interact with other energy, else we could not detect it. It seems to me that all "matter" interactions are really energy interactions, and such interactions seem to me to involve the exchange or conversion of energy, which is "work." My understanding at this point is that the flow of energy needed for "matter" to exist and interact comes from the energy of the vacuum, flowing through a template in spacetime that provides a given chunk of "matter" with its characteristics. 3D "reality" then begins to look more like a complex fountain of water than a lump of rock. Just as gravity, the pressure of the water, and the "template" of the fountain nozzle give a particular size, and form to the stream of water, then the energy level and type, and the "template" of unique ST curvatures give shape and form to what we perceive as "matter" in 3-space. (Am I getting close?)         

Something about your discussion of magnets really clicked, and I think I am making progress understanding more of what you are talking about.          Thanks for yet another brain cell exercise!

Keep up the good work!

jon