| Date:
Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:55:36 -0800
Dear Dr. O'Kuma, I do not wish to complete the survey, because it doesn't have much meaning with respect to today's critical needs in physics or teaching physics. Let me give you a strong example, which unfortunately physics teachers continue to ignore, as they have for 100 years (and particularly since 1957 and the discovery and proof of broken symmetry). The classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics model, taught to all electrical engineers, medical researchers, etc. is so seriously flawed that it defies human imagination that physics teachers have not changed it. E.g., the model assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the observable world is and has been created by the source charge, right out of nothing at all. It is simple to experimentally separate a charge and measure its immediate outpouring of EM energy at light speed in all directions, thereby establishing and continuously maintaining its associated EM fields and potentials. The charge will and does continue to do that, as long as it exists. Yet no instrument known to man can detect any observable energy input to the source charge. So what happened to that horrendous "source charge problem", called by Sen and others "the most difficult problem in electrodynamics, both quantal and classical"? It has just been scrubbed out of the university textbooks so the students will not know it, and therefore will not ask "embarrassing" questions.
The same flawed EM model assumes an
inert vacuum having no net exchange with the EM system (and that has
been falsified for many decades). It also assumes that spacetime is
flat -- falsified since 1916 by general relativity. Specifically,
every time the potential energy or field energy in a system changes,
that curves the local spacetime in complete violation of the standard
classical EM model. It also changes the local virtual flux activity of
the vacuum, again in violation of the assumption of an inert vacuum.
What happens when one "potentializes" a charge
q, by a scalar potential (phi) or common voltage V? What really
happens is that the vacuum -- since it is energetic and filled with
dynamics -- may be regarded as a special kind of scalar potential. Any
scalar potential in EM thus is a change to that vacuum potential, and
that is precisely why only the "difference between two potentials" is
definable. So in the standard equation W = Vq, where q is the charge
being potentialized with extra energy W by scalar potential (voltage)
V, the local vacuum potential Z is changed by V to (Z + V). The flux
activity of the vacuum is changed accordingly. The interaction between
the altered local vacuum and charge q thus also changes, so that q
will be outputting more field energy and potential energy (we discuss
that in a moment). That is not even approached in the EE textbook or
in the sophomore physics book, etc.
So the classical M-H EM model assumes a
net inert environment with the source charge, and that has been
tremendously falsified by physics for many decades. It is only
maintained by not being able to teach the mechanism that really
happens in the simple equation W = Vq.
Now either the source charge completely
falsifies the entire conservation of energy law, and creates all the
EM energy in the universe right out of nothing at all, or else there
has to be a nonobservable (i.e. virtual state) input
of the energy since one can prove experimentally that there exists no
observable energy input to it. This critical and central problem has
been totally ignored by our physics and EM teachers now for a century,
and it is still ignored. Most just get angry if it is pointed out to
them.
As we know in thermodynamics, a
nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system that is deterministic is
theoretically permitted to produce negative entropy continuously, so
that the entropy starts negative and continues to decrease toward
negative infinity as time passes (Evans and Rondoni). THat of course
totally falsifies the present form of the second law of
thermodynamics. We know experimentally that in certain fluids the
second law is violated by fluctuations alone, at the cubic micron
level for up to two seconds (Wang, Evans et al.). Ordinary
fluctuations violate the second law for less time and small level, and
that has been known since nearly a century.
But the source charge, as presently
taught by the physics teachers and classical electrodynamics,
completely destroys the second law and also the first law (law of
energy conservation). This is why teachers usually just get angry when
it is pointed out to them. It's true, experimentally, and they do not
wish to face the consequences.
Fortunately physics contains the
answer, but no one will apply it or call it to the student's
attention. The discovery of broken symmetry in 1957, leading to the
award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, contains -- among other
things -- the asymmetry of opposite charges. That's proven and
accepted, so one does not have to "reprove" it.
Now examine the QFT view of a classical
"isolated charge". It's not an isolated charge at all, since it
polarizes the vacuum. The "bare" charge in the middle is infinite, but
in its vacuum polarization it surrounds itself with virtual charges of
opposite sign, appearing and disappearing. This charge of opposite
sign is also infinite, in QFT, but the difference between the two is
finite and is the sign of the inner "bare charge".
Voila! When the active environment
(falsely assumed away by classical Maxwell-Heaviside equations and by
electrical engineering) is accounted, the "source charge" is actually
a very special dipolar ensemble. As such, it is absolutely required to
exhibit the asymmetry of opposite charges.
So now we have it. By the very
definition of asymmetry, something virtual must become observable
(Nobelist Lee). The source charge dipolar ensemble continuously
absorbs virtual state energy from the seething vacuum, coherently
integrates it, and re-emits real, observable photons in all
directions, thereby establishing its associated EM fields and
potentials at light speed and continuously replenishing them. It is
also easily proven experimentally by actual set-up and measuring.
We published (obscurely, normal journals would
not touch it) that solution in 2000, and again in my book, Energy from
the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, 2002, Cheniere Press, available
from my website
www.cheniere.org.
In 2003 I also published the exact mechanism
that accomplishes the continuous negentropy of the source charge.
I.e., the charge continuously absorbs totally disordered virtual EM
energy from its vacuum exchange, and coherently integrates it to
observable size. The mechanism is this: Each absorption of a virtual
photon increases the mass of the absorbing observable charge by a
differential amount dm. Note that mass is unitary. Each succeeding
absorption of a virtual photon further increases the mass of the
charge by another dm. The mass increases unitarily (increasing its
virtually excited state) until the magnitude of the differential is
equal to the amount of mass-energy that will provide the energy of a
real, observable photon. At that point the zitterbewegung of the
vacuum initiates the prompt decay of the excited charge, triggering
the emission of an observable photon. The process continuously
repeats, so that real observable photons are continually radiated in
all directions.
Energy is conserved and the first law is saved.
However, the second law is violated completely, to any size level and
any time duration desired. The original charges of the universe have
been doing this for some 17 or so billion years, and have not run down
yet.
Note that the associated EM fields and
potentials are deterministic as a function of radial distance from the
source charge. Hence this "source charge EM system" fits the
theoretical continuous negentropy requirement laid down by Evans and
Rondoni.
So all our physics teachers and electrical
engineering professors continue to teach and advocate (and use to
design our energy systems) with an archaic old EM model that is
horribly fouled and does not describe what actually powers an
electrical system (it is not the cranking of the shaft of the external
generator!). All EM field energy and potential energy in the external
circuit of the generator or battery comes from the local vacuum, via
the actual Drude charges in the external circuit, acting as source
charges and freely extracting the energy from the vacuum.
Now note what is meant by "gauge freedom". The
potential (and thus the potential energy) of any EM system can be
freely changed at will. All electrodynamicists and even staid old
electrical engineers accept that and use it. But they arbitrarily
insist on symmetrical regauging, so that any excess energy freely
added to the system by freely changing the potentials, is "bottled up"
in the system in the form of stress (equal and opposite force fields,
hence no net force field to translate electrons as current through the
loads, to power the loads "freely" from the regauging energy).
If one just increases one potential -- the
voltage, or scalar potential -- then that is asymmetrical regauging
and it does produce a net nonzero EM field "for free" in the system,
as well as collected excess "free" potential energy. That field can
then act as emf on the also excess-potentialized Drude electrons to
drive current through the load, powering the load freely by
dissipation of the excess energy being transported. Energy
conservation is not violated, and thermodynamically such a system is
an open system far from equilibrium, freely receiving excess energy
from its active environment, the seething vacuum.
In that case, similar to a common heat pump with
an extra environmental energy input, the asymmetrically regauging
power system is free to develop COP >1.0, even though the system's
overall efficiency will still be less than 100% and some of the input
energy freely received will be "wasted" in the losses. The common home
heat pump, e.g., has an efficiency of about 50%, but in design
conditions will exhibit a COP = 3.0 to 4.0. The common solar cell,
e.g., may have an efficiency of only 17% and waste 83% of all the
energy it receives from its environment. However, its COP = infinity,
because the operator need not input any energy at all; all the input
energy freely comes from the environment.
Please note that, if the river's flow is
included, a hydroelectric power system in its entirety -- including
the distribution lines and the loads -- is a COP = infinity system,
although its overall efficiency is far below 100% and leaves much to
be desired.
Note also that the present first law of
thermodynamics taught to students also contains an error that should
be corrected. It equates any change of magnitude of an external
parameter of a system -- such as the potential or field of an EM
system -- as identically being work. That is false. So long as the
magnitude of a field or a potential is changed by adding more of the
same, and the form of the input energy is therefore not changed in
order to change that magnitude, then that is work-free because it is
mere regauging, and that is already recognized and proven to be free.
So the present first law would exclude gauge freedom, falsifying much
of physics, were it actually true. There is never an work involved in
change of magnitude of energy per se, but only in change of form of
the energy. This is something that teachers should have noticed long
ago, and none seems to have seen it.
Here is the really astounding thing that the
physics teachers and the electrical engineering professors are to be
criticized for. The imposition of the standard closed current loop
circuit means that such a system a priori self-regauges symmetrically.
In the vernacular, it makes the back emf equal to the forward emf, and
with system losses, that self-enforces COP < 1.0.
How on earth thousands of teachers and
professors have not discussed and corrected these things, which are
already in physics, thermodynamics, quantum field theory, etc. -- is
inexplicable. Of course, we also sympathize with the professors: they
have a tough job. They just attract extra funds for the university, or
they are "persona non grata". All the universities are now greedy for
outside money flowing in, and for attaining patents. Also, the
professor has to attract money to pay for his grad students and post
doctoral scientists. All the research packages put together by our
vaunted National Academy of Sciences and our National Science
Foundation, and made available for competition, already specify what
research is to be done.
So in fact, our own scientific community -- and
particularly our academic community, which simply has not done its
homework in electrical power systems and in the terrible faux pas that
exist in the standard Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics -- is directly
responsible for the energy crisis, the ever increasing pollution of
the biosphere, and global warming.
Since the scientific community will not react to
these long-cherished great errors being taught in our electrical power
engineering classes, then the only hope of solving the energy crisis
is for independent inventors to do it. All who attempt it are savaged
beyond belief, as being "perpetual motion nuts", by the very
scientific community that still unwittingly 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, by the associated source
charges.
This is my entry to your survey. This is the
truth; merely get in there and check it out. There is much more, of
course, but the only hope now is to independently reach the sharp
young grad students and post doctoral scientists who still think
openly about foundations and will in fact re-examine them.
Sadly, the scientific community doesn't seem to
wish to "wake up", but only wishes to continue to mouth pablum about
hot fusion (hasn't put a single watt on the power line in 50 years
after many billions of dollars, and won't for at least another 50
years and many more billions). It also pushes large nuclear power
plants, etc. -- with no solution to the every increasing nuclear
wastes problem.
Every EM circuit and system every built, and
built today, is indeed powered by real EM energy extracted directly
from the vacuum, not by burning hydrocarbon fuels, consuming nuclear
fuel rods, catching the wind in windmills, or catching the river's
flow in hydroelectric power plants.
Sadly, our own academic community still doesn't
realize what actually powers an EM circuit, although it's been nearly
a half-century since Lee and Yang (and experimentally by Wu et al.)
laid the groundwork for understanding it.
Your comments would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Tom Bearden
Dear Colleague: |