| Subject: RE: Phase conjugate
replica waves Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 12:33:05 -0600
It is not in the 1904
paper.
It is in the 1903
paper. Also, one must reinterpret the phase conjugate wave in general.
This has to do with the universal substitution of the effect for the
cause in physics, which is the greatest problem in all physics.
E.g., in mechanics the
notion of a separate force acting upon a separate mass is completely
false. Easy to show: Force may be defined (with the identity symbol,
not with the = symbol which is a mere equation and defines nothing) as
d/dt(mv). So mass is a component of force, not something separate.
Check out Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 1975. He has to waffle
all over the map and finally states that most electrodynamicists believe
the electromagnetic field exists as such in vacuum, but is force free.
That is false. What causally exists in spacetime, prior to observation,
is 4 dimensional. The observation process (which we can also explain)
applies a d/dt operator upon LLLT, yielding an LLL output (effect,
observation). The causal "entity" (which a priori must exist prior to
the interaction) is the LLLT ongoing 4-process. Observation produces a
3-space "observable" which is a single frozen 3-space snapshot at a
single instant. It doesn't even exist at the next instant, where a new
observation d/dt operator has been applied.
All observables are
3-spatial, as is well-known. No observable can exist continuously in
time. That is the major flaw in physics, in still hanging on to the
hoary old 400 year old notion that an observable continuously exist. It
does not and cannot. Instead, an observable continuously recurs, at an
incredible rate, due to the sum total of all photon interactions with
the previous observable or "state" to move to the next.
When the founders of
electrodynamics laid out their models, there were less than 3 dozen
around the world. All believed in the ubiquitous material ether. They
thought that there was not a single point in all the universe where mass
was absent, because the material ether was there. Hence to them the
"field" in space was a real forcefield in matter --- in the material
ether. So they (including Maxwell) wrote a material fluid flow theory.
When the
Michelson-Morley experiments of the 1880s finally falsified the material
ether (they did not falsify an ether per se, as Dirac pointed out, but
just a material one), every Maxwellian equation for the material ether
space was then falsified and also wrong. But special and general
relativity had not yet been born, the electron and atom had not been
discovered, and most of particle physics was yet unborn. So one day
they just sorta announced, "Well, since there is no ether, we are not
using one!"
Feynman and Wheeler
dealt with this; Feynman pointed out that the EM field as such does not
and cannot exist in mass-free space. Instead, as he put it, the
"potential" for the EM field exists there, IF a charge should be brought
in and interact.
In other words, the
effect (the Maxwellian force field) does not yet exist in a
reaction-free space containing a 4-space causal nonmaterial field.
AFTER the reaction (the observation), then the Maxwellian force field
exists, because it is an effect and the effect now exists.
So electrodynamicists,
in persisting with the SAME FIELD in the same form exists both in mass
and out of mass, except with force arbitrarily declared zero when mass
is not present, is the grossest non sequitur in all of electrodynamics.
That this mess
continues to be defended and taught to all our electrical engineers,
decades after Nobel Prize winners and great physicists have pointed it
out, is inexplicable. It clearly shows how ingrained the "accepted
models" and the dogma are.
Nowadays the trend is
to defend the dogma (the current models) and viciously attack and
destroy the experimental scientists who produce experiments falsifying
the prevailing model. This is most ironic, since -- as Evans puts it --
no amount of theory can falsify a single replicable experiment, but any
theory can be falsified with a single replicable experiment.
That used to be known
as scientific method --- ultimately the experiment is king.
The place to really
see the time-polarized photons and their relation with longitudinal
photons, and with observation and non observation, is in quantum field
theory. E.g., Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, 1984, Chapter 5.
Neither the time-polarized photon nor the longitudinal photon is
individually observable. Yet their combination is observable as the
instantaneous scalar potential. Now switch to the language of waves.
This means that the scalar potential is comprised --- in Whittaker's
1903 biwave pairs -- of "coupled" time-polarized EM wave/longitudinal EM
wave pairs. In short, Whittaker unwittingly interpreted both waves
"after being observed or interacted", which means he used two effect
waves, not a cause and effect waves. This is wrong; one cannot have an
effect without a cause and an interaction to produce the effect.
But the confusion of
cause and effect in electrodynamics has resulted in the eerie fact that
no electrodynamicist has previously solved the single most difficult
problem in quantal and classical electrodynamics: The problem of the
source charge and its associated fields and potentials and all that
energy in them, reaching across all space.
All EM energy in an EM
circuit comes from those source charges, a priori -- even in the
conventional U(1) view. Hence if one does not understand where the
energy input to the source charge -- to produce its steady outpouring of
EM energy at the speed of light in all directions -- comes from, one
accepts the energy outpouring (the output) as an effect without a cause.
Hence one has accepted the "creation of energy from nothing" -- indeed,
that all EM energy in the universe is created from nothing. In short,
one has accepted the absolute destruction of the conservation of energy
law.
So either the
conventional electrical engineers and electrodynamicists are the biggest
perpetual motion advocates in history, or they must find an explanation
of the source charge problem.
Further, if one does
not understand where the energy to the source charge comes from, then
one has no understanding at all about what powers any electromagnetic
circuit.
That is precisely the
situation today. There is no textbook and there never has been one,
which explains what powers and electromagnetic circuit. There is no
electrical engineering department or professor, or student, or
electrical engineer, and there never has been one, that teaches what
powers an electrical circuit.
In short, as to where
the EM energy actually comes from, in all electrical engineering and
power science, there is a great and resounding silence and ignorance.
This is
extraordinarily odd, since the basis for the answer has been in particle
physics for more than 40 years.
It would be
exceedingly nice if those who so confidently state that energy cannot be
usefully extracted from the vacuum, would simply read (and understand)
what broken symmetry is (which Lee and Yang strongly predicted in 1956,
Wu et al. experimentally demonstrated in 1957, and for which a Nobel
Prize was awarded to Lee and Yang in that very same year, 1957).
One of those "broken
symmetries" of physics -- now proven, and one does not have to reprove
it to any skeptic who simply has not read the literature -- is the
broken symmetry of opposite charges, such as on the ends of any dipole
or involved in any dipolarity (potential). Hence once the dipole
between the terminals of the generator is made, the shaft horsepower
does nothing further. It does not add a single watt to the external
circuit, and never has. Instead, unless we wish to revoke the Nobel
Prize and broken symmetry, that dipole now continuously absorbs VIRTUAL
photon energy from the vacuum, and continuously re-emits it as
OBSERVABLE EM energy in all directions.
So the vacuum powers
every circuit ever built. And most of science has egg all over its
face, because most still proclaim that "you cannot extract useful EM
energy from the vacuum!)
We simply need to
think more deeply about it -- and unleash some of those sharp young grad
students and post-docs on the problem. If we did, the energy crisis
would be totally solved, permanently, within two years.
So when will we have a
National Science Foundation or a National Academy of Sciences that
advises the Department of Energy and the Administration of such things?
Not in my lifetime. They are far too committed to the status quo. They
simply will not fund any work at all on the single most fundamental
electrical problem: What powers an external electrical circuit or the
power grid, once the source dipole is made in the generator?
And they will not fund
the second most fundamental problem: What in our circuits self-enforces
that treacherous Lorentz symmetrical regauging universally applied by
electrical engineers to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations?
Unfortunately,
electrical engineers have not yet recognized that the Lorentz regauging
arbitrarily assumes that
excess potential energy has been added to every circuit now in the
equations, twice.
However, one has arbitrarily selected only those cases where the energy
was added in such manner that the two free force fields produced were
equal and opposite. Contrary to the electrical engineer's beloved
"cancellation" of a resultant zero vector system, that system is a real,
present, energetic system. But the energy is bottled up as a stress
potential, with net zero force field. This means that the EXCESS energy
received from the external vacuum and added to the system, freely (by
the gauge freedom principle in quantum field theory), cannot and will
not be dissipated only in an external load.
So the solution to the
energy crisis has not even been recognized. It is not being worked on
by any university, any major national laboratory, the National Science
Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, or the Department of
Energy.
It would be very nice
if it were being worked on. And it would be nice if we finally -- after
more than a century -- began to teach in our universities what actually
powers every EM circuit and system.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
P.S. Incidentally,
one also needs to recognize that the Lorentz regauging arbitrarily
rotates the frame of the system, away from the laboratory frame. The
dissipation of half the excess energy in the source dipole, and the
other half in the external circuit's loads and losses, is a re-rotation
of the system back to the lab frame.
Also, anytime the
energy density of the local system is changed, that means a change in
the energy density of the local vacuum. That is a curvature of
spacetime, a priori -- totally violating the assumption in classical EM
and electrical engineering of a flat spacetime and an inert vacuum.
When one discards both
the local active vacuum effects and the local curvature of spacetime
effects in one's system analysis (as with the Lorentz symmetrical
regauging), then one has effectively assumed no net energy effects from
the system's external local environment.
So our electrical
power engineers have been taught to design systems that self-defeat any
attempt to get net useful work out of the ongoing vacuum and curved
spacetime environments. In effect, they have placed all their
electrical windmills in a closed barn, so the free electrical winds
cannot get to them and do any free work in the load.
T.E.B.
|