| Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001
17:20:52 -0500
Dear
Dr. B*****, Because
of hypoxia and limited work schedule, I am unable to take the time
your very nice letter truly deserves, but will try to give a quick
response covering some important points. Always
in any endeavor we have the "accursed necessity for the identity
of opposites," which was the bane of the philosophers and now is
the bane of the mathematicians and physicists.
Venn diagram "proofs" so widely used, e.g., simply
"eat themselves" if the same Aristotelian logic is applied
to them (the third law eliminates any and all boundaries, so one
cannot even have a boundary between A and not-A, e.g. or a boundary to
define the "universe" that is utilized in the Venn
diagrams.). I liked your
approach of using a physics model to derive a logic; actually the
Aristotelian system is derived (unwittingly) from perfect fitting to
the single photon interaction. Aristotelian
logic is at best incomplete, and if limited to just the three laws, it
is wrong, as every boundary already demonstrates.
The other problem is that few if any logicians seem to have
noticed that their very thinking, observing, perceiving, etc. are
themselves processes (certainly at least in the time-domain) and
the mental output of any of them is the effect of a set of temporal
operations, most of which are simply "assumed" as if
infinitely correct. To
correct and extend Aristotelian logic, one simply numbers
and accounts for each "perception" or
"observation" snapshot (there is no "A" but an
"observed A" or "perceived A", e.g.) and
suddenly one can see how opposites can be opposites in one case and
identities in another. A
trivial example is normal vision used to perceive a black marble and a
dark red marble, side by side. The
person with color vision has no difficulty distinguishing them, so he
can identify them as an "A" and a "not-A".
On the other hand, a totally color-blind person would be unable
to distinguish them. And
so on. If we then
perceive both the red and black marbles with our "color
vision" turned on, they are not identical.
But if we go back to perceive them again, with
our color vision turned off, the same entities previously
found nonidentical are now "identical" with respect to the
decision algorithm applied by that perception operation. The
final clue is that identity is not immutable, but is the result of a
decision operation (algorithm) performed by comparing two (or more)
former individual perceptions in perception or observation "all
at once". The very
act of comparing (multiple, simultaneous) is a violation of the third
Aristotelian law "A or not-A" exclusively, which allows only
a single observation or perception.
Again Aristotelian logic eats itself, for it does not even
allow the comparison necessary to decide "identity" or
"nonidentity". So
it is not nature that has the problem with wave-particle duality in
physics; it is our archaic way of thinking and an overly simplified
logic. Pursuing
this approach, I came up with a five-law logic as an extension to
Aristotelian logic. With
that logic, there then become logical solutions to essentially all the
paradoxes in Aristotelian 3-law logic.
This was of much practical use to me, along the way in free
energy systems and elsewhere. Here's
a little trick. Working
in Minkowski spacetime, take some 3-spatial energy and compress it by
the factor c-squared. Now
what can be done with it? If
we leave it there in 3-space, in x,y,z, it becomes what we call
"mass". If
we move it and place it over on the fourth Minkowski axis, ict, it
becomes what we call "time".
There is only one variable on that fourth axis, and that is t.
Further, Lee already showed that time is a dynamic variable
across all physics, from quantum to universal realms. So
time is intensely compressed spatial energy, and has essentially the
same energy density as mass. Indeed,
we found that all EM energy in 3-space is simply transduced and
decompressed "time-energy". In
quantum field theory, there are four polarizations of the photon, two
being in x and y, which are transverse polarizations (as are
combinations of the two). Thirdly,
there is the longitudinal photon in 3-space.
Fourth, there is
the time-polarized or "scalar" photon.
Interestingly, Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory,
1984 argue very strongly that neither the scalar nor longitudinal
photons is individually
observable, but their combination
(interestingly, the combination would have spin 2 and be a graviton)
is observable as the instantaneous quantum potential.
One can transform this into wave language and representation,
and then correctly reinterpret Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the
scalar potential by inserting the always-assumed ubiquitous
"interacting unit point static charge" at any point in space
and accounting for it. In
that case, a very strange thing emerges: All 3-space EM energy, at any
point in space, comes there from the time domain, and involves that
"combination" interaction of a time-polarized photon with
the "assumed source charge" prior to observation. After
observation (which is a d/dt operator imposed upon the ongoing 4-space
interaction), time is destroyed and one observes the longitudinal
photon or wave in 3-space. This
introduces a new kind of "charge" or energetic excitation:
time-charging or time-energy charging.
The scalar photon and time-polarized EM wave are heavily
involved in such energetic excitation. We were able to propose a
solution and precise mechanism generating the transductions of cold
fusion, using that concept. Indeed,
we wrote the specific nuclear reactions for production of the excess
deuterium, tritium, and alpha particles. We
found that the body's cellular regeneration system uses a very similar
mechanism involving time-charging (and time-polarized EM wave pumping,
as an extension to phase conjugate optics) in its healing process.
Using this, we were able also to explain and give the
mechanisms for the Priore work, Becker's work, some of Popp's work,
Kaznacheyev's experiments, Rife's microscope for amplifying the
virtual state into observable state, etc.
We were also to uncover the scalar electromagnetic nature of
mind and mind operations and the coupling mechanisms that couple the
mind to the body and the body to the mind, respectively.
These mechanisms are testable and engineerable; sadly, the
KGB/Russians have long weaponized this area most heavily. With
this, I was able in 2000 to resolve the long-vexing problem of the
source charge; i.e., the problem of the fields and potentials and
their energy (reaching across all space) associated with the source
charge. Look at it this
way. Suddenly dissipate a
little energy to form a dipole, right in the lab.
Along a radial line reaching to infinity, in this
gedankenexperiment we have already placed perfect and infinitely
sensitive detectors, at regular "one-second of light travel
time" distance. One
second after formation of the dipole, the first instrument reads --
and the reading remains,
showing that this was not a pulse that passed, but the front of a
continuously current of EM energy.
At the end of the second second, the second instrument reads,
and so on. One year
later, the instrument a lightyear distant reads, and that reading
remains. Further, the
energy is still flowing outward in all directions at the speed of
light. In
that year, that little dipole for which we paid very little energy
dissipation to make, has changed the energy density in a volume of
space a lightyear in radius. And
it is still pouring out EM energy in 3-space in all directions,
unceasingly. Mandl
and Shaw almost had it, but forgot that ubiquitously assumed unit
point charge which does the "combining" between an incoming
scalar photon and an outgoing longitudinal photon.
They dwelt upon the scalar and longitudinal photons "as if
observed" which right away is a non sequitur because observation
invokes that charge and that interaction.
But their work has great merit indeed, when we add in that
missing charge. The
scalar photon becomes the nonobservable "cause", which is
absorbed in an interaction with a "previously observed"
(frozen 3--space charge snapshot) charge, is transduced into 3-space
energy, and re-radiated by the charge into 3-space.
This is why the source charge can continuously emit EM energy
in all directions in 3-space, without any 3-space energy input. A
trivial observation: Certainly
the charge and the dipole must be accepted as elementary Maxwellian
systems; one has no electrodynamics without them.
But we input only a little energy to initially make the dipole,
and then we input no more. Yet
the dipole poured out (and continued to pour out) vastly more energy
than the feeble amount we utilized as our input. Either
the dipole is creating energy from nothing, or else it has to have an
energy input. Either way,
3-space EM energy flow conservation is dead, because the dipole
violates it, as is easily shown experimentally. So
the previously unresolved source charge problem is important. Either
we must explain where the energy comes from, with it coming from
outside 3-space, or the conservation of energy law is dead.
Happily, energy conservation is okay.
What has happened is that the charge (I showed how to treat it
as a set of dipoles, following well-known quantum electrodynamics)
exhibits and is a broken 3-symmetry (and also a broken t-symmetry)
simultaneously. The
broken symmetry of a dipole (of opposite charges) was one of the
discoveries for which Lee and Yang received the Nobel Prize in 1957. This
led to many advances, such as the fact that every charge (special set
of composite dipoles) and every dipole already involve simultaneously
broken symmetry in energy flow in both 3-space and the fourth
Minkowski axis (time domain), but exhibit a higher symmetry in
4-space, between incoming energy in the time domain and outgoing
energy in 3-space. Once
a charge or dipole is "produced", if let alone it will thus
exhibit giant and continuous negentropy, so long as the charge or
dipole exists. And
the energy is extracted directly from the known particle physics
broken symmetry of the dipole in its exchange with the active vacuum
virtual photon flux, so the solution is consistent with the findings
(both theoretical and experimental) of particle physics.
It is also consistent with quantum field theory, as shown by
Mandl and Shaw, e.g., It
is also consistent with a corrected reinterpretation of Whittaker's
1903 decomposition of the scalar potential into a harmonic set of
longitudinal EM phase conjugate wavepairs. This
has had many applications in our work, and has a great many more we
have not yet worked out. It
is far easier to engineer negentropic systems (just make a dipole, pay
for it once, then leave it alone and do not destroy it) than the
present entropic systems we almost universally engineer.
It has led us to legitimate EM mechanisms whereby the
electrical power system becomes an open system far from equilibrium
with its active environment. As
is well-known, such systems permissibly violate classical
(equilibrium) thermodynamics. Instead,
they obey the thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium in
their energetic exchange with their active environment.
As such, they are permitted to exhibit five "magic"
functions: Such a system
can (1) self-order, (2) self-rotate or self-oscillate, (3) output more
energy than the operator must input (the excess is freely received
from the active environment, via the broken symmetry), (4) self-power
both itself and its load simultaneously (all the energy is freely
received from the active environment, via the broken symmetry), and
(5) exhibit negentropy. Every
charge and dipole in the universe already performs all five functions,
and those that are in original matter have been doing it for some 14
billion years. There is
absolutely no problem at all in extracting all the EM energy flow one
wishes, directly from the active vacuum, using a simple charge or a
simple dipole. That our
dipolar circuits then are deliberately wired up to destroy their own
dipoles, by ubiquitous use of the closed current loop circuit (which
uses half the energy caught in the circuit to destroy the dipole) is
probably the most stupid thing that science and engineering has ever
done in its entire history. So
one must keep one's sense of humor.
There is not a single university in the West that even teaches
what powers an electrical circuit or an electrical power distribution
line. It is not the
generator or battery, which expend all their energy just to
continually force their own internal charges apart, to restore their
source dipole -- that the closed loop circuit is specifically designed
to keep destroying faster than it powers the load. It
does not have to be done that way.
So we have used such principles to produce a prototype
successful laboratory experiment which does exhibit items (1), (3),
and (5) of those five magic functions of open dissipative systems far
from equilibrium. We have
moved our research on the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG)
to the National Materials Science Lab of the National Academy of
Sciences in a friendly foreign country (we are keeping secret the name
of that nation). There to
our pleasant surprise we found excellent scientists already utilizing
higher symmetry electrodynamics, already aware of the serious flaws
and errors in the standard U(1) classical EM theory, etc.
We also found scientists who understand that the MEG is not a
transformer, although built like one.
As an example, it is not necessary to switch any flux at all in
the MEG core, to achieve overunity operation. There
are certain novel phenomena involved in all overunity systems,
however. (I have been
associated with some five
legitimate COP>1.0 systems, and all exhibited this phenomenology
that is not in electrical engineering at all).
The overunity state is an excited state, and nature provides a
special decay mechanism to restore equilibrium and underunity.
A close colleague and I, after some years of struggle, have
succeeded in solving that problem, and even in transducing the decay
mechanism into a powering mechanism.
We have filed the first-ever patent on the novel process
required to close-loop an overunity EM power system, into stable and
sustained COP>1.0 operation. Several
other patents are likely to come out of it. Meanwhile,
our MEG should complete its research and go on the world market about
a year from now. We
have two rigorous papers on the MEG, which are: M.W.
Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Explanation of
the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3)
Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(1), Feb 2001, p. 87-94;
----- "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by
Sachs's Theory of Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(4),
Aug. 2001, p. 387-393. As
you might expect, these papers were vigorously refereed. Any
critic who applies U(1) classical EM theory -- where the Lorentz
symmetrical regauging already discards all that vast set of Maxwellian
systems that are in disequilibrium with their active vacuum -- is
simply naïve and very unknowledgeable.
Such systems are not in his model at all, which only chooses
systems obeying classical thermodynamics with its infamous second law.
To call open dissipative systems "perpetual motion
machine" is to call a windmill, a sailboat, and a watermill
"perpetual motion nonsense".
It is rather stupid on the critic's part, and such a scientist
knows so little he is not worth wasting time to answer.
Instead, he should read the Nobel Prize citation to Prigogine
in 1977. The
best addition I can make to "normal circuit theory" used by
engineers, is that their EM model a priori assumes (erroneously) a
flat local spacetime and an inert vacuum (or without net exchange).
Both assumptions have long been falsified in particle physics
and general relativity. So
to give a complete analysis, one must include the missing "two
active environments that actually do energetically exchange with the
circuit or system. This
leads to the supersystem concept.
The supersystem consists of three parts: (1) the
electromagnetic system and its dynamics, (2) the local active vacuum
and its dynamics, and (3) the local curvatures of spacetime and their
dynamics. No system
analysis is complete until an analysis of the supersystem has been
performed. Immediately
one sees why one can have a COP>1.0 Maxwellian system.
If there is broken symmetry between the system and the other
two components, then the system is an open system far from
equilibrium. It is not
bound by classical thermodynamics at all, but can exhibit any or all
of those previously listed five "magic" functions. There
are many mechanisms available to utilize in developing open
dissipative EM systems in disequilibrium with their other two
supersystem components. In
our paper, M.W. Evans, P.K. Anastasovski, T.E. Bearden et al.,
"Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition:
Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, 61(5), May
2000, p. 513-517, we give a dozen or more such promising mechanisms. Very
much appreciate your wide-ranging interests and work.
If possible, please put a few sharp young grad students or a
post-doc or two on the "Theory of Legitimate COP>1.0 EM
systems as open systems far from equilibrium in their
supersystem" or some such. The
necessary proofs and mechanisms are already there in physics, just
needing to be drawn together with the proper higher group symmetry
electrodynamics. Very
best wishes, Tom
Bearden some
years ago a friend of mine and collaborator of the |