Summarizing Letter

Our thrust in this book is to attempt to (1) reveal some of the major flaws in electrodynamics that have prevented development and use of COP>1.0 electrical power systems, and (2) point the way toward the development and use of such systems. To give a general summary of the ground this book will cover, we conclude with an informal E-mail letter I sent to the recent editor of American Journal of Physics, pointing out the greater implications of his cogent observation of that "dreadful diagram" and where it leads. Indeed, it (i) leads to a dramatic change in electrodynamics, (ii) changes the way in which we regard "propagation of EM energy through 3-space", (iii) solves the long-vexing problem of the association of the source charge or source dipole with its fields and potentials and their energy, (iv) changes dramatically the way we view what powers an electromagnetic circuit or power line, (v) allows extraction and use of copious EM energy from the vacuum, and (vi) solves the energy crisis permanently.

Here is the letter sent informally to Dr. Robert H. Romer — slightly edited to improve the grammar, correct one error of misstatement, and with reference citations added and listed at the end of this chapter:

American Journal of Physics Amherst College, Box 2262 Amherst, MA 01002

Personal communication

Subject: Implications of your cogent comments on that atrocious illustration

Dear Dr. Romer:

This is not a submission of a manuscript, but a personal communication to you on a matter of great importance in physics, directly related to endnote #24 of your seminal editorial {94}.

It will take a little exposition, so please bear with me and read this when you have the spare time to do so. We are going to show you how your keen insight can be extended to solve some extraordinarily formidable

foundations problems in present electrodynamics. We will also show how to apply the implications of your insight to totally solve the present electrical energy crisis permanently.

In your endnote #24, {94} you took to task (quoting):

"... that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. ... it is a horrible diagram. 'Misleading' would be too kind a word; 'wrong' is more accurate." "...perhaps then, for historical interest, [we should] find out how that diagram came to contaminate our literature in the first place."

Dr. Romer, you have lifted the corner of a dark cover concealing one of the most important flaws in electrodynamics and in fact in all of physics: the unwitting and pervasive substitution of the effect for the cause. A marvelous extension to the present physics is enabled if one removes this terrible non sequitur in physics, and particularly in electrodynamics. For openers, one solves what has been called the most difficult problem in electrodynamics (the problem of the source charge and the association of its fields and potentials and their energy) {100}. I will solve that problem for you in this informal write-up. I will also explain how to extract enormous EM energy from the vacuum, anywhere and anytime, easily. Extracting it is easy; catching it and using it to power loads without killing the extraction process is another matter.

One also gets a unified field theory, engineerable by novel electrodynamic means, as is steadily being shown by a series of rigorous Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS) papers published in various leading journals (and more than 90 of them carried on a Department of Energy website restricted primarily to DoE scientists). Dr. Myron Evans, Director of the AIAS, has over 600 papers published in the literature, including such journals as Physical Review, Foundations of Physics, Physica Scripta, etc. Many of the other AIAS co-authors are excellent theoreticians and scientists.

The early pioneers of electrodynamics (Maxwell etc.) all assumed a material ether filling all space {95}. To these early scientists, there was not a single point in the entire universe that was devoid of matter, because the ether was present there. Hence their outlook as to the nature of EM fields etc. was quite material. Faraday conceived his "lines of force" as physical, taut strings, so that perturbations were "plucking these taut strings".

Maxwell himself points out in his famous "Treatise" that he specifically captured the thinking of Faraday in his theory. In fact, Maxwell wrote a material fluid flow dynamics theory.

In the light of more modern knowledge, let us see the impact of these and similar early but still retained erroneous electrodynamics assumptions.

First, observation/detection is totally spatial, as is well known in quantum mechanics. In fact, observation is a d/dt operator imposed upon 4-space (LLLT spacetime), yielding a frozen instantaneous snapshot LLL of an ongoing 4-space dynamic process. At the next instant, that particular previous observation no longer persists. Why?

Well, no observable persists, since it is only an instant frozen 3-space snapshot, at a single point in time, a priori. Here again we have another horrendous non sequitur in all of physics: the assumption that observables "continue to exist" and therefore persist in time in a passive manner. In fact, there is an interactive process that generates their (seeming) persistence, involves time, and continually changes mass into masstime and back to mass, etc. With the reader's permission, we will pass discussing that mechanism until another time (pun intended!).

What we conceive as "an observable such as mass, traveling through space and persisting in time while doing so", is actually an iterative, continual series of these frozen 3-space snapshots or observations, much like the frames of a motion picture film. We ourselves mentally add the "continuity" to provide "the sensed motion", but rigorously what is actually "observed" is not continuous, but is a vast continual series of those frozen 3-space snapshots.

We're getting directly at that atrocious diagram!

Each snapshot is an effect, not a cause, because it was the output of the observation process whereby a 4-space causal entity (non observed a priori) interacts with a previously observed frozen entity (say, a unit point charge at some point in space) to produce the observation (change or effect generated in that interacting observed charge) as the "next instantaneous observation".

The usual "representation" of a "3-space EM wave" propagating in 3-space is indeed atrocious, just as you stated! It is actually just an iterative succession of such instantaneously frozen snapshots in 3-space, one after the other. There is no such thing as that set of snapshots independently existing in spacetime, prior to interaction with charge in that series of

interactions and observations, unless we wish to discard quantum mechanics and the laws of logic.

There is, however, a continual iterative stream of those observations — those frozen 3-space snapshots — that we interpret (erroneously) by recall from memory as the "EM wavefront propagating in 3-space". As you eloquently pointed out, that is not so, and it is atrocious. An observation, being an absolutely frozen entity, cannot "move through time" anyway, since it cannot persist, nor can it move. A change to an observable can only be another observable snapshot of the ongoing 4-space entity and action, which is then compared to the first snapshot and a difference noted {96} [See Figure 1-3].

In short, a great stream of "frozen effects" (frozen instant observations) does not constitute a "picture" of the ongoing 4-space action, but only a series of frozen 3-space intersections involving the interaction of that fixed observed (3-space) charge with the ongoing causal 4-space entity. If we add and integrate a series of 3-space pieces, we do not get a 4-space entity! Instead, we get a longer or bigger 3-space slice/piece, but one for which each piece of it only existed at a single point in time as a 3-space "slice" at that moment. That is precisely what is wrong with that horrible illustration.

But it is also "wrong" with electrodynamics itself! Electrodynamicists mistakenly conclude that the same effect "series of static 3-slices" — which they might call, e.g., the "field" in a case where the field is the subject — is the same as the 4-space continuous causal field prior to observation interaction with charge at all. Well, LLLT is definitely not LLL, nor is it n(LLL) where n is some large but finite number of 3-slices LLL.

So the field concept is dichotomously used in two contradictory manners in electrodynamics:

(1) it is considered to be in 4-space prior to the observing/detecting interaction with the observable (such as a unit point 3-space charge), and it is also considered a 3-space entity after that interaction. The dimensions of the two entities are not the same, and neither are the dynamics. The causal EM wave is dynamic and 4-spatial, the effect "3-space EM wave" (ugh!) is static and 3-spatial at each instant it is "observed". Assuming that the two are the same thing is a non sequitur.

In fact, it substitutes the effect for the cause, a rather gross violation of the causality principle itself.

(2) then an attempt at glossing over the illogic is used by the smooth statement that "the field (meaning that atrocious series of frozen 3-space snapshots) remains in the absence of charge, but the force goes to zero." Well, if the field is defined as a force field, it cannot be a "non-force field in the same observation!" Else, opposites are always identical.

So of what importance is all that?

It is of great importance. Let me show you one very startling thing that comes out of correcting this "biggest foundations non sequitur in physics, that of substituting the effect for the cause".

Consider a very special paper by E. T. Whittaker {97} in 1903. [I can send you a pdf file of the paper if you do not have it and are interested]. In this much-neglected paper, Whittaker decomposed the so-called "static" potential into a harmonic set of bidirectional longitudinal EM wavepairs, where each pair consists of a longitudinal 3-space wave (an as-observed wave) and its longitudinal phase conjugate wave (considered unwittingly as having also interacted with charge, and therefore as being shifted into 3-space as an "as-observed" wave with inverse parity).

Whittaker — as has everyone since him — unwittingly assumed the "iterative continual observation" interaction in there for the phase conjugate wave also. In so doing, he came up with two effect "waves" that are the outputs of the assumed observation process. Neither of these effect waves would be a wave in spacetime {98} at all, but the two in ensemble are an example of the same thing you objected to in your cogent commentary on that abominable "illustration".

In short, Whittaker invoked observation as a process with two effects and no cause, rather than with a cause and an effect, with the interaction with the observing/interacting unit point charge being assumed for both waves. Whittaker and everyone since seem to have made the same error in interpreting that seminal Whittaker decomposition. This misinterpretation of the decomposition has until now hidden one of the greatest secrets of all times in Nature's electrodynamics!

Let us correct the interpretation, and uproot that great secret to the light of day.

First, for observation to occur, one must have a cause acting upon the affected (observable) entity, and an effect (observable change) must be produced in, on, or of that affected (interacting) entity. One must not have two effects (two observables) and the affected entity (another observable and therefore another effect)! Again, assuming that one has three effects

(observables) constituting the observation process is a logical non sequitur of first rank.

Let us now correct that logical non sequitur made by Whittaker and other physicists and electrodynamicists, and see where it leads us.

First, we go to particle physics, where broken symmetry {99} was discovered in the 1950s. Lee, e.g., received a Nobel Prize for his work in that area {75}. Lee also showed that any dipole is a broken 3-symmetry in its violent energy exchange with the active vacuum.

Well, a scalar potential is a dipolarity; always a potential is actually a difference between two potentials, so to speak. So the potential itself represents a broken 3-symmetry in an energy flow exchange with the active vacuum.

Let us further examine that interesting broken symmetry aspect. It means that the "static" potential is a process whereby energy is received from the vacuum in one form, not observable, and hence unusable, but is output in observable (usable) form. In short, the dipolarity or dipole receives and absorbs (QM view) virtual photons, integrates them into observable magnitude, and emits real, observable EM energy ("continual observation" snapshots of the latter being assumed).

In physics, all observation is 3-spatial, as is well known. And 3-space is the realm of the observed. The EM energy from the vacuum is not received in 3-spatial (observable) form, else there would be no broken 3-symmetry of the dipolarity.

We can also experimentally verify that there is no 3-space input of EM energy to the potential — e.g., to the potential between the ends of any source dipole, because we cannot measure any 3-space observable energy feeding the charges of the dipole. Instead, observable 3-space energy is continuously pouring out of the dipole.

Let us continue now with the notion of a real dipole of separated source charges, with our "scalar potential" between its ends, so we have something concrete in mind.

First, our instruments prove there is a continual emission of EM energy in all directions in 3-space (of the kind in that atrocious diagram; a "series of iterative film-snapshots"). That is the way it is conventionally represented, as if observed at each and every point successively in that 3-space, and along every radial.

But secondly, our instruments also prove there is no such observable input of EM energy in that same 3-space to the dipole. Bummer! That is precisely what has stopped electrodynamicists from solving that vexing problem of where all the energy pouring out of the source dipole is coming from, and how! They unconsciously assume that the only possible source of the EM energy input is in 3-space. That is totally wrong. Further, the conservation of energy law does not require that energy be conserved in 3-space! Instead, rigorously — if we are using a 4-space (i.e., spacetime) model — it requires that energy be conserved in 4-space. The assumption of the extra condition of 3-space energy conservation is an added and arbitrary extra condition.

Since electrodynamics has not resolved this "source dipole and its associated fields and potentials" problem, it has stopped work on the problem and implied that every dipole in the universe is a perpetual motion machine, freely creating all that EM energy it continuously pours out across space, in all directions, creating its associated fields and potentials. That implicit assumption, if true, of course destroys the conservation of energy law.

It isn't true, and the energy conservation law is alive and well!

We can experimentally prove that the source dipole does continuously pour out energy in all directions in 3-space, without ceasing, as follows:

In a gedanken experiment, we set instruments every 300 million meters or so, along a radial line from an origin in the lab. With the instruments and clocks synchronized, we suddenly form a dipole at the origin. One second later, the first instrument reads. A second later, the second instrument reads. And so on. But it is not a "passing pulse". Whatever reading the instrument makes as the forward edge of the energy flow reaches it, is then continuously maintained thereafter. This proves that the energy is poured out continuously and at the speed of light, and in any (and all) directions in 3-space, and it continues to pour out at exactly the same rate so long as that dipole remains intact.

Dipoles in the original matter of the universe have been pouring out EM energy in that fashion for some 14 billion years, and they have not "exhausted" their unobserved energy input source yet.

A newly formed simple dipole, e.g., in one year will have poured out energy into a spherical volume of space that is a light-year in radius. Wait another year, and that volume of space whose energy density has been

changed will be two light years in radius. The dipoles in the original matter have filled the universe itself with that energy outpouring from them.

In other words, an incredible amount of EM energy has been and is being poured out into space from every dipole in the universe.35 And electrodynamicists have had not the foggiest notion of where that mind-boggling amount of outpoured EM energy has come from.

Unless we wish to totally discard the conservation of energy law, we must have an equal input of energy from outside 3-space, going into every dipole continuously. In 4-space, that only leaves the fourth axis, along which and from which the input energy must move into the dipole.

And so it does. If we re-interpret that phase conjugate half set of the Whittaker decomposition, before observation has occurred, it then is a harmonic set of longitudinal EM waves moving in the time-dimension, into the source dipole (parity is not inversed because no interaction with charge has occurred to shift it into 3-space.

So voila! We have strangely (but quite rigorously) solved what Sen {100} referred to in this manner: "The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics."

We express our reasoning as follows: (i) we know from particle physics that the source dipole36 is a broken 3-symmetry in its flux exchange with the vacuum. This means that we know the energy is received from the vacuum in an unobservable form, absorbed by the dipole, and emitted as observable EM energy. It remains to translate that into classical electrodynamics rather than quantum physics {101}. (ii) The time domain is the only domain outside 3-space, in the standard 4-space model. (iii) Anything in the time domain exclusively, is indeed nonobservable, since the d/dt observation operator destroys time and all its internal structure and dynamics whenever observation occurs. (iv) Looking for a "3-space" input is looking for an "observable" EM energy input, which would in fact disagree with the known broken 3-symmetry of the source dipole.

35 Later we will see that, in a time-forward situation, the negative charge pours out positive EM energy while the positive charge may be said to pour out negative EM energy. Charge conservation then implies that an energy balance is maintained overall.

36 Because of the broken symmetry of the opposite charges on its opposing ends.

Let me digress now to speak of fundamental units. As is well known, the fundamental units one chooses to make his physics model represent an arbitrary choice. One can, if one wishes, make a perfectly valid (but mentally nightmarish!) physics using only a single fundamental unit. In that case, all other "fundamental units" in the present model become functions of that single fundamental unit.

Suppose, e.g., that we make the joule our only fundamental unit. Then "mass" becomes totally a function of energy — and we have no heartburn with that one since the Einstein revolution and the nuclear age. But then "time" also becomes totally a function of energy — and that surprises us, because we have unconsciously been taught (erroneously) that "time is a flowing river down which a mass drifts like a drifting boat". That is not the nature of time at all; the totality of the photon interactions with a mass create that mass's "motion through time". I can later explain that to you also, if you wish, but let us pass it for now.

It turns out that time is spatial energy compacted by the factor c2, so it has the same energy density as mass, but in the time axis instead of 3-space. Intuitively, if we are interested in cause and effect, the energy of the cause (time) should be equal to the energy of the effect (in this case, mass). After one reflects a moment, one also sees that "time energy" is required to "drive" a mass through time, just as "spatial" energy is required to "drive" a mass through space. The notion that mass in an inertial frame moves through "empty space with no reaction" is false; it continually moves through the energetics of spacetime, and interacts continuously with it.

Anyway, from still another viewpoint there is no magic in EM energy currents moving in the time domain! Quantum field theory already recognizes multiple polarizations of the photon, including transverse, longitudinal, and time-polarized. Thus, it implies a time-polarized EM wave also. A longitudinal EM wave moving in the time domain oscillates along its line of travel. That is indeed oscillating its energy density in the time domain, so that it is "time-polarized". Hence it is a proper time-polarized EM wave, and appears to "gallop" {102} or vary its speed periodically.

The solution to the "source dipole" problem is that the phase conjugate wave half-set of the Whittaker decomposition, when reinterpreted, is the incoming EM energy in the time domain, continuously input to the charges of the dipole. The charges interact in the imaginary plane (the time domain), and absorb the time-energy, then transduce it into 3-space, and emit it as Whittaker's set of real observable longitudinal EM waves in all

directions in 3-space (as observed). The time-energy waves that are input to the dipole cannot be observed, since observation destroys time and its constituents.

All 3-spatial EM energy comes from the time domain! Broken 3-symmetry of the source dipole immediately releases our arbitrary additional restriction on nature's energy conservation law — i.e., our insistence that the energy input for conservation must be input in 3-space. By removing these arbitrary "shackles" from nature's feet, we allow nature to joyously resume her much-preferred special 4-symmetry in EM energy flow: the circulation of EM energy from the time domain into 3-space, and outpouring of that energy in all directions in 3-space, at the speed of light {103}.

Now let us solve the source-charge problem as well. That one is now easy to resolve.

We know from quantum mechanics that any "isolated" observable charge is actually clustered around by virtual charges of opposite sign. So we simply take one of these clustering opposite charges while it exists, and a differential piece of the observable charge, and we have a composite dipole. Hence the "isolated charge" may be represented as a grouping of such momentary dipoles, each (while it exists) with a scalar potential between its poles, and hence each subject to the same decomposition and reinterpretation we have done.

That is why the source charge can "sit there" and pour out EM energy in 3-space (as observed) continuously, and indefinitely. It is also continuously absorbing EM energy from the time domain. As a set of composite dipoles, it is a set of broken 3-symmetries in EM energy flow. Hence it exhibits nature's preferred 4-symmetry in energy flow, between the time-domain and 3-space.

Note also that, to the 3-space observer, this 4-symmetry is purely negentropic. It is a continuous and ongoing (and expanding) reordering of the vacuum energy, in the form of the reinterpreted Whittaker decomposition.

We can easily engineer negentropy! Just make a little dipole, and nature happily starts pouring out energy and reordering part of the vacuum, with that reordering spreading at the speed of light, steadily increasing all the while.

Reinterpreting Whittaker's marvelous decomposition tells us many things: (i) the source charge or dipole does indeed continuously receive and

absorb its input energy from the time domain, (ii) it continuously transduces its absorbed energy to real 3-space energy (as observed!), and (iii) it continually outputs its absorbed and transduced time-energy as 3-space energy emitted in all directions in 3-space (as continually observed).

So the terrible foundations problem of the source charge and source dipole is resolved, and the energy conservation law is maintained.

We have also uncovered a most important thing: Given a little broken 3-symmetry in EM energy flow, t-symmetry in EM energy flow is also broken. A more primary 4-symmetry {104} between time-energy flow and 3-space energy flow emerges automatically. In short, every potential, every dipolarity, and every charge is such a broken 3-symmetry and an example of the new, preferred 4-symmetry of EM flow, with input flow in the time-domain (nonobservable!) and output flow (as continually observed in a series of 3-snapshots) in all directions in 3-space.

This also resolves the logical cause and effect problem for observation.

This 4-symmetry is a purely negentropic process, once the dipole is established! Well, we should have known that from the gauge freedom axiom in gauge field theory anyway! That axiom says that we can change the potentials anytime, freely and at will. In electrodynamics, that means we can change the potentials at will, anytime we want to. But that means we can freely change the potential energy of a Maxwellian system at will, whenever we wish. It costs nothing — at least in theory; in the real world we have to pay a little for switching — to suddenly potentialize an EM system, prior to the time the Drude electrons relax and current flow begins.

I have applied this great new 4-symmetry in EM energy flow, that is freely evoked and persists indefinitely after one pays a little to make the dipole and thus produce a little broken 3-symmetry, to produce EM energy freely from the vacuum. Without going into it, I refer you to our forthcoming papers {105}. Indeed, we can use this negentropic process to extract as much EM energy from the vacuum as we wish, anywhere, anytime, for peanuts. Let us now move to discuss that area.

First, we point out another astounding result that comes from resolving this "source charge and source dipole" foundations problem.

Generators do not use any of the shaft energy input to them — even in transduced form — to power their external circuits! A generator itself does not add a single watt to the power line, and neither does a battery's chemical energy dissipation add a single watt to its attached circuit.

Neither does burning all those hydrocarbons, consuming all those nuclear fuel rods, building all those dams, etc. to provide our conventional power systems and grid. None of that enormous destruction of the biosphere and pollution of it has ever directly produced one watt on the electrical power line.

Just follow the energy flow, in light of what we now know. Here's how it works.

Typically, we burn some fuel to boil water and make steam, and use the steam to power a steam turbine, which forcibly rotates the shaft of the generator, thereby inputting mechanical shaft energy into the generator. So far, so good. That took care of all the hydrocarbon burning and fuel rod consuming, extracting and transporting the oil, etc.

This input of the shaft energy forcibly rotates the rotor against internal resistance, forming an internal magnetic field. Assuming a 100% efficient generator with no internal losses whatsoever, this means that the mechanical shaft energy input has now been totally transduced into internal magnetic field energy.

So what does that magnetic field energy do? It is totally dissipated upon the internal charges of the generator, performing work on them and forcing the positive charges in one direction and the negative charges in the other direction. That dissipation of the energy in the internal magnetic field forms a source dipole inside the generator, connected to the terminals.

And that is all the generator does. Period. None of the energy transduced from that shaft input, went roaring out of the terminals and down through space outside the conductors of the power line. Not a single watt. So let us turn to particle physics to find out what happens next, because it does not yet appear in the electrodynamics model, even though proven.

The internal source dipole, once formed, is a great broken symmetry in the vacuum flux, as we discussed and as is well known in particle physics. But the proven and well-known vacuum interaction with the generator and the dipole charges is not even modeled in the classical EM theory used by the scientists and engineers to build electrical power systems — much less a broken symmetry in that active exchange! That's atrocious, since it's been proven in particle physics for nearly a half century, Nobel prizes awarded, etc. But the hoary old 137-year old Maxwell-Heaviside model, further curtailed by Lorentz symmetrical regauging, does not incorporate what has already been proven in physics. It does not accurately model the situation as it is and as it is known to be.

Let us continue.

Once that dipole is formed, it extracts enormous EM energy from the vacuum, and pours it out of the terminals of the generator, filling space surrounding those conductors of the attached external power line. It is a huge EM energy flow, trillions of times larger than what we account after Lorentz taught us to disregard almost all of it.37

Only the tiny little bit of that EM energy flow in space along and surrounding the conductors — the little "boundary layer" that skims down the surface of the conductors — will strike the surface charges in the conductors and get diverged into them to potentialize the Drude electrons and "power the power line and its circuits and loads". All the rest of the giant EM energy flow in space surrounding the conductors, and generally parallel to them, misses that power line entirely and is just wasted.

Check the original papers by Poynting {4a, 4b} and by Heaviside {5a, 5b, 5c}, who independently discovered the flow of EM energy through space (as if continually observed!) in the 1880s, after Maxwell was already dead. I can furnish the citations required. From the beginning, Poynting only considered that component of the energy flow that actually enters the circuit. He considered only the "boundary layer" right on the conductor surfaces, so to speak.

Heaviside considered that component that enters the circuit, and also uncovered and recognized the gigantic component in the surrounding space that does not enter the circuit but misses it entirely and is wasted. [Added] Here is Heaviside's {106} own statement:

"It [the energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very nearly parallel to it, with a slight slope towards the wire... . Prof. Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different view, representing the transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight departure from

37 However, contrary to what is in the textbooks, E x H energy flow is not in observable EM field form E and H until it interacts with charge. Instead, the flow is in the form of virtual energy currents in the vacuum. We point out that the fields E and H utilized in the Poynting energy flow theory are effects and not causes. They are rigorously defined as E and H only after the causal 4-fields have interacted with charge. E.g., E is "defined" as force per unit point massive charge — i.e., as the force created by interaction of the "vacuum field" (curvature of spacetime) with a unit point charge. No unit point charge interaction, no force or force field intensity per interacting unit point charge.

the vertical. This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise from what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the electric field in the vicinity of a wire supporting electric current. The lines of electric force are nearly perpendicular to the wire. The departure from perpendicularity is usually so small that I have sometimes spoken of them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are, before I recognized the great physical importance of the slight departure. It causes the convergence of energy into the wire. " [End of Added].

But Heaviside had absolutely no explanation for the enormous and startling magnitude of this energy flow that "misses the surface charges of the conductors and is wasted". You can see an elementary illustration of the "point intensity" of this Poynting diverged energy flow component in Kraus {107}. Kraus's figure 12-59, p. 576 shows a good drawing of the Poynting component being withdrawn from the total EM energy flow filling all space around the conductors [see our Figure 1-1 in the present chapter].38 Most of that available energy flow is not intercepted and thus not diverged into the circuit to power it, but just "wasted." The remaining huge component discovered by Heaviside is not shown on Kraus's diagram. Kraus's numbers on the contours represent the amount of power (watts per sq meter) being withdrawn from each contour, by the very limited axial movement of the electrons and the very ends of their associated fields into the wire.39

38 The energy flow in space near the surface of the wires strikes the surface electrons and their fields, potentializing them and creating a force field with respect to inner electrons. This drives the surface electrons axially into the wire, since they can only move down the wire with the drift velocity, nominally on the order of a few inches per hour. The short inwards drawing of those small portions of the fields and of the increased potentials attached to the charges that move into the wires, interacts with the internal charges in the interior of the wire, powering the Drude electrons throughout the conductor and the circuit. For a discussion of the importance of the surface charges, see J. D. Jackson, "Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play three roles," Am. J. Phys., 64(7), July 1996, p. 855-870.

39 Obviously the increased fields on the withdrawing surface charges reach toward infinity radially outward from the wire. Thus most of this increased field on a withdrawing electron remains outside the wire, radially reaching toward infinity, since the electron and its field cannot be withdrawn further than the diameter of the wire. As the surface charges and their fields change in Jackson's discussion, obviously those distant parts of the field remain outside the conductors. Hence there remains an extensive field and field energy outside the conductors and the circuits

So Heaviside {106} spoke cautiously of the angles and relative directions of the flow components; he did not wish to be scientifically destroyed for pointing out such an inexplicably large EM energy flow, far larger than the known energy input to the generator. There was then no such thing yet discovered as the electron, the atom, the nucleus, special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, the active vacuum, etc. Poynting {4a, 4b} never even thought of the "nondiverged component that misses the circuit", nor did he consider it.

Lorentz, however, understood the extra Heaviside component and its vast magnitude, but he also could not explain it in any fashion. Even the great Lorentz could not risk publishing or advocating such an enormous energy flow, lest he be called a "perpetual motion nut" and destroyed. So he reasoned that, since that stupendous nondiverged energy flow component misses the circuit and powers nothing, it has "no physical significance" (his words).

Jackson in his famous 1975 Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd edition, uses essentially the same phrase {108a} as did Lorentz. And so do most other electrodynamicists.

So Lorentz {109} originated a little trick of integrating the energy flow vector itself around a closed surface surrounding any volume element of interest. Obviously, that zeros all nondiverging EM energy flows — including precisely that inexplicable and enormous Heaviside "dark energy" component. The integration trick does retain that small, diverged Poynting component that enters the circuit. In addition, our instruments measure energy dissipation from the circuit, and the energy has to enter the circuit to be dissipated from it. So our instruments and their measurements will indeed agree with the Poynting energy flow component. Lorentz thus arbitrarily discarded accountability of trillions of times as much EM energy flow as was retained and accounted.

In a later book by Lorentz, one can see that little trick {109} that is still used by electrodynamicists {110}.

that is never drawn into the wire. Additional separate receiver circuits with resistive loads, adroitly placed in this "externally remaining" field energy flow, can be made to intercept additional EM energy and will perform additional work in those external loads in the secondary circuits, separate from powering the loads in the primary circuit.

The Lorentz trick does not cancel the actual flow of the Heaviside dark energy component around every circuit! It just drops it from any accountability.

Indeed, we do precisely a similar thing for the "field" and the "potential". There is not a single text in the U.S. that calculates the magnitude of the field itself, prior to point interaction. Instead, we are taught to calculate the reaction of that field at a point in it, with a unit point static charge at that point. In short, we calculate what is actually locally diverged from the field or potential by that little point static unit charge, and call it "the magnitude of the field". At best, it is indicative of the field intensity at a point, because we have prescribed the magnitude of the static point charge's reaction cross section with the field, not the overall magnitude of the entire field itself. Another major non sequitur! By identifying the "field" as "that which is diverged from it", we gravely err. We do the same for the potential, again using its reaction cross section for a unit point charge at a point in the potential.

There is hardly a living electrodynamicist, it seems, who has calculated the magnitude of the field itself, or of the potential itself! All calculate the respective reaction cross section (and the static reaction cross section at that!) and erroneously call that the "magnitude of the field" or the "magnitude of the potential". It is no such thing. No thing filling all space is identical to a little something diverted from one point in itself, else we discard all logic.

Now we can return to our source dipole and its extraction of an enormous energy flow from the vacuum, once we account for the long-neglected (for more than a century) Heaviside dark (nondiverged, unaccounted) energy flow component. That is the essence of one of my papers {111}.

The easiest thing in the world to do is to extract enormous usable EM energy flow from the vacuum, from the time domain. Every circuit and every electrical power system already does it, and every electrical power system is powered by vacuum energy, not by burning all that coal, oil, etc. None of that does anything to actually power the circuit. It only makes dipoles.

If you will check the characteristics of the ubiquitous closed current loop circuit, you will discover a diabolical thing: that closed current loop circuit forces all the spent (depotentialized) electrons from the ground return line back through the source dipole (back through the back emf). It is easily shown that precisely half the energy collected in the circuit from that feeble Poynting energy flow component is then used to perform work on

those dipole charges and scatter them, thereby destroying the source dipole and abruptly shutting off all energy extraction from the vacuum. The other half of the collected Poynting energy is dissipated in the external loads and losses. That means that half the collected Poynting energy is used to kill the source dipole, and less than half is used to power the loads {112}.

Well, we must input at least as much energy (assuming a 100% efficient generator with no losses) to the shaft of the generator to restore the dipole, as was used to destroy it. This means we shall always have to input more energy to the generator shaft, than we get dissipated in the loads.

That is precisely what is responsible for our ubiquitous COP<1.0 systems. COP is Coefficient of Performance, and is the average load power output in the external circuit divided by the average shaft power we pay to input to the generator.

COP < 1.0 comes from (i) the ubiquitous usage of the closed-current-loop circuit, and (ii) the prevailing notion that electrical power systems far from equilibrium in their energetic exchange with the active vacuum are impossible to build. In fact, every electrical power system is already just such a COP > 1.0 system, as far as the energy flow out of the generator or battery — compared to the shaft input energy to the generator or battery — is concerned.

As is well-known in the thermodynamics of open systems far from equilibrium with their active environment (in this case, the active vacuum), such a system is permitted to: (1) self-organize, (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the operator himself must input to the system (the excess energy being freely received from the active environment, in this case the active vacuum), (4) power itself and its loads simultaneously (all the energy being freely received from the active environment, in this case the active vacuum), and (5) exhibit negentropy.

But by designing all our systems so that they use more of their collected energy from the vacuum to kill their source dipoles than they use to power their loads, we have foolishly wasted the planet's resources, vastly overcharged the consumer, artificially created a great energy crisis, fomented wars for precious oil and other energy resources, polluted the planet, enhanced global warming, and strangled species.

In short, we pay the power company to have a giant wrestling match inside its generators and lose! And we pay our electrical engineers to keep designing and building such asinine systems!

This sad state of affairs is what is now upon us as a great and increasing energy crisis, polluting and destroying the biosphere, etc. and threatening to eventually collapse the world economy.

It is astounding that, since the basis for the above has been in physics for nearly a century (Whittaker decomposition) and for nearly a half century (broken 3-symmetry of the source dipole, as well as the active vacuum), the hoary old classical EM model has not been updated to incorporate what has already been proven in particle physics. Such is inexplicable and unconscionable.

It is also astounding that no electrical engineer realizes that energy extracted from the vacuum powers every electrical power system, and few if any professors are aware of it either.

This is where your cogent realization of the terrible non sequitur in that atrocious "wave in 3-space" standard diagram leads.

Our AIAS (Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study) advanced theorists now have a series of papers published in the hard literature pointing out the feasibility of extracting EM energy from the vacuum {113a, 113b}. About 20 other AIAS papers along such lines or related have been submitted to the various journals and are in the referee process.

I just wanted to contact you informally and, for your personal information, show you how perceptive and correct your objection to that atrocious diagram is. You have lifted the corner of the veil on electrodynamics' confusion between effect and cause, with effect being widely used as the cause. The entire notion of a "separate force" acting on a "separate mass" in mechanics is also a non sequitur. If we define force as F = 5/5t(mv), then we see that mass is a component of force! So here is another major and uncorrected non sequitur. This one was also largely responsible for the dichotomy of the field concept, where the "same field" is used in both a force (mass-containing) manner and a force-free (without mass) manner, as if the two were the same!

I very much enjoyed your editorial, and would urge you to publish additional material along that same vein. You are striking at the very heart of the problem, and every bit of insight and change in those terrible non sequiturs will result in enormous progress in electrodynamics and physics.


Tom Bearden, Ph.D.

Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts & Principles. Lt. Col., U.S. Army (Retired)

Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study

Living Off The Grid

Living Off The Grid

Get All The Support And Guidance You Need To Be A Success At Living Off The Grid. This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To When Living Within The Grid Is Not Making Sense Anymore.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment