EM Waves Imply Curved Spacetime

The oscillating energy of an electromagnetic wave is continuously changing its local spatial energy density. This is an oscillating change of spacetime curvature if one accepts general relativity (GR). Hence the EM wave in space is always moving in a locally curved spacetime; else, no EM wave exists because no change in spatial energy density exists. To reject that, is to reject GR in its entirety as well as all the experiments consistent with GR. If one accepts GR, then the classical U(1) EM assumption of the EM wave moving in a fiat spacetime is a non sequitur. It is unscientific to be suspicious of a higher group symmetry 0(3) electrodynamics which does correct this known non sequitur in U(1) electrodynamics, while limiting oneself to U(1) electrodynamics with that known error. One might as well be suspicious of tensor algebra because it is more comprehensive than vector algebra.

There are many EM experiments such as the Aharonov-Bohm effect {647a, 647b} which violate Maxwell-Heaviside EM, as is well known

{648, 649a-649i}. The foundations of the Maxwell-Heaviside theory are well over a century old, and Maxwell's theory was substantially truncated in the 1880s (more on that below). The considerable physics developed since then has required dramatic extensions to the Maxwell-Heaviside theory such as developing non-Abelian gauge field EM theory, quantum electrodynamics, and modeling of the interaction of vacuum and matter in any material system.

11.2.3 On EM Systems with COP>1.0

Conservation of energy requires that all energy output by an inert system must be input to it {650}. It does not require that the operator input all or even any of the energy utilized. The active environment can permissibly input part or all of it, else there could be no such thing as a windmill — or a charge, or a dipole, or a solar-cell electrical power system.

The coefficient ofperformance (COP) of a system compares the system's useful energy or work output to the operator's energy input. The efficiency

¿of a system compares its useful output to its entire energy input. No inert system can output more useful energy than its total input, hence

(' <= 1.0, being = 1.0 for a theoretically lossless "perfect" system and t < 1.0 for a real system with losses.

Whether the operator must input all the energy that is output by the inert system depends upon whether the system is (i) an open system in disequilibrium with its active environment, and (ii) designed to accept and utilize excess energy from that environment, such as from the active vacuum. If appreciable environmental energy input is received and utilized, then a system with losses may permissibly exhibit COP>LO, even though its efficiency is < 1.0. The common home heat pump is an example. While the efficiency of a home heat pump may be t = 50%, its COP may be COP = 4.0.

As does the skeptical scientist, the electrical engineering community erroneously assumes that an inert electrical power system that outputs more energy than one oneselfinputs to it — e.g., a generator outputting more EM energy flow than the magnitude of the mechanical energy input to the generator shaft — is against the laws of physics. To the contrary, it is permitted by the laws of physics and thermodynamics, once the modern Vacuum interaction is included and disequilibrium exists in the interaction between vacuum and system. Not only is it permissible, it is a universal fact once the arbitrarily discarded Heaviside energy flow component is re-accounted, and the source charge problem is reluctantly placed back on the table. If we account all that EM energy pouring freely from the source charges in any EM circuit, then the actual output of EM energy from that circuit is enormous. It is many orders of magnitude greater than the magnitude of the input energy that the experimenter or operator provides.

We do not have to reprove the active vacuum; it has long been proven in particle physics. We also do not have to reprove the disequilibrium between electromagnetic systems and the active vacuum environment; that also has been proven since 1957 by the prediction and discovery of broken symmetry. One of the proven broken symmetries is that of opposite charges, such as are on the ends of a dipole. Hence every dipole or dipolarity in electromagnetics already freely absorbs virtual photon energy from the vacuum, transduces (coherently integrates) it into observable photon energy, and re-emits observable EM photons in all directions at the speed of light. If there are no C0P>1.0 Maxwellian systems, then there can be no Maxwellian charges, dipoles, or dipolarity, and therefore no resulting fields and potentials from these sources — an absurdity falsified by every standard two-wire electrical circuit and ever charge and dipole in the universe. Any potential is a dipolarity, hence exhibits broken symmetry. That is why from any finite potential, as much EM energy as desired can be intercepted and collected, by the simple equation where Wis the collected energy injoules, (j> is the scalar potential intensity in joules per unit point static coulomb, and q is the intercepting charge in coulombs.

Systems far from equilibrium in their energy exchange with their active environment {651a, 651b} can permissibly perform five important functions impossible to equilibrium systems. Such a disequilibrium system can:

(2) Self-oscillate or self-rotate,

(3) Output more energy than the operator inputs (the excess energy is freely received from the active environment),

(4) Power itself and its load (all the energy is freely received from the active environment), and

(5) Exhibit negentropy.

Any charge or dipole already exhibits all five of these functions — forbidden by classical thermodynamics but permitted by the well known thermodynamics of systems far from equilibrium in their exchange with their active environment {651a, 651b}.

It only takes one small white crow to prove that not all crows are black. The known performance of the charge and the dipole totally refutes the notion that no EM system can output energy without operator-arranged input from other than the active vacuum. The entropy-consuming reactions from the fluctuation theorem, experimentally proven by Evans et al. in 2002, also is a sufficient proof to destroy any argument against permissible C0P>1.0 EM systems. Since all the EM field energy and potential energy in a power system or circuit must come from the source charges and dipoles, it follows that all our EM energy systems already take all their EM energy from the active vacuum, not from the operator's input. A solar cell array also refutes the notion that the operator has to input the energy, but the solar cells' environmental energy input may not be ubiquitous or dependable. The active vacuum is both.

Most power system electrodynamicists avoid the particle physics solution {652} to the source-charge problem {641} involving disequilibrium exchange with the active vacuum. Instead, they adhere strictly to the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz theory with its assumed equilibrium between system and vacuum. Therefore they avoid modeling the vacuum interaction and solving the problem of open dissipative EM systems which freely and dependably receive energy from their vacuum environment in unusable form, translate it into usable form, and furnish it for further capture and use. They therefore cannot resolve the source charge problem in their model, for the model has already artificially excluded the solution.

By definition, an EM system in equilibrium cannot output more useful energy than the operator inputs. However, considered as an energy transducer, every EM system is in disequilibrium with the vacuum because of the charges and dipoles in the system, and it continuously receives energy from the vacuum. Because of the broken symmetry of the charge and the dipole, some of this energy from the vacuum is discharged by every charge and every dipolarity in the circuit as observable energy a priori. This creates a truly enormous outpouring of rather disorganized (in this case, uncollected) EM energy extracted from the vacuum and poured out without being intercepted and diverged into the circuit, where it is organized for dissipation and use. The circuit "uses" only that amount of this enormous available outpouring EM energy that it first organizes (collects) and directs. That is its "organized excitation" energy, commonly known as input energy macroscopically — the Poynting energy flow component.

Upon completely discharging its excitation (input energy), the inert system outputs all its received (organized) energy, from whatever source. So every EM system already outputs far more energy than the experimenter inputs — when the system's nondiverged, non-organized, andnondivergedoutput energy flow is considered as well as its diverged, organized, and collected energy flow component. The fact that the diverged Poynting energy received in the external circuit enters the circuit from the surrounding space is shown by Krauss {653} (See Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1). We show it in Figure 2-4 of Chapter 2 as well. The remaining and nondiverged Heaviside energy flow component in space, which misses the circuit and is wasted, is also shown in Figure 2-4 of Chapter 2 and contrasted to the diverged (caught) Poynting component. To understand this experimentally demonstrable fact {653}, we need a bit of EM history.

Solar Panel Basics

Solar Panel Basics

Global warming is a huge problem which will significantly affect every country in the world. Many people all over the world are trying to do whatever they can to help combat the effects of global warming. One of the ways that people can fight global warming is to reduce their dependence on non-renewable energy sources like oil and petroleum based products.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment