## Physics Is Not the Mathematics But What It Manipulates

Following Feynman's ansatz, one should realize that the physics is not really in the mathematics itself, but in the physical meaning of the concepts that the mathematics manipulates. Here again, the inimitable Feynman {9} cautioned against over-attachment to the mathematics itself. He said it very clearly:

"Mathematicians or people who have very mathematical minds, are often led astray when "studying " physics because they lose sight of the physics. They say: "Look, these differential equations - the Maxwell equations - are all there is to electrodynamics it is admitted by the physicists that there is nothing which is not contained in the equations. The equations are complicated, but after all they are only mathematical equations and if I understand them mathematically inside out, I will

6 The problem is the ubiquitous and erroneous use of a "separate" force acting on a "separate" mass. Actually mass is a component of force, as can be seen from F = d/dt(mv). Hence there is no such thing as a separate force in empty space, acting upon a mass. Instead, the massless 4-field in space acts upon mass to produce force in that interaction. Force is not a cause, but an effect of an ongoing interaction — as is any observable. An observable is a continuing series of frozen 3-space LLL snapshot entities given by the result of continual application of 8/8t (LLLT) ^ LLL by photon emission. The formation of the LLLT (spacetime and masstime) in between observed m as LLL, is produced by photon absorption of the previous m = a/St (LLLT).

understand the physics inside out. " Only it doesn't work that way. Mathematicians who study physics with that point of view - and there have been many of them -usually make little contribution to physics and, in fact, little to mathematics. They fail because the actual physical situations in the real world are so complicated that it is necessary to have a much broader understanding of the equations."

Such matters and similar thoughts had bothered me even back in the early 1950s, when I could not find a single professor or dictionary of physics that logically defined a field or a potential. Considered rigorously, the definitions all fell apart and violated elementary logic. Improper, insufficient, or just plain wrong definitions in physics have continued and are still widespread to this day. To give a single example from an excellent book by Kraus {10}: On p. 60, Kraus gives the formula for a potential referred to as the "absolute potential" of a charge source. Quoting:

"This potential... is, by definition, the work per coulomb required to bring a positive test charge from infinity to the point r1."

Kraus erroneously "defines" the scalar potential identically as work, which is equating the cause with the effect. The work that dissipating a potential does or can do, is not the potential itself! Else "human" means nothing but how well one can chew one's food or drive an automobile. Actually, Kraus gives one theoretical way to measure or calculate the effect of the potential's local intensity at a point.7 Note that what is measured is the energy diverted from the potential at that point, around that test charge. This does not specify the entity (the potential itself) at all, but only what has been diverted from it. It is rather like confusing the whirlpool (water diverged from the normal river flow) in a river as being the river itself.

7 To show the non sequitur, a million more positive test point charges could be brought from infinity to that same point, and the potential — without any change in it — would cause the same amount of work to be done upon each of those charges. As can be seen, even noted professors can speak rather casually when they "define" the potential's point intensity as "the" potential (which extends over all space, not just at that one point). There may be different intensities at different points in the potential, but the potential itself remains one-and-the-same thing regardless of which one or all of the point intensities are discussed. And neither the point intensity of the potential nor the potential is the work that is done upon a moving charge by that potential or its intensity.

Integrating what has been diverted from it does not yield the potential itself! At best, the measurement gives an indication of the intensity of the potential at a point, insofar as its reaction with charge is concerned. More rigorously, what is being utilized is the potential's reaction cross section presented to a unit point static charge at that point. The same unit point charge, if placed in particle resonance, will sweep out more geometrical area and exhibit a greater reaction cross section. That will increase the energy collected divergence of the energy flow that is being moved around the particle itself. By normal calculations, the resonant charge may collect some 18 times as much energy as is possible at the same point by the same charge in static mode — e.g., as shown by Bohren {24, 25}.

A definition must present an identity. Examining the proposed definition as "the potential is identically ... work" one sees the problem immediately. The potential exists whether or not there is a positive test charge, or whether one moves such a charge in from infinity or not, and whether there is any work done or not. None of that is what a potential identically is, but only one aspect of what it does or can do or can cause. One leaves as an exercise for the reader the task of further examining dictionaries of physics and textbooks, to try to find a satisfactory definition of that common scalar potential.8 We do not believe the reader will find it.

Yet any good textbook will also contain some real gems of great insight, simply said. As an example from Serway {11}, we eventually took a most marvelous cue, of how to get around classical thermodynamics' prohibition against heat energy "running uphill" from hot to cold. In an insightful statement, Serway said {11}:

"The second law [of thermodynamics] does not rule out the possibility of pushing heat uphill, as it were, from a cold object to a hot one, or of creating order out of

8 The scalar potential identically is actually a harmonic set of phase conjugate longitudinal EM wavepairs, as shown by E. T. Whittaker in 1903 {85}. Even Whittaker, however, misinterpreted his wavepairs only after interaction with that ubiquitous unit point charge assumed at every point in space. He gave two effects of that interaction, not the cause (which exists prior to interaction) and the effect (which exists only after interaction). Reinterpreting to get at the causal wave, each wavepair is a matched set of two waves; an incoming EM longitudinal wave in the time domain prior to interaction with a charge, and — after the time-energy wave is absorbed by the charge, an emitted outgoing EM longitudinal EM wave in 3-space. The so-called "static" potential is not static at all, but is a dynamic, ongoing 4-space process. This follows the re-interpretation by the present author {12} of Whittaker's decomposition — a reinterpretation then found to be consistent with quantum field theory {19} and with broken symmetry of opposite charges in particle physics {73}.

disorder. It merely states that such a reversal of the natural flow requires an influx of energy... "

This essentially states the law of entropy, where to reverse entropy (disorder), one must apply ordering (energy).9 We also note that the original concept of entropy was as dissipation of potential. There are of course different ways to apply the energy, and it need not be by the operator himself. Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the present book give some unusual ways. A special paper {12} published by the author in 2000 gives another. Indeed, when the flow of time is predominantly reversed, so is the "entropy" of a situation, since the "videotape is running backward", so to speak. In that case, the entire classical thermodynamics must be extended to essentially include its own opposite. The making of a small time-reversal zone where such things happen is as simple as involving a predominance of antiphoton interactions with the charged particles in that zone, rather than a predominance of photon interactions. What we are saying is that the notion of irreversibility in thermodynamics is not necessarily absolute. It usually assumes a "time forward" situation, and may not hold in a "time-reversed" situation. In our chapter on cold fusion, we will present some specific and quite startling nuclear interactions that occur as a result of the time reversal of the coulomb barrier (repulsion of

9 Now notice what Serway's statement means with respect to the classical thermodynamics "definition" of closed system. Thermodynamics defines a closed system as one in which mass is not exchanged across its boundary, but energy can be. That definition permits a closed system to receive excess energy from its active environment, and thereby reduce its entropy. A specific example is simply potentializing a circuit, prior to movement of the current. Hence the entropy of a closed system does not necessarily increase, but may decrease or increase if the system is in disequilibrium (difference in energy received from its active environment and energy escaping back to the active environment from the system. For the same system, if energy exchanges across its boundary equally in both directions, the system is said to be in "equilibrium" with respect to external energy exchange. One must be very careful in interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics! One has a very different "closed thermodynamic system" when it is in energy exchange disequilibrium, than when it is in energy exchange equilibrium. Equilibrium is the condition of maximum entropy. For substantial disequilibrium condition, entropy cannot be computed, but is less than the entropy of the same system in equilibrium. The entire ansatz of thermodynamics may be violated once time-energy is transduced into internal EM energy inside the system. That is a fundamental disequilibrium, performed by every charge in the universe. Hence of necessity we have advanced and utilized new definitions of "open system" and "closed system" in our approach in this book, as discussed in the Appendix.

like charges in a forward time situation) into a coulomb attraction between like charges in a time-reversal zone and time-reversed situation.

If Serway's statement were reversed, it would then be a statement of the law of negentropy. It would state that self-ordering (i.e., freely receiving energy from the active environment) in a system could indeed "push heat uphill from a cold object to a hot one", and the system could simultaneously emit energy in the process. Every charge does it!

We did find it necessary to correct the classical thermodynamic definitions of "open system" and "closed system". To define a closed system as closed only to mass transfer, but open to energy transfer, is a gross non sequitur. Since general relativity was published in 1915, energy and mass are known to be the same thing (mass is just a special form of energy), hence the term "mass-energy" (mass as energy) in physics. Whenever energy crosses the boundary of a system, the system's mass changes and mass (or certainly mass change) has also crossed that boundary. Indeed, as we shall point out, in 1917 Hilbert specifically pointed out that in general relativity there can be no energy conservation equations of the kind usually employed elsewhere. The fact that general relativity falsifies much of the present foundations of classical thermodynamics seems to have been either ignored or missed by most of the scientific community, although we will quote leading Russian scientists who have noticed it and are aware of it.

The reader is thus warned that, henceforth, when we use "open system" we mean one where either energy or mass or both exchanges across the system boundary. When we use "closed system" we mean one in which neither energy nor mass exchanges across the boundary. In short, the notion of a "closed system" has been redefined into what classical thermodynamics calls an "isolated system". We already know from particle physics and the active vacuum (and from general relativity and the change of spacetime curvature with every change of spatial energy or mass-energy), and from the giant negentropy involving time energy transduced into 3-space energy and vice versa, that there is no such thing in all the universe as a truly closed system.

In Appendix A, we have discussed how extension and change to classical thermodynamics must be made. We do this by extending the first law, refuting any absoluteness of the second law and third law, dealing with the zeroth law in a new way, etc. We also urge the better theoreticians to reexamine classical thermodynamics along such lines, to modernize and upgrade it. We believe that the present scientific work to extend

thermodynamics so it fits those situations now known to violate it should include additional considerations such as we present in Appendix A.

In short, with the new definitions Serway clearly states the difference between classical equilibrium thermodynamics, where no excess energy from the environment is received, and the thermodynamics of systems far from equilibrium with their active environment (using the new definition of open system for clarity), in which case excess net energy from the environment can be received and used in electromagnetic systems, providing COP>1.0 systems or even COP = <x> systems. The windmill, sailboat, and waterwheel are age-old examples of disequilibrium systems where of course the energy of mass in motion is what is transduced. It is our objective in this book to point out the use of electromagnetic systems in energetic disequilibrium with their active environment (the active vacuum and curved spacetime) to provide just such negentropy.

## Getting Started With Solar

Do we really want the one thing that gives us its resources unconditionally to suffer even more than it is suffering now? Nature, is a part of our being from the earliest human days. We respect Nature and it gives us its bounty, but in the recent past greedy money hungry corporations have made us all so destructive, so wasteful.

## Post a comment