Venturing to the Zero Point
Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 @ 19:58:53 GMT by vlad


Bearden gives credit to the courage that researchers such as Haisch and
Puthoff have shown in pushing to the zeropoint. Academically it was a huge risk
to them, to their careers and to their income.
Source: http://PESN.com
Question to Tom Bearden
Asked by New
Energy Congress member, Leslie R. Pastor, Dec. 28, 2005:
Good Afternoon Tom,
[...] Bernard Haisch has an interesting statement
[published at ZPEnergy] regarding EM, which I believe will captivate your
interest.
His quote from the Bible: "God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there
was light." is most intriguing, coming from a physicist. As I suspected all
along, we were all dealing with the ultimate 'power source'' from which all
'life' is sustained. I am a 'creationist' in principle and believe in the
Creator. Dr. Haisch is apparently agreeing with your statement regarding the
'observable' as opposed to the 'nonobservable.' In essence you have a 'partner'
in 'physics' and that is good news.
* * * * Tom Bearden Replies
From: Tom Bearden
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 5:36 PM
Subject: RE: Bernard Haisch
Les,
[This is an] informal writeup [...]
We do deeply appreciate the courage that researchers such as Haisch and Puthoff
have shown in pushing to the zeropoint. Academically it was a huge risk to
them, to their careers and to their income. We must [...] acknowledge that
courage and the great benefits that have accrued from their doing so.
And thank God the zeropoint does exist, with quantum science solidly insisting
on it and on the remaining motion. Otherwise, no one would have been able to
push even to the zero point, but would only have been destroyed professionally
for trying to do so.
So we owe such researchers a great debt, and I wish to clearly stand up and say
so.
Yes, Haisch and others – including Puthoff – are right down “next to”
it, but do not take the final step.
The zeropoint is the smallest OBSERVABLE point. Of course, the quantum theory
requires that at that point, motion of a particle does not completely stop, but
it still “jiggles” as Haisch stated. But since one is holding fast to the
observable state – just its bottom – one is actually stating that wiggles in
the observable particle still are occurring, and under certain circumstances
these wiggles and the particle’s reaction can be observed and measured. Hence
the Casimir effect and such experiments.
But carefully note that they never pass beyond the “detectable” quantum
wiggles, directly into the causative VIRTUAL STATE fluctuations. For that
reason, they have been (in my opinion) unable to resolve the source charge
problem; in one paper, e.g., Puthoff was all over it, but simply could not take
that final state to connect disordered virtual energy absorption becoming
reordered after absorption, and then coherently integrated to the next
observable level of excitation, where that excitation level then abruptly decays
by emission of a real photon. And so on, over and over.
Thus in my opinion they were never able to resolve the real issue: How does a
fundamental charged particle such as an electron, continuously emit real
observable photons, when there is no observable energy input?
The truth is that the charge (with its infinite bare charge and energy,
surrounded by its polarized vacuum charge also of infinite charge and energy)
does in fact continually absorb disordered virtual photon energy from the vacuum’s
virtual state fluctuations. Now here’s the tricky part.
If we pass to the modern physics knowledge that the “isolated charge” is not
isolated after all, but is accompanied by its polarized vacuum of opposite
charge, and both “charges” are infinite and have infinite energy, but have a
finite difference, then we have an unusual situation. The two opposite charges
have to exhibit broken symmetry, since the broken symmetry of opposite charges
was predicted by Lee and Yang, and proven experimentally shortly thereafter,
resulting in an amazingly quick award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang.
Well, consider this. For the totally disordered vacuum virtual state
fluctuations, the virtual entropy is maximum and the “ordering” overall is
zero. But the energy of an individual virtual photon is a priori completely “ordered”.
So when a single virtual photon is absorbed by the charged particle and
converted to a virtual increase in the massenergy of the charge, the charge’s
mass (and massenergy) is already UNITARY. That is, it’s absolutely ordered.
The next such “absorption” and change of form of the virtual photon’s
individually ordered energy into a second piece of “massenergy” is thus
additive to the first virtual change in mass energy. The result is the COHERENT
addition or integration of the ABSORBED AND REORDERED virtual state massenergy
changes – until the increasing excitation has produced enough coherently
summed virtual energy to reach the next quantum excitation threshold. At that
point, the very jitter of the vacuum (the zitterbewegung) “knocks out” a
real observable photon of energy, so that the excitation of the charged particle
abruptly decays back to the start. And the situation repeats and repeats and
repeats, and so on.
Every charge in the universe is thus a Feynman ratchet, continually absorbing
and coherently integrating virtual state vacuum energy up to the observable
level, and emitting the cohered observable photon as real observable EM energy.
So the charge does sit there and emit photon after photon, forever or as long as
the charge exists, and it NEVER has to have any OBSERVABLE energy input. Yet it
does not create that observable energy out of nothing! Instead, as a Feynman
ratchet it produces the output observable EM energy from the virtual state
vacuum energy itself.
In short, the charge CONSUMES positive entropy in the virtual state, transducing
it to negative entropy in the observable state.
Now note the strange dichotomy of the very notion of “virtual photons” in
the seething “disordered” vacuum. An individual photon has ORDERED ENERGY,
so virtual state photons are already assemblies of ORDERED ENERGY, individually.
This energy, however, is not large enough (at the frequency of the photon) to be
observable – hence the photon’s being virtual (nonobservable) in the first
place.
So we have to express “disorder” in terms of “ordered little constituents”
anyway. Else there are no virtual particles, and much of particle physics would
be absolutely wrong.
The continual absorption and change of the virtual photon ENERGY (virtual order)
from the vacuum into mass energy of the particle (virtual order of the mass’s
increase in mass energy in the virtual state) thus is a totally negentropic
process in the virtual state. Hence the coherent (ordered) integration of that
NEGENTROPIC virtual set of successive changes. When the next OBSERVABLE
excitation threshold is reached, it is observable because it abruptly decays the
excitation and emits an observable photon.
Again, the charge is a Feynman ratchet that continually coheres and integrates
virtual energy from the vacuum into observable emitted photons from the charge.
The steady emission of real observable photons from any source charge,
continually establishes and replenishes (at light speed) its spreading fields
and potentials, and their energy densities are deterministic as a function of
radial distance from the source charge. This, by the way, is in accord with the
proof by D. J. Evans and Rondoni that real EM systems continuously producing
negative entropy are possible, so long as the resulting observable system is
observable.
Hence I nominated the source charge and source dipole as the first concrete
testable examples of that proof given not long ago by Evans and Rondoni.
In short, we realized that it is only the “ordered” pieces of the socalled
“disordered energy of the vacuum” that are successively absorbed by the
charge and transduced into virtual changes in the charge’s massenergy state.
These virtual massenergy changes then coherently integrate into real observable
photons emitted by the charge’s Feynman ratcheting process.
The entire idea of “disordered energy” is that the energy is there after
all, and – at least in theory – is recoverable coherently if an ordering
process is evoked.
This “reordering” is certainly encountered in nonequilibrium thermodynamic
systems, where such systems can even be “selfordering” as has been shown
and as is known.
So one must take that “extra step” from the observable zeropoint level to
the nonobservable virtual state vacuum fluctuations, and then directly connect
the two.
To even mention a “vacuum fluctuation” is to advance the thought and concept
that the entire group of little “ordered energy” virtual photons is
disordered, but each little photon is perfectly ordered in its energy domain –
else it could not even exist in the virtual state.
And now we also note something else very powerful: Even Maxwell pointed out in
1875 that any system of larger pieces and particles is “disordered” and
obeys the entropic second law only statistically. Each piece of the system can
be and is constantly violating the hoary old second law by producing a negative
entropy change. Wang et al. showed that the negative entropy ordering of these
pieces can persist EXPERIMENTALLY for up to two seconds or more. Voila! For a
source charge sitting in the seething vacuum, even a tiny bit of time – much,
much smaller than a second! – is sufficient for the reordering process to
emit a stream of observable photons, starting over with each photon emission.
The mathematicians are going to have to wrestle with the ansatz of that one,
since the ansatz is assumed but usually unrecognized in our very statement or
assumption of a “disordered” virtual state vacuum, in which “little bits
of order” negentropically appear momentarily and continually and are called
“virtual particles” while they exist.
Oddly, it is thermodynamics of nonequilibrium systems that has shown us the
magic key to how EM energy (in all EM fields and potentials) is actually
produced BY their associated source charges FROM the absorbed iterative order
(energy) of the barraging virtual photons.
Haisch and Puthoff showed enormous courage in just venturing to the zeropoint
itself, and not passing beyond the Casimir effect and such. Anyone who has not
seen the results of direct scientific suppression, just cannot appreciate the
courage it took.
If Haisch and Puthoff would now cross that line between virtual and observable
states, and express it in proper mathematics with the proper discussion showing
the coherent integration of that virtual energy into observable state energy,
they would just have done work of Nobel quality, and might even be awarded the
Nobel Prize.
You see, this also solves several other major problems in physics and
thermodynamics, which scientists are struggling with now. We have the solution
to the dark matter and dark energy problem also, the source of the excess
gravitation holding together the arms of the spiral galaxies, the source of the
slowly increasing antigravity that is speeding up the acceleration of the
universe, etc.
It’s all hidden in the source charge problem and its solution, together with
consideration of what a Dirac hole really is, etc.
And of course since the source charge solution completely falsifies the present
“halflaw” known as the second law of thermodynamics, we also revised that
law in our fact sheet on Leyton Geometry. The NEW proposed second law is an
extension that allows production of negative entropy as well as positive entropy
– and is therefore consistent with experiments such as readily shown and have
already been shown. Kondepudi and Prigogine, e.g., on p. 459 of their Modern
Thermodynamics, already list several areas or operations known to allow
violation of the old second law. In EM, it is simple to directly violate the old
second law with ridiculous ease: as an example, just momentarily pin the
electrons in a little circuit or part of it, so that no current flows, while the
voltage is amplified (say, by 10 times). Then one has just collected/potentialized
that part of the circuit with 10 times as much potential energy, with absolutely
no work being needed or accomplished (work requires power, which is voltage x
current). If V(dq/dt) = 0, then regardless of what happens to V, no power is
produced and no work is accomplished. But by freely making V ten times larger,
one freely increases the potential energy stored there by the overpotentialized
charges q, in this case by a factor of 10. Such a direct increase in usable
ordered energy is in fact a totally negative entropy change.
One can do negative entropy engineering, e.g., if one is careful. One need not
have to always do entropic engineering, to the detriment of the biosphere and
earth.
Cheers,
Tom
# # #
Followup Question
From: Ken
Rauen
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [NECForum] Re: Bernard Haisch
This is a little bit better, but that isn't saying much. We have only had mud to
look through so far. The mud is thinning a little but still opaque. Good start.
Why are these unobservable energy fluctuations 1) unobservable (grave danger to
scientific exploration!!!) and 2) less than allowed quanta? We still have a long
ways to go. Likewise, I have yet to recognize experimental evidence that even
supports Tom's statement that electric charges are radiating photons from no
observable source. We need physical evidence of this before we go any further. I
have asked Tom to explain and reference this, but he has not.
Ken
* * * *
Tom Bearden's Reply (A)
From: Tom
Bearden
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 11:20 PM
Les,
Cheez! I don’t have to personally justify the
virtual state; that’s already standard physics. Here’s a few quotes just
to help see it’s long been in the hard physics literature and is wellknown.
Quoting:
"What
might appear to be empty space is, therefore, a seething ferment of virtual
particles. A vacuum is not inert and featureless, but alive with throbbing
energy and vitality. A 'real' particle such as an electron must always be
viewed against this background of frenetic activity. When an electron moves
through space, it is actually swimming in a sea of ghost particles of all
varieties – virtual leptons, quarks, and messengers, entangled in a
complex mêlée. The presence of the electron will distort this irreducible
vacuum activity, and the distortion in turn reacts back on the electron.
Even
at
rest, an electron is not
at
rest: it is being continually assaulted by all manner of other particles
from the vacuum." [Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search
for a Grand Unified Theory of N
at
ure, Simon and
Schuster
,
New York
, 1984, p. 105].
And in modern physics, any observable “isolated”
charged particle actually involves two
infinite charges each involving infinite energy. Hence over
time any “isol
at
ed charge” can in fact emit any finite amount of EM energy, no m
at
ter how large in magnitude, and not be diminished in its energy whatsoever.
Quoting Nobelist Weinberg:
"[The total
energy of the
atom] depends on the bare mass and bare charge of the electron, the mass and
charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying
about photon emissions and readsorptions. But free electrons as well as
electrons in
atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron's
mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same
as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of
elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed values
(which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the
bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The total energy of the
atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy th
at
is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and the
energy shift … that is infinite because it receives contributions from
virtual photons of unlimited energy." [
Steven Weinberg
, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p.
109110.].
To show th
at
the source charge problem and the terrible flaws in conventional CEM and
electrical engineering are recognized:
"...it is not
usually acknowledged th
at
electrodynamics, both classical and quantal, are in a sad state."
[Mario Bunge, Found
at
ions of Physics,
SpringerVerlag
,
New York
, 1967, p. 176].
"The
connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the
most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics."
[D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press,
London
and
New York
, 1968, p. viii].
"A generally
acceptable, rigorous definition of radiation has not as yet been
formulated." … "The recurring question has been: Why is it that
an electric charge radiates but does not absorb light waves despite the fact
that the Maxwell equations are invariant under time reversal?"
[B. P. Kosyakov, “Radi
at
ion in electrodynamics and in YangMills theory,” Soviet Phys. Usp.,
35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141].
All one has to do to show that real photons are
continually radiated from any collection of charge or a dipole, is have one’s
instruments set up
at
regular intervals along a radial line from the point
at
which one suddenly assembles the charge or the dipole. The emitted photons
move
at
light speed, and as the wavefront reaches each instrument along the chosen
radial p
at
h, suddenly that instrument reads. Further, it continues to read the energy
density of the socalled “static” field that is now continually
established and continually replenished
at
the speed of light. Such experiments have been done in for decades, which are
actually what led to Kosyakov’s statement quoted above as well as th
at
of particle physicist Sen.
As Whittaker showed in 1903 and 1904, any “static” EM
field or potential is actually a set of ongoing bidirectional EM energy flows,
in the form of bidirectional EM longitudinal waves. This of course totally
falsifies the old 1880s electrical engineering concept that the
"static" field just instantly appears with the charge, and is
analogous to a frozen waterfall. As Van Flandern points out, in discussing the
gravitational field:
“To retain
causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘st
at
ic’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other
meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all
moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A
frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is
static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same
at
every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring
momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. …So are … fields for a
rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated?
Causality seems to require the latter.” [Tom Van Flandern, “The
speed of gravity – What the experiments say,” Physics Letters A,
Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 111].
Please note how very different all this is from the 1880s
concepts of electrical engineering.
In quantum field theory, there are four photons,
depending on the polarization (the direction in which the energy is
vibrating). With the z axis habitually taken as the axis of propagation, there
are two transverse photons – one polarized in the y direction and the other
in the x direction. Both of these photons are observable by our instruments.
Then there is a longitudinally polarized photon, where the energy vibrates to
and fro along the zaxis of propagation. That longitudinal photon by
itself is not observable. Finally, there is the timepolarized photon, where
the energy vibrates to and fro along the taxis. That at
timepolarized (often called “scalar”) photon is also not individually
observable.
But the combination of the longitudinal and
timepolarized photons is observable – as electrostatic scalar potential
(common voltage!).
So when one measures a voltage in an electrical circuit,
one is actually measuring two different “individually nonobservable”
things, and something quite marvelous.
When one has “voltage” flowing down the conductors of
the external circuit of a generator other source, one actually has involved
two kinds of individually nonobservable entities, to obtain an observable
entity. That is not even in electrical engineering
at
all, but it is good physics.
If one wishes to deal with extracting excess EM energy
from the seething vacuum, one has to use a much more advanced scientific model
than the old electrical engineering model. One must
at
use one that least models
the active vacuum and curved spacetime. The classical electrodynamics and
electrical engineering model assumes an inert vacuum (just empty space) and a
fl
at
spacetime. Hence it already excludes
any such thing as a system extracting usable energy from the vacuum, since
that would require an altered virtual particle flux of vacuum and an altered
curvature of spacetime.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
* * * * Tom Bearden's Reply (B)
From: Tom Bearden
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: Correction:
Les, the papers are:
E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical
Physics,” Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333355.
E. T. Whittaker, “On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to
Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions,” Proc. Lond. Math.
Soc., Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367372.
The first one in 1903 decomposes the scalar potential into a set of ongoing
bidirectional longitudinal EM waves.
The second one (which started the subject called “superpotential theory”),
showed that any EM field or wave decomposes into two scalar potentials, each
with imposed differential functions.
If one takes the scalar potential decomposition of a field from his 1904 paper,
then further decomposes each of the two scalar potentials prior to applying the
differential functions, one has thus decomposed any EM field into two sets of
bidirectional longitudinal EM waves, in interference with each other.
Stepping back a bit from the two Whittaker papers, this approach to the 1904
paper gives us scalar interferometry, the ability to use scalar
beams (sets of longitudinal EM waves in two interferometry beams) to interfere
at a distance and generate any kind of desired EM field or wave and its EM
energy. Since then, rigorous proof of this capability, in higher group symmetry
electrodynamics, has been given by M.W. Evans et al., "On Whittaker's
Representation of the Electromagnetic Entity in Vacuo, Part V: The Production of
Transverse Fields and Energy by Scalar Interferometry," Journal of New
Energy, 4(3), Special Issue, Winter 1999, p. 7678].
* * * *
Tom Bearden's Reply (C)
From: Tom Bearden
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 8:29 AM
Subject: RE: Bernard Haisch and Hal Puthoff
If the vacuum were made of observable quanta, our instruments would go bananas
and read anywhere and everywhere, all the time.
Indeed, it’s far worse than that, because the observable mass universe could
not exist as such. The energy density of the vacuum is so great (on the order of
10exp93 grams per cubic centimeter, by one leading calculation after Wheeler)
that, if the energy were in quantum form and therefore observable, everything in
the universe would be squashed to smithereens instantly. There could be no
planets, stars, or any piece of ordinary mass anywhere.
So since the observable universe does exist, and a mass such as one’s own body
is not blasted to smithereens instantly, the energy is in VIRTUAL STATE form,
allowed for and required by quantum mechanics anyway. Any energy fluctuation or
change, if VIRTUAL and subquantum, can have as much energy as desired, so long
as its existence is sufficiently short that the action (i.e., energy x time) is
less than h/2.
Standard physics.
Cheers,
Tom B.

 
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
 
Average Score: 5 Votes: 1
 
