You're viewing the old pesn.com website
 

Free Energy is all about freedom:
Power to the people -- literally and figuratively



 "Free Energy" 

News XML
- PESN Specials
- About
- Pure Energy Blog
- Daily FE News
- Features
- Free Energy Now
- This Week in FE
- Newsletter
- How you can help
- Submit  
- Subscribe

 

Directory
Energy Topics

Alt Fuels
Anti-Gravity
Batteries
Betavoltaic
Biofuels
 - BioDiesel
 - BioElectricity
 - Biomass
Body Electric
Brown's Gas
Cold Fusion
Conservation
Electrolysis
Electromagnetic OU
Fuel Cells
Fuel Efficiency
 - Electric Vehicles
 - Engines
 - Hydroxy
Fusion
Geothermal
Gravity Motors
Human Powered
Hydro
Hydrogen
Joe Cells
Lighting
Magnet Motors
Nanotechnology
Nuclear
Nucl. Remediation
Oil
Piezoelectric
Plasma
River
Salt Water Mix
Solar
Solid State Gen.
Tesla Turbines
Thermal Electric
Tidal
Vortex
Waste to Energy
Water
 - Water as Fuel
Wave
Wind
Wireless Electricity
Zero Point Energy
MORE . . .

Open Source
Freddy's Cell
Bedini SG
Safe Haven Villages
MORE . . .

Resources
Awards
Conservation
Conspiracy
Directories
Investment
Kudos
Legal
Organizations
Plastic and Energy
Recycling
Suppression
Tools
Trends
MORE . . .

Mingling
OverUnity Forum
Employment
Events
Humor
Magazines
Movies
Newsletters
Discuss. Groups

Shopping
Store
Buyer Beware
- - - - - - - - - -
- Donate
- Contact

 

 

 


/2005/12/29/9600212_Zero_Point_Energy_Haisch_and_Puthoff/
You are here:
PureEnergySystems.com > News > Dec. 29, 2005

Venturing to the Zero Point

Bearden gives credit to the courage that researchers such as Haisch and Puthoff have shown in pushing to the zero-point. Academically it was a huge risk to them, to their careers and to their income.


Photograph by George Sakkestad

Bernard Haisch and two colleagues at Palo Alto have proposed a new theory of the nature of matter that could ultimately allow humans to harness the forces of gravity and inertia, bringing an age of space travel and a limitless source of clean energy. (MetroActive; Nov. 4, 1999)

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 'non-observable.' 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 write-up [...]

We do deeply appreciate the courage that researchers such as Haisch and Puthoff have shown in pushing to the zero-point. 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 zero-point 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 zero-point 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 re-ordered 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 mass-energy of the charge, the charge’s mass (and mass-energy) 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 “mass-energy” 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 mass-energy 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 so-called “disordered energy of the vacuum” that are successively absorbed by the charge and transduced into virtual changes in the charge’s mass-energy state. These virtual mass-energy 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 “self-ordering” as has been shown and as is known.

So one must take that “extra step” from the observable zero-point 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 re-ordering 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 zero-point 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 “half-law” 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

# # #

Follow-up Question

From: Ken Rauen
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [NEC-Forum] 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 well-known. 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. 109-110.].

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, Springer-Verlag , 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 Yang-Mills 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 so-called “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. 1-11].

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 z-axis of propagation.  That longitudinal photon by itself is not observable. Finally, there is the time-polarized photon, where the energy vibrates to and fro along the t-axis. That at time-polarized (often called “scalar”) photon is also not individually observable.

But the combination of the longitudinal and time-polarized 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. 333-355.

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. 367-372.

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. 76-78].

* * * *

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.


 

See also

Page composed by Sterling D. Allan Dec. 29, 2005
Last updated December 24, 2014

 

Ads

 

 

"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right." -- Albert Einstein

ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.
Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    "When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."

-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)

SubmitPrivacyAboutContact

PESWiki Departments:
LatestNewsXMLFeedDirectoryCongressTop 5Open Sourcing

PESN.com
Copyright © 2002-2015, PES Network Inc.