To science groupings and Bearden grouping of forty five scientists, I think that this note to the Bearden grouping is a clear description of the possibilities that come about when the U(1) gauge freedom concept is replaced by the notion of physically meaningful potentials. I would just like to add that the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with one Dirac electron involves a term proportional to sigma(3) dot A(1) x A(2), which is gauge invariant, but in what electrodynamical symmetry form? If we try the gauge transformation rules of U(1) on the magnetic vector potential we get: A(1) x A(2) goes to (A(1) + div phi(1)) x (A(2) + div phi(2)) where phi(1) and phi(2) are random. So the OBSERVABLE A(1) x A(2) becomes random and UNPHYSICAL. This is a catastrophe for the U(1) electrodynamics. In the O(3) = SU(2) electrodynamics, the magnetic vector potential is physical and the product A(1) x A(2) is gauge covariant according to the rules of non Abelian gauge field theory, based on the rules of general relativity frequently used by Bearden. The gauge transformation or regauging becomes a coordinate transform. The electromagnetic field tensor becomes a commutator of covariant derivatives. These rules are directly akin to their equivalents in general relativity. At present the received theory of non-linear optics inputs A(1) x A(2) as the phenomenological E(1) x E(2), introduced by Pershan in 1963 to predict the inverse Faraday effect. This object does not exist in U(1) electrodynamics, which is linear in E (and B). Obviously, non linear optical concepts were not available to Faraday and Maxwell, and have to be inputted into Maxwellian theory by hand (see M. W. Evans and S. Kielich (eds.), "Modern Nonlinear Optics", (Wiley, New York, 1997, paperback)). In SU(2) = O(3) electrodynamics, which is non-linear, the A(1) x A(2) observable appears from first principles and is gauge covariant, or invariant. This finding alone is conclusive evidence that SU(2) = O(3) electrodynamics can do more than U(1) electrodynamics. As mentioned by Bearden, if non-linearities are introduced, either in thermodynamics or electrodynamics, the U(1) gauge rules are unusable. Significantly, gravitational, strong and weak field theory all contain non-linearities, i.e. non-Abelian commutators. The B(3) field is an example of a physical obervable which is a field that is not gauge invariant in U(1) electrodynamics, because it is not the curl of a magnetic vector potential. It is defined from non Abelian gauge field theory as - i g A(1) x A(2), a pure real quantity. The most general type of gauge field theory used in high energy physics allows all kinds of non-linearities in A. The term A(1) x A(2) is only one of many possibilities. (see L. H. Ryder, "Quantum Field Theory", Cambridge, 1987, second paperback edition), Section 3.6. The general gauge field theory is always, however, gauge covariant. This shows that U(1) is a very artificial special case. The O(3) electrodynamics easily accounts for the success and accuracy of classical electrodynamics because we can obtain from the basic O(3) gauge field equation (a Jacobi identity), the Gauss and Faraday Laws in the same algebraic notation as in U(1) theory. However, we ALSO get the gauge covariant equations (under all conditions): B(3) := - i g A(1) x A(2) g = kappa / A(0) partial B(3) / partial t = 0 B(1) x B(2) = iB(0)B(3)* et cyclicum In the vacuum we do NOT get these in U(1) electrodynamics. If we did there would have been no "B(3) controversy". This controversy is therefore a battle between SU(2) = O(3) and U(1) concepts in classical electrodynamics, a typical post paradigm-shift phase as identified by Kuhn and other philosophers of scientific thought such as Arthur Koestler. This is a particularly fierce battle because it is thought in the received view that U(1) electrodynamics is the most accurate and well tested theory in physics. In fact it is a particular mathematical interpretation of the quaternionic Maxwell equations by Heaviside, as pointed out by both Bearden and Barrett independently and eloquently. The fact that there are nearly thirty debate papers on B(3) theory in several leading journals shows the heat of the debate, which is now clearly being won by the SU(2) = O(3) protagonists. Any open minded scientist comes to this conclusion. As mentioned by Dvoeglazov, every physicist now knows the limits of U(1). This is much too much of an over-statement, but many people are now aware of this debate. MWE PS There are now about 150 scientists and engineers permanently interested in these discussions on the various groupings. The discussion is webbed in full at www.europa.com/~rsc/physics. This receives about 24,000 visits per annum according to latest available statistics (September 1997: 2,100 visits recorded). These facts seem to imply a sea change in electrodynamics. Too many people know about the new view to go back to the old view. --------------------------------------- FROM: INTERNET:Tebearden@aol.com, INTERNET:Tebearden@aol.com TO: (unknown), INTERNET:DADUNES@aol.com CC: (unknown), INTERNET:ippozaeisa.net.au@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:gjohnson@ksu.edu (unknown), INTERNET:bscott@metz.une.edu.au (unknown), INTERNET:thornt_m@motsat.sat.mot.com Prof. G. Kalbermann, INTERNET:HOPE@vms.huji.ac.il (unknown), INTERNET:TCupolo@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:science@mail.frii.com (unknown), INTERNET:dsquires@ix.netcom.com (unknown), INTERNET:Exec-Sec-Central@hq.doe.gov (unknown), INTERNET:btillman@colsa.com (unknown), INTERNET:protech@frii.com (unknown), INTERNET:sorenbh@ibm.net (unknown), INTERNET:RRudo710@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:alexander.s.labounsky@boeing.com Robert G. Flower, INTERNET:chronos@mail.enter.net (unknown), INTERNET:fsmart@tarapublishing.com (unknown), INTERNET:jdodd@hiwaay.net (unknown), INTERNET:aiken@chem.columbia.edu (unknown), INTERNET:henry.monteith@enmu.edu (unknown), INTERNET:jdecker@keelynet.com (unknown), INTERNET:shelburne_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil (unknown), INTERNET:Reed15@marshall.edu (unknown), INTERNET:rbrtbass@pahrump.com (unknown), INTERNET:Sirag@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:Puthoff@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:Mhermanns@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:ziolkowski@ece.arizona.edu Dr Fred Wood, INTERNET:fwood@igc.apc.org Dr Fred Woods Sr., INTERNET:csiri@igc.apc.org (unknown), INTERNET:ExplorePub@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:mps@internetmci.com (unknown), INTERNET:john1@nidlink.com (unknown), INTERNET:orbitx@ois.com.au (unknown), INTERNET:barrier@csranet.com Dr. Terence Barrett, INTERNET:Barrett506@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:4kenmoore@sprintmail.com (unknown), FishnChips (unknown), cliveleach (unknown), [76570,2270] (unknown), [101471,1777] (unknown), steveferguson (unknown), [70403,3645] DATE: 27/11/97 00:09 Re: Re: SPIROV ZeroPoint Sender: Tebearden@aol.com Received: from mrin43.mail.aol.com (mrin43.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.153]) by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.9) with ESMTP id AAA07118; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 00:09:32 -0500 (EST) From: Tebearden@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin43.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA07274; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 00:06:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 00:06:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971127000632_1115399726@mrin43.mail.aol.com> To: DADUNES@aol.com cc: 4kenmoore@sprintmail.com, FishnChips@compuserve.com, Barrett506@aol.com, cliveleach@compuserve.com, barrier@csranet.com, orbitx@ois.com.au, john1@nidlink.com, mps@internetmci.com, ExplorePub@aol.com, csiri@igc.apc.org, fwood@igc.apc.org, ziolkowski@ece.arizona.edu, Mhermanns@aol.com, Puthoff@aol.com, Sirag@aol.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, 101471.1777@compuserve.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, Reed15@marshall.edu, shelburne_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil, jdecker@keelynet.com, steveferguson@compuserve.com, henry.monteith@enmu.edu, aiken@chem.columbia.edu, jdodd@hiwaay.net, fsmart@tarapublishing.com, chronos@mail.enter.net, alexander.s.labounsky@boeing.com, 70403.3645@compuserve.com, RRudo710@aol.com, sorenbh@ibm.net, protech@frii.com, btillman@colsa.com, Exec-Sec-Central@hq.doe.gov, dsquires@ix.netcom.com, science@mail.frii.com, TCupolo@aol.com, HOPE@vms.huji.ac.il, thornt_m@motsat.sat.mot.com, bscott@metz.une.edu.au, gjohnson@ksu.edu, ippozaeisa.net.au@aol.com Subject: Re: SPIROV ZeroPoint Dear Pete, Regauging basically is just changing the potential, which freely alters the potential (collected) energy of a system. Electrodynamics (Maxwellian) in potential form comes out in coupled equations in potentials A (magnetic vector potential) and phi (electrostatic scalar potential). The equations are coupled and variables are not separated. The electrodynamicists needed to separate the variables for mathematical convenience to ease solution of the equations. Early electrodynamicists (Heaviside and after) considered the potentials as mathematical conveniences having no real physical reality. Today we know that is false, and that the potentials are the primary causes of all electrodynamic phenomena . In fact, e.g. the scalar potential phi's magnitude is oddly defined as the amount of energy collecting upon a unit point coulomb of charge placed at a point occupied by that potential (the potential is a bidirectional longitudinal wave flow, as shown by Whittaker in 1903. It is not even a scalar ENTITY. The collection of energy upon an intercepting point coulomb, however, is indeed a scalar value. So the "scalar" potential -- which is really a multivector entity -- has been mistakenly assumed to be a "scalar" ENTITY. A similar thing exists with the "definition" of the E-field magnitude, which is just the gradient in that "collected energy" on that point coulomb that is intercepting and diverging some of the energy flow involved. Notice that rigorously electrodynamics has thus defined electrodynamics (both fields and potentials) only as existing in, on, and of the intercepting mass. Rigorously, what we were taught DOES NOT EXIST AS SUCH in the vacuum! But Maxwellian electrodynamics still has not been changed to alleviate those errors made so long ago (Maxwell wrote his seminal EM paper in 1864. He assumed a material ether. He threw away half the EM and half the energy, by discarding any agent that stressed his "tubes of force" under tensile stress in the vacuum, replacing Faraday's assumed "lines of force" under tensile stress. In not accounting for the stress-producing agent, he discarded Newton's third law from electrodynamics, and it is still erroneously missing from it today. Maxwell, however, carefully pointed out that his work was not finished BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN COMPLETELY UNABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS ASSUMED STRESS IN THE ETHER! To this day electrodynamicists have not accounted for it. Anyhow, to separate the variables, the electrodynamicists assumed an arbitrary change of the phi potential. That was fine, except that it produced an extra free force, which in their mind changed the electrodynamics because it changed the force fields which they thought were the primary causes. Changing the force fields was a no-no. So they accordingly arbitrarily changed the other potential A, but just precisely so that the extra force that THIS change made, was equal and opposite to the first extra force made by the arbitrary change in phi. Well, they reasoned, the two forces being equal and opposite just "cancelled" each other. So they thought the electrodynamics was still the same. That separated the variables and gave them two equations that were now easy to solve. However, consider a system and what you have done to it by such arbitrary assumptions. You have freely changed the energy of the system (regauged it) twice. And you have NOT accounted for where you received that energy FROM. You have also arbitrarily created two extra forces out of nowhere, that are equal and opposite and therefore are stressing the system. So that is NOT the same system conditions at all that you started with! You freely changed its energy twice, and added lots of stress, and arbitrarily excluded jillions of regauging cases where the two extra forces produced ARE NOT equal and opposite. What you did was forcibly bring the system into local thermodynamic equilibrium. That means that classical thermodynamics rigorously applies to this ALTERED system, and so the second law applies and prevents overunity COP. Yet it costs nothing -- as assumed by the electrodynamicists themselves -- to just freely change the potential energy of a system! I.e., to just "regauge" it, whether or not a net extra force is produced. They did it twice, in their assumptions. (In theory you do not have to do work to simply move energy!) Regauging (changing the potential) so that no NET force results, is called sym metrical regauging and is known as the Lorentz condition. We have been trained to design all our systems this way, so they cannot ever go overunity, and cannot just freely output excess energy (which they extract from the ambient vacuum potential that is their ubiquitous external environment). So let's reject that "highly special case" where there is no NET force created by the regauging even though several excess forces may be created. Instead, let us freely change one or both of the potentials, but now in such a manner that there does result a net force. We are just as free to do that, by assumption, as the electrodynamicists are to do it the other way. Well, since a net force remains, we now have to call that "asymmetrical" (i.e., creates a net new force) regauging (change of the potential or potentials). Well, now we have changed the energy of the system freely, and also we have got a new force which we can use to dissipate that excess free energy and do free work in a load. In other words, we have kept the Maxwellian system OUT of local thermodynamic equilibrium, and classical thermodynamics with its infamous second law DOES NOT APPLY. Instead, the nonlinear thermodynamics of an open system freely receiving excess energy from its environment, now applies. Voila! That type of system is permitted to (1) self oscillate, and (2) produce more energy out than the OPERATOR HIMSELF has to input. The extra output energy, of course, is just received from the external environment. It's just like a paddlewheel in a river, and no more strange. To see how the electrodynamicists did the regauging, just check Jackson, second edition, Classical Electrodynamics. He very clearly shows what they did. In particle physics, it has been known for 40 years that any charge or dipole -- either electrical or magnetic -- is a broken symmetry in the violent virtual particle flux (virtual gas) of the vacuum. In fact, it is a "Maxwell's demon" in that it too is an open system, freely receiving energy from the environment, and transforming part of that virtual energy into observable energy and radiating back to the vacuum this OBSERVABLE energy flow as well as the nonobservable virtual flow component. The observable flow is the well-known Poynting flow. Ordinary electrodynamics makes a grave error of first magnitude in just assuming that the charge is the source of E-field, potential, Poynting flow, and all that energy filling space around it. Well, that assumption violates the most sacrosanct law of physics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Electrodynamicists already assume that charges and dipoles CREATE energy and energy flow right out of nothing, because they neglect the vacuum interaction. Particle physics has known that to be wrong for 40 years, and proven it experimentally. But electrodynamic equations and theory have not been changed accordingly. The end result is that every charge and dipole ALREADY is a free energy generator, which pours out energy steadily. It extracts that energy flow directly from the vacuum, and the E-field and phi-potential as defined in electrodynamics are secondary effects created in, on, and of an intercepting mass. The blunt truth is that every power system we ever made already contains a free energy generator (a source dipole) freely extracting energy from the vacuum and pouring it out in a torrent. If we did not use half the free energy collected in the circuit to destroy the source dipole, we could readily have free energy devices. They DO NOT violate the laws of nature, physics, and thermodynamics. For the perpetual motion skeptics, let them just go away and explain why electrodynamics assumes that the charge CREATES energy out of nothing, and pours it out and makes the E-field, the phi potential, the magnetic vector potential, the magnetic field, and so on. According to their skeptism (by the way, their "definitions" already are logically inconsistent and invalid) then all of electrodynamics is violently wrong because it already assumes gobs and gobs of perpetual motion (perpetual energy) machines called charges. A priori, it follows that any electrodynamic argument against perpetual motion machines is invalid because the tool used to "refute" the concept already accepts it implicitly. We just have to learn to collect and use that free energy flow, without passing load current back through the source dipole and scattering it, thereby shutting off the "energy gusher". We are carefully taught to pass all load current back through the source dipole's back emf, just so as to destroy the free energy generator we have already obtained when we separated the charges to make the dipole. That's about as simple as I can say it, if one wishes to be correct and not just blase. One still does have to learn at least some electromagnetics, and what it is all about. There is no shortcut for that. Hope this helps, Tom Bearden