When an electron vibrates, on this picture, it attempts to radiate by
producing a field which is a time-symmetric mixture of a retarded wave
propagating into the future and an advanced wave propagating into the
past... The process of absorption involves making the electron that is
doing the absorbing vibrate, and this vibration produces a new retarded
field that exactly cancels out the first retarded field. So in the future
of the absorber, the net effect is that there is no retarded field.
But the absorber also produces a negative-energy advanced wave travelling
backwards in time to the emitter, down the track of the original retarded
wave. At the emitter, this advanced wave is absorbed, making the original
electron recoil in such a way that it radiates a second advanced wave back
into the past. This 'new' advanced wave exactly cancels out the
'original' advanced wave, so that there is no effective radiation going
back into the past before the moment when the original emission occurred.
All that is left is a double wave linking the emitter and the absorber,
made up half of a retarded wave carrying positive energy into the future
and half of an advanced wave carrying negative energy into the past (in
the direction of negative time). Because two negatives make a positive,
this advanced wave adds to the original retarded wave as if it too were a
retarded wave travelling from the emitter to the absorber.
In Cramer's words: 'The emitter can be considered to produce an "offer"
wave to the emitter, and the transaction is completed with a "handshake"
across spacetime.'('Transactional interpretation', p.661)... In reality,
the process is atemporal; it all happens at once. This is because signals
that travel at the speed of light take no time at all to complete any
journey (from a photon's point of view, since relativity theory says that
time slows to a standstill at light speed)... Whether the signals are
travelling backwards or forwards in time doesn't matter, since +0 is the
same as -0... From the perspective of pseudotime, the pair of photons
cannot be emitted until an arrangement has been made to absorb them, and
that absorption arrangement itself determines the polarization of the
emitted photons, even though they are emitted 'before' the absorption takes
place... (Rick, I think this explains your polarization question that
Bearden wouldn't or couldn't explain.)
Cramer is at pains to stress that his interpretation makes no predictions
that are different from those of conventional quantum mechanics, and that
it is offered as a conceptual model which may help people to think clearly
about what is going on in the quantum world...
This dramatic success in resolving all the puzzles of quantum physics has
been achieved at the cost of accepting just one idea that seems to run
counter to common sense - the idea that part of the quantum wave really can
travel backwards though time..."
This ends the excerpts from the book. If you want to know more details,
get the book (Only $11.16 at amazon.com). Now, I will add some comments
of my own: I think that I detect a small hole in this theory. Gribbin
says: "None of the advanced waves survives in a form that would be
detectable in any other way than though this reaction, and all that we can
'see' are the familiar retarded waves." Yet this theory still doesn't
explain why we get a time varying magnetic field whenever we create a time
varying electric field. I propose that we can and do detect this
"advanced wave carrying negative energy into the past", except that when
viewed from our perspective it appears to be a positive energy, 90° out of
phase, magnetic field wave which travels the same "track" as the time
varying electric field wave. These two waves add together to produce the
"double wave linking the emitter and the absorber", or what we would
normally call an ElectroMagnetic wave. This would explain the origin of
the magnetic portion of an EM wave. This would also explain why we can't
find any magnetic monopoles, since the source of these magnetic or "time
reversed" waves is simple another electron in the future and, until we
invent time travel, we can only observe electrons in our present time.
Shall we call this Kooiman's addendum to Cramer's interpretation?
I hesitate to comment on Bearden's work, since I have never heard of him
before visiting your web site and all I know is what I've read there. But,
he does seem to be basically on the right path, even if he does take a few
detours and blind alleys along the way. This is certainly far more than
can be said for mainstream science, which largely ignores Cramer's
interpretation and is still on the wrong path. I do know that I would like
to learn more about Bearden's theories, starting with the basic mathematics
behind Scalar EM. Rick, can you recommend a good starting point or
reference book for me? I notice that amazon.com says that all of Bearden's
books are back ordered because the publisher is currently out of stock:-(
If I could understand the math, I think that I might be able to incorporate
this into the FDTD modeling program that I mentioned earlier. Having a CAD
type program that would accurately model these theories would certainly
help us to design workable and perhaps even optimized devices.
Now on to some real speculation: First, as long as we continue to generate
time symmetric waves every time we jiggle an electron, we are never going
to get anti-gravity or time warps are anything else, except for the usual
stuff. I think that this is basically what Bearden means when he says we
must break symmetry. If my addendum is correct, then another way to say
this is that we need to bend, break, or distort the magnitude and/or the
phase of the normal 90° relationship between the E & M fields. How might
we accomplish this? I don't see any way to do it as long as we are
operating in a linear environment. So, we need some type of non-linear
environment. Perhaps it could be a simple non-linear material, or we might
need to exploit relativistic effects, or perhaps quantum effects, or maybe
we could find some way to drive free space into "saturation". I suppose a
black hole might do the trick, but I'm fresh out of those. Any other
ideas?
Let's explore the non-linear material idea a bit further. Semiconductors
are non-linear, but I don't see any of these devices levitating themselves,
so it must take something more than just that. Coincidentally enough, the
book that I am using as my reference for FDTD modeling has a chapter on
modeling "Gyrotropic Media", which is defined as "materials which are
anisotropic and have a strong frequency dependence in one or more of their
constitutive parameters." It goes on to say that "When subjected to a
constant magnetic bias field, both plasmas and ferrites exhibit anisotropic
constitutive parameters." Hummm... Isn't the "Sweet Device" supposed to
use a barium ferrite? Wasn't the Philadelphia Experiment described to be
surrounded by a glowing greenish mist that many have suggested might be a
plasma? And magnetic fields are said to be involved in both cases,
correct? I'm beginning to get a very warm and fuzzy feeling here. I'm not
quite sure where to go with this next, but "four wave mixing" in a
magnetically biased ferrite or plasma sounds as plausible as anything else.
And I'm anxious to learn more.
Any feedback, comments, suggestions, or other ideas will be appreciated.
Thanks,
John Kooiman
john.kooiman@andrew.com