Text: Particle physics already has verified, proven, and accepted that every charge and dipole in the universe (and in every one of our electrical power systems and EM circuits) already extracts and converts and continuously outputs EM 3-energy from the vacuum. Since all EM circuits are "powered" by their charges and dipolarity a priori, then every EM circuit ever built and every power system is already an open EM system far from equilibrium in 3-space and in the t-dimension, but still in perfect equilibrium in EM energy flow in 4-space by converting time into energy. Nature will give us all the EM energy we wish for free, once we pay to make a simple little "dipole" gate. All we have to do is ask her to give us energy, by making that dipole. Then if we will not design systems that viciously destroy that dipole and its free extraction of EM energy from the vacuum, we will have a free gusher of EM energy thereafter. Sadly, all our power engineers are trained to design and build only those type circuits that destroy that source dipole (and thus quench the free flow of EM energy from the vacuum) faster than they power their loads. We pay the power company to deliberately design the power systems and power grid so that they engage in a giant wrestling match inside their generators and lose. Now refer to Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Wiley, 1984, Chapter 5. Instead of just locking in on the silly transverse wave or transverse photon model, QFT has long had four polarizations of the photon. They use the z axis as the direction of propagation, and x and y as transverse axes. So there are two transverse polarizations (x and y, respectively) and a longitudinal polarization (along the z-axis, with the energy density squeezing and expanding like an accordion, along the line of motion). In addition, there is a fourth polarization in the time domain (in that ict axis). That photon is called the time-polarized photon, or just the "scalar" photon, where by "scalar" they mean it has no vector component in 3-space, and so its 3-space component is "scalar" rather than vectorial. [Pond's Note: Raleigh wave is rotational andrevolutional - it is the TIME component.] Mandl and Shaw strongly point out that neither the scalar photon nor the longitudinal photon is individually observable, but the "combination" of the two is observable as the instantaneous scalar potential. We return to our source charge as a set of composite dipoles. Between the ends of any one of those composite dipoles, there exists a scalar potential. With respect to photons, this is an instantaneous scalar potential, created by two photons in conjunction: a scalar (time-polarized) photon and a longitudinal photon. However, Mandl and Shaw do not show the "combining process" nor a cause and effect for the process that does the combining. That's why the source charge problem remained unsolved till we proposed the resolution in 2000. The combining process implicitly assumed by Mandl and Shaw is nothing but the absorption of one of the photons by a ubiquitously assumed unit point charge, and the subsequent emission of the other photon. The absorbed photon is the "cause" or the input energy, the output photon is the "effect" or the output energy, and the total absorption/emission interaction (which involves both cause and effect) is the combining mechanism. [Pond Note: This absorption is the collapse of the centripetal vortex.] A negative charge absorbs the scalar photon (energy from time) and emits the longitudinal photon (energy into 3-space). (Note that this continually kills increment after increment of "ongoing time", accounting for the sharp separation between future and past). A positive charge absorbs the longitudinal photon in 3-space (not individually observable, so our instruments cannot detect it) and emits the scalar photon in the time domain. Or, we may state that the positive charge absorbs negative time energy and emits negative 3-space longitudinal EM wave energy. To see how "time is energy", consider the following. Suppose we have some EM energy available in 3-space. Suppose we now compress that energy by the factor c-squared. What can we do with this highly compressed spatial energy? Suppose we just leave it there in 3-space. In that case, it is known and recognized as "mass". This gives us no problem in our understanding, since Einstein's theory and the dawn of the nuclear age. Every schoolchild now understands that mass is highly compressed spatial energy (by the factor c-squared). But suppose that, instead of leaving our compressed spatial energy in 3-space, we place it over on the fourth Minkowski axis. The only "place" to place it in ict is in the t. So if we place it there, it is known and recognized as "time". So time has the same energy density as mass! A little time produces a large amount of spatial energy if decompressed into time-energy again. That is, one second of time energy, when transduced into decompressed spatial energy, produces some 9 x 1016 joules of energy. Again, Tesla was correct. Enormous EM energy can be easily extracted from space (where we mean "spacetime"), and it is so extracted by every charge in the universe and by every dipole. To see how using time as energy is rigorous, consider this: In physics, the fundamental units we choose to build our physics model are completely arbitrary. We can in fact build a perfectly valid physics model, using only a single fundamental unit. There is already a system of physics (used by theoreticians active in quantum field theory and particle physics) that does that, and it is used by those physicists all the time (it uses the single fundamental unit as "mass"). For a strong confirmation, see J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Third Edition, Wiley, 1998, p. 775. As Jackson points out, "In quantum field theory, powers of the coupling constant play the role of the other basic units in doing dimensional analysis." So suppose we also choose to use a single fundamental unit to make our physics model, and we choose the joule as our unit. In our model, everything else becomes a function of energy. Mass is purely a function of energy‹and E = m c-squared does not bother us. But now time also becomes purely a function of energy, just as is mass. In that way, we can see a complete justification for treating time as energy. As it turns out, time has the same energy density as mass. So every charge and dipole already practice a special form of "nuclear energy" that is just as powerful as the regular nuclear energy‹except it is totally clean, and no nuclear reactions are necessary. Not only was Tesla referring to extraction of EM energy, but he was referring to absolutely clean extraction of the energy, with no nuclear wastes or combustion byproducts to pollute the biosphere. So let us examine dipole and its ongoing interactions again. What we have going on in 4-space is the input of time-energy (scalar photons) to the negative charge from the time-axis, transduction of that absorbed energy into 3-space (by the 720 degree spin of the negative charge), and re-emission of that excitation energy (now existing in 3-space) out into 3-space in all directions. At the same time, on the positive end of the dipole we have the input of positive 3-space energy but in longitudinal (unobservable) photon form. The positive 3-space energy is absorbed by the positive charge, transduced into the time domain by the 720 degree spin of the charge, and re-emitted as positive energy in the time domain to "feed" back to the negative charge end of the dipole. So what is created by a source charge (considered with its clustering virtual charges of opposite sign) is an unusual and continuous circulation of longitudinally-oscillating EM energy, from the time axis to 3-space and back to the time axis. In the AC case, we continually reverse the dipole, so we continually reverse the circulation direction. That "4-space EM energy circulation" and its intensity is what spreads out in 4-space from that charge. The circulation spreads out AS THE SO-CALLED ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE IN SPACE, once the dipole is formed. The EM wave as it exists in spacetime is nonobservable. Only when we use another charge as the "detector", can we "see" the spreading "EM force field" developed on the charge (and not in space). Since all observation is 3-spatial (observation is a d/dt operator imposed on an ongoing 4-space process, resulting in an instant and frozen single 3-space snapshot), we just "see" that scalar potential across the detecting charge, the gradient in it called the "electric field", the swirl in it called the "magnetic field" , etc. Anyway, the most fundamental macroscopic EM system of all‹a single observable charge‹is already an open system far from equilibrium in 3-space, producing a spreading 4-space circulation of energy wherein time is converted to 3-energy and 3-energy is converted back to time. The EM wave is actually and oscillating change of time-energy into 3-energy and vice versa. It is thus an oscillating curvature of spacetime. Every circuit we ever built, extracts its EM 3-energy from the time-domain and is powered by converted vacuum energy extracted by the source dipole in the generator or battery. We simply 'convert some time' to make EM 3-energy. Generators and batteries do not power their external circuit; instead, they power the continual reconstitution of the dipole, which the closed current loop circuit keeps destroying faster than it powers the load. The dipole, once made, extracts the EM energy from the vacuum (from the time-domain), and that is what produces the Poynting energy pouring forth from the terminals of the battery or generator, with some being intercepted and caught by the surface charges in the external circuit. Half of the "intercepted and collected" 3-energy caught in that external circuit is then used to destroy the source dipole that the generator just made. The other half of the collected energy is used to power the losses in the external circuit and the load. So less of the collected energy powers the load than powers the destruction of the dipole. Hence we have to continually turn the shaft of the generator, to make some more internal magnetic energy, in order to continually force the charges apart again and remake the dipole‹that our inane closed current loop circuit keeps destroying faster than the load is powered. The ultimate "fuel" and fueling process is now, always has been, and always will be the conversion of time to 3-energy. Every EM circuit uses that. Every electrical power system uses it‹but the electrical engineers do not even realize what actually powers every power grid and every circuit. The model they use does not even include the vacuum interaction, and it does not include a broken symmetry in that interaction, even though the charge as a set of dipoles, the energetic vacuum interaction with the charge -- and the dipole's broken symmetry in that interaction -- has been proven for more than 40 years in particle physics. We also took the Whittaker scalar potential between the ends of each dipole, corrected Whittaker's misinterpretation (he used two effects rather than a cause and an effect in an ongoing interaction) and got perfect agreement of the Whittaker decomposition of the scalar potential with the above. An electrodynamicist who does not understand the above, just needs to discover what has been known in physics (and proven) for nearly a half century. None of the above is in Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz classical electrodynamics. The basis for all of it has been in particle physics and quantum field theory for decades. There is no problem at all in extracting all the EM energy one wishes, right from space, at any point in the universe, cheaply and cleanly. The only energy problem is in (1) intercepting and catching some of the gushing energy from the dipole in an external circuit, (2) dissipating the caught FREE energy flow in a load to power it, and (3) doing it without destroying the source dipole faster than the load is powered. It is ironic that Tesla foresaw the gist of all this. And it is even more ironic that no university or electrical engineering department or government agency even knows today precisely what powers a circuit, or what furnishes the actual EM energy to the electrical power grid. It is also ironic that the real energy problem is not being worked on by any university, by any electrical engineering department, or by any government agency anywhere in the civilized world. It is not being worked on -- or even recognized -- by the NAS or NSF, or by the DOE, or by the national laboratories, or by the leaders of the scientific community. Every charge and dipole in the universe already proves that open EM systems in disequilibrium with the vacuum are permitted, because every EM circuit and power system is already precisely such a system. Any scientist who ignores the source charge problem (continuous free production of 3-space EM energy, to continuously make and spread its fields and potentials and their energy) is just ill-informed or dogmatic or both. One must read the scientific literature, and not just the electrical engineering textbooks. None of the above is in the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz theory because neither modern particle physics nor quantum electrodynamics nor special and general relativity nor quantum mechanics nor quantum field theory had yet been born, when Maxwell wrote his theory. To make it worse, in the 1880s Lorentz's symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations unwittingly discarded all Maxwellian systems far from equilibrium with their active environment. That is why the source charge problem was never solved: The solution does not even exist in the altered classical electrodynamics once the Lorentz symmetry condition has been imposed, and the equations simplified so they no longer prescribe any EM systems in disequilibrium with their active environment. In short, Lorentz effectively eliminated any net effect from the EM system's active environment. Effectively he eliminated the electrical windmills, except those built in a closed barn where no free environment energy flow (wind) could reach them and affect them and be used by them. To continue to adhere to more than a century old fraction of the theory (Maxwell's seminal paper was published in 1865, and lists his 20 quaternion-like equations and his 20 unknowns) is ridiculous. But continuing to enforce this great curtailment and self-limitation of Maxwell's theory does keep that meter on the gas pump for one's automobile, and keeps that electrical meter on one's house. And it keeps those train loads of coal and pipelines of natural gas and tankers of oil flowing to the power plants to be burned to boil the water to make steam to power the steam turbines to rotate the generator shafts to make the source dipoles that then extract the EM energy from the vacuum, transduce it, and furnish it out of the terminals and along the conductors of the power grid so that some can be caught to power the power grid loads and losses. But half of what is caught in the grid is then deliberately used to continuously destroy that source dipole in the distant generator, due to the ubiquitous usage of the closed current loop circuit, thus destroying the "energy gusher" faster than the load can be powered. So we stress that Lorentz's symmetrizing of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations (i.e., his symmetrizing of Heaviside's curtailment of the Maxwell theory) in the 1880s (after Maxwell's death) just arbitrarily discarded all open EM systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium with their active environment. Hardly any universities and electrical engineering departments even teach that. Most do not even realize it. Tesla knew it, and also understood how to shuttle the potential energy around in his circuits at will. Oddly, Tesla's shuttling of the potential energy around in his patented circuits cannot even be seen by the standard vector or tensor electrodynamics analysis. It can be seen, however, in a higher group symmetry electrodynamics, such as quaternions. E.g., for the proof see T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. In short, Lorentz changed Maxwell-Heaviside theory so that it no longer permits or includes the action ongoing by the source charge, since by the resulting enforced 3-space observation every charge and dipole in the universe violated the energy conservation law and is a perpetual motion machine, freely creating from nothing that freely outpoured EM energy in 3-space. Again, that is why the source charge problem was not resolved. The solution does not even exist in the very limited Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz curtailed model now used by the classical electrodynamicists and electrical engineers. And used in the design of every power system. So the interested electrodynamicist has a choice: Either he can change his model and update that ancient 1865 Maxwell theory (as further curtailed by Heaviside and again by Lorentz), or he can go down in history as ardently being one of the greatest perpetual motion advocates of all time, since he advocates either willingly or unwillingly that (1) every charge in the universe is a perpetual motion machine already, freely creating and gushing forth energy from nothing, and (2) conservation of energy is therefore not a viable law in the universe. In his advocated model, the charge and the dipole are inescapably perpetual motion machines. In a more complete and more advanced model, they are not perpetual motion machines at all, but free energy converters and one of the great blessings for humanity if our scientists but realize it and use it. So as can be seen, Tesla was correct in stating that there was enormous EM energy in space. He was also correct in stating that it can be extracted. Indeed, every charge and dipole in the universe continuously pours out EM energy, extracting it from its interaction with the virtual photon flux of the vacuum. Quantum field theory agrees. Particle physics agrees. The 1903 Whittaker decomposition of the scalar potential, as reinterpreted, agrees. It is only the archaic classical electrodynamics using the Lorentz regauging condition, taught in our universities and particularly in our electrical engineering departments, that still disagrees. And it is wrong, while Tesla was correct.

See Also:

Source: