Fact Sheet 2003-03

1

LEYTO N ’S H I ER A R C H I ES O F SYMM ETR Y :

SO LUTI O N TO TH E MA JO R AS YM M ETR Y

PR O B LEM OF TH ERM O DYNA M I C S 1

© T. E. Bearden August 22, 2003; updated July 4, 2004.

THE PROBLEM: THERMODYNAMICS HAS A TEMPORAL ASYMMETRY

PROBLEM, RECOGNIZED FOR A CENTURY, BECAUSE THE SECOND LAW

EXCLUDES NEGATIVE ENTROPY PROCESSES AND NATURE DOES NOT.

Assuming some controlled available system energy to start with, the second law provides that, in subsequent interactions, the entropy S of a system can only remain

the same or increase. Or, S 0, once the subsequent interactions start.

This says nothing at all about how the initial available excess system energy got there.

The recognized major problem in thermodynamics arises from the present Second Law. As Price states {1}:

"A century or so ago, Ludwig Boltzmann and other physicists attempted to explain the temporal asymmetry of the second law of thermodynamics. …the hard-won lesson of that endeavor—a lesson still commonly misunderstood—was that the real puzzle of thermodynamics is not why entropy increases with time, but why it was ever so low in the first place."

The real problem is: “Given the Second Law’s prohibition of negative entropy operations, how did the initial order (energy) get there in the first place, in any system?” This is simply the same “Problem with the Second Law”. As far as the present form of the Second Law is concerned, acquisition of the original energy could only have been “created from nothing”. Of course that violates the First Law, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

This means that thermodynamics is presently self-inconsistent—which causes the “greatest problem in thermodynamics itself.”

The problem particularly arises in prevailing notions of the origin of the universe, whether “big bang” or “steady whimper”. A great deal of organization and energy came from somewhere or somehow, in a relatively short time cosmologically, to initially generate enormous negative entropy {2} shortly after the beginning.

If the energy of our observable universe somehow came from “outside” (thus saving energy conservation), then it represented “loss” of available energy (positive entropy) to that outside source, and “gain” of available energy (negative entropy) to our universe.

1 An earlier version of this Fact Sheet is published in Explore, 12(6), 2003, p. 59-61.

Fact Sheet 2003-03

2

This suggests a possible clue to the solution: Look for a lower or “outside” broken symmetry generating a higher negative entropy (higher symmetry) across an interface between the outside source and our observable universe.

We find precisely this required characteristic in a combination of (i) Leyton’s object-oriented geometry with advanced new group theoretic methods, (ii) his resulting hierarchies of symmetry {3}, and (iii) the broken symmetries of particle physics.

Further, our observable state physical universe is energetically separated from its associated virtual state vacuum by a quantum threshold interface. The vacuum has extraordinary virtual energy density {4} and continuously exchanges energy with observable state matter and charges. This exchange generates all observable forces of nature, in the modern particle physics view.

We are thus focused directly upon the disordered virtual energy of the vacuum, and some required process to coherently integrate disordered virtual vacuum energy into ordered observable energy, crossing the quantum threshold boundary and providing a universal negative entropy process. As we shall see, Leyton already provides this.

In recognition of the “major problem of thermodynamics”, Price also states {5}:

"…the major task of an account of thermodynamic asymmetry is to explain why the universe as we find it is so far from thermodynamic equilibrium, and was even more so in the past."

A universal theoretical process for producing continuous negative entropy will of course solve the problem, if a physical system producing it can also be exhibited experimentally. Leyton’s hierarchies of symmetry provides the theoretical process {3}, and every charge in the universe is already just such a required physical system obeying Leyton’s principle, as pointed out by the present author {6}.

Experimentally any charge can be shown to continuously emit observable photons in all directions as real EM energy, without any observable EM energy input. Hence the associated EM fields and potentials are established and maintained by the continuous energy outpouring of their source charges.

The question of how a charge continuously radiates real EM energy with no detectable energy input was unsolved for more than a century. E.g., Sen {7} stated:

"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics."

Kosyakov {8} states the problem bluntly:

"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?”

With no observable energy input, either the source charge continuously creates observable energy from nothing and destroys the conservation of energy law, or else the input energy does exist but is in disordered virtual state form. In the latter case, there must then exist a coherent integration process to integrate disordered virtual energy into ordered observable energy.

These “source charge difficulties” were not solved prior to the present author’s solution {6} in 2000. We have also now given the exact physical mechanism for the required coherent integration process.

Fact Sheet 2003-03

3

The integration process is as follows: Each virtual photon absorbed by the source charge is changed to a differential dm of the charge’s mass m. Mass-energy is unitary, so the direction from which the photon energy absorption occurs is immaterial. Each successive absorption of a virtual photon produces an additional dm. As a function of time, the total mass differential Dm(t) is given by the additive series Dm(t) = (dm1 + dm2 + ... + dmi + …) and the mass-energy is given by m + Dm(t) = m + (dm1 + dm2 + ... + dmi + …). When the steadily integrating Dm(t) reaches the energy excitation level required for an observable photon, it has reached the quantum level that separates virtual state from observable state. At that point the constant zitterbewegung of the vacuum simply “knocks out” the excitation photon energy Dm(t) as an emitted observable photon, resulting in the sharp decay of the excitation energy level (m + Dm) back to m. The process iterates, providing continual emission of real, observable photons from the source charge—without any observable energy input—while obeying the conservation of energy law.

By this process, the charge continuously consumes positive entropy of the disordered virtual state vacuum, and produces negative entropy—in the form of its ordered fields and potentials—at the next higher level, the observable state. The intensities of the associated fields and potentials of the charge, of course, are ordered as a function of radial distance. This is in accord with Leyton’s hierarchies of symmetry principle.

As a physical EM system continuously producing negative entropy, the source charge completely falsifies the present highly restricted Second Law of thermodynamics, and requires its updating and correction.

FACTS BEARING ON THE PROBLEM: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SECOND

LAW AND ITS EXPERIMENTAL FALSIFICATION.

The present form of the Second Law rigorously applies only at near-equilibrium and equilibrium conditions {9}, and one-way in between (from an initially excited system state to its later equilibrium state). In fact, the Second Law is merely a disguised statement that a slightly excited (and slightly out of equilibrium) system will—in subsequent interactions—mostly decay to the equilibrium condition (the condition of maximum entropy). It does not address the negative entropy operation necessary to excite the system’s departure from equilibrium in the first place, thereby reducing its entropy. In short, it is a “special situation” law only.

The present Second Law was never a general law of nature as it has been mistakenly interpreted for more than a century. Indeed, it has always been an oxymoron assuming its own contradiction has first occurred, before the entropy accounting begins.

The Second Law is statistical, so it need not apply to just a few involved entities where statistical analysis is inapplicable. This is the accepted “small number” violation of the Second Law, which is well-known.

The Second Law is also violated in transient statistical fluctuations {10}, where usual entropic reactions may run backwards and produce negative entropy for a time. An especially important fluctuation theorem involving this effect has been given by Evans and Searles {11}. It was further generalized by Crooks {12}.

Wang et al. {13} have experimentally shown such actual fluctuation violations in chemical solutions at cubic micron level and for up to two seconds. In water, e.g., a cubic micron contains some 30 billion ions and molecules. In an ensemble of up to

Fact Sheet 2003-03

4

that size, under conditions shown by Wang et al., negative entropy reactions can occur for up to two seconds and sometimes longer {14}.

Evans and Rondoni {15} then showed that systems continuously producing negative entropy are possible in theory. Startled, they felt that real physical systems could not exhibit such behavior, but admitted that

“…the problem persists for situations arbitrarily close to equilibrium, and for all deterministic dissipative dynamics."

However, every charge in the universe already exhibits precisely such continuous negative entropy production {6}, as we have pointed out. Further, the source charge’s “dissipation” emission of observable photons is deterministic since the resulting intensities of the fields and potentials are deterministic as a function of radial distance from the charge. Hence the source charge and its fields and potentials constitute a physical example of a real EM system fulfilling the statement by Evans and Rondoni {15} of the “persistence of the continuous negative entropy system problem for all deterministic dissipative dynamics.”

The source charge problem was unsolved for a century. It was so embarrassing that it was scrubbed out of the classical electromagnetics (CEM) and electrical engineering (EE) texts. Hence the current conventional CEM/EE model implicitly assumes that the source charge does produce its associated fields and potentials and their energy, but that it freely creates all that energy “right out of nothing at all”, in total violation of the conservation of energy law.

The reason that CEM and EE have not solved the problem is simple: It cannot be solved by classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics methods. The CEM and EE model does not model the virtual state vacuum and its known and proven energetic interaction with the source charge. Hence the model does not contain the solution—or even the possibility for the solution—of the source charge problem.

To evoke the proven asymmetry of opposite charges, our solution to the source charge problem {6} is also based on the accepted quantum field theory view of the charge and its vacuum polarization as a special dipolar ensemble {16}. The bare charge in the middle is surrounded by virtual charges of opposite sign in the polarized vacuum. Both charges are infinite, but their difference is finite and is the textbook value of the “classical charge”—what the external observer sees or measures of the internal infinite bare charge through its external screening vacuum infinite charge of opposite sign.

o The ensemble exhibits the known broken symmetry of opposite charges.

o The charge ensemble thus continuously absorbs virtual photons from the seething vacuum, coherently integrates the absorbed energy, and re-emits observable photons. Thus the source charge pours out real photons in all directions, establishing and continuously replenishing its so-called “static” fields and potentials, spreading outward at light speed.

o The coherent integration process of the excitation and decay “pumping” of the charged mass continually consumes positive entropy of the disordered virtual particle flux of the vacuum, and continually converts it to negative entropy output in the observable state.

o The resulting fields and potentials that are established and continually replenished, are deterministically ordered as a function of radial distance.

Fact Sheet 2003-03

5

This process produces ordered, observable macroscopic EM energy from the vacuum’s disordered virtual energy flux.

o Thermodynamically the charge is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system, continuously fed by vacuum energy, and continuously performing work to transduce the form of the absorbed virtual energy into emitted observable energy.

o It is also a deterministic process, since the emitted photon energy intensity is ordered with respect to radial distance from the source charge.

Thus every charge continuously produces negative entropy as shown theoretically possible by Evans and Rondoni {15} for deterministic NESS systems. The charge continuously consumes positive entropy in the virtual state and produces negative entropy in the observable state—including macroscopically to any size desired, as its ordered fields and potentials spread outward at light speed.

Simply regauging a system to increase its potential energy—ubiquitously permitted and used in gauge field theory and by every electrodynamicist—totally violates the Second Law at any size level and for any period of time, so long as the regauged energy is usable by the system. The potential—and therefore the ordered, available potential energy—of an EM system can be freely changed in magnitude at will, by the well-known gauge freedom principle {17}.

But to be a negative entropy operation for the system, excess energy must be freely received by the system and must be usable by the system. This means that the regauging must be asymmetrical rather than symmetrical. It also would seem that the free net new force created by asymmetrical regauging must not act (translate spatially) during the regauging process. Nonetheless, asymmetrical regauging to increase the potential energy of the system directly falsifies the present Second Law, since it is a negative entropy operation. It also falsifies that assumption in the First Law which holds that any change in the magnitude of an external system parameter (such as its scalar potential V) constitutes work a priori. Hence a slight revision of the First Law is indicated, and a wholesale revision of the Second Law is indicated.

Oddly, electrodynamicists universally use free regauging, but by convention they arbitrarily utilize two asymmetrical regaugings specifically chosen to make the net regauging symmetrical {18}. In that case, the freely regauged system cannot then use its excess free regauging energy to do work in the load! Instead, the symmetrically regauged system merely “locks up” its excess free regauging energy as excess stress in the system, by specifically creating two new forces that are equal and opposite and thus can only stress the system! Arbitrarily, regauging is only done by our electrodynamicists and electrical engineers so there can be no allowed net force field resultant to dissipate the free excess regauging energy by using it to push electron current through the load and provide free work in the load.

Our own theoreticians have unwittingly and deliberately excised that entire class of vacuum-powered COP > 1.0 Maxwell-Heaviside systems from the theory, in order to achieve “simpler” equations more readily having closed analytical solutions! In the blind devotion to symmetry and “beauty”, generations of theorists and engineers have set up and implemented the huge and terribly destructive “symmetrically regauging” electrical power system we use today, and for which we so monstrously ravage the earth and its biosphere.

Fact Sheet 2003-03

6

o As a demonstrable example, voltage amplification or transfer in a system, without allowing system current flow, is work-free and involves only energy transfer in the same form. We strongly stress that work is the changing of the form of some energy, not the changing of its magnitude if it remains in the same form. Mere change of magnitude of a single potential by input of energy in the same form is asymmetrical regauging.

o For asymmetrical regauging, the present second law is falsified by the gauge freedom axiom of gauge field theory. Asymmetrical regauging involves a negative entropy operation for the system, where the magnitude of the sysem’s available and usable potential energy is freely increased at will.

o Again, to be scientifically consistent, either the present Second Law statement must be substantially corrected and the First Law statement must be slightly corrected, or else gauge freedom must be surrendered.

The Second Law is already an approximate and “very leaky” law at best, and in some cases—such as for the source charge and its associated fields and potentials, and in asymmetrical regauging—it is demonstrably wrong {19}. In the case of regauging, the freely altered potential of the system may extend outward in space to infinity. Hence asymmetric regauging can apply to any macroscopic size and time duration desired—resulting in falsifying the Second Law statement to any macroscopic size and time duration desired.

The present Second Law excludes negative entropy processes, yet negative entropy processes and systems do experimentally exist. We conclude that the present form of the Second Law is experimentally and theoretically falsified. Otherwise, the gauge freedom axiom would be falsified and would have to be surrendered. Further, the present First Law would also have to be given up, because creation of energy by every charge would exist, totally falsifying the First Law.

Asymmetrical regauging is an example of precursor engineering {20}—beyond the scope of this fact sheet—which will be covered in a separate fact sheet of its own. Asymmetrical regauging is an easily-demonstrated example of negative entropy engineering. But since our theoreticians and engineers have pursued only symmetrical regauging, they have also unwittingly excluded negative entropy engineering, giving us the entropic engineering we have all been falsely told is “inevitable”. It is inevitable only so long as we insist on using symetrically regauged models and then using closed current loop circuits with the “external” source of free potential energy flow being wired into the circuit as a “load” whose dipolarity (and thus ability to freely furnish potential energy flow) is thereby destroyed, deliberately self-enforcing the theorists’ insistence on symmetrical regauging only.

The task, then, is to correct the Second Law to permit the production of either positive or negative entropy, thereby bringing it into compliance (i) with the requirement for gauge freedom, and (ii) with experiment. For this general correction, we require Leyton’s object-oriented geometry and his hierarchy of symmetries {3}.

MORE FACTS: LEYTON’S NEW OBJECT-ORIENTED GEOMETRY AND

HIERARCHIES OF SYMMETRY VS. THE OLDER KLEIN GEOMETRY.

Since 1872, much of physics and most of thermodynamics are based on Felix Klein’s geometry {21,22} and his group theoretic methods. Leyton’s object-oriented geometry, his new class of groups, and his advanced group theoretic methods {3}

Fact Sheet 2003-03

7

dramatically exceed Klein geometry and methods. Leyton’s profound work heralds future profound advances in science.

In Klein’s geometry and more limited group methods, a broken symmetry at a given level loses the symmetry information and reduces the overall group symmetry.

In Leyton’s geometry and with his more advanced group methods, a broken symmetry at a given level generates a new symmetry at the next higher level. The information of the lower level is also retained and not lost. Hence in Leyton’s approach, a broken symmetry at one level retains the symmetry information of that level, creates an additional higher symmetry, and increases the overall group symmetry.

This automatic generation of a higher symmetry by a lower level broken symmetry is the Leyton effect. At the new higher level, symmetry can then be broken to again generate a yet higher level symmetry. And so on. Hence the Leyton effect generates a hierarchy of symmetries, increased and knit together by broken symmetries.

The Leyton effect is a general negative entropy process. It also allows for converting disordered energy at one level into ordered energy at the next level, given the necessary coherent integrating process such as we present for the source charge.

The Leyton effect and its resulting hierarchies of symmetry are knit together by negative entropy processes. Thus they specifically falsify the present statement of the Second Law of thermodynamics. Hence the Second Law must be revised to include the Leyton effect (negative entropy, negative entropy processes, and negative entropy-producing systems).

THE RESULTING SOLUTION: ADOPT LEYTON’S MORE ADVANCED

OBJECT-ORIENTED GEOMETRY, APPLY LEYTON’S HIERARCHIES OF

SYMMETRY, AND REWRITE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

The present Second Law of thermodynamics can be stated as:

“Given some available controlled order (available controlled energy) in a system, this initial controlled order will either remain the same or be progressively disordered and decontrolled over time by subsequent entropic interactions.”

Or, simply put, dS/dt 0. The system is assumed close to equilibrium but still out of it, and is merely decaying back to equilibrium, thus increasing its entropy. If the system is far from equilibrium and is not decaying back to equilibrium, its entropy can even be increasing. Hence this Second Law statement does not apply to that system. An example is any nonequilibrium steady-state (NESS) system. Another example is any system while departing—statistically or deterministically—from equilibrium, thereby reducing its entropy by such departure.

Total violation of the present Second Law is easy: Simply potentialize an EM system or circuit, while “freezing” the system current to zero. The moment the system departs from equilibrium because of its excess excitation and asymmetrical regauging, it has just violated the present Second Law by applying asymmetrical regauging. So the Second Law as written does not describe nature generally, but only describes a very special situation.

In accord with Leyton’s geometry and methods, the revised Second Law can be stated as:

Fact Sheet 2003-03

8

"First a negative entropy interaction occurs in the system to produce some controlled order (available controlled energy). Then that initial available controlled order will either remain the same (not be dissipated) or be progressively disordered and decontrolled (dissipated) by subsequent entropic interactions over time, unless additional negative entropy interactions also occur and intervene."

Or, simply put, < dS/dt < + if negative entropy interactions also occur as well as positive entropy interactions.

The revised Second Law is now consistent with experiment {11,13,19}, with the source charge solution {6}, with theoretical proof that negative entropy producing systems can exist {15}, with the gauge freedom axiom, and with Leyton’s geometry and hierarchies of symmetry {3}. It is inconsistent with Klein geometry {21,22} and Klein group methods, but these are only a shadow of the Leyton geometry and thus cannot limit the Leyton effect and Leyton’s hierarchies of symmetry.

In addition, the new second law statement resolves the asymmetry problem of thermodynamics {1,5}, given that negative entropy processes occurred at or during the formation of the present universe. And present astronomical evidence supports it.

IMPLICATIONS: WE ARGUE THAT:

The adoption of Leyton’s geometry and his group theoretic methods {3} will herald a new revolution in physics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, and chemistry.

The coming revolution will be as profound as was the prediction of broken symmetry by Lee and Yang {23}, followed by its quick experimental proof by Wu et al. {24}.

Leyton’s geometry and methods have already been very successfully applied to robotics and pattern recognition. They already work in many cases where the Klein geometry and Klein group theoretic methods fail.

The Leyton change now thermodynamically prescribes EM power systems such as the source charge, which freely extract useful and observable EM energy from the virtual energy of the vacuum.

The new approach thus leads directly to a great new re-examination of the present theory of electrical power systems. EM systems that violate the present incomplete thermodynamics are quite possible and several areas where the processes violate the Second Law are already known {11,13,19,25}. The Bohren-type experiment {25,26} involving negative resonance absorption of the medium also provides a well-known and experimentally proven, replicable process, in the UV or IR domain, in which 18 times as much energy is re-emitted by the absorbing medium as is directly input to it by Poynting energy flow calculations. The excess input energy, of course, comes from the local active vacuum environment.

The new approach leads toward the rapid development of negentropic engineering {20,27}, contrasted to the present highly wasteful and polluting positive entropy engineering.

Presently, positive entropy engineering is universally used in electrical power systems because of

o the present limited and usually erroneous Second Law of thermodynamics,

o the use of the overly limited Klein geometry and Klein group theoretic methods,

Fact Sheet 2003-03

9

o the false assumption by CEM and EE of force fields in mass-free space,

o the failure of CEM and EE to model the curved spacetime and active vacuum (active environment) interactions back upon every dynamic EM system,

o the failure to realize that any EM field or potential in space is a set of free and continuous EM energy flows, as shown by Whittaker a century ago {28,29},

o the failure to engineer the precursor force-free fields of energy flows that exist as force-free fields and potentials—and thus as sets of free EM energy flows—in space and then interact with matter to form force fields in that interacting matter, and

o the failure to correct several major errors in thermodynamics—such as the present falsifiable Second Law and a false assumption in the present formulations of the first law where scientists assumed that change of magnitude of potential energy (an external parameter of the system) is work a priori. Mere change of magnitude of the potential energy may be achieved by simple energy transfer and asymmetrical regauging, without change of form of the energy. In that case, no work occurs, since work is rigorously the change of form of energy, not its change of magnitude in the same form.

Several inventors presently have useful COP > 1.0 laboratory bench top working models clearly proving the principle of extracting EM energy from the vacuum.

o The critical phenomenology of these units is not covered in electrical engineering and cannot be described by the classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics.

o To master and use the critical new phenomena, new test means and instruments must be developed or adapted from areas of physics other than electrical engineering.

o Nonlinear oscillation (including chaotic oscillation) and control techniques must be applied and stabilized.

o “Supersystem” interactions between the active vacuum, physical system, and curved spacetime must be modeled and verified experimentally.

o The scientific community should also set up funded programs for doctoral candidates and young post doctoral scientists to research and work in the area. If this were done, explosive development and initiation of “EM energy from the vacuum” technology would quickly occur, permanently solving the increasingly critical energy crisis.

Given funding to seriously model and control the critical phenomenology, so that proper technical models can be developed for engineering and scale-up, several known prototype inventions can be further developed into a set of robust prototypes that are both well-controlled and properly understood and modeled. In that way, the technology for directly extracting and using copious EM energy from the vacuum can be developed.

In his new geometry and advanced new group theoretic methods, Leyton has already laid down the “grand principles” necessary. The “hierarchies of symmetry” (Leyton Effect) {3} assures that nature has indeed provided for real systems continuously producing negative entropy as theoretically predicted by Evans and Rondoni {15}. The discovery that—together with its polarization of its surrounding vacuum—every

Fact Sheet 2003-03

10

charge in the universe already physically demonstrates the Leyton Effect and is an “energy from the vacuum” system, settles the long festering issues with the Second Law of thermodynamics and forces that law’s revision. Gauge freedom also corrects or extends the First Law to allow work-free asymmetric regauging of selected system’s external parameters, and corresponding free increase of the potential energy of electrical power systems, at will.

That such “energy from the vacuum” technology has been powerfully resisted and suppressed, and has not been already developed, is a sad commentary on the responsiveness and alacrity—or lack of same—of the orthodox scientific community. All the principles referred to are already in the physics journals and scientific literature. Inexplicably, the very serious flaws in the electrical engineering model have not been corrected in more than a century. As Max Planck stated {30}:

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."

Meanwhile, the rate of new oil discovery per drilling foot {31} has declined from 200 barrels of oil per drilling foot to 8 barrels of oil per drilling foot—a decline of 96%. The measure is still shrinking in value. This dramatic decline in new oil discovery efficiency clearly shows the peaking amount of oil in the world, in the face of a surging and continually escalating energy demand. This very dramatically points out the end of cheap oil as we have known it. The coming world energy crunch—and potentially a catastrophic economic crunch—is also easily seen, unless oil can be successfully replaced fairly quickly {32}.

The potential for a catastrophic coming U.S. economic collapse is readily seen when terrorist assets and capabilities already inserted into the United States are factored into (i) the deadly vulnerability of our present centralized power system {33}, and (ii) the coming crisis in oil and in natural gas. With a relatively powerful terrorist threat already inserted, then our refineries, the central power grid, power plants, pipelines, and the distribution power lines are also deadly vulnerable and literally indefensible.

With serious damage to those installations and facilities, the terrorists indeed have the ability to generate the economic collapse of the U.S. The recent terrorist attacks on the oil facilities in Saudi Arabia show that (i) the international terrorists are fully aware of our extreme vulnerability to damage of our oil supply and energy infrastructure, and (ii) they intend to capitalize on this extreme vulnerability to cripple the nation.

Hence we argue that, to solve the coming oil crisis (and a simultaneous natural gas crisis) and prevent a potential great economic collapse, rapid development and deployment of “energy from the vacuum” electrical power systems is required. For that, a dramatic update and revision of the archaic old classical thermodynamics and the hoary old classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering are urgently required.

These revisions are already heralded by Leyton’s development of a new and far better geometry, and his development of a new kind of group together with new group theoretic methods. Quite simply, Leyton has already blazed the way toward the necessary revisions in physics, electrodynamics, and thermodynamics. Rapid implementation of these new revisions—and rapid development of electrical power

Fact Sheet 2003-03

11

systems powered by the seething vacuum—are required to meet the coming energy crisis and prevent a potentially catastrophic effect upon our national economy.

The pressing requirement to rapidly develop and deploy electrical power systems that freely or nearly freely take their input energy directly from the vacuum may determine whether of not this nation survives.

Future historians of science may well evaluate the worth of our present scientific community’s leadership as to whether or not it meets this deadly challenge.

References:

1. Huy Price, Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, Oxford University Press, 1996, paperback 1997, p. 78.

2. Boltzmann’s suggestion was that the world is simply a product of a chance fluctuation into a state of very low entropy. Little or no real progress has been made on the problem since then.

3. Michael Leyton, A Generative Theory of Shape, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.

4. Energy density estimates vary, but an acceptable estimate is given by R. Podolny, Something Called Nothing: Physical Vacuum: What Is It?, Mir Publishers, Moscow, 1986, p. 181. In mass units, the energy density of the virtual particle flux of vacuum is on the order of 1080 grams per cubic centimeter.

5. Price, ibid., p. 36.

6. See (a) T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proc. Congr. 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98; also published in J. New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. (b) — Fact Sheet, “The Source Charge Problem: Its Solution and Implications,” Aug. 18, 2003. In this fact sheet, we give the exact physical mechanism that coherently integrates absorbed totally disordered virtual photon energy into real observable photons. The energy of each absorbed virtual photon is changed to a differential change of the mass m of the absorbing charge(s). Iterative changes thus algebraically sum since mass is unitary. When the mass differential reaches sufficient magnitude to constitute the energy for an observable photon, the zitterbewegung of the vacuum causes expulsion of an observable photon, decaying the mass back down to base level to start the process again. We have nominated the source charge (using this mechanism) as the first known physical system that continuously produces negative entropy, along the lines theoretically predicted by Evans and Rondoni {15}. We have also nominated the coherent summation by the mass of the charge as the first known physical mechanism continuously producing negative entropy and thus falsifying the present form of the Second Law. See also (c) M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The Most General Form of the Vector Potential in Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261.

7. D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii.

8. B. P. Kosyakov, "Radiation in electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory," Sov. Phys. Usp. 35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141.

9. See Robert Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau, Foundations of Physics, Dover, NY, 1963, p. 213. Quoting: "Equilibrium states are the only ones that are capable of explicit analysis in thermodynamics…" Quoting, p. 217. "Non-equilibrium conditions cannot be specified by variables of state, and their entropy cannot be computed. …the condition of equilibrium is the condition of maximum entropy."

10. For a statistical fluctuation to occur, the system initially in equilibrium must depart from equilibrium, thereby reducing system entropy since equilibrium is the maximum entropy condition. The departure thus constitutes a negative entropy operation, contradicting the Second Law. By “fluctuation” one also implies that the initial departure from equilibrium is accompanied by a return

Fact Sheet 2003-03

12

back to equilibrium, and the “return portion” of the excursion is a positive entropy-producing operation.

11. A most useful and rigorous transient fluctuation theorem is given by D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium microstates which generate second law violating steady states," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648.

12. Gavin E. Crooks, "Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 60, 1999, p. 2721-2726

13. G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans, "Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales," Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601.

14. Under proper conditions, the normally entropic reactions in a significant region of a solution can therefore “run in reverse” negentropically because of the departure phase of a transient fluctuation, lasting up to two seconds. In such a “reversed reactions” situation, it is possible for two like charges to attract rather than repel. Hence two H+ ions (two protons) can sometimes attract together sufficiently for each to enter the strong force region of the other, thereby forming a quasi-nucleus. As the “driving fluctuation excursion” peaks and then reverses, this quasi-nucleus can remain bound by the strong force as the law of attraction and repulsion of charges reverts back to normal. In the increasingly excited state of the quasi-nucleus, the quasi-nucleus “tightens” due to its more rapid change in strong force than in the Coulomb force. Hence one of the protons “decays” to a lower state by flipping the orientation of one of its quarks, thereby turning into a neutron. The result is the anomalous formation of a normal deuterium ion. The formation of excess deuterium is one of the direct indicators of “cold fusion” experimentally shown in hundreds of cold fusion experiments. We have nominated the “fluctuation reversal of reactions” effect of transient fluctuations as a primary mechanism for legitimate cold fusion reactions. Other ion combinations would result in the emergence of other anomalous quasi-nuclei decaying into real cold transformation nuclei. We give some of these additional anomalous cold fusion reactions in T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, Chapter 10. Cold Fusion: Low Spatial-Energy Nuclear Reactions at High Time-Energy.

15. D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920.

16. See Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110 for a very clear statement of vacuum polarization by the “isolated” charge.

17. For definitions of gauge and gauge freedom, see the definitions guide and explanations at http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Gauge-theory.html.

18. E.g., for the symmetrical regauging of the classical electrodynamic equations, see J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, New York, 1975, p. 219-221; 811-812. In symmetrically regauging the Heaviside-Maxwell equations, electrodynamicists assume that the potential energy of a system can be freely changed at will (i.e., that the system can be asymmetrically regauged). This is also included under one of the major principles of quantum field theory, known as gauge freedom. But electrodynamicists arbitrarily do two asymmetrical regaugings of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations in succession, thereby carefully and very specially selecting the regauging so that the two new free force fields that emerge in the system are equal and opposite. This effectively “locks up” any received excess symmetrical regauging energy as physical stress in the system. There is thus no net resultant free force field to dissipate the free excess system energy from regauging, and thereby to perform free work in a load.

19. Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, reprinted 1999 with corrections, p. 459. Present thermodynamics is violated in rarefied media where local equilibrium fails, in strong gradients (about

Fact Sheet 2003-03

13

which little is known, either theoretically or experimentally), and in long-lasting memory effects occurring in materials and in many nonequilibrium processes. Other violations due to fluctuations are shown by Wang et al. (cited above).

20. The “precursor” referred to is the force-free field (as a set of energy flows) as it actually exists in space and vacuum in the absence of mass. Once one pays to form a source of “static” potential or “static” field, one has actually formed a source of steady EM energy flows extracted directly from the vacuum (particle physics view) or from the curvature of spacetime (relativistic view). Indeed, the virtual particle flux of vacuum becomes identically “energy”, as does spacetime itself—thereby resolving Feynman’s lament that “It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 4-2]. We also resolve his lament that "One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. … If you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it!" [Feynman et al., ibid., p. 12-2]. A preliminary draft paper has been prepared as T. E. Bearden, “Precursor Engineering: Directly Altering Physical Reality,” draft, 2004. In the future we hope to finish the paper and publish it in final form.

21. Felix Klein, "Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrische Forschungen," 1872. Klein's Erlanger program was initiated in 1872 to describe geometric structures in terms of their automorphism groups. It has driven much of the physics development in the twentieth century.

22. Also see I. M. Yaglom, Felix Klein and Sophus Lie: Evolution of the Idea of Symmetry in the Nineteenth Century, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1988.

23. (a) T. D. Lee, "Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions," Phys. Rev., 104(1), Oct. 1, 1956, p. 254-259; (errata in Phys. Rev. 106(6), June 15, 1957, p. 1371); (b) T. D. Lee, Reinhard Oehme, and C. N. Yang, "Remarks on Possible Noninvariance under Time Reversal and Charge Conjugation," Phys. Rev., 106(2), 1957, p. 340-345.

24. C. S. Wu et al., "Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Phys. Rev., Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413.

25. (a) Craig F. Bohren, “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also (b) H. Paul and R. Fischer, “{Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am J. Phys., ibid. Scientists in the area just use a change of reaction cross section. EM field and potential intensities are defined in terms of a “static unit point charge’s” scattering. If the same charge is resonant, it scatters more energy, much as a strongly churning rock on the bottom of a river displaces more water than does the same rock fixed on the bottom. Thermodynamically, that gives COP > 1.0—in fact, it provides COP = 18.

26. Scientists in the area do not speak of the thermodynamic coefficient of performance of their experiments. Instead, they speak of the change in reaction cross section. EM field and potential intensities are defined in terms of a “static unit point charge’s” reaction cross section and resulting diverting of energy from the energy flows comprising the field or potential. If the same charge is resonant at the input light energy frequencies, its reaction cross section appreciably increases and it “collects” or diverts or “intercepts” more energy—from the field or potential as a set of energy flows—than when the same charge is static. The situation is roughly analogous to the diverting of a river’s flow around a rock that is being churned violently back and forth at right angles to the flow, as compared to the diversion of water flow around the same rock when the rock is fixed stationary. Thermodynamically, the free 18-fold increase in reaction cross section gives COP > 1.0—in fact, in that case the thermodynamic COP = 18.

27. A close colleague and I have filed a rather formidable patent application for possibly the first practical negative entropy engineering application of electromagnetic circuits. The circuitry is

Fact Sheet 2003-03

14

employed in an entirely different manner from that prescribed in the textbooks. The invention converts seemingly ordinary impedance components and sections into true negative resistors freely receiving excess EM energy from their active external vacuum environment. This results in the output of much more EM energy than the operator himself inputs—by repeatedly evoking free asymmetrical regauging which increases the potential energy circulating in the circuit and then dissipated in the loads to power them. Conservation of energy is obeyed at all times, since the excess energy is freely input from the active environment, much like a common home heat pump process. Negative entropy processes are quite real in nature, and they can also be evoked and utilized in otherwise somewhat ordinary electrical circuits. In short, Leyton’s epochal work has very practical application, and we expect to see it vigorously applied to electrical power systems in the future.

28. E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,” Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355. In this paper, Whittaker demonstrated that any scalar potential decomposes mathematically into a set of longitudinal EM wave energy flows.

29. 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 paper was published in 1904 and orally delivered in 1903. This paper initiated what today is known as “superpotential theory”. Here Whittaker showed that any EM field (or wave, etc.) mathematically decomposes into a set of differential functions imposed upon two scalar potentials. By applying Whittaker’s 1903 paper to each of the two base scalar potentials, it follows that further decomposition into interfering sets of longitudinal EM wavepairs occurs. Hence all EM potentials and fields decompose into bidirectional sets of longitudinal EM wave energy flows, with differential functions applied to those sets. It follows from these considerations that there exists a far more fundamental electrodynamics that is comprised of sets of longitudinal EM wave energy flows, with shaping and controlling differential functions applied. This leads directly to negentropic engineering, where one “pays” a little to shape, direct, and control large sets of such Whittaker energy flows, then interacts the resulting large energy dynamics with matter to produce large force system dynamics acting in the matter to change it as one wishes. This is a form of negentropic engineering, since one only “pays a little work” to shape and control “a lot of energy” that then interacts with matter to form force dynamics in the interacting mass system.

30. Max Planck, as quoted in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.

31. Dr. M. King Hubbert, in response to remarks by Exxon’s David Nissen. See the web article http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/to_nissen.htm.

32. For excellent, professional briefings on the situation with oil, natural gas, and other aspects of the energy crisis, not considering the terrorist threat scenarios added to it, the reader is encouraged to, see speeches and briefings by Matthew R. Simmons, President, Simmons & Company International, accessible on http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches.

33. To get a “feel” for the vulnerability of the power grid to terrorist use of cyber attack, see the PBS interview with Joseph Weiss, control systems engineer with KEMA Consulting and a leading expert in control system security, and technical manager for 15 years at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and its Enterprise Infrastructure Security Initiative (EIS). The interview is carried at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cyberwar/interviews/weiss.html. Weiss stated, “My very, very, very strong feeling is, if and when we get hit, we will never know why we were hit. All we will know is breakers are opening, valves are closing, certain things are happening. But we won’t have a clue as to why.” In answer to the question, “What's the worst-case power scenario, power we're talking here—power lines, power grid?” Weiss replied: “Absolute worst? I won't even say absolute, but a very worst case could be loss of power for six months or more.” He also confirmed the loss of power could be over as big an area in the U.S. as one wanted. If one then allows for the terrorist assets already inserted into the United States and simply waiting for the “go” signal, and factors in some additional key physical strikes—on

Fact Sheet 2003-03

15

refineries, pipelines, and major power plants themselves including major nuclear power plants— to the cyber warfare strikes being confirmed by Weiss, one begins to grasp the full economic implications of the critical vulnerability of our centralized power system. It can indeed be largely laid in the dirt or terribly crippled for long periods of time. The nation is simply not prepared to withstand and survive economically in the face of such determined attacks.