The Tom Bearden


Energy from the Vacuum
"Energy from the Vacuum - Concepts & Principles"
Order Now!

Help support the research



Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:40 PM

Subject: RE: What is the Source Charge [simple version]?


Hi Les,


Okay, we’ll try. But first, please understand that, since the source charge problem’s solution resisted the scientists for nearly 100 years, it obviously isn’t going to be “too simple”. Otherwise, those sharp young doctoral candidates and post-docs would have solved it long ago.




First, a tiny bit of background:


For symbols, we will just use d/dt instead of “partial with respect to t”.


Instruments measure only CHANGES to an entity, never the “entity in itself”. Measurement (referred to as “observation” in physics) is a d/dt operation imposed upon a change in spacetime (a change in L-cubed x t). So we have d/dt (L-cubed x t) = L-cubed. All measurement or observation produces a SPATIAL measurement or observation, because time is nonobservable (because of the d/dt operation that destroys it in the measurement or observation).


Also, instruments measure only quanta of change. A quantum of change has a certain magnitude. At and above the magnitude, the change is “observable” by our instruments. If the change is SMALLER than a quantum, then our instruments do not detect it at all. That type of real but “too-fleeting-to-be-observed” change is called a “VIRTUAL” change, as compared to an OBSERVABLE change. Merely indicates the magnitude of the “virtual” change was not big enough to trigger a physical instrument, so that “observation” occurs.


Every EM field or potential is produced by its associated “source charge(s)”. When one speaks of a “charge” existing (and fixed) at some point in space, then surrounding it are its “static” fields and potentials, reaching to infinity.


Suppose we suddenly produce that charge there at the point, where it did not previously exist before. Then from the moment the charge appears its fields  start appearing from it also, being emitted and spreading outward continuously at the speed of light. That can be measured by our instruments, because what are being emitted are quanta of EM “energy x time” and quanta are observable/detectable. So the charge is “emitting” real, measurable energy continually. It’s like an open fire hydrant, spraying out real “water” (energy) continuously in all directions.


But no instrument known to man can detect or measure any ENERGY INPUT to that charge.


If you leave the charge alone, that beast will just sit there and continuously and freely pour out real (observable quanta of) energy. Every original charge in the universe has been doing it for some 13 or so billion years, and has not run down a bit. That charge – if it is not moved away or destroyed – will continue to sit there and pour out real, usable EM energy for the NEXT 13 billion years, if the universe lasts that long.


And there the problem – the “source charge problem” – rests officially today, without official solution. Since they could not solve that embarrassing problem, they just swept the problem itself out of the textbooks, so the students would not know about it and therefore would not ask questions that could not be answered.


Now a little deeper in the problem:


So how do we explain the fact that the charge continuously radiates OBSERVABLE (measurable quanta of ) energy, but has no OBSERVABLE (measurable quanta of) energy input? How does the charge produce all EM fields and potentials and their real EM energy, without any (detectable) energy input?


Our instruments measure only CHANGES in things, never a “thing in itself”. For our instruments to detect some change, that change has to be quantal in size -- in the magnitude of its “action” (i.e., its “Energy x Time). If the change is less than one quantum, instruments cannot detect it, and so the change is “virtual” (less than quantal).


Thus there are only two alternatives to turn to, for a possible solution to the source charge problem..


(1)     First, the charge freely and continuously creates that real energy, out of “nothing at all”, and pours that “created” energy out continually in all directions.   Ugh! This alternative negates the conservation of energy law  itself (energy can neither be created nor destroyed), and thus it destroys most of physics and thermodynamics. Or,

(2)     Second, the charge freely and continuously receives energy in NON-OBSERVABLE form, not detectable by instruments. But “nonobservable” energy is VIRTUAL energy, where each energy change received as input to the charge is less than one quantum of “energy x time”.  Observable EM energy is comprised of quanta (standard sized chunks of “energy x time”). So if the charge receives energy in SMALLER chunks – each smaller than a quantum – the energy input could not be “measured” or detected (observed) by any of our instruments. But the charge would still obey the conservation of energy law, and thereby this alternative will save physics and thermodynamics.


Yet there’s still a problem with alternative 2:


The remaining requirement in alternative (2) is that the charge has to perform some process of integrating those “too-small-to-be-measured” input chunks of energy it continually receives and absorbs, into “big enough to be measured” output chunks that it emits. In short, it must coherently integrate its continual input nonobservable (virtual) energy chunks into observable quanta-sized “energy x time” chunks, which are then emitted from the charge in all directions.


The vacuum/spacetime itself – in which the charge is embedded – is in fact totally in tremendous and boiling formations and disappearances of virtual state changes – virtual particles of various and all kinds are continually appearing and disappearing, very fleetingly but each being “real” during that too-short period that it exists. Here is the necessary “missing ingredient”: While it momentarily exists, each virtual particle that has appeared in the “seething vacuum” is totally ordered! It has no disorder itself, but is just a perfectly respectable particle – with just too brief a lifetime for it to trigger and instrument and “be observed”.


As the charge absorbs virtual photon after virtual photon, it is actually absorbing ORDERED virtual photons. There is no disorder in what it is absorbing. It also changes each virtual energy absorption to a virtual mass-energy change in the mass of the charge. And those “ordered” serial changes just add, because mass is already unitary.


So the  charge is able to absorb only ORDERED virtual photons from the vacuum – which makes it what is called a “Maxwell’s Demon”. It is able to “select ordered things from a statistically disordered medium”, thus performing a negative entropy operation in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Don’t worry! Heck, lots of things violate that old second law. E.g., quoting Maxwell (who was a thermodynamicist as well as an electrodynamicist):


"The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body." [Maxwell, J. C., “Tait's Thermodynamics II,” Nature 17, 278–280 (7 February 1878)].


Also, there are many things which are already known and accepted to allow violation of the second law (the law that only entropy can be produced). E.g., Kondepudi and Nobelist Prigogine list several of them in their standard thermodynamics text. [Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999, p. 459. One area known to allow second law violation is strong gradients (as used in the MEG) and another is memory of materials (as used in the MEG in the nanocrystalline core materials and structure). We strongly comment that these known, recognized mechanisms allow macroscopic and significant violations of the Second Law that are directly usable in real systems and circuits.


Further, rigorous proof thatat least in theory – real physical systems are thermodynamically allowed to produce continuous negative entropy, is given by 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. We nominated the source charge and the source dipole as the first known physical systems clearly producing such negative entropy.


Since the charge is able to “select ordered individual particles from the statistically disordered vacuum, this selectivity makes it a “Maxwell’s Demon”. Quoting Maxwell again:


"…the molecules in a vessel full of air at uniform temperature are moving with velocities by no means uniform though the mean velocity of any great number of them, arbitrarily selected, is almost exactly uniform. Now let us suppose that such a vessel is divided into portions, A and B, by a division in which there is a small hole, and that a being, who can see the individual molecules, opens and closes this hole, so as to allow only the swifter molecules to pass from A to B, and only the slower ones to pass from B to A. he will thus, without expenditure of work, raise the temperature of B and lower that of A, in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics." [James Clerk Maxwell, Theory of Heat, Longmans, Green, London, 1871, Chapter 12.]. Later, Thomson nicknamed it Maxwell's intelligent demon.


The serial absorption of individually ordered virtual photons from the vacuum means that the source charge is in fact a true Maxwell’s Demon.


The mass-energy of the charge is already unitary, hence ordered. As a result, the converted “virtual mass energy changes” effects of this ordered mass-energy coherently integrates – it simply adds. Thus the mass-energy increases to the next quantum level of excitation in “energy x time”, and the fierce buffeting of the charge by the vacuum interaction just “knocks out” a real, observable photon – a real quantum. This is a “Feynman ratchet” kind of action, in which the charge “ratchets up” more and more virtual energy until it has enough to emit a real observable quantum – a real photon.


So the charge is also a true Feynman ratchet.


The combination of acting as both a Maxwell demon and a Feynman ratchet thus finishes the missing ingredient in alternative 2. If finishes the explanation of exactly how the charge is able to continually absorb virtual energy from the disordered medium and coherently integrate that virtual energy into an EM quantum of energy x time. Thus the charge simply sits there, without any OBSERVABLE (quantal) input, and continually emits quanta in all directions.


So EM energy is free, free, free, as is “furnishing real EM energy from the seething vacuum itself”! Every charge and dipole in the universe is steadily doing that – pouring out real, usable EM energy extracted from the vacuum. All EM fields and potentials – including the so-called “static” fields and potentials – are produced in that fashion by their source charges.


If you don’t let anything scatter or destroy that source charge (or source dipole), it will sit there and freely pour out real, usable EM energy for you to catch and use, till the end of time – energy that it has extracted and coherently integrated from the seething virtual state fluctuations of the active vacuum.


Since all EM energy in the universe is and has been so extracted from the vacuum, and this process is ongoing in every charge and dipole in every EM circuit and system, then every EM circuit and system is actually already “powered” by “EM energy from the vacuum”.


But in the 1880s and later, no one could think of any way to coherently integrate the virtual state vacuum energy bits into much larger, observable “real” energy bits that make up the fields and potentials. The reason was that the “vacuum” – which consists of violent fluctuations, where for each fluctuation the (energy x time) is smaller than a quantum of (energy x time) – is said to be “disordered”. So how could such disordered energy be received in “ordered” form?


They couldn’t figure out the last part of Alternative (2), and alternative (1) would destroy physics. So they were unable to solve the problem, and were left on the horns of a great dilemma. To escape the dilemma, they just swept the problem itself out of the textbooks, so the students would not know of it and would not raise embarrassing questions that could not be answered.


But a few good physicists would mention it from time to time, in a physics book or paper.


As Sen stated,


"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics." [D. K. Sen, Fields and/or Particles, Academic Press, London and New York, 1968, p. viii].


Kosyakov stated the question and problem rather 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?" [B. P. Kosyakov, “Radiation in electrodynamics and in Yang-Mills theory,” Soviet Phys. Usp., 35(2), Feb. 1992, p. 135, 141].


So, while it might surprise many of our electrical engineers, physicists had not (and have not) been able to come up with a complete theory of EM radiation, since they could not explain it in a way that obeyed the conservation of energy law. That is, the fundamental and continuous radiation of “real” (observable) EM energy from every charge in the universe – without any “real” (observable) energy input – could not be explained.


We solved that long-vexing source charge problem in 1999 and published it in Russia in 2000. For the publication, we specifically asked the Russians to have some of their best physicists to examine the proposed solution. They did so, and the solution “passed” their review, so they published it as T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proc. Cong. 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000, p. 86-98.  We also got the paper published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23.  We published it in our Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, 2002. We have also slightly improved the explanation during the last two years, by adding the explanation of why the charge is both a Maxwell’s demon and a Feynman ratchet.


Every joule of EM energy in a circuit or system is in fact “EM field energy” or “EM potential energy” obtained from the associated source charges in that fashion.  So all the EM energy in every EM circuit or system comes from the interaction of the seething vacuum with the source charges and dipoles  in that system. It does NOT come from cranking the shaft of the generator. See my paper on the functioning of the MEG and the action of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.



For the next question:

What is a circuit?


For an EM circuit, it’s a system of wires, functional parts, and operations that receives and coordinates EM field energy and EM potential energy, using it to produce energy output in some usable form, or to produce useful work in a load.


Now we must realize some modern physics (not electrical engineering!).


Any charge – even a single electron – polarizes its surrounding vacuum, so that the surrounding vacuum is “charged” or altered to contain more virtual charges of opposite sign. Further, the “bare charge” in the middle of that surrounding vacuum polarization – i.e., that actual electron’s charge – is INFINITE! Whoa! We just left EE altogether, and we are now in physics.


 But the bare charge is infinite and it also has infinite energy, in modern physics. And the surrounding “polarization charge” of the vacuum also is infinite and possesses infinite energy. But the two “infinite” quantities have a FINITE DIFFERENCE. And our instruments – peering through this external  “screen” of opposite vacuum charge -- see and measure this finite difference – which is the “classical” (observed) value of the charge listed in all the handbooks. The actual charge is far more complicated than that, has far more charge and energy than that, etc.


Nobelist Weinberg states it this way, speaking of charges in an atom:


"[The total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare charge of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron's mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and the energy shift … that is infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy." [Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random House, 1993, p. 109-110.]


You see, modern physics is far stranger and far more advanced in electromagnetic effects and functions than that old 1880s CEM/EE model used by the electrical engineers.


All we add is, that ALL that EM field energy and potential energy received from the source charge (and thus by the receiving charges in the system)  actually comes from the vacuum itself, not from our burning fuel, putting in solar radiation, inputting wind energy, etc. Simply check out the MEG and AB paper for the explanation of what happens to the input mechanical shaft energy to the generator, caused by cranking the shaft. It only has to do with making the source dipole inside the generator, nothing else. Once that dipole is made, the dipole receives and converts virtual energy from the vacuum, into continually emitted real observable EM energy – producing all the EM fields and potentials and their energy.


Also, please be aware that there is enormously more energy in every EM circuit or system than the electrical engineer accounts for with his voltage and current and joules, etc. Quoting Swann for a weak little old telephone cable:


"Think of the cables which carry the telephone current in the form of electrons. In the absence of the current the electrons are moving in all directions. As many are moving from left to right as are moving from right to left; and the nothingness which is there is composed of two equal and opposite halves, about a million million amperes per square centimeter in one direction, and a million million amperes per square centimeter in the other direction. The telephone current constitutes an upsetting of the balance to the extent of one hundredth of a millionth of an ampere per square centimeter, or about one part in a hundred million million million. Then if this one part in a hundred million million million is at fault by one part in a thousand, we ring up the telephone company and complain that the quality of the speech is faulty." [W.F.G. Swann, Physics Today, June. 1951, p. 9.]


What he’s telling you is that, in that silly phone line, there is about a hundred million million millon times as much energy “going on” as is in the silly phone line signal input that we ourselves furnish.


Obviously one does not input all that stupendous EM energy to the phone line! Those charges in there are getting it from the seething vacuum, continually. And boy, are they getting it!



How are the loads powered?


As we stated in the MEG/AB paper (and drew a diagram which I strongly urge you to check again and again until it is well-understood).


First, the precise definition of “work” is “change of form of energy”. Period. When EM work is done, the energy is STILL existing, just in a different form than when input to the “working” process.


The electrical engineer (EE) uses “power” in a very wrong way, as synonymous with energy. It is not. Power rigorously is the time-rate of change of work. So power x time = work.


So when the EE speaks of “drawing power from the source” he is speaking physics nonsense. “Power” only exists where work (change of form) is being done. So power is developed in that specific component or part that is “doing the work” (changing the form of the energy). From the source the circuit or system receives potential energy flow, not “power” flow at all.


Anyway, suppose we crank the shaft of the generator, thereby putting in mechanical energy. Well, when the rotor moves, that movement changes the mechanical energy into rotating magnetic field energy inside the generator. Since that is a change of form of the mechanical input shaft energy to magnetic field energy inside the generator itself, that requires work. And so we know we are “working” and producing work, when we crank the shaft of the generator.


But none of the internal magnetic field energy goes out onto the external circuit.


Instead, all the internal magnetic field energy is expended inside the generator itself, just to forcibly push the opposite charges in opposite directions, separating them, and thereby making the “source dipole” in the generator and on out into the external circuit.


Any dipole (i.e., opposite charges) is one proven example of what is called “broken symmetry” in physics. Broken symmetry was a giant revolution in physics, for which Lee and Yang received the Nobel Prize in 1957.


Now broken symmetry (in physics) means that “something virtual has become observable”, to use Lee’s words.


Thus, once one forms a dipole (separates positive and negative charges a bit, by some distance, inside that generator), that silly dipole thing will then continually absorb virtual energy from the seething vacuum, coherently integrate it, and re-emit the energy as real observable quanta – real EM energy flowing out of the terminals of the generator and along through space outside the conductors of the external circuit. Some of this energy flow is diverged into the conductors and components of the external circuit, potentializing them so they can then “change the form of energy” and do some work for us.


This is what the source dipole, once formed inside the generator, actually does. Note that each charge in the circuit, together with its polarized vacuum,  form a dipolar ensemble. So every “charge” with its vacuum interaction is indeed a “dipole” and must therefore exhibit “broken symmetry of opposite charges”. It thus continuously pours out real energy extracted from the vacuum, thus producing and continually replenishing its associated EM fields and potentials.


Cranking the shaft of the generator produces the magnetic field energy inside the generator via rotation of the rotor. That dissipates all the mechanical shaft energy input to the generator.


The magnetic field energy inside the generator is then dissipated in forming the dipolarity inside the generator. That SOURCE DIPOLARITY then – by broken symmetry – MUST convert virtual energy absorbed from the vacuum into real observable energy that is constantly emitted. But forming the dipole inside the generator dissipates all the rotating magnetic field energy in the generator.


But with the dipole now formed inside the generator, THE DIPOLE ITSELF continually extracts virtual energy from the vacuum (absorbs virtual photons) and integrates their  “energy x time” into quantal size. Thus the source dipole inside the generator continually re-emits real, observable quanta, pouring out of its terminal and along its external circuit.


And voila! We have resolved the long-vexing source charge problem, as well as more accurately explained what cranking the shaft of the generator actually does. It creates the rotating magnetic field that in turn creates the source dipole.


Also, it means that every electrical circuit is and always has been “powered” by the energy converted directly from the seething vacuum by (1) the source charges in the circuit, and specifically by (2) the source dipole inside the generator.


Every EM system ever built is powered by EM energy extracted and converted from the vacuum, by the source dipolarity.


And the basis for all that has been proven in physics since 1957 – yet the impact of that revolution in physics has not made it across the university campus to the electrical engineering department, in the nearly half-century since then!


The problem is that physicists are quite uninterested in “crude” electrical power systems. They simply shrug and say, “For that mess, go see the Electrical Engineering Department! I’m working on a new giant accelerator, 20 miles across, and we are going to bang those particles together with much greater energy and force, so they break into different pieces than before, and we will have some new particles and some new physics generated in that process”. Or something like that. To most physicists, there is much more exciting and fundamental work to be done that “messing with” electrical power engineering.


And the EE professor certainly does not wish to hear that his own model is riddled with known falsities, with many things long proven to be false in physics. Or that he really does not know what powers an EM circuit, and how. Etc. And usually he adamantly does not wish to hear anything about “energy from the vacuum”, “the source charge problem”, and so on.



So you can see why I submitted the “Errors and Omissions…” paper to the National Science Foundation, for their review. And miracle of miracles, it passed their review!




Hope that helps, and – together with the diagrams in the MEG/AB paper --- assists you in understanding what actually powers an EM circuit, and how the EM energy is actually taken from the seething virtual state vacuum fluctuations, and then re-emitted as real, observable photons (real quanta).


Best wishes,



From: Leslie R. Pastor []
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 1:02 PM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Your statement: ZPE: Is not 'energy from the vacuum'


Good Afternoon Tom,


Can you clarify the following:

"Factoid:  Energy from the Vacuum is NOT zero point energy, since the latter is an observable state and the vacuum energy is nonobservable." - T. E. Bearden


The problem, as you already know, is that ZPE is already acceptable.....a la Bernard Haisch and Hal Puthoff.  Describing the virtual state as 'energy from the vacuum' is understood by me already, I don't have a problem with it.  But how do you describe 'virtual states'? 

All the Best,

Leslie R. Pastor