The Tom Bearden





Energy from the Vacuum

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

Help support the research



Subject: Re: Emmy Noether
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:36:27 -0500


Dear ******


I think you are closing in toward what I ran into a while back there. I’ve started (very, very slowly) a little paper that will eventually (at least conceptually and fairly precisely) point out the terrible problems in the present “definitions” of zero-point energy, the quantum, etc. – and also (hopefully) rectify those problems.


One must first understand that we never perceive or observe “reality”, and we therefore can have no direct knowledge of what reality is. As Hawking puts it:


"All we ever know is our models, but never the reality that may or may not exist behind the models and casts its shadow upon us who are embedded inside it. We imagine and intuit, then point the finger and wait to see which suspect for truth turns and runs. Our models may get closer and closer, but we will never reach direct perception of reality's thing-in-itself." [As given by George Zebrowski, "The holdouts," Nature, Vol. 408, 14 Dec 2000, p. 775,]


Indeed, Penrose wrote an entire book on the physicist’s search for reality itself. It is Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alford A. Knopf, 2006. In it, Penrose also uses another revealing quote from Hawking. Quoting:


“I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.” [Stephen Hawking, as quoted in Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alford A. Knopf, 2006, p. 785].


For many years, Hawking sought the “ultimate model” and believed that such exists (although the very notion was falsified by Gödel in 1931). Eventually Hawking realized that no such model would be forthcoming, but also realized it meant that physics would never end; there would always be new and exciting things to discover and understand. Quoting:


“Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I am now glad our search for understanding will never come to an end, and we will always have the challenge of new discovery.” [Stephen Hawking, posted on his website in early 2004].

— • —



One of the major keys to our search for a BETTER model, hopefully unified, is in the very nature of a model itself. As is well-known to GOOD physicists (but to hardly any electrical engineers!), the choice of fundamental units in one’s model is totally arbitrary. E.g., there are perfectly valid physics models that use only a single fundamental unit. Suppose we take the “joule” (energy) to be the fundamental unit. Then everything else is just a function of energy – and that includes space, time, length, mass, etc. Even the great classical electrodynamicist Jackson took a beating for pointing out that fact. Quoting Jackson:


"The desirable features of a system of units in any field are convenience and clarity. For example, theoretical physicists active in relativistic quantum field theory and the theory of elementary particles find it convenient to choose the universal constants such as Planck's quantum of action and the velocity of light in vacuum to be dimensionless and of unit magnitude. The resulting system of units (called 'natural' units) has only one basic unit, customarily chosen to be length. All quantities, whether length or time or force or energy, etc., are expressed in terms of this one unit and have dimensions which are powers of its dimension. There is nothing contrived or less fundamental about such a system than one involving the meter, the kilogram, and the second as basic units. It is merely a matter of convenience." [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975, p. 811-812].

Ultimately, then, everything – space, time, spacetime, vacuum, mass, force, momentum, virtual, observable, etc. – is just a function of energy.


Since the fundamental unit of a model is arbitrary, then suppose we choose that “function of energy” (in the usual decrepit sense) that we think of as spacetime, as the fundamental unit. Then everything in our physics model must be a function of spacetime.


However, immediately the fundamental problem is this: Presently there is really no definition of “energy” as Nobelist Feynman pointed out in his three volumes of physics in 1964. Quoting:


"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].


Feynman confronted the fact that a “precursor force-free field” in space must interact with mass to produce a force. So – in answer to his own search for a definition of force – we may take the definition of force to be “the ongoing interaction of the precursor force-free field in spacetime with mass”. For some odd reason, Feynman never finished that conclusion from his own work, which already showed it! Quoting Feynman, of EM force field and the hopelessness of defining force itself:


"…the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates a "condition" in space, so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality for producing a force is called an electric field." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 2-4].


"We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces that would be experienced at the time t by a charge located at (x, y, z), with the condition that placing the charge there did not disturb the positions or motion of all the other charges responsible for the fields." [ibid, vol. II, p. 1-3.]


"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!" [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2].


But thanks to the clues that Feynman himself provided, I believe we have a reasonable solution to the problem of defining a force after all.


— • —


The short solution to begin unifying our models of nature is this: Spacetime, the virtual state vacuum, and energy are identically all one and the same thing.


Note very carefully what we are saying. Energy is not something “separate” that is “in” or “traveling through” spacetime like a separate boat in the water. It identically is spacetime itself. And energy is not something “separate” that is “in” or “traveling through” the virtual state vacuum like a boat in the water. It identically is the virtual state vacuum itself.


But the general relativist and the particle physicist will both be aghast at the audacity of defining energy ≡ spacetime ≡ vacuum (virtual).


The “magnitude” of an energy change is the magnitude of a fundamental change in spacetime/vacuum itself.


“Energy dynamics” (of any kind) is just the magnitude (and kind) of that spacetime/vacuum change and its rate of change(s).


Energy is not SOMETHING IN OR TRAVELING THROUGH spacetime/vacuum. It is identically ANYTHING COMPRISED OF spacetime/vacuum, since spacetime/vacuum is identically “energy”. It is a spacetime dynamic moving through spacetime, or a vacuum dynamic moving through the vacuum.


All of physics presently regards energy as “something different from” spacetime, and that is “in” the “separate background spacetime”. That is flatly wrong.


Thus all primary energy is virtual, not observable – because spacetime itself is not observable, and neither is the vacuum. A change in the energy remains virtual, unless the change is of sufficient size to constitute a quantum. THEN it’s observable because it will individually interact with observable matter to move it or change it, sufficiently for instruments to show it.


So the quanta are special “boats” IN and OF spacetime/vacuum, but are also comprised of a sufficiently large change in spacetime/vacuum.


A quantum can also be comprised of integrated coherent subquanta (virtual changes). This is actually demonstrated inescapably by the source charge problem.


Mass-energy now becomes a very dense localized change of spacetime/vacuum.


Any change in spacetime is automatically a change in the virtual state vacuum, and vice versa.  We do not regard vacuum as something “occupying” spacetime, but identically as spacetime itself.


— • —


Right away, the various theories of the vacuum, zero-point energy, etc. are thoroughly fouled, as are indeed the present attempts at defining a “potential”, a “field”, etc.


For our purposes, we shall consider a “potential” as “potential energy” that is there and “collected” and can be used.


That means that spacetime/vacuum is simply the set of all potentials, or may be so regarded. In a sense, the vacuum is the “master potential” comprised of all other potentials simultaneously.


Since the fields are functions of the potentials, then all individual fields are functions (partial functions) of the master vacuum potential (set of all potentials).


The property of the quantum is that a single quantum change (in potential or field) acts upon observable mass in individually observable fashion (effect).


The property of the subquantum (virtual) entity acting upon observable mass is not individually observable. Yet virtual (subquantal) entities acting coherently in sufficient ensemble upon a single observable mass can coherently integrate in the “excitation” (change) of that observable mass to constitute an observable (quantum) change. Hence we still preserve the quantum field theory notion that all OBSERVABLE forces are due to the “exchange” (actually, to the interaction) of virtual particles with observable matter.


Hence this also retains the solution to the source charge problem, which does not exist in ordinary physics. Ordinary physics still assumes that an observable electron or other charged particle – which continually radiates real quanta (real photons) in all directions, continually establishing and continually replenishing the associated “static” fields) – simply steadily creates (from nothing at all) that real, observable EM energy flow (those real photons emitted in all directions at light speed).


But this approach will also allow precursor engineering, so that at last we can understand exactly what Soviet/KGB “energetics” is and was all about.


Precursor engineering is also possible directly, using – for example – the Fogal chip. Run at idling speed (about 50% load), the chip slowly settles down from “pushing electrons” to directly altering and affecting spacetime/vacuum (pure energy) itself.


In everything – e.g., quantum mechanics – there presently are multiple models, each for only a “part” of the phenomenology as determined by experiment.  Usually one just applies a single one of those models.


But in precursor engineering, one must keep ALL the models (in all of physics) in one’s mind, because BY ENGINEERING SPACETIME/VACUUM/ENERGY ITSELF, DIRECTLY, one is actually engineering reality itself, in the NONOBSERVABLE form (i.e., it’s also vacuum engineering, spacetime engineering, virtual state engineering, and precursor engineering – all are one and the same thing.).




And electrical power engineering is a hoary old “bust” of a model, because it still assumes force fields, and still uses the false notion that energy is something separate that “IS IN” spacetime/vacuum, but is not OF spacetime/vacuum.


Hence the struggling area of “energy from the vacuum/spacetime” involves precursor engineering, direct engineering of spacetime itself, and direct engineering of the virtual state vacuum itself.


This at least gives us the gist of what is needed to understand (and once funded, to hire some very sharp specialists to begin the modeling) “energy from the vacuum”.


— • —


Eerily, to get rid of negative energy, the physicists actually put forward the notion that mass-energy violates simple arithmetic! That is, since the “vacuum” or “space” is or has zero mass (and thus zero mass-energy), the thesis used by the physicists is that mass-energy can only be positive! So if one reaches into the zero-level vacuum (thinking of it as a Dirac sea) and pulls out an electron leaving a hole, then the fact is that “hole” now has “less than zero” mass-energy (because of the removal of positive mass-energy). So the hole – which is really a negative mass-energy electron!) must be called a positive mass-energy positron! In short, the simple arithmetic equation that (0 - 1 = - 1) is not permitted! Instead, the physicists are using and applying the equation (0 - 1 = + 1), which – at least to me – is a real non-sequitur, no matter how one tries to rationalize it.


That’s the weirdest thing I ever saw in physics, and when I went through nuclear engineering at Georgia Tech, I immediately disagreed with that practice, and of calling a Dirac hole a positron! But of course, like any other student I kept it to myself and “played the game” that was being taught, so I would obtain my degree. Dirac actually reasoned that the hole itself was not observable, and we would only “see” or “observe” the disappearance of the hole when it was filled and changed back to a zero. That, he reasoned, was a net change in electron mass-energy (from the minus one condition of the hole) of a plus one, and with respect to charge it was a change of one positive electron charge. But if one does not violate arithmetic, then the “hole” is actually a negative mass-energy electron (the so-called “dark matter” our astrophysicists are so avidly seeking) and its fields are negative energy EM fields (the so-called “dark energy” our astrophysicists are so avidly seeking).


Bedini, of course, has been using negative energy (dark energy) and holes (dark matter) in his battery charging circuits for about two decades.


But since Dirac’s reasoning was set forth, that violation of arithmetic has mostly buried negative EM energy! E.g., to see how this line of reasoning works in the minds of our physicists, we quote Roger Penrose:


“Although it is true that, in a sense, an antiproton is a negative proton, it is not really ‘minus one proton’. The reason is that the sign reversal refers only to additive quantum numbers, whereas the notion of mass is not additive in modern physical theory.  … ‘Minus one proton’ would have to be an antiproton whose mass is the negative of the mass value of an ordinary proton. But the mass of an actual physical particle is not allowed to be negative. An antiproton has the same mass as an ordinary proton, which is a positive mass.”  “… according to the ideas of quantum field theory, there are things called ‘virtual’ particles for which the mass (or, more correctly, energy) can be negative. ‘Minus one proton’ would really be a virtual antiproton. But a virtual particle does not have an independent existence as an ‘actual particle’.” [Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2006, p. 67].


Today a few (a VERY few!) young scientists are trying to refute that “bad assumption” and remove this violation of simple arithmetic! E.g., quoting Solomon:


“In Dirac’s hole theory (HT), the vacuum state is generally believed to be the state of minimum energy. …this is not, in fact, the case and states [exist in HT] with less energy than the vacuum state. …energy can be extracted from the HT [hole theory] vacuum state through application of an electric field.” [Dan Solomon, “Some new results concerning the vacuum in Dirac’s hole theory,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 74, 2006, p. 117-122].


This of course restores “negative energy” back to academic physics – which is nice since several nations of the world have already highly developed and weaponized the use of negative energy, particularly in negative energy EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapons.


The Sweet vacuum triode amplifier (an extract from Kron’s true “negative resistor” developed at Stanford University in the 1930s) output negative energy, with very high gain (COP = 1,500,000). By simply adding more load (more impedance), with negative energy the vacuum will then freely insert additional negative energy in that extra impedance, giving an “amplifying gain” in the negative energy outflow from the device. This was sufficient to demonstrate controlled antigravity, by Sweet’s switching the extra load connected, in 100-watt increments. As a result, the unit smoothly lost 90% of its weight right there on the bench. The actual measured results of that experiment are published in Floyd Sweet and T. E. Bearden, "Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy," Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC '91), Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375. Sweet's device normally produced 500 watts for a 330 microwatt input. Unfortunately Sweet later died and never fully revealed the full activation secret by which his barium ferrite magnetic materials could be in stable self-oscillation in their nuclear binding energy at 60 Hertz.


Best wishes,



Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 10:02 PM

Subject: Emmy Noether




I was just scrolling through to look-up what it has on the Noether theorem, so important to mathematics and physics, only to discover it was developed by the late German mathematician Emmy Noether, whose father was also a noted German mathematician, and that she died in 1935 not far from where I live, in Bryn Mawr, Penn., at Bryn Mawr College there. 


In a nutshell, she showed that the cornerstone conservation laws of physics can be mathematically proven by taking into account certain, related symmetries.


I never studied a graduate course in QM, where her theorem is taught.  So this Googling was most interesting and important to me.


I think what would be very helpful and useful is to capture energy from spacetime into the proof of conservation of Total energy via a Noether type approach for a proof.  If one could modify her mathematical proof of invoking symmetries, one could thereby convince all doubting Thomases.  And one could make a name for oneself, just as Emmy did for herself!


What say ye?


- *****