|
by T.E.B.
2004
from
RapidShare
Website
Abstract and
Summary
We discuss the abbreviated background of Maxwellian electrodynamics,
including how the model’s erroneous “force field in massfree space”
construct came to be. The field in space is not a force field, as is
well known, but is merely spatiotemporal energy structuring and
patterning. It can be considered as a curvature of spacetime
(general relativity view) or as a change in the virtual particle
flux of the vacuum (particle physics view). It is a pure energy
field. Spacetime is identically energy; virtual particle flux of
vacuum is identically energy. A region of change is an energy field.
The energy field in space is only a precursor of the force field in
matter; no force is present or involved until the precursor field
interacts with charge and mass to produce a force field with mass as
a component.
Technically, the change and structuring of massless spacetime/vacuum
to produce a net precursor field is asymmetric regauging, and it
requires no work because of the well known gauge freedom axiom. The
form of the energy is not changed, and work is the change of form of
energy. One is permitted to freely change the potential—and the
potential energy—of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations (and thus of any
physical Maxwell-Heaviside system) at will; e.g., as shown by
Jackson [1] and many others.
Thus, changing the force-free “EM field”—as it exists in space in
its precursor form (energy field form) prior to its interaction with
charge and matter—is work-free.
Very large changes in the precursor field state of a Maxwell system
can be done by paying only a bit of work for timing and switching
the technological systems performing the regauging. Once formed
“nearly for free”, the large precursors can then be interacted with
charged mass to freely form very large force fields and their
dynamics (i.e., precise sets of very large forces, including
dynamics, in the interacting material system or medium as desired).
We call such assemblies engines.
Spacetime is identically energy, and a curvature of spacetime is
identically an energy field available to interact with mass to form
force.
Vacuum is identically energy, and a change in the virtual particle
flux density of vacuum is identically an energy field available to
interact with mass to form force.
Let the term engine refer to either a set of forces or a set of
precursors, with the dynamics of the set included. One can almost
freely produce strong precursor “engines” and dynamics, and then
interact these precursor engines with charged mass (the system
medium) to produce very powerful force engines and dynamics in the
material system. In this way, one can very powerfully (and almost
freely) produce and engineer all fundamental forces of nature, by
first engineering the precursors and their dynamics, then allowing
free precursor interaction with charged matter so that the “primary
forces” are produced as desired.
In this way, physical reality itself—on any and all levels—can be
very powerfully engineered at will, without large exertion of
operator-furnished power, once precursor engineering technology is
developed. This is a negative entropy operation violating the
present second law of thermodynamics (which artificially excludes
such negative entropy processes). The second law is already totally
refuted by gauge freedom itself, as well as by every charge, EM
field, and EM potential in the universe.
The first law of thermodynamics also contains an error in its
present form, when it assumes that a change of energy magnitude (as
in the change of a system parameter such as the potential) is work a
priori. To the contrary, work is performed only if the form of the
excess input (regauging) energy is changed. Mere transfer of
additional energy in the same form is not work. The present first
law must be slightly corrected, since as written it prohibits gauge
freedom and thus prevents precursor energy field engineering.
We briefly discuss some relevant historical background and several
small examples that demonstrate the overwhelming importance of this
work and its future dramatic extensions of science and technology,
hopefully for the great benefit of all humanity.
Development of Maxwell-Heaviside EM Theory
The Maxwell-Heaviside theory of electrodynamics is now well over a
century old. It may be taken as dating from Maxwell’s 1865 theory
[2] of 20 quaternion and quaternion-like equations in 20
unknowns—although Maxwell had written earlier papers on Faraday’s
lines of force and on the characteristics of the medium. More than a
decade earlier, quaternions had been founded by Hamilton
[3], but
there were exceedingly few scientists who understood them or even
liked them. Most could hardly tolerate Hamilton’s quaternions!
Maxwell published his famous Treatise in 1873
[4]. Because it was
"tainted" with a higher group symmetry algebra (quaternions), even
Maxwell himself came under intense pressure from his publisher to
simplify the material in his Treatise. Consequently, Maxwell began
rewriting and greatly "watering down" his own theory, having
finished rewriting and greatly reducing some 80% of it at the time
of his death in 1879. The posthumous later editions published in
1881 and 1891 represent a very serious truncation of the original
Maxwellian theory.
In the 1880s, a further great "simplification" was generated by
several scientists after Maxwell's death—and notably by Heaviside,
Hertz, and Gibbs, with regauging by Lorentz. Vector algebra—whose
group symmetry is much lower than that of quaternion algebra—was
formed [5] and became the accepted algebra in which the reduced
equations were recast. The lowered group symmetry of vector algebra
further reduced the operationalism described by the theory in its
quaternion-like form. Even the tensor algebra of today is still of
lower group symmetry than quaternions.
The equations taught today at university as "Maxwell's theory" are
thus pale shadows, and those equations themselves are actually the
equations and notations of Heaviside, having been further
"symmetrically regauged" by Lorentz
[1, 6]. The symmetrical regauging imposed by Lorentz very neatly threw out all COP>1.0
Maxwellian systems taking their excess energy from the active vacuum
in the form of free asymmetrical regauging
[7]. It also discarded
precursor engineering.
At the time these truncated (mutilated may be a better word!)
Maxwell equations were adopted in general, it occurred in a short
"debate" (mostly in the journal Nature) where the vectorists simply
discarded the quaternionists' work, etc.[5] It was not done by
"sweet science", but by dogma and individual preference for "greater
simplicity". Its driving force was the near-universal dislike of quaternions and a strong drive to simplify things as much as
possible.
Material
Ether and “Force Fields in Space”
The "Maxwellians" as they are often referred to, all originally
assumed the material ether filling all space (and so do electrical
engineers today, unwittingly!). Thus they assumed there was not a
single point in the entire universe that was devoid of mass.
Consequently, the EM fields were—to them—obviously very material
fields indeed; i.e., to the Maxwellians they always occurred in mass
(e.g., in the material ether or in common matter). They were
therefore erroneously assumed to be force fields, and in the view of
the Maxwellians a “force-free field” was not possible.
By F = ¶p/¶t
= ¶/¶t
(mv), we know that mass is actually a component of force (though
inexplicably that is still erroneously ignored in both classical
mechanics and electrical engineering). There is no separate
mass-free force acting upon a separate mass, because the phrase
"mass-free force" itself is an oxymoron. Many foundations physicists
such as Wheeler, Nobelist Feynman, etc. have thoroughly discussed
this "material origin of force", so it is well known by leading
scientists (though seldom known to electrical engineers whose flawed
model still blithely assumes EM force fields in mass-free space).
Today, our Maxwell-Heaviside classical EM theory still implicitly
retains the old material ether more than 100 years after that type
of ether was specifically falsified by the Michelson-Morley
experiments [8]. Not a single material-ether-assuming EM force
field equation was changed after those experiments! By retaining the
material ether, the theory has actually concealed the precursor
mass-free fields and the astounding ramifications of developing
precursor engineering technology [9].
Oddly, we therefore we have a peculiar scientific situation and one
of the great stalemates in human scientific history: The most
primary kind of physics has been largely ignored in the West. It has
not been ignored in some other places, but unfortunately there it
has only been used for development of weapons in secret. We do not
discuss the weaponry in this paper.
Nobelist Feynman certainly understood there were no force fields in
space. He made the following observation
[10]:
"…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 [i.e., this
distortion of spacetime] is called an electric field."
Yet Feynman himself did not adequately
define force, and in fact despaired of finding such a
definition—apparently because he did not connect the change produced
by observation. He stated [11]:
"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!"
In modern physics terms, a "force" is
generated in, on, and of a mass (e.g., a charged mass). It is
generated when the volumetric mass-free fields (as curvatures of
spacetime relativistically, or as altered virtual particle flux of
the vacuum region in particle physics) in mass-free space interact
with and on a charged mass. That ongoing interaction of a 4-space
massless entity (the precursor) with a previously observed 3-space
mass is what a "force" identically is, prior to its observation by
invoking a
¶/¶t operator. Observation results in a frozen 3-space
snapshot at that instant—as is well known, time is not an
observable, even in principle.
Precursor Engines and a Physical Mechanism of Regauging
We now have added a physical mechanism to the abstract notion of
"asymmetrical regauging", where a potential (and the potential
energy) of the system (i.e., the magnitude of the spacetime
curvature/altered vacuum virtual particle flux interacting with the
charged mass) is freely changed. Further, this physical mechanism
can be engineered rather directly. Suddenly we are not trapped in
“force field engineering” as the primary causative action, but in
“spacetime/vacuum energy” engineering as the primary causative
interaction.
In short, now we have moved from the hoary old entropic force field
engineering to negentropic precursor engineering as our primary
interest.
Let STC be “spacetime curvature(s)”. Let VPF be “virtual particle
flux” of the vacuum.
Consider any physical system and its dynamics. There is a specific
set of forces and their dynamics, involved in that system
functioning. Call this set of forces and their dynamics a force
engine. But we know that, for any force, there is a precise massless
4-spatial precursor interacting with the mass component of the
force.
Prior to observing the system, consider the 4-spatial
characteristics. At any instant, there is a set of mass-free
4-spatial STC/VPF dynamics interacting with the previously observed
system masses at all levels, changing the observable system masses
and their dynamics as time passes.
Now separate the masses from the STC/VPF dynamics—which separates
force into its components of mass and precursor energy field. Call
this set of STC/VPF dynamics a precursor engine. Rigorously this
precursor engine and each part of its structure is what we refer to
as energy. The precursor engine has the capacity (potential) to
cause work, since it has the capacity to make a force engine by its
interaction with mass, and W =
ò
F ·
ds for any force F in the force engine.
We have now solved one of the additional problems which gave despair
to Feynman: the definition of energy. Feynman also said
[12]:
"It is important to realize that in
physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."
Yet to change the precursor engine
itself requires no work, since there is no mass and hence no F,
and thus ò
F ·
ds º 0 because F = 0. Prior to its interaction with mass to form a
force engine and generate work, the precursor engine is merely
structured potential energy with dynamics.
Here is the great shocker: Merely changing the structured potential
energy—i.e., changing the precursor engine, in magnitude or function
or whatever—is work-free a priori because of the total absence of
force. Changing the precursor engine is changing some potential
energy (magnitude, direction of flow, dynamics, etc.) and that is
mere regauging. It is work-free by the well known gauge freedom
axiom, widely used and accepted in physics.
By engineering the precursor engine itself, and then applying the
altered precursor engine to an appropriate mass system, real work
can freely be produced in the physical system. In the real world,
the scientist may have to pay a little to do the switching and
timing, but he need not pay to furnish the regauging potential
energy required to change the precursor system and thereafter
produce the force engine.
Thermodynamics and Entropy
We have all been taught that a dynamic system is like a leaky diode.
I.e., one pays to input some energy to the system, it spills some of
it in its internal operations, and one gets out (as energy or useful
work) less than one put in. In short, we have erroneously been
taught that all engineering is entropic. The second law of
thermodynamics has stated that, in progressive operations, the
system can either at best keep the entropy (energy of which control
and use is lost) the same, or have the entropy increase with time.
It is known, of course, that second law violation does occur for
small systems and relatively small times, due simply to fluctuation
of the statistics on which it is based.
With precursor engineering, however, we have totally violated the
second law of thermodynamics, since we ourselves need input only a
tiny bit of control and switching energy, to control and use a much
larger amount of working energy. The environment freely inputs a
great deal more regauging energy for usage, and we need only control
it. In short, we have moved from the “leaky diode” type engineering
to the “triode” type engineering. Now we have to pay a little for
the “control” grid signal, but the cathode energy flow that is
controlled, gated, and shaped to provide the plate energy (plate
force engine) is freely input by the environment (by regauging).
We have moved from “entropic engineering” to “negentropic
engineering” because triode engineering is also a process for
re-ordering disordered energy. It is a process for consuming entropy
and producing negative entropy.
Precursor engineering focuses attention on a much more primary cause
of forcible actions than the presently considered “fundamental
forces of nature” approach. Instead, it focuses upon the fundamental
precursor engines that, once formed by free regauging, then freely
produce forces that perform work upon systems to alter them, do
useful work, etc. That is a purely negative entropy function,
totally engineerable. It alters and completes the presently crippled
Second Law of thermodynamics (which presently only allows entropic
processes, although inherently assuming that its own contradiction
has first occurred). Specifically, it changes the Second Law to
permit negative entropy processes and functions in addition to
positive entropy processes and functions.
In the not too distant future, hopefully precursor engineering will
completely revolutionize science and engineering in a myriad of
areas, from physics to medicine. In theory, any operational
functioning in material physical systems can be directly engineered
by pure regauging, simply by freely changing the precursor engine
involved in that system in a fashion that interacts to create the
necessary force engine and dynamics.
This new and revolutionary negative entropy engineering, will
eventually be developed to replace the present hoary old entropic
engineering. It now lends real substance to the theoretical proof by
D. Evans and Rondoni [13] that nonequilibrium steady state (NESS)
systems can indeed—at least in theory—produce continuous negative
entropy. Evans and Rondoni were so startled at their theoretical
results that they felt no real physical system could exhibit such a
Gibbs entropy—i.e., starting negatively at the onset and thereafter
continuously decreasing toward negative infinity as time passes. To
the contrary, every source charge and dipole in the universe
exhibits precisely that action [14],[15],[16].
Unknown to Evans and Rondoni, Leyton
[17] has also originated and
published the higher group symmetry geometry necessary to replace
the more limited old Klein geometry [18] of 1872. Now a hierarchy
of symmetries results in Leyton object-oriented geometry. A broken
symmetry at one level does not lose information at that level a la
Klein. Instead, it retains the information and also automatically
generates a new symmetry at the next higher level—a purely negative
entropy operation from first principles! So the proper geometry
necessary to allow revision of the old Second Law has been advanced
by Leyton.
The dramatic extension of the Second Law of thermodynamics to add
negentropic processes due to precursor gauge freedom also resolves
the very vexing present major time asymmetry problem of
thermodynamics itself: If in a given set of processes the entropy
either remains the same or increases, then how was the entropy of
the universe ever so low in the first place, and how is it so low
now? This “greatest thermodynamics problem”
[19] cannot be solved
in Klein geometry, but it is solved when Leyton geometry and a
unified field theory separating force field and precursor field are
utilized.
What
Gauge Freedom Has Been Trying to Tell Us
In short, the universality of gauge freedom has more to it than
simply changing some equations so they are easier to solve, as
Lorentz did to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations by symmetrically regauging them. In symmetrically regauging the equations,
unwittingly Lorentz first evoked precursor engineering, but then
locked up the extra free energy by allowing it to produce only equal
and opposite forces and stress in the system, never useful work. He
did this by eliminating all asymmetrical regauging which would
produce a net force field. In that astounding and crippling
limitation, Lorentz chose only that subset of Maxwellian systems and
precursor engineering that cannot and does not produce energy
available to do useful work in the load. Instead, it bottles up all
the energy freely received by regauging, as additional stress in the
system. To say that this is short-sighted is the understatement of
the century! It was done merely to make the equations “more
tractable” and amenable to closed solution methods.
Asymmetrical regauging is the wave of the future, for it also is
identically work-free precursor engine engineering. It does freely
produce a net precursor field and a net force field, thus allowing
useful work to be done “for free” or “nearly for free”.
Gauge freedom directly assures us that the potential energy of any
EM system can be freely changed at will. If we put our minds to it,
we can take in all the EM energy we wish, directly from the local
vacuum VPF and curvature of local spacetime, anywhere in the
universe by developing and utilizing asymmetrical regauging.
As a trivial example, merely changing the voltage of a system—while
freezing the electrons so no current flows—changes the collected
energy in the entire circuit; because it changes the potential
intensity in which each Drude electron is embedded and with which it
is interacting. The solution to the entire energy crisis, for all
time, simply waits for scientists to discard symmetrical regauging
(no net force fields produced, even though two new free force fields
are produced but in equal and opposite fashion). In symmetrical
regauging, all the excess free energy in the two new fields freely
produced is locked up as stress energy, causing additional stress in
the system. However, none of the excess free energy can be used to
translate electrons as current, so the energy so freely received
cannot perform useful external work in the load, by deliberate
design!
To borrow a phrase from Nikola Tesla, this will one day be
recognized as “one of the most inexplicable aberrations of the
scientific mind” in recorded history!
By going directly to asymmetrical regauging, which also is precursor
engine engineering, one produces both excess free EM energy and a
free net force field that can be then freely dissipated to perform
free work in a load, paying only for switching and timing costs,
etc. Of course one has to employ circuitry other than the closed
current loop, common ground circuit! That circuit automatically
self-enforces symmetrical regauging (and deliberate crippling of
precursor engineering) regardless of how much extra free regauging
field energy is added to the system.
The
Precursor Is Nonobservable
As pointed out, the problem of the "force field" not existing as
such in space is further complicated by the nature of observation
itself. Observation is a
¶/¶t operator imposed upon that ongoing
interaction of the precursor and the charged mass in 4-space. The
result is the stripping away of the time dimension momentarily,
producing a frozen 3-spatial snapshot. A rapid series of such
continual 3-snapshots, and their recall from memory and comparison,
gives us the sensation and experience of "change" and "persistence
in time" or "change in time".
We never observe the precursor causes, but only the effects of those
precursor causes in mass. From observing the effects, we always have
to extrapolate the unobservable precursors that are the unobserved
causes. One cannot "see" the accelerated frame one may be in, but
one can measure the effects of that non-observable frame on one’s
physical system and surroundings.
Additional Shortcomings of Classical Maxwell-Heaviside Theory
The present Maxwell-Heaviside theory is completely unable to deal
with the massless interactions and the force-free entities that
interact with mass to produce force. The present EM does not even
calculate "the" spatial fields or potentials themselves, but only
their "point intensities" when interacting with static matter, as
defined by the assumed interaction of the actual geometrical fields
with a unit point static charge at every point. To see how this
remains confused, we quote Jackson [20]:
"Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion
that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit
that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve
the product of charge and field."
So the precursor spatial “field” is actually not defined in
classical EM, but only its intensity as indicated by a unit point
static charge’s scattering of energy from the Whittaker flows
comprising the spatial field itself. What is scattered from a
river’s flow by a fixed static rock is not the river! And what is
scattered varies as the condition of the rock. The same rock, placed
in violent churning motion to and fro, will scatter much more energy
from the same river’s flow.
As an example of violating that static indication of “field
intensity”, if the interacting charges of an absorbing medium are in
particle resonance at the frequency of the input field energy
bathing them, the very "definition" of the classical field intensity
is thereby altered. Then one can extract more energy from the
intensity than is theoretically predicted by the Poynting
theory—i.e., by standard "static charge" definitions of field and
potential intensities. It has been in the physics literature for
some decades, without scientists realizing the true implications.
The same charge in particle resonance at UV or IR will absorb and
re-radiate some 18 times as much energy as we input to it (by
standard calculations), from the same classical field, as it does
when totally static and not in particle resonance
[21]. That area
of physics is of course well known as negative resonance absorption
of the field. It is a noted example of the direct extraction of
excess EM energy from the "vacuum" or from curved spacetime, long
proven on the bench. Physicists in that field, however, carefully
refrain from using the term "excess emission of energy from the
resonant medium", or the thermodynamics term of coefficient of
performance (COP). The COP = 18, of that EM system, but the
scientists only carefully write and speak of the change in the
reaction cross section of the resonant particle versus that of the
static particle.
Importance of the Supersystem
In modern physics, we might add the term supersystem
[22]. The supersystem consists of three components, which are
(1) the physical
system and its observed dynamics
(2) the unobserved but active
local vacuum and its dynamics
(3) the local curved spacetime
and its dynamics
All three elements of the supersystem constantly
interact with each other, in modern physics.
In the present classical Maxwell theory, both of the two unobserved
supersystem components (the actual force-free precursors that act on
the system to generate all its forces and dynamics) are arbitrarily
assumed away. The crippled Maxwell theory assumes an inert vacuum
(falsified since the 1930s) and a flat spacetime (falsified since
1916). By using force fields and potentials only defined in terms of
intensity of the interactions in static charged matter, it only
considers effects of the precursors after their interaction with
static mass. These effects then further generate other forces in
collisions and interactions.
The fact that force fields are still erroneously assumed in space,
by standard classical EM and electrical engineering, retains the
material ether in the model. Thus the standard model has already
discarded (erroneously) the precursor engines and precursor
engineering (deliberate use of asymmetric regauging as a simple and
universal means of taking and using enormous EM energy from the
active vacuum/curved local spacetime).
Because of this continued assumption of the material ether by
ordinary EM models, we have missed the ability to directly (and
work-free) engineer the massfree precursor to force. We have
therefore been unable to rigorously define force (as pointed out
strongly by Nobelist Feynman
[11], by Wheeler, and many others) or
energy [12]. Force is the interaction of precursor field with mass,
and energy identically is the precursor field.
Classical electrodynamicists just continue to dispose of the “no
force-in-space” problem, with a remark similar to that of Jackson
previously quoted [20].
Higher group symmetry EM theory, however, can get directly at all
those long-ignored electrodynamic entities and mechanisms, including
the precursors, precursor engines, and their free (regauging)
generation of forces and force engines in matter As an example, the
Evans model [23] is a unified field theory, and quite capable of
modeling the interactions between the three components of the supersystem. The present classical electrodynamics cannot and does
not do that.
In short, precursor engineering can be developed whenever the
scientific community will move off dead center, fund the sharp young
graduate students and post doctoral scientists to do it, and allow
them to do it.
Example
of Applying Precursor Engineering to Medical Therapy
We now speak of a future medical capability that can benefit all
humanity. It can follow directly from Evans’ work {23}, and the
effect has already been proven experimentally in France in the 1960s
[24]. Until now, however, its free alteration of the cellular
regeneration system’s precursor bioengine has remained a total
scientific mystery because it lies outside the conventional
classical EM model. That model, of course, erroneously excludes the
precursor engine and gauge freedom.
Visualize a biological system and its dynamics, such as the human
body in all its complexities. All the body dynamics may be
visualized as a great special "bioengine", which consists of,
(1) the
precursor engine—that set of precursor causes (the structured bioenergy we refer to as massfree biofields) interacting with the
body charges and masses at every level
(2) the bioforce engine
produced as a result of those precursor interactions and dynamics
The bioforce engine is secondary, and it consists of two interacting
parts:
(1) the precursor bioenergy engine—i.e., the virtual particle
fluxes of the local vacuum/ST curvatures and their exact specific
dynamics, interacting with the body charges and masses at every
level
(2) the resulting biosystem and its dynamics at every
level
The massless precursor bioenergy engine continuously
interacting with the physical system produces the force bioengine
and its dynamics as the resulting effect of that interaction. Note
that the primary (precursor) causal bioengine is not comprised of
forces until it interacts with the physical matter of the body and
generates the resulting bioforces as primary effects produced in the
body. In that ongoing interaction, all bioforces everywhere in the
body, at every level, are generated by the precursor bioenergy
engine interactions.
It is strongly stressed that this makes a profound and fundamental
change to biophysics: Instead of seeking fundamental bioforces
(force bioengines) of nature as primary causes, one now seeks
fundamental precursor bioenergy engines as primary causes. The great
impact is that it requires little or no work to engineer the master
precursor bioengines at will, in any fashion desired. In simple
language one directly engineers and structures the primary bioenergy
(the biofields) and its dynamics, then that structured bioenergy and
dynamics interacts on and with physical biosystems containing mass,
to freely produce the desired bioforce engine and thus any
conceivable kind of physical change of the biosystem. It can, e.g.,
induce stabilization and maintenance of the cellular system in any
conceivable form desired.
Simply put, bioenergy fields interact with biomass of the biological
system, producing all bioforce fields, physical biosystem dynamics,
and physical functioning.
Structuring and Changing the Precursor Bioengine
We examine the structuring of the precursor bioenergy engine and how
to freely change it at will.
It can be shown from Whittaker's work in 1903 and 1904
[25] that
this precursor "bioengine" is naught but a complex set of
longitudinal EM waves with added differential functions. Any scalar
potential decomposes into a harmonic set of bidirectional phase
conjugate longitudinal EM wave pairs (Whittaker 1903), and any field
or wave pattern decomposes into two such scalar potentials with
differential functions imposed. Hence all normal EM potentials,
fields, waves, etc.—including those in biological systems—decompose
into a far more primary electromagnetics comprised of longitudinal
EM wavesets and their differential functions. Further, this more
primary electromagnetics is directly engineerable.
As an example: For a given living body, there is a precise bioforce
engine ongoing for that body in its intended healthy state. Hence
there is a precise precursor bioenergy engine for that body also, in
its intended healthy state.
For any disease or disorder change in that body whatsoever, there is
an exactly specific delta precursor bioenergy engine for that
disease change and all its actions and interactions, now present and
also acting on the body to its detriment.
For any disease-specific delta precursor bioenergy engine, there is
a specific precursor bioenergy antiengine. The antiengine can be
made and amplified by pumping. By introducing the amplified
precursor bioenergy antiengine, a specific amplified bioforce
antiengine is produced. This bioforce antiengine then acts upon the
biosystem, specifically reversing the detrimental condition and
healing the biosystem.
In other words, a damaged body has a damaged bioforce engine,
consisting of the normal bioforce engine and a delta bioforce engine
added to it. Hence the damaged body is being continuously interacted
by a damaged precursor bioenergy engine, consisting of the normal
precursor bioenergy engine and a delta precursor bioenergy engine
added to it.
It follows that, if one were to time-reverse (phase conjugate) the
total precursor bioenergy engine of the damaged body, the new
precursor “bioenergy antiengine” would consist of two parts:
(1) the
amplified time reversal of the normal precursor bioenergy
engine—which antiengine would just tend to make the body cells, etc.
a bit younger
(2) the amplified time reversal of the
detrimental precursor delta bioenergy engine, which antiengine would
gradually erase that detrimental precursor bioenergy engine and the
disease itself!
Though simply put, that is in fact the mechanism used by the human
cellular regenerative system (very poorly studied!) that generates
the healing process in the body. It has long been obscured in
biology by use of the terms " differentiation" and "
dedifferentiation" of cells. Those terms refer to effects, not
primal causes.
Becker’s
Important Work
Becker, e.g., clearly showed that potentials placed across
intractable bone fractures directly generated such effects in red
blood cells entering the injury site
[26]. First the cells
"dedifferentiated" back to an earlier form, growing a nucleus and
shucking their hemoglobin. Then these new cells "differentiated"
forward to form the type of cells that make cartilage. Then those
cells further differentiated forward to form the type of cells that
make bone. The resulting bone cells were then deposited in the
fracture site to heal the fracture.
Becker received multiple nominations for a Nobel Prize for this
incredible work. He also attempted to model the cellular
regenerative system itself [27], using the normal EM model—which
failed him because it cannot model the precursor bioenergy engines
at all. Had Becker had access to Evans' present work, he would have
produced a gigantic revolution in medicine, and would have very
probably been awarded a Nobel Prize. The bone healing work did
survive quietly, and today it is used in a number of hospitals to
continue to treat and cure otherwise intractable bone fractures.
We again stress that, using free asymmetrical regauging, the
precursor engine and antiengine can be directly amplified,
essentially work-free. One pays for a little switching and timing
for control, but pays nothing at all for the excess energy utilized
and structured and controlled, which is pure regauging. Regauging to
increase the energy is pure negative entropy engineering, not
previously recognized or utilized.
Precursor Bio-Engineering Was Demonstrated in France
The precursor engine, antiengine, and amplification approach was in
fact demonstrated experimentally and rigorously in France by Antoine Prioré, although he was unaware of its nature. His work was
personally presented to the assembled French Academy by its
Secretaire Perpetuel, Dr. Robert Courrier
[28].
In the 1950s and 1960s, working with eminent French scientists,
Antoine Prioré discovered how to directly amplify the "cellular
regenerative" process in the laboratory, In short, he unwittingly
discovered how to form antiengines for specific diseases and
disorders, amplify the antiengines, apply them to the body, and
directly heal the body via the resulting “amplified cellular
regeneration” process.
Prioré used a huge plasma tube fed with a mix of transverse EM
waves, unwittingly using a characteristic of plasmas that can
transduce transverse waves to longitudinal EM waves
[29]. Hence he
had introduced a longitudinal EM wave structure inside the plasma,
adding to its field structures. With a large coil around the plasma
tube, he produced a large rippling magnetic field whose inner
“Whittaker structure” was deliberately modified (by controlling the
frequency, and phasing of transverse waves induced in the plasma).
The amplified bioenergy antiengine was embedded inside the
longitudinal EM wave Whittaker structure of that rippling magnetic
field.
Unknown to practical plasma technicians and to classical
electrodynamicists, in quantum field theory the longitudinal photon
and the time-polarized (scalar) photon exist and are individually
nonobservable. However, their combination is observed as the
instantaneous scalar potential—i.e., as common voltage. This tells
us that, when we produce voltage, we produce not only Whittaker’s
3-spatial longitudinal waves, but also their time-polarized (scalar)
counterparts also. In short, by subjecting an object to simple
voltage, one subjects it to a special form of phase conjugation by
optical-type pumping. The “input” to the pumping is the resident
precursor bioenergy engine, and the output of the pumping (i.e., the
“time reversed wave counterpart”) is an amplified precursor
bioenergy antiengine. The interaction of the amplified precursor bioenergy antiengine and the living body’s mass produces the
amplified bioforce antiengine that physically reverses the disease.
Suddenly Becker's work with voltage and its unexpected generation of
radical change of red blood cells into new kinds of cells comes
alive, because something magical was truly going on in the use of a
simple potential across a fracture site (pulsing enhances the effect
also). That potential was comprised of longitudinal EM waves and
scalar EM waves (time-polarized EM waves) in combined phase
conjugate pairs, slightly altering Whittaker's 1903 and 1904 work.
So in nonlinear optical terms, Becker was "pumping" those red cells
(and the fracture vicinity) in both the time domain and the 3-space
domain. He thus time-reversed both the 3-space longitudinal wave
components and the time-polarized scalar wave components. The result
was to produce an amplified time-reversed precursor "engine" (i.e.,
an antiengine) of the resident precursor bioengine actually present
in, and acting on, that body to produce its resident force bioengine!
This accounted directly for the much more rapid cellular
dedifferentiation and redifferentiation effects, compared to the
relatively slow and much weaker effects achievable by the feebly
amplified cellular regenerative system.
Surrounding Prioré's plasma tube was a very large coil,
which—stimulated by the plasma—then produced an oscillating magnetic
field that further contained in its Whittaker longitudinal EM wave
internal composition that "engine" that Prioré had caused to be
introduced. The patient then laid on a table under the magnetic
field beam, and the entire body was bathed in this emission. The
rippling magnetic field insured that the internal “amplified
precursor bioenergy antiengine” was carried down to even the bone
marrow cells of the body, affecting everything. As proved for
millennia in the living body, if the carried "engine" is the
antiengine of the specific disease, then this produces an amplified
bioforce antiengine that is directly an amplification of the body's
own cellular regeneration mechanism for healing that disease.
The rippling magnetic field carried the "internal new precursor
antiengine" to all parts of the body, even through the bone marrow
to the primitive cells, etc. Thus the total force engine of the body
was directly altered, leading to physical changes in the body that
reversed the specific disease and healed the patient. Thousands of
rigorous lab animal experiments were performed and are duly reported
and documented in the French medical literature
[30]. As many
researchers have suspected, when the body is sick, it is "sick all
over", since the disease “precursor bioengine pattern” is in all the
potentials and fields of the entire body, at every level.
Prioré’s method added a new and amplified "antiengine" to the
diseased body's own precursor engine, in turn directly altering the
body’s own force engine responsible for maintaining its present
state and dynamics containing the physical disease. He simply
reversed the body from a “diseased state” back to a “normal state”.
Hundreds of cases of terminal tumors, certain infectious diseases,
clogging of the arteries, etc. were cured in laboratory animals, in
some of the most sensational medical research of all time.
Results
Obtained by Prioré’s Method
When the added amplified bioengine was the reversal or near reversal
of the detrimental bioengine portion already in the body, this
process reduced and eliminated the detrimental delta bioengine,
within the limits that the scientists had learned how to adjust the
input signals for a given disease.
Consequently, unparalleled healing of disease occurred, in thousands
of laboratory animal experiments rigorously performed at the
University of Bordeaux by famous French scientists such as Raymond Pautrizel
[31],[32].
Dr. Robert Courrier, Secretaire Perpetuel of
the French Academy and head of its biology section, personally
presented the astounding results of the Prioré work to an assembled
and stunned French Academy [28]. Terminal cancers, some specific
infectious diseases, atherosclerosis, etc. were cured with alacrity
and remarkable effectiveness. The results were so astounding that
they caused a sensation in France and in some other scientific
communities also. Sadly, there was not a single scientist available
anywhere openly, who had developed or even knew of the science of
engines and therefore might recognize and state the mechanism used
in the Prioré work.
The Prioré team also experimentally showed that the internal
patterns or "internal precursor engines" inside a given EM field or
potential (in its Whittaker decomposition) do diffuse from one
potential or field into another that is superposed, and these
internal precursor engine changes remain there and only gradually
diffuse away over a period of time (such as a few weeks or months).
It was shown that a drop of blood—taken from a rat successfully
healed of a terrible terminal cancer—could then be injected into
another rat with the same disease, and that rat would also start to
get well and get rid of the cancer. This "pass it along" precursor
bio-antiengine diffusion effect lasted for some weeks. But the
experiments clearly showed that the necessary "antiengine" had been
created in the original treated rat, and that it was actually
present everywhere in that rat, in its blood and elsewhere, and only
gradually "dissipated" by diffusion reactions as time passes. It
also showed that transferring some of the blood containing the new
bio-antiengine spread the bio-antiengine into the receiving animal.
This work is all documented in the hard French scientific
literature. It has required 30 years for the present author to even
be able to explain the primary mechanism.
The End
of the Prioré Work
The Prioré group itself (and the French scientific community as
well) could not understand the mechanism because they only had the
flawed old Maxwell-Heaviside theory to apply. That theory cannot
model the elemental precursor engines, how they produce the force
engines, and how such operations are the key to the healing process
itself. Consequently, today we still have a medical science using
the highly obsolescent electrodynamics of more than a century ago.
Present medical therapeutics largely deals with killing and removal
processes (such as the immune system's warlike work), while almost
totally ignoring the actual healing mechanism and regenerative
system of the body. Medical science has thus produced a largely
“intervene and destroy” therapeutics, with the real healing work
then largely just “left to the body” in the hopes that it can
somehow do the regenerative job required after the destruction and
intervention.
The Prioré work showed that, not only can that fundamental cellular
healing process be used in advanced new technology, but it can be
highly amplified to allow very rapid healing of dread diseases. The
Prioré work was ruthlessly suppressed in the mid-70s when the French
government changed to a leftist government and quit funding the
work. In 1984, not long after Prioré's death, the University of
Bordeaux did accept a doctoral thesis on that work by one of its
students (Perisse) [32b]—after having been forced to reject Prioré’s
own doctoral thesis [33] in the early 1970s.
So a great medical cure for cancer, hardening and clogging of the
arteries, infectious diseases, etc. was brought to the very brink of
being born and utilized, and by the proper scientific community.
Then because of the lack of a proper physics and electrodynamics
model, it could not be scientifically understood. So, sadly, it was
strongly opposed and "parked on the shelf" primarily because there
was no available electrodynamics known to the scientists that would
allow modeling and development of a total technology including both
theory and application. The French government and the French
scientific community continue to strongly oppose the Prioré work to
this day.
Electrodynamics Must be Modernized
The Prioré case is one dramatic example among many, of how the
present terribly inadequate model of electrodynamics (used in
electrical engineering) has long inhibited our scientific progress
by blocking the development of precursor engineering and negative
entropy engineering. That terribly flawed model and its continuing
use are also directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
millions of persons worldwide who did not have to die, had a better EM model been available and used, and had the scientific community
not continued to adamantly propagate and uphold such a seriously
flawed EM model.
The source charge solution [14] also entails a coming great impact
on thermodynamics. The charge continuously consumes positive entropy
(disordered energy) in the active vacuum’s virtual state, coherently
integrates it, and produces negative entropy in the observable
universe by continuously re-emitting the ordered energy (real
observable photons), by a now-specified self-ordering criticality
process specified by the present author. The resulting macroscopic EM fields and potentials produced and continuously maintained while
spreading at light speed are ordered as a function of radial
distance.
There are no “static” EM fields and potentials anywhere in nature!
Instead, there are steady-state flows of EM energy that establish
and continuously maintain steady state dynamic EM fields and
potentials, in the sense explained by Van Flandern as follows
[34]:
“To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of
the term ‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no
moving parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by
continual replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this
difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static
in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second
sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter
has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of
entities that propagate.
Hence every charge in the universe is a nonequilibrium steady state
(NESS) system, continuously consuming positive entropy (disordered
energy) of the virtual particle flux of the vacuum and producing
negative entropy (ordered energy) of its macroscopic EM fields and
potentials, along the lines theoretically shown by a startled Evans
and Rondoni [13]. The original charges have been producing negative
entropy steadily for some 13.7 billion years, and they are still
continuing.
The use of STC/VPF engines as precursors to forces and to material
dynamics, thus opens an exciting and more fundamental vista for the
environmentalists: The vision of a new kind of engineering in
science and the electrical power industry. The breathtaking
capability is to develop and use a negentropic engineering that will
replace the old entropic engineering that has so sorely poisoned our
planet and damaged our biosphere. The present entropic form of the
Second Law is and always has been an oxymoron implicitly assuming
that its own contradiction has first occurred. This total
falsification of the present second law by the source charge
completes the work of falsifying that law—work that is ongoing by D.
Evans and his colleagues [35] and by many others. It also solves
the century-old, vexing “time asymmetry” problem of thermodynamics,
because negentropic processes are now permitted and experimentally
validated.
Conclusion
As one can see, there is a marvelous new science of the future
already in sight, desperately trying to get born. To be born,
however, there must exist a growing recognition and use of higher
group symmetry electrodynamics and application of a unified field
theory that is engineerable by these unusual electrodynamic means.
There must accordingly be a growing recognition of the very few
great pioneers in this field. Most of all, there must be funding of
doctoral programs and post doctoral programs in the area of
precursor engineering for negentropic processes and systems.
When this is accomplished, a revolutionary new science of precursor
engineering will be born. The positive impact on humanity, the
biosphere, and the progress of science will also benefit untold
generations yet unborn, from now throughout all the foreseeable
future of humankind.
References
[1]. J. D. Jackson, Classical
Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, New York, 1975, p.
219-211; 811-812.
[2]. James Clerk Maxwell, "A Dynamical Theory of the
Electromagnetic Field," Royal Society Transactions, Vol. CLV,
1865, p 459. Read Dec. 8, 1864.
[3]. William Rowan Hamilton, Lectures on Quaternions, 1st Edn.,
Hodges and Smith, Dublin,1853. See also William Rowan Hamilton,
Lectures on Quaternions, 3rd Edn., Chelsea, New York, 1969.
[4]. James Clerk Maxwell, Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and
Magnetism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1873
[5]. For a history of the development of vector algebra
and vector analysis, see M. J. Crowe, A History of Vector Analysis:
The Evolution of the Idea of a Vectorial System, University of
Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1967. Also corrected
edition, Dover, New York, 1985.
[6]. In symmetrically regauging the Heaviside-Maxwell equations,
electrodynamicists assume that the system potential (and thus
the potential energy of the system) can be freely changed at
will (i.e., they first assume that the system can be
asymmetrically regauged). This is also assumed under one of the
major principles of quantum field theory, known as gauge
freedom. Electrodynamicists arbitrarily do two asymmetrical
regaugings of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations in succession, but
carefully selected just so that the two new free EM fields that
emerge are equal and opposite. Thus they sum to a vector zero
resultant. There is thus no net force field which can be used to
push current against impedance, to dissipate the free excess
system energy to perform work in a load. Instead, the excess
free regauging energy is “locked up” as a change in the stress
of the system—as stress energy. So the electrodynamicists
arbitrarily discard that entire class of Maxwellian systems
which asymmetrically regauge by changing their own potential
energy and also producing a net nonzero force field along with
it. In short, the electrodynamicists deliberately assumed away
all the Maxwellian systems which can freely produce coefficient
of performance (COP) of COP>1.0.
[7]. Ubiquitous use of the closed current loop circuit with the
“external” power source in it, rigorously enforces symmetrical regauging, since the circuit equalizes forward emf in the
external circuit and back emf inside the dipolarity of the
generator. Hence half the energy collected in the external
circuit is used to destroy the dipolarity of the generator,
while the other half is dissipated in the external circuit’s
losses and the load. To restore generator dipolarity, one must
input to the shaft of the generator at least as much energy as
was dissipated in destroying the dipolarity. And this input
energy will thus be greater than the amount of energy dissipated
to power the load. Such a circuit thus self-enforces COP<1.0.
[8]. Michelson, A. A. and E. W. Morley, "Influence of motion of
the medium on the velocity of light," Am. J. Sci., Vol. 31,
Series 3, 1886, p. 377-386; — “The relative motion of the earth
and the luminiferous aether,” Am. J. Sci., 34(3), 1887, p. 333;
— “On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous
aether,” Phil. Mag. 24(4), 1887, p. 449.
[9]. In the West, precursor engineering has been ignored. In
highly classified Russian weapons projects controlled by the KGB
(today called the FSS or Federal Security Services), it has been
developed and weaponized as what is known as energetics.
Elsewhere (e.g., www.cheniere.org) we have reported on the
status of such weapon developments, and do not further discuss
them here.
[10]. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands,
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA,
Vol. 1, 1964, p. 2-4.
[11]. Ibid., p. 12-2.
[12]. Ibid., p. 4-2.
[13]. 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.
[14]. T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole,"
Proceedings of Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1,
July 2000 , p. 86-98. Also published in Journal of New Energy,
5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. Also carried on website
www.cheniere.org and on DoE restricted website
http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/.
[15]. T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and
Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, Chapter 3:
Giant Negentropy, Dark Energy, Spiral Galaxies and Acceleration
of the Expanding Universe.
[16]. See also M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky,
"The Most General Form of the Vector Potential in
Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 15(3), June
2002, p. 245-261.
[17]. Michael Leyton, A Generative Theory of Shape,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.
[18]. (a) 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. See also (b) I. M. Yaglom,
Felix Klein and Sophus Lie: Evolution of the Idea of Symmetry in
the Nineteenth Century, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1988.
[19]. See Huy Price, Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, Oxford
University Press, 1996, paperback 1997, p. 78.
[20]. J. D. Jackson, ibid., 1975, p. 249.
[21]. E.g., see Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more
than the light incident on it?" American Journal of Physics,
51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327.
[22]. T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and
Principles, 2002, Chapter 9. The Supersystem and Remarks on
Gravity, Antigravity, and Testing.
[23]. See (a) M. W. Evans, “A Generally Covariant Field Equation
for Gravitation and Electromagnetism,” Found. Phys. Lett., vol.
16, 2003, p. 367-377; (b) — A Generally Covariant Field Equation
for Grand Unified Field Theory,” Found. Phys. Lett. 16(6), Dec.
2003, p. 507-541; (c) — “The Equations of Grand Unified Field
Theory in Terms of the Maurer-Cartan Structure Relations of
Differential Geometry,” Found. Phys. Lett. 17(1), Feb. 2004, p.
35-47; (d) — “Derivation of the Dirac Equation from the Evans
Wave Equation,” Found. Phys. Lett. 17(2), Apr. 2003, p. 149-166;
(e) — “Derivation of the Evans Wave Equation from the Lagrangian
and Action: Origin of the Planck Constant in General
Relativity,” Found. Phys. Lett., 17(3), Jun. 2004, p. 267-276
(in press); (f) — “New Concepts from the Evans Unified Field
Theory. Part One: The Evolution of Curvature, Oscillatory
Universe without Singularity, Causal Quantum Mechanics, and
Covariant Force and Field Equations,” Found. Phys. Lett. (in
press).
[24]. A complete exposé of the Prioré affair is given by
Jean-Michel Graille, Dossier Prioré: A New Pasteur Affair, De
Noel, Paris, 1984 [in French]. A succinct summary of the Prioré
affair is given by Christopher Bird, "The Case of Antoine Prioré
and His Therapeutic Machine: A Scandal in the Politics of
Science," Explore, 5(5-6), 1994, p. 97-110.
[25]. (a) E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential
Equations of Mathematical Physics,” Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903,
p. 333-355; (b) — “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.
[26]. (a) R. O. Becker, “The control system governing bone
growth in response to mechanical stress,” J. Ark. Med. Soc.,
Vol. 62, 1966, p. 404; (b) — and David G. Murray, "The
electrical control system regulating fracture healing in
amphibians," Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 73,
Nov.-Dec. 1970, p. 169-198; (c) — and D. G. Murray, “A method
for producing cellular dedifferentiation by means of very small
electrical currents,” Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci., Vol. 29, 1967, p.
606-615.
[27]. (a) R. O. Becker, "The direct current field: A primitive
control and communication system related to growth processes,"
Proceedings of the. XVI International. Congress of Zoology,
Washington, D.C., Vol. 3, 1963, p. 179-183; (b) — and Joseph A. Spadaro, "Electrical stimulation of partial limb regeneration in
mammals," Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Second
Series, 48(4), May 1972, p. 627-64; (c) R. O. Becker, Carlton F.
Hazlewood, Abraham R. Liboff, and Jan Walleczek, Electromagnetic
Applications In Medicine," NIH-OAM Electromagnetics Panel
Report, Jan. 15, 1993.
[28]. R. Courrier, "Exposé par M. le Professeur R. Courrier,
Secretaire Perpetuel de L'Academie des Sciences fait au cours
d'une reunion a L'Institut sur les effets de la Machine de M. A.
Prioré le 26 Avril 1977," [Presentation by Professeur R.
Courrier, Perpetual Secretary of the Academy of Sciences, made
at the meeting of the Academy on the effects of the machine of
M. A. Prioré.]
[29]. See (a) T. E. Bearden, "Vacuum Engines and Prioré's
Methodology: The True Science of Energy-Medicine, Parts I and
II," Explore, 6(1), 1995, p. 66-76; 6(2), 1995, p. 50-62.
Prioré’s patents are:
(b) Antoine Prioré, "Apparatus for
producing radiations penetrating living cells," U.S. Patent No.
3,368,155, Feb. 6, 1968;
(c) — "Method of producing radiations
for penetrating living cells," U.S. Patent No. 3,280,816, Oct.
25, 1966;
(d) — "Procede et dispositif de production de
rayonnements utilisables notamment pour le traitement de
cellules vivantes," [Procedure and Assemblage for Production of
Radiation Especially Serviceable for the Treatment of Living
Cells], Republique Francais Brevet d'Invention P.V. No. 899.414,
No. 1,342,772, Oct. 7, 1963.
[30]. A considerable number of these French references are given
in T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum, 2002, p. 546-547.
[31]. E.g., R. Pautrizel, M. R. Riviere, A. Prioré, and F.
Berlureau, "Influence d'ondes électromagnétiques et de champs
magnétiques associés sur l'immunité de la souris infestée par
Trypanosoma equiperdum," [Influence of electromagnetic waves and
associated magnetic fields on the immunity of the mouse infected
with the Trypanosoma equiperdum], Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci.
(Paris), 1966, Vol. 263, p. 579-582. [in French].
[32]. See (a) Michael Graille, ibid. Also see (b) Eric Perisse,
Effets des Ondes Electromagnètiques et des Champs Magnètiques
sur le Cancer et la Trypanosomiase Experimentale [Effects of
Electromagnetic Waves and Magnetic Fields on Cancer and
Experimental Trypanosomias], Doctoral thesis, University of
Bordeaux No. 83, March 16, 1984.
[33]. A. Prioré, Guérison de la Trypanosomiase Expérimentale
Aiguë et Chronique par L’action Combinée de Champs Magnétiques
et D’Ondes Electromagnétiques Modulés. [Healing of intense and
chronic experimental trypanosomiasis by the combined action of
magnetic fields and modulated electromagnetic waves], thesis
submitted in candidacy for the doctoral degree, 1973. Thanks to
the late Christopher Bird, the present author has the actual
thesis document submitted by Prioré and rejected by the
University.
[34]. Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the
experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p.
8-9.
[35]. (a) 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; (b) D. J. Evans, D.
J. Searles, and E. Mittag, "Fluctuation theorem for Hamiltonian
systems: Le Chatelier's principle, Phys. Rev. E., Vol. 63, 2001,
051105/1-4; (c) D. J. Evans, E. G. D. Cohen, and G. P. Morriss,
"Probability of second law violations in Nonequilibrium steady
states," Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 71, 1993, p. 2401-2404;
"Erratum", ibid., Vol. 71, 1993, p. 3616; (d) 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.
|