Dirac’s Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy

_____________________________ PART 1 _____________________________

D.L. Hotson*

Preface
Dirac’s Equation has profound implications both for sci- waves,” the equation therefore predicts that the entire
ence and for the search for new energy. If we continue to physical universe can be made from these four kinds of
use the wrong model (and the Standard Model is pro- electron. This study validates this prediction: all matter
foundly wrong) we will continue to get confusing results and all forces are shown to be necessary combinations
that are difficult to replicate. and applications of just these four kinds of electron, ful-
The enclosure shows the nature of the energetic, non- filling Dirac’s unitary expectation.
stationary aether that Einstein missed, that Dirac’s equa- In addition, direct applications of Dirac’s equation pro-
tion demonstrates, and that Heisenberg and others vide simple, logical, and natural models of the electromag-
destroyed when they dismantled this equation. It further
suggests that special conditions, catalysis, and energy
About the Author
available to a plasma may cause the synthesis, rather than
The Hotson “family business” is English literature. Mr. Hotson’s
the release, of free neutrons, causing transmutations and
father and uncle had Harvard Ph.D.s in the subject, and his late
the release of energy via beta decay. uncle was a famous Shakespeare scholar. Mr. Hotson, however,
The treatment of Dirac’s equation is a lesson in the way always intended a career in physics. Unfortunately, he could not
modern science works (or rather doesn’t). This treatment has resist asking awkward questions. His professors taught that con-
more recently been paralleled by the treatment of Reich, servation of mass-energy is the never-violated, rock-solid founda-
Pons and Fleischmann, Halton Arp, and others. But I think tion of all physics. In “pair production” a photon of at least 1.022
if one had to point to a single place where science went pro- MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair, each with 0.511 MeV of
foundly and permanently off the track, it would be 1934 and rest energy, with any excess being the momentum of the “creat-
the emasculation of Dirac’s equation. This crisis at the heart ed” pair. So supposedly the conservation books balance.
But the “created” electron and positron both have spin (angu-
of science caused a chronic “hardening of the paradigm” and
lar momentum) energy of h/4π. By any assumption as to the size
science thereby lost the ability to self-correct.
of electron or positron, this is far more energy than that supplied
by the photon at “creation.”
Abstract “Isn’t angular momentum energy?” he asked a professor.
Dirac’s wave equation is a relativistic generalization of the “Of course it is. This half-integer spin angular momentum is
Schrödinger wave equation. In 1934 this brilliantly success- the energy needed by the electron to set up a stable standing wave
ful equation was shorn of half of its solutions by a question- around the proton. Thus it is responsible for the Pauli exclusion
able bit of mathematical slight-of-hand. Because it was principle, hence for the extension and stability of all matter. You
“politically correct,” this bit of juggling became the accept- could say it is the sole cause of the periodic table of elements.”
ed interpretation. However, recent developments have “Then where does all this energy come from? How can the ‘cre-
shown the very basis of this mathematical trick to be invalid, ated’ electron have something like sixteen times more energy than
the photon that supposedly ‘created’ it? Isn’t this a huge violation of
in that it would involve massive violations of conservation.
your never-violated rock-solid foundation of all physics?”
A reevaluation is therefore warranted. “We regard spin angular momentum as an ‘inherent property’
The Schrödinger wave equation has been said to “contain of electron and positron, not as a violation of conservation.”
most of physics and all of chemistry.” Since Dirac’s equation “But if it’s real energy, where does it come from? Does the
is a relativistic generalization of this already generally appli- Energy Fairy step in and proclaim a miracle every time ‘creation’
cable wave equation, in formulating it Dirac expected that is invoked, billions of times a second? How does this fit your
its solutions would describe “everything that waves.” Since never-violated conservation?”
all matter and energy evolve as waves, Dirac thought his “‘Inherent property’ means we don’t talk about it, and you
equation would be a unitary “theory of everything.” won’t either if you want to pass this course.”
However, the discovery of several new particles and peer crit- Well, this answer sounded to him like the Stephen Leacock
aphorism: “‘Shut up,’ he explained.” Later Mr. Hotson was taken
icism resulting in the truncation of the equation frustrated
aside and told that his “attitude” was disrupting the class, and
this expectation, and it is generally known at present as
that further, with his “attitude,” there was no chance in hell of his
“Dirac’s equation of the electron.” completing a graduate program in physics, so “save your money.”
Dirac’s complete equation, however, describes a quan- He ended up at the Sorbonne studying French literature, and later
tum spinor field, which has as solutions four different became a professional land surveyor.
kinds of electron: electrons and positrons of positive However, he has retained a lifelong interest in the “awkward
energy, and electrons and positrons of negative energy. questions” of physics, and with Dirac’s Equation has found
Such supposedly “fundamental” entities as quarks and some answers.
gluons have no comparable wave equations; yet they
wave. Therefore they cannot be truly fundamental. Since * P.O. Box 789, Green Mountain Falls, CO 80819
in principle the Dirac field comprises “everything that Email: [email protected]

ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy 1

netic field, the “photon,” the “strong nuclear” force, the Ψ
wave, inertia, and gravitation. It provides direct-contact William of Ockham’s test would seem
physical models that agree with experiment, as opposed to
the purely mathematical (and unworkable) models so much
to indicate that science took a very
in vogue. The phase-entanglement feature of quantum wrong turn sometime around 1932.
mechanics, demonstrated by Bell’s Inequality and the proofs
thereof, requires that our reality be non-local. This seems to
banish causality. However, Dirac’s equation provides causal,
direct contact models which are nonetheless non-local. addition to these there was Anderson’s newly discovered
Great theorists from Bohr to Feynman have asserted that positron, the photon which was now widely considered to
“no one understands quantum mechanics.” The student is be a particle, and the gravitational and electromagnetic
warned for the sake of her sanity not to try to understand fields. Thus in 1932 the number of entities recognized by sci-
“how it can be like that,” but to take all its strangeness on ence totaled no more than seven. The unifying progress of
faith (Feynman, 1985). Like the White Queen in Alice, quan- science had over time reduced the number of entities from
tum physicists must “believe six impossible things before infinity to less than one hundred to a mere seven. (The actu-
breakfast.” However, merely with the single assumption that al low water mark had been reached a decade or so earlier,
the Dirac equation means what it says, these features are intu- before the discovery of the positron and the neutron. The
itively, understandably resolved: all the “strange” or “odd” neutron was then supposed to be an electron/proton fusion,
features of quantum mechanics follow simply, logically, nat- and the photon wasn’t yet considered a particle, so the enti-
urally, and necessarily. ties then recognized by science totaled merely four.)
So far so good. It seemed obvious that this process of uni-
Introduction fication would continue, and reduce the number of entities
The principle criteria for a successful scientific theory would still further. Great scientists such as Einstein dedicated their
seem to be the following: entire lives to unification. Nonetheless around that time the
simplifying trend reversed, and by the end of the century,
Criterion 1. Simplicity. It should embody as few “entities” as
the accepted Standard Model (SM) of particle physics called
possible, preferably only one. (This is William of Ockham’s
for around thirty-six “fundamental” particles, most with an
test, known as “Ockham’s Razor”: “Multiplicity ought not to
antiparticle, and each with its very own “field”: again almost
be posited without necessity.”)
one hundred separate entities. What happened? William of
Criterion 2. It should have few, preferably no, adjustable Ockham’s test would seem to indicate that science took a
parameters. (Also known as fudge factors.) very wrong turn sometime around 1932.
Well, perhaps the universe doesn’t shave with Ockham’s
Criterion 3. It should be mathematically consistent. razor—maybe it really is that complicated. But the evidence
Criterion 4. It should satisfy all of the known data, including points the other way. The universe exhibits very conspicuous
data unexplained, anomalous, or dismissed as “coincidence” economy, even parsimony, of means. The DNA molecule, the
according to previous theories. basis of life, is arguably the most complex entity known. Yet its
code is written using just four components, the four bases
Criterion 5. It should obey causality: every effect should have whose combinations comprise the genetic code. It can be
a proximate cause, with no “action at a distance.” shown by complexity theory that three bases would not pro-
vide sufficient complexity for this code, and five would be
Criterion 6. It should be falsifiable, making testable predic-
redundant. Yet any number of components could have been
tions.
used. However, only four are necessary, only four are used.
The first of these, Ockham’s razor, can be used as a general Further, all stable matter, including all of the chemical ele-
test of the soundness of a theory, as the general trend of suc- ments and their compounds such as DNA, is built of just three
cessful science is from disorder and complexity toward order components—electron, proton, and neutron. Again only three
and simplicity. Before the advent of modern chemistry, components are necessary, only three are used. Consider this
although matter was thought to consist of the four “elements” as a sequence, from more complex to less complex: four com-
earth, air, fire, and water, these could combine in unlimited ponents are both necessary and sufficient to build DNA, three
ways. Thus contemporary thought allowed for an infinite components are both necessary and sufficient to build all sta-
number of “entities” with no valid rules for their combinations. ble matter. Does this suggest that to build these three compo-
By 1890 science had shown that all matter consists of nents would require thirty-six “fundamental” components, and
ordered combinations of ninety-two “irreducible” elements, nearly one hundred entities? Surely not.
or atoms. The “gravitational field” was another entity, and Going by the above sequence, we should instead consider
Maxwell had unified electricity and magnetism, so the “elec- how many components are necessary to build electron, pro-
tromagnetic field” was another. Therefore, by this time the ton, and neutron. And here the computer shows the way.
progress of science had reduced this infinite number of enti- Computer science shows that operations of unlimited com-
ties to less than one hundred. plexity can be built up from just two binary components,
The discovery of radioactivity showed that these “ele- yes/no, on/off, plus/minus. Since two binary components are
ments” were not irreducible after all, and by 1932 after all that is necessary, by Ockham’s razor and the universe’s
Chadwick’s discovery of the neutron it was found that all demonstrated parsimony, two binary components should be
stable matter consists of ordered and understood combina- sufficient. This is not to suggest that the universe “is” a com-
tions of just three entities—electron, proton, and neutron. In puter (although several respected scientists, such as David

2 ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy

 result, “renormalization” is invoked: the positive infinity is,
The problem with the medieval debate in effect, divided by a negative infinity. Since the result of
this mathematically forbidden procedure is indeterminate,
over how many angels could dance on the desired value of 0.511 MeV is then simply entered by
the head of a pin was that angels were hand. This admitted fudge would not work if we didn’t
already know the answers.
unobserved entities, and so could have Feynman, who originated the “renormalization” process
any desired properties. Each of these (with Schwinger and Tomonaga), himself called it a “. . .shell
game. . .Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented
classes of unobserved entities in the us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynam-
ics is mathematically self-consistent. . .[renormalization] is
SM amounts to a fudge or patch
what I would call a dippy process!” (Feynman, 1985) Asked
applied to save a failing theory. So long for what he had won the Nobel Prize, Feynman replied, “For
sweeping them [the infinities] under the rug.” (Gleick, 1992)
as these fudged entities are made On the face of it, if the results of calculations of ordinary
unobservable in principle, like the angel values come out to be infinite, in case after case, shouldn’t
we take this as a gentle hint that something basic must be
or the quark, they are safe from exper- wrong, and start looking for a better model? Instead, like the
freshman that looks up the correct values in the back of the
imental falsification.
book, we fudge the answers. A student who pulled such a
stunt would flunk. The three famous professors who pulled
it shared a Nobel Prize.
Deutsch [1997] think it is), merely that computer logic and the This grant of a Nobel Prize for what is, after all, nothing
logic of building a universe appear, necessarily, to be parallel. but an elaborate fudge, testifies to the malaise of current the-
As an exercise, consider for a moment in broad terms how ory. This incredible award legitimized the fudge, which as a
a computer of unlimited capacity might go about modeling result is now an accepted, even rewarded scientific proce-
the physical universe, using merely its two entities. The ulti- dure. With this, physics lost the ability to self-correct, as a
mate aim must be the unlimited complexity and flexibility fudge can always be concocted to bring any datum, howev-
of the unlimited numbers of chemical compounds. But the er discordant, into at least apparent accord with the current
first thing a binary computer must do is construct the three. Three paradigm. As a direct consequence, most of the nearly one
is the builder. A triangle is the simplest figure to enclose hundred entities required by the SM are unobserved. The
space, a stool needs three legs, a universe needs three dimen- problem with the medieval debate over how many angels
sions. And all stable matter requires just three entities. could dance on the head of a pin was that angels were unob-
Let’s suppose that the computer, constrained by the uni- served entities, and so could have any desired properties.
verse’s physical laws, manages to model the electron, pro- Each of these classes of unobserved entities in the SM
ton, and neutron using just its two entities, which is cer- amounts to a fudge or patch applied to save a failing theory.
tainly possible, as we will later show. Then, again con- So long as these fudged entities are made unobservable in
strained by physical laws, the only physically possible com- principle, like the angel or the quark, they are safe from
binations of these three entities result in ninety-two “natu- experimental falsification.
ral elements,” most of them stable. (Note that all possible The SM also has a major problem with mass. Gordon
combinations are actually used.) And the possible (chemical) Kane (1995) argues that the Standard Model should really
combinations of these ninety-two “elements” are unlimited. be called the “Standard Theory” because it is nearly per-
So the numbers of entities in the computer modeling fect—just a few minor flaws. He then goes on to mention
sequence would be 2, 3, 92, unlimited. one of them (p. 117):
This is the fastest physically possible route to unlimited complex-
In its basic form, the Standard Theory is a theory for
ity. It is faster than any arithmetic or geometric progression.
massless particles. All the leptons, quarks, and bosons
These are the necessary numbers of entities; they should be suf-
must be particles without mass, or the mathematical
ficient. It is totally absurd to suppose that the sequence would
consistency of the theory is destroyed. The photon
go 36, 3, 92, unlimited, as the Standard Model (SM) insists.
and the gluons indeed have no mass, but the others
By William of Ockham’s test, therefore, the SM is far off
do. Why not just insert a mass for them in the equa-
track. How does it fare judged by the other above criteria?
tions? Unfortunately, in a quantum theory all aspects
Even worse.
of physics are so highly interconnected that if the
In contrast to the ideal of no adjustable parameters
masses are just put in, then calculations start to give
(Criterion 2), the SM requires at least nineteen adjustable
infinite values for many ordinary measurements. (In
parameters, values which have to be entered by hand. Since
the language of the last section of Chapter 4, the the-
it can be proven that 2 + 2 = 3 with just one adjustable
ory is then not renormalizable.)
parameter, this would seem to be a major defect.
Further, the SM is not mathematically consistent In other words, the Standard Theory is a beautiful theo-
(Criterion 3). The SM calculations of many ordinary values, ry—but it applies to some other universe, one in which all par-
such as the rest mass of the electron, come out to be infi- ticles oblige the theorists by being massless. Unfortunately,
nite. However, from experiment we know the electron’s in our universe, the stubborn particles perversely persist in
rest mass to be 0.511 MeV. To get rid of this “impossible” having mass, while stubborn theorists persist in clinging to

ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy 3

 are made. In each case, suppose that the rejected alterna-
It is an axiom of science that no theory tive has only one chance in three of being right. In each
case, clearly science will choose the more probable out-
will remain valid forever. That being so, come. Nonetheless, over the ten cases, the probabilities are
the “current paradigm” is by definition over three to one that at least one of the ten rejected alter-
natives is correct, and that the adopted paradigm will be
invalid! “Defense of the paradigm” is partially or completely wrong as a result.
therefore indefensible. Each new datum Moreover, if the choice involves a paradigm change, the
odds may be totally the other way, as it seems we will choose
should be cause for a review, not just of the alternative that defends the paradigm if that alternative
has any plausible chance whatever of being right (Arp, 1998).
the current paradigm, but of every
Many such choices were made in the early 1930s. Of course,
choice that led up to it. in real cases the actual odds are difficult or impossible to assess.
One choice in particular stands out, however, because of the pas-
sion aroused by the controversy, and because of its far-reaching
effect on the shape of subsequent theory. This controversy
a theory that treats them as if they didn’t. The current hope
involved the Dirac relativistic wave equation (Dirac, 1928a,
is that two more fudged entities, the (unobserved) Higgs
1928b), a relativistic generalization of the Schrödinger equation:
field and its supposed quantum, the (unobserved) Higgs
boson, will somehow solve this dilemma.
The remaining above criteria (4-6) are also violated by the
SM, as will be shown in what follows. The roots of most of
these violations go back to the early 1930s as well. The infini-
ties that so plague the model, as we will demonstrate, also have
their origin in the early 1930s, in an apparently wrong turn
Pais (1994) ranks this spectacularly successful equation
taken by science.
“. . .among the highest achievements of twentieth-century sci-
ence.” It was the first to be Lorentz-invariant, it had electron
The Fork in the Road spin as a necessary consequence, it gave the right magnetic
By the above criteria, then, the SM would appear to fail in
moment, the Thomas factor appeared automatically, and the
nearly every possible way, and all of its failures seem to stem
Sommerfeld fine structure formula was derived with the cor-
from the early 1930s. By all indications science seems to
rect Goudsmit/Uhlenbeck quantum numbers. At low energies,
have taken a wrong turn about this time. After three hun-
the results of the ordinary Schrödinger wave equation are
dred years of progressively simplifying the description of the
recovered. It predicted the positron, which was discovered by
universe, with fewer entities and simpler laws, it suddenly
Anderson soon after. It has since become the very basis of
turned the other way, with complexity and entities multi-
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) (Pais, 1994).
plying like rabbits. (Quantum Field Theory [QFT] in the SM
Despite these successes, the physics community greeted it
is now so mathematically complex with its thirty-six or so
with alarm and outrage. This was because the equation gave
[unobserved] fields that, as Treiman [2000] puts it, “There
twice as many states as they thought it should have. They
are no remotely realistic theories that are exactly soluble.”)
expected a Ψ with two components; but this equation gave
Science frequently makes choices between alternatives. Once
four. After the discovery of the positron, it was realized that its
the choice is made, however, scientists tend to unify behind the
four solutions call for electrons and positrons of positive ener-
accepted alternative to the extent of denying and eventually
gy, and electrons and positrons of negative energy (Pais, 1994).
forgetting that there was any “real” choice made. Subsequent
As Dirac pointed out, this is because the energy-momen-
textbooks gloss over any possible alternatives, depicting science
tum-mass relation E2 = c2p2 + m2c4, always associated with
as a straightforward march up the one correct path toward
Einstein and Special Relativity has two roots; it calls for both
truth. Since it is forgotten and denied that such choices existed,
positive and negative energy:
the results of these choices are rarely reviewed. Not only is there
no provision, or incentive, for such a review, there is positive, ± E = (c2p2 + m2c4)1/2
and powerful, peer pressure against any such questioning of
basic premises. (The inexcusable treatment of the astronomer [The mass-energy relationship E = mc2 was first derived and
Halton Arp [1998] is just one example.) published by Oliver Heaviside (1890) and further refined by
However, it is an axiom of science Poincare (1900), but Einstein (1905) first furnished the com-
that no theory will remain valid forev- plete expression including momentum.] Dirac wondered what
er. That being so, the “current para- to do with the negative energy solutions. “One gets over the
digm” is by definition invalid! difficulty on the classical theory by arbitrarily excluding those
solutions that have a negative E. One cannot do this in the
“Defense of the paradigm” is therefore
quantum theory, since in general a perturbation will cause
indefensible. Each new datum should
transitions from states with E positive to states with E nega-
be cause for a review, not just of the
tive.” (Dirac, 1928a)
current paradigm, but of every choice
Since all negative-energy states have lower energy than
that led up to it. Let’s suppose that,
any positive-energy state, Dirac wondered why there were
over the course of the history of sci-
any filled positive states, since according to Hamilton’s law all
P.A.M. Dirac (1902-1984) ence, ten paradigm-affecting choices
entities tend to seek the lowest-energy state. He suggested

4 ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy

 that all of the negative energy He made use of one of Dirac’s own suggestions. After
states must be filled, like the filled absorbing extended criticism from the Machians, Dirac had
electron shells in the Pauli exclu- concluded that, contrary to his earlier “hole” theory, all the
sion scheme. Then, unless a negative-energy states must be filled with negative-energy
“vacancy” occurred, positive electrons and positrons. He reasoned that if all the negative
energy particles would “float” on states and none of the positive states were filled, the two
the surface of the negative-energy could have no effect on each other. Thus Dirac made what
“sea” and stay positive. came to be called the “zeroth order subtraction,” removing
Dirac’s “sea” of filled negative those parts of the theory which referred to the negative-
energy states, while it satisfied the energy “sea.” (The subtraction utilizes a mathematical trick,
Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) equation, didn’t at all satisfy the the Grassman elements, to remove two of the states called
physicists. Heisenberg (1928a) for in the Dirac equation, the two negative energy solutions.
wrote to Pauli: “In order not to be forever irritated with Dirac The Grassman elements are generalizations of Hamilton’s
I have done something else for a change.” A little later he “quaternions,” elements that satisfy such strange-looking
wrote, “The saddest chapter of modern physics is and equations as a x b = -b x a. Grassman’s elements look even
remains the Dirac theory.” He further added that Dirac’s stranger. In them, a x a = 0. They can be used mathemati-
“magnetic electron had made Jordan melancholic.” cally to express the exclusion principle, but at the cost of
(Heisenberg, 1928b) eliminating negative energies. There is no justification for
Later, after the discovery of the positron, again in a letter supposing they apply to Dirac’s oscillators. Their use is
to Pauli, who had reported himself “Your (drowned in equivalent to saying, “Let black equal white. Now, black
Dirac’s formulae) W. Pauli,” Heisenberg remarked, “I regard doesn’t exist!”) While Dirac intended the step merely to
the Dirac theory. . .as learned trash which no one can take simplify calculations, Heisenberg seized on it, using it to
seriously.” (Heisenberg, 1934a) deny any existence to such states.
These emotional responses were not limited to The problem was that such states seemed necessary, both to
Heisenberg, Pauli, and Jordan. They were general among the the theory and to the experimental evidence. Using the theo-
physics community. Their objection was not to the success- ry, Dirac (1930a), Oppenheimer (1930), and Heisenberg (1931)
ful equation, but to its requirement of a sea of negative-ener- had all shown that every charged particle can give rise to
gy states. They were all good Machians, insisting that theo- unlimited numbers of electron-positron pairs and their associ-
ry should be based on observables alone. They were not at all ated photons, pulled up from the “sea” by the charge, making
open to a suggestion that they might have been missing half every interaction an infinite-body problem. Moreover, this
of reality all these centuries, as Mach had missed the atom. “polarization of the vacuum,” apparent in measurements even
(Mach insisted to his death in 1916 that the atomic hypoth- then, has since been rigorously verified (Pais, 1994). The Dirac
esis “went beyond the data.”) Heisenberg had developed the theory (1934) required every charge to be surrounded by
first successful version of quantum mechanics on a Machian unlimited numbers of the opposite charged ends of electron-
basis, and an unobserved, ubiquitous “sea” was anathema. positron pairs (henceforth “epos”). Experiment verified that
Worse, it harked back to an old war, the “aether” conflict. the epos were both present and necessary.
On largely Machian grounds, Einstein in 1905 had declared This “polarization of the vacuum” has since become QED’s
the “luminiferous aether,” the supposed carrier of light, to be most celebrated success. Using difficult perturbation calcula-
unobserved, hence nonexistent. [Lorentz’s electromagnetic tions involving the charges of an unlimited number of epos
aether (Lorentz, 1904, 1909) answered all of the other objec- and their associated photons surrounding a charged particle,
tions to a carrier of light, including the results of the the theory computes the electron’s magnetic “g” factor to an
Michelson-Morley experiment, so the only remaining objec- agreement with experiment of ten significant figures or more.
tion was the Machian one.] For a generation, the “Aether Along with the other Machians, Heisenberg had for six
War” had raged in every faculty. By 1930 the tide was defi- years been trying to find the “obvious” mistake in Dirac’s
nitely running with the Relativists, and most remaining “learned trash.” He failed utterly: the equation was mathe-
aether enthusiasts were dying out. (Lorentz, their doyen, matically flawless, it was Lorentz invariant, it accounted for
died in 1928.) They were far from forgotten, however. Any virtually everything concerning the electron and positron,
reference to a universal substance that undetectably filled and it was becoming increasingly useful. But it called for the
space sounded too much like an aether. unthinkable, the politically incorrect “sea” of negative-ener-
The final argument was always that negative energy is gy epos. So Heisenberg looked for and finally found what
impossible, with no imaginable physical meaning. Of course, seemed to be an escape hatch. (Furry and Oppenheimer
pronouncements that something is impossible have a long his- [1934] independently made similar suggestions.)
tory of looking foolish in retrospect, but this one seemed per- Since Dirac’s “zeroth order subtraction” removes all trace
suasive at the time, and is still heard. (We will later suggest a of the negative-energy “sea” from the equations, Heisenberg
very possible physical meaning for negative energy.) (1934b) found that he could skirt around the “sea” (mathe-
matically) as if it doesn’t exist. The equations call for elec-
Heisenberg’s “Window” tron-positron pairs. But since the negative-energy “sea”
Heisenberg was the most upset by this theory, which out- removed from the equations now doesn’t exist, they can’t
raged his Machian belief system, so it is no surprise that he come from there. Therefore the operator that previously
was the first to work out a way to squirm out of the Dirac called for unlimited numbers of negative energy electron-
equation’s and the energy equation’s requirements of nega- positron pairs to be raised in state (from negative to positive
tive energy states (Heisenberg, 1934b). energy), now magically became a “creation operator” of

ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy 5

 the respective latitudes in energy and time of observation,
As Dirac noted, physicists had always then ∆E • ∆t ≥ h/2π. He took this to mean that if one
observed for a sufficiently brief interval of time, (∆t
arbitrarily ignored the negative energy approaches 0), then the energy available would be effective-
solutions. If they were real in some ly unlimited (∆E approaches infinity).
He therefore decided that these “created” epos must be
sense, as Dirac’s “learned trash” insist- “virtual” rather than “actual” (though the equations suggest
ed, they had all been mortifyingly, cata- no such thing), coming into being (in unlimited numbers)
for a brief instant of time using energy “borrowed” (in
strophically wrong all these years, unlimited amounts) from this relation. And when they
“annihilate,” he argued, they merely “pay back the loan” to
ignoring exactly half of reality. And that the uncertainty relation.
other half of reality, alarmingly, seemed Operationally, of course, “virtual” here means “having
whatever properties we chose.” One of the handy properties
to resemble the anathematized aether. chosen for these unlimited numbers of “virtual” epos is that,
although formed of unlimited amounts of energy, they
somehow don’t gravitate. Thus they violate General
Relativity, which states that such unlimited energy should
unlimited numbers of positive energy electron-positron pairs. curl the universe into a little ball. Every electron, surround-
(Magically because they apparently appear from nowhere.) ed by unlimited numbers of epos, should be a “black hole.”
Since they come from nowhere, yet must be present, this So stood the question in 1934. The Dirac equation was a
operator creates them on the spot. Similarly, when they dis- direct threat to the reigning paradigm. As Dirac noted,
appear again at this same sea level, they can’t be returning to physicists had always arbitrarily ignored the negative energy
the non-existent “sea,” they must be annihilating, so the solutions. If they were real in some sense, as Dirac’s “learned
state-lowering operator magically becomes an “annihilation trash” insisted, they had all been mortifyingly, catastrophi-
operator.” (See Pais [1994] for the details.) cally wrong all these years, ignoring exactly half of reality.
In effect, Heisenberg merely put “horse blinders” on the And that other half of reality, alarmingly, seemed to resem-
equations, so they could no longer “see” the negative ener- ble the anathematized aether. Though his interpretation
gy solutions. He reset his gauge to zero at “sea level.” Using seemed to violate either conservation or General Relativity,
the “zeroth order subtraction,” which forces all results to be or both, Heisenberg’s mathematical conjuring trick offered
positive, an “ocean” no longer exists: there are no negative an escape route, a window, however tiny and iffy. Perhaps
solutions, so nothing is below “sea level.” Those waves out the paradigm could yet be saved.
there? Oh, they’re just vacuum fluctuations around the zero As we know, science took this escape route and never
baseline. We call them “Zero-Point Fluctuations.” When a looked back. They saved the paradigm. But were they right
dolphin is ill-mannered enough to jump out of this non- to do so? Let’s try to set up some kind of balance sheet.
existent ocean, we merely utilize the “creation” operator,
and voilà, a dolphin appears. When it dives back into the At What Cost?
non-existent ocean, quick, Henry, the “annihilation” opera- On one side we have perhaps the two most used and respect-
tor, and presto! It’s gone. ed relations in modern physics, the energy equation and
In defense of Heisenberg, the experimental evidence had Dirac’s relativistic wave equation. The energy equation calls
indeed begun to look as if “creation” and “annihilation” for negative energy, and Dirac’s equation specifically calls for
were actually happening. In cloud chamber studies of cos- negative-energy electrons and positrons in unlimited num-
mic rays, high-energy gamma rays (photons) suddenly gave bers. Experiment confirms that electron-positron pairs
birth to electron-positron pairs (epos), which separated at (epos) in unlimited numbers actually exist, surrounding and
high velocity. The positron then would approach another being polarized by every charged particle.
electron, and the two would disappear, being replaced by As noted above, the Dirac equation was spectacularly
high-energy (0.511 MeV) photons. successful. Not only did it explain everything Dirac hoped
There was, however, one immense difference: it would, the above listed accomplishments include sever-
Heisenberg’s “creation operator” required the creation of al complete surprises, as were the totally unanticipated
unlimited numbers of electron-positron pairs (epos) without predictions.
any high-energy photons, or, indeed, any measurable energy But if we follow Heisenberg, we are expected to believe
input at all. And when they are “annihilated” by the other that this colossus of equations has feet, or roots, of clay.
operator, the epos vanish without a trace, producing no We are told that it is completely wrong only in this one
high-energy photons or any other detectable energy. thing, the sign of the electron-positron pairs verified by
This massive violation of conservation bothered experiment. They are not merely “raised in state” from a
Heisenberg only momentarily, because there was a seeming negative energy “sea” of such pairs. That, we are assured, is
“energy window” in the uncertainty relations that he him- impossible: it must be “an accident of the formalism.”
self had famously developed. These limited what one could Instead, these necessary epos must be created on the spot in
know (measure) about a quantum state: if one measured the an operation that violates either conservation or General
position of a particle exactly, then its momentum was max- Relativity or both.
imally uncertain, and vice versa. He developed a similar Arthur C. Clarke pointed out that if a man in a long
expression for energy and time, namely that if ∆E and ∆t are white coat tells you that something is possible, he is prob-

6 ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy

 sic attribute.” All that says is, “This energy is there; we don’t
Since there are unlimited numbers of know where it comes from, so let’s not talk about it.” Calling
it an “intrinsic attribute” is supposed to close the subject,
epos around every charge at all times, it like the Stephen Leacock aphorism: “‘Shut up,’ he
doesn’t matter how briefly each individ- explained.” Naming and agreeing to ignore it makes this
1600% violation of conservation go away. In effect, current
ual epo exists, this amounts to a perma- theory proclaims a miracle every time “creation” or “annihi-
lation” is invoked—perhaps 10100 or more times a second.
nent loan of infinite energy. “Creation” is
This demonstrates that conservation is merely paid lip serv-
the proper term for it: only God could ice in the present practice of physics—something to be
respected if it agrees with the current paradigm, but thrown
have that much energy to loan. to the winds if it proves inconvenient.
Even ignoring these massive violations of conservation, it
seems hopelessly naïve to suppose that complex entities
such as electrons and positrons, with spin, charge, and a
ably right. But if he tells you something is impossible, he number of other properties, could be “created out of noth-
is almost certainly wrong. Yet here we are told that some- ing” but “pure energy.” This is like supposing that if we put
thing called for by both of these most respected of rela- a bunch of electronic components in a box, and shake them
tions is impossible. There are about eight different things hard enough (i.e. add “pure energy”) the result will be a com-
that the Dirac equation got exactly right, but this one thing puter. “Pure energy” can never supply the exact and specific
it got wrong? Surely, if it is completely wrong on some- information necessary to make the highly complex little enti-
thing so basic, it would have given wrong answers or fewer ties that we call electron and positron. After all, we don’t
answers elsewhere as well. To be so certain it is wrong sci- know how to make either electron or positron. What is
ence, we must have direct evidence that negative energy “electric charge”? We haven’t a clue. Why are their spins
doesn’t exist, right? quantized in half-integer values? No idea. Where do they get
Well, that’s a problem—you can’t prove a negative. There their immense, anomalous angular momentum? Beats us.
is no way to prove that negative energy won’t someday be And how on earth do they manage to pack all this into a
shown to be real, with a physical meaning. For the moment, zero or near zero radius? Yet we baldly suppose that “pure
let’s leave the question hanging. energy” knows how to do all these things we can’t do!
Given all these problems with Heisenberg’s “window,”
The Miracle of “Creation” wouldn’t it have made sense to at least look at what two of
However, for Heisenberg to put physics into the “creation” the most successful equations in recent scientific history
business is something else entirely. In what form does a mandate? They say that electron-positron pairs already exist,
“relation” loan out “pure energy”? Cash, check, or money everywhere. Instead of being “created” in pair production or
order? And since there are unlimited numbers of epos around around every ion, which as we have seen involves massive
every charge at all times, it doesn’t matter how briefly each violations of conservation, they are merely raised in state
individual epo exists, this amounts to a permanent loan of from negative to positive energies.
infinite energy. “Creation” is the proper term for it: only God We will later look at this question more closely, and show
could have that much energy to loan. why this “raising in state” requires no additional energy,
There are further conservation problems with any “cre- resulting merely from the ion’s unbalanced charge. First we
ation” process, even one where the mass-equivalent energy need to look at more problems with “annihilation.”
is supplied by real, 0.511 MeV photons. For both electron When an electron approaches a positron, they don’t just
and positron have spin (angular momentum) energy equal rush together and disappear. Instead, they approach until
to \/2. By any assumption as to the size of electron and they are a distance apart that is the width of the electronic
positron, this is much more energy than that supplied by ground state of hydrogen. At this relatively large distance
photons at “creation,” or taken away by photons at “anni- (some 56,000 times the diameter of a proton) they start to
hilation.” Somehow the “created” electron has something like orbit around each other in the configuration called
sixteen times more energy than the photon that “created” it. “positronium.” (This in itself should have told us that
This spin energy is real energy. It is the angular momen- something other than “annihilation” was going on.) They
tum needed by the electron to set up a stable standing wave never get closer to each other than atomic distances. After
around the proton. Thus, it alone is directly responsible for orbiting each other in this pseudoatom for a time that
the extension and stability of all matter. Ultimately, it sup- depends on whether their spins are parallel or opposed,
plies the hν energy acquired by a photon when an electron they emit two or more photons that total all of their posi-
jumps from one orbit to another. This half-integer energy is tive energy. After that they are no longer detectable, and
the cause of Fermi-Dirac statistics, of the Pauli exclusion conventional wisdom says that their charges and spins
principle, and ultimately of the periodic table of elements. have “cancelled” and that they have “annihilated” and are
In mathematics, if you set two things spinning in oppo- no more. But since they never get closer to each other than
site directions, and take the average, the spins average to 56,000 times the diameter of a proton, how can they pos-
zero. But in the physical world, giving two real objects large sibly “cancel and annihilate”? They never get anywhere
amounts of angular momentum takes real energy. Instead of near each other, and nothing passes between them. For
honestly facing this gross abandonment of conservation, them to “annihilate” would be action at a distance, a direct
current theory dubs particle angular momentum an “intrin- violation of causality. Doesn’t it make more sense to sup-

ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy 7

 which is forbidden to conventional science,” Arp, 1998.] Yet
The astronomer Halton Arp noted that in this case, the odds that they made the wrong choice
would seem almost incalculably high. Surely they were high
when faced with a choice involving a enough that someone, in the time this question was being
paradigm change, scientists will almost debated, would at least have suggested examining the ramifi-
cations of the other choice: of the negative energy electron-
invariably choose the alternative that positron “sea.” At the least someone might have suggested that
the choice be held in abeyance until more evidence was in.
will save the paradigm, regardless of But neither of these appear to have been suggested; if they
the evidence. were suggested, they were certainly not done. [H. Bondi
(1957) appears to be an exception. Much later, he examined
negative energy within General Relativity. Also, T.E. Phipps,
Jr. (1976, 1986) explores both negative energy (the “hole
pose that they still exist, as the Dirac equation requires, theory”) and negative (or “imaginary”) momentum in his
merely lowered in state to negative energies? “Beta Structure Hypothesis.”] The case seems to have been
Another problem: to say that something has charge means decided with apparent unanimity soon after Heisenberg’s
that it has potential energy with respect to every other “window” became widely known. (That Furry and
charged particle in the universe, and vice versa. For an elec- Oppenheimer [1934] independently made similar sugges-
tron and positron to “annihilate” while they are a large dis- tions of course would seem to strengthen Heisenberg’s case.)
tance apart means that, according to Maxwell’s equations, Even Dirac appears not to have pursued negative energy
the potential energies of every charged particle in the uni- much farther. His objections to QED were on the grounds of
verse must change instantaneously, except for those that are infinities (Pais, 1994).
exactly equidistant from both of them. This violates conser- Would the decision have changed, had the question been
vation not only locally, but universally. It is real action at a held in abeyance? To consider this, we have to look at the
distance, violating causality as well. But again the problem results of this choice, immediate and longer-ranged.
would seem to be solved merely by taking seriously what the The first result was highly questionable by William of
Dirac equation says: that the spins and charges still exist, Ockham’s test. Heisenberg introduced four new (unobserved)
merely lowered in state to negative energies. entities, bringing the total number of entities instantly from
What the equations call for validates the conservation of seven to eleven. (The virtual electron, the virtual positron, the
charge, which is violated by “creation” and “annihilation.” virtual photon, and a “relation” gone into the loan business,
Just as conservation of mass-energy means that mass-energy with infinite energy to loan out.) This was a considerable aban-
can neither be created nor destroyed, so conservation of charge donment of his Machian principles. And as we know, entities
means that charge can neither be created nor destroyed. (We have proliferated without limit ever since.
will later look at other supposed creations of charge, such as Furthermore, almost immediately the theory was
beta decay, and show that in each case the supposed creation engulfed in infinities. For, of course, if these epos are “creat-
was merely the separation of an existing epo.) ed” by the electron’s charge, its mass must include them—an
infinite-body problem, making the mass of the electron, as
Arp’s Axiom Treiman (2000) puts it, “slightly infinite.” Moreover, sur-
So we see the choice that scientists of the time had to make: rounded by this infinity of positive charges, its “bare” charge
whether to believe what these fabulously successful equa- had to be infinite also, or no charge would “leak out” to be
tions say about negative energy, and try to figure out what measured. And virtually any electromagnetic process one
negative energy might mean, or to escape through could name turned out to be infinitely probable.
Heisenberg’s “window” and save the paradigm. As we know, These infinities continued to plague the theory, turning up
they saved the paradigm, even though this required whole- in endless additional cases and making life miserable for every-
sale miracles that put science into the “creation” business on one until, in exasperation, we fudged the answers we wanted.
a scale rivaling the God of religion. Almost incidentally, it This only swept under the rug certain classes of infinities, but
required immense violations of causality, of conservation of at least it allowed us to do the theory and extract additional
charge, and of conservation of angular momentum, as well information after some of the infinities were wished away.
as the mind-numbing violation of conservation of After the Nobel Committee had dignified this fudge with
mass/energy. Thus it violated four of science’s most basic a prize, there was no longer any need to consider changing
“laws.” One wonders if there are any lengths to which sci- the paradigm when conflicting data threatened it. Following
entists will not go in order to save the paradigm. In this case, Heisenberg’s lead, one merely crafted unobservable entities
saving the paradigm would seem to involve the virtual aban- with suitably designed properties that made it all right again.
donment of science itself. “But wait,” the defenders of the paradigm exclaim. “The
In this, they obeyed what we might call “Arp’s Axiom.” electron’s magnetic ‘g’ factor agrees with experiment to bet-
The astronomer Halton Arp (1998) noted that when faced ter than ten significant figures. This proves that we made the
with a choice involving a paradigm change, scientists will right choice!” Sorry, it doesn’t. The Dirac theory also calls for
almost invariably choose the alternative that will save the positive-energy epos to surround every charge. (Moreover, as
paradigm, regardless of the evidence. [“Can we count on Dirac pointed out, a perturbation such as this will cause tran-
conventional science always choosing the incorrect alterna- sitions from states with E positive to states with E negative.)
tive between two possibilities? I would vote yes, because the So this one calculation would be exactly the same, whichev-
important problems usually require a change in paradigm er choice was made. But seemingly all of the other calcula-

8 ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy

 action. If that is not the case, as the above “smoking gun”
With new discoveries being made emphatically shows, then Heisenberg’s window doesn’t exist.
But the paradigm escaped through that nonexistent window.
almost daily, no theory can be expected
to be the final answer. In all probabili- Negative Energy
It seems we need to go back to 1934 and take another look at
ty, there is no “final answer Dirac’s negative energy solutions. As mentioned above, simply
taking these equations at their word eliminates most of these
infinities and gross violations of conservation. The equations
say that unlimited numbers of epos already exist, everywhere,
tions come up either infinite, or so imprecise as to call into and that they are merely raised in state, not “created.” It is pos-
question the validity of the theory. An example is the mag- sible, perhaps, that there exists another “window.” Certainly
netic moment of the proton, in which the measured value is defenders of the paradigm will search for one. However,
10,000 times more accurate than the theoretical value Heisenberg (and other brilliant theorists, such as Pauli, Jordan,
(Feynman, 1985). Obviously, this is why we hear only about Furry, and Oppenheimer) searched for six years, then came up
this measurement of the “g” factor, the one total success, not with a window that wasn’t. In any case, the above difficulties
about the numerous total failures and near misses. with the present paradigm indicate very clearly that there were
Therefore it would seem that the accepted paradigm’s only immense problems with the choice they made.
instance in which near-perfect agreement is reached What might we expect to find down the “road not
between theory and experiment is the one instance in which taken”? As noted in the opening argument, Ockham’s razor
both choices would give the same result. measures the progress of science in terms of simplicity. If
It is increasingly clear that we made a choice to save the “negative energy” is a correct road, we would expect the
existing paradigm despite the basic laws of physics, the evi- number of entities recognized by science, seven in 1932, to
dence, and the clear meaning of the equations. As a direct decrease further rather than to increase to nearly one hun-
result, violations of conservation, entities, infinities, and ever dred, as they have done since then. We would expect a con-
more mathematically intractable theories proliferated without sequent simplification of the mathematics involved. We
limit, right up to the present. But there is one recent develop- would certainly expect to clear up the gross violations of
ment that calls into question the very basis of that choice. conservation implicit in Heisenberg’s “creation” window.
And this would, as we will show, clear up the infinities that
The Smoking Gun plague current theory without recourse to fudging.
It turns out that, in effect, the equations of QM act as if time This is such an ambitious project that we cannot hope to
is quantized. As Prof. Treiman (2000) explains, “There is prove all of this in the present work. We merely hope to indi-
another inequality relation in quantum mechanics that is cate the directions that future theory might take in follow-
often cited, one involving energy and time. It has the look of ing the clear leads of the energy equation and, most particu-
an uncertainty principle but it stands on a different footing larly, of the complete Dirac equation in the light of subse-
than the Heisenberg uncertainty relations discussed above.”
quent discoveries. And above all we should remain flexible.
He goes on to show that there is a minimum time, τ, which
Clearly, this crisis at the heart of science was the result of a
must elapse before the wave function “changes appreciably.”
chronic “hardening of the paradigm.” With new discoveries
[This minimum time appears to be 2e2/3mc3, or 6.26 x 10-24
being made almost daily, no theory can be expected to be
seconds. We will discuss this later.] This means that the wave
the final answer. In all probability, there is no “final answer.”
function changes only in increments of the constant τ. From
Therefore, while we may present a number of probable
the time t = 0 to t = τ there is no change in the function;
consequences of following this new road, keep in mind that
then at t = τ, all the change happens at once. He then shows
that the modern version of what Heisenberg assumed to be they are all tentative, subject to revision as well as analytical
the uncertainty relation ∆t • ∆E ≥ \ is really the inequality and experimental falsification. In view of this, the first step
τ • ∆E ≥ \. (We will examine this apparent quantization of is to take a long look at the rejected alternative, the negative
time in more detail later.) energy sea that this most successful of equations calls for. In
If time is a constant that can only come in increments of particular, what could “negative energy” represent?
τ, as this inequality relation shows, then obviously it can not
be taken in increments approaching zero. Furthermore, in a Symmetry
“perfect quantum measurement” situation (such as the Airy These two equations call for symmetry between positive and
pattern) (Herbert, 1986) the root mean square energy devia- negative energy. This only matches the symmetry between
tion would equal \/τ. At most it would be a random amount the forces recognized by physics. There are two kinds of
over this, depending on the measurement situation. forces in nature, those that bind matter together, and those
Therefore Heisenberg’s “relation” is a poor “relation”: it does that free it, that blast it apart. The binding forces, such as
not have infinite amounts of energy to lend on every occa- gravitation, the “strong nuclear” force, and the Coulomb
sion. In a good measurement situation all the energy avail- force between unlike charges, all have negative signs. The
able is \/τ. There certainly is none to spare to “create” infi- freeing forces, such as the repulsive Coulomb force between
nite numbers of electron-positron pairs. like charges, have positive signs. The positive-sign forces act
This means that Heisenberg’s window never existed. to increase the amount of positive energy; the negative-sign
To recap: Heisenberg’s window was not outrageously in vio- forces all act to decrease it. Logic would indicate that “posi-
lation of conservation only because Heisenberg’s relation was tive energy” would be the result of positive forces, and “neg-
supposed to supply infinite amounts of energy to every inter- ative energy” the result of negative forces. However, because

ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy 9

 matter (mass) is positive energy, up places where the “single-entry” system has problems,
our reality has a large positive- such as near absolute zero. Just as an exercise, try to think of
energy balance. It never seems to “positive energy” as the result of positive forces, and “nega-
venture into negative territory, so tive energy” as the result of negative forces. Then, in the
we get by with an illogical “single- “lowering in state” called for by Dirac’s equation, when all
entry” bookkeeping that treats positive energy is removed from an electron and positron
positive energy as the only kind. and they drop into the “sea,” the only force between them
The blame for this appears to is the negative Coulomb force, and they clearly would have
fall on Ben Franklin, who flipped only “negative energy.” And since they are then apparently
a coin and chose to designate undetectable, it would seem that “negative energy” doesn’t
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) static electricity with a deficiency gravitate or have inertia. (“Mass” is only the result of positive
of electrons “positive” and that energy.) We will discuss the reason for this in what follows.
with a surplus of electrons “negative.” He assumed correctly There are other clear indications that negative energy does
that there was a “unit of electricity,” that electricity was the exist, but has merely been mislabeled. According to Feynman’s
transfer, the flow of some charged entity; but he guessed “parton” model, the nucleon consists of a swarm of charged
exactly wrong as to which one. By this mischance the elec- particles which are held together by the “strong nuclear force,”
tron, the very unit of electricity, was saddled with a minus which is negative in sign. As many of these partons have like
sign. But this mistake had far reaching consequences. Had charges, these are strong positive energy forces trying to blast the
he guessed correctly as to what was flowing, both the electron nucleon apart, which must be balanced by the even stronger
and what we now call “negative energy” would have had a negative strong nuclear force. To avoid calling the results of this
positive sign. In this much more logical case, would we have force “negative energy” is a purely semantic prejudice. To be
been so certain that something called “negative energy” is stable, the nucleon must be a balance of negative and positive
the only kind, and that something we would have to call forces, hence negative and positive energies.
“positive energy” doesn’t exist? Would we have been so quick The measured mass of an alpha particle is substantially less
to say that “positive energy” is impossible? than the sum of the mass-energies of the two neutrons and two
All through science, we observe almost total symmetry protons that make it up. To avoid the proscribed term “nega-
between positive and negative. Charges come in positive and tive energy,” this difference is called the “mass deficit” or the
negative, forces come in positive and negative, particles are “binding energy” or “negative potential energy.” (“Potential
symmetric between matter and antimatter. This last came as a energy,” in general, is a euphemism for the dirty term “nega-
great shock to physicists in the 1930s, but after it was accept- tive energy,” used when the energy supplied by a negative
ed, symmetry became the justification for many of our theo- force such as gravitation is unavoidable.) But each nucleon still
retical structures. Only in energy do we deny that such a sym- has its like “parton” charges, so when you add the two protons,
metry exists. This prejudice would seem to have its roots in the the “bound” nucleus must have more (positive) energy than its
past, in a time when most scientists were profoundly religious. “unbound” constituents. (The positive Coulomb repulsion
To them, “negative energy” perhaps sounded like something between the two protons in these close quarters is enormous.)
invoked by someone calling on Powers of Darkness, and they The only way in which a “bound” nucleus with more total
were only too glad to ignore it and deny its existence. But sure- energy can have less positive energy is if this “binding energy”
ly it is time to rise above such superstition, especially when we is negative energy. (Its sign of course is negative, as is the sign
realize that, but for Franklin’s mistake, “negative energy” of the strong nuclear force that binds the nucleus together.)
would be “positive energy.” Since the strong nuclear force is negative in sign, and since the
Surely the forces that combine, that draw things together, “binding energy” that results from it is negative in sign, it seems
that build, in all propriety should be considered positive clearly doubletalk to say that negative energy doesn’t exist.
forces. Yet Ben’s mistake saddles them with a minus sign. When two additional positive charges are added in the
And just as surely, the forces that force apart, that break formation of an alpha particle, all of the parton charges are
down, that explode, we would normally call negative forces. still there. Thus, the particle has more blasting-apart (posi-
Had Franklin made the right choice, this illogic would be tive) energy, and by conventional thinking should mass
cured. But mark the sequel: our reality then would have been more. However, to be stable, the negative energy-positive
seen to have a large negative energy balance. energy balance must change. So the alpha particle as it forms
In this case, since both the energy equation and Dirac’s divests itself of some positive energy, the energy that powers
equation are symmetric with respect to positive and negative the sun, thus giving the particle a higher percentage of (non-
energy, surely someone would have postulated a symmetrical gravitating) binding negative energy, and making it stable
reality somewhere with a balancing positive energy surplus. The again in spite of the additional two positive charges.
solutions to Dirac’s equation amount to a matter field contain-
ing unlimited, symmetrical amounts of negative and positive Negative Roots
energy. This implies that there exists a symmetrical “sea” with Science has ignored the negative energy solutions to these
a surplus of energy opposite in sign to that of our matter/ener- equations as “imaginary,” like the square root of a negative
gy. This would restore the symmetry between negative and number. However, the square root of minus one is not “imagi-
positive energy called for by these successful equations. nary”—that is perhaps an unfortunate name. Mathematically,
This will require a change of focus, especially for physi- represented as i, it simply designates a number field, or dimen-
cists who have worked with the “single-entry” bookkeeping sion, at right angles to the everyday three. It is necessary to
for so long. However, a more logical “double-entry” system many disciplines, especially electronics. In the Einstein-
works equally well with everyday energy issues, and it clears Minkowski interpretation of special relativity this “imaginary”

10 ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy

dimension is time. According to Minkowski (1909), there is “no of mass in the Lorentz relationships (Huang, 1952).
difference” between x, y, z, and ict, where t is time and c is the According to Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff (1994), mass is
velocity of light. Everyone who takes relativity seriously, there- caused by an action of the Zero-Point Fluctuations (ZPF) of
fore, believes in the reality of at least one direction in which the vacuum electromagnetic field that resists the accelera-
one cannot point: a definitely non-Machian belief. However, tion of a harmonically vibrating charge. “Mass is the mani-
mathematically there is no limit to the number of dimensions. festation of energy in the ZPF acting upon [vibrating]
In electronics, for instance, this “imaginary” dimension is not charged particles to create forces.” (Haisch and Rueda, 1997)
time. So it would seem that we need at least five dimensions. By this kinetic definition, an electron-positron pair vibrat-
Many of the popular string and superstring theories ing in a direction at right angles to our ordinary four, an
require, for symmetry, a space of ten dimensions (Sirag, “imaginary” direction, would have negative energy, the nega-
2000). General Relativity as well calls for ten tensors, or tive root of the Dirac equation. Just as the square root of a neg-
“dimensions of curvature” (Sirag, 1977a). To quote Dirac, ative number merely refers the result to a direction at right angles
(1963), commenting on the ten tensors of curvature of to our ordinary directions, so the negative root of the energy equa-
General Relativity, “The gravitational field is a tensor field tion refers to an energy (a vibration of charges) in one of these
with ten components. One finds that six of the components “imaginary” directions.
are adequate for describing everything of physical impor- All of the groundbreaking equations of quantum mechan-
tance and the other four can be dropped out of the equation. ics contain i either explicitly or implicitly. The meaning of
One cannot, however, pick out the six important compo- this has been staring us in the face for seventy years. These
nents from the complete set of ten in a way that does not “complex” functions involve vibrations partly in “real” partly in
destroy the four-dimensional symmetry.” Recent studies in “imaginary” directions. (And some that are “pure imaginary,”
astronomy have shown that space on a large scale is not such as the ±c velocity eigenvalue of the electron/positron.)
curved, but appears to be Euclidean to the limits of meas- We have been like Mr. A. Square from Flatland witnessing
urement (Arp 1998, Van Flandern 1998). In this case, the intrusion of a three-dimensional creature into his two-
General Relativity’s ten tensors of curvature become merely dimensional domain, puzzled over such seemingly impossi-
linear degrees of freedom, or dimensions. ble events, but unable to comprehend “how it can be like
Dirac (1928a, b) laid the foundations of QED with his rela- that.” Clearly, in both his case and ours, reality comprises
tivistic wave equation. In doing so, though, Dirac found that more dimensions than those we can directly sense.
having three dimensions “real” and the fourth “imaginary” And most conclusively, a perturbation, as Dirac pointed out,
didn’t work—it violated the symmetry. He took the first deriv- must cause transitions from states of positive energy to those
atives of all four dimensions by introducing i as well into x, y, of negative energy. Quantum mechanics must be symmetric
and z, making them symmetrical by making them all “imagi- with respect to energy. Since our reality has a large positive
nary.” Most physicists have considered this a trick, an “acci- energy balance, symmetry requires another reality with a large
dent of the formalism,” and disregarded it. However, when negative-energy balance. Vibrations of epos in these “imagi-
added to Dirac’s above statement about the six “necessary” nary” directions, as called for by the energy equation and
(dimensional) components and the four “unnecessary” ones, Dirac’s equation, would seem to meet this requirement.
this might imply that our entire reality is “imaginary,” as east- This would also seem to explain the relative unobserv-
ern mystics have insisted for thousands of years. ability of this negative-energy domain. It has no inertia,
All it need mean, though, is that there exist six other hence no “mass,” for reasons we will examine later. This, of
dimensions that are in “imaginary” (orthogonal) directions course, will explain why “binding energy,” above, has no
with respect to our four, while our four are similarly “imagi- inertial or gravitational mass.
nary” with respect to the other six. This gives us a place to Since these equations call for negative energy solutions,
put Dirac’s negative-energy “sea.” As we will demonstrate, it and since there is in fact a physically possible explanation
also gives us a physical explanation of “negative energy.” for negative energy, there seems to be no further excuse
for doubting that all four of the Dirac equation’s roots
The Kinetic Theory of Mass/Energy have physical meaning.
What is mass? Recent thought suggests that the energy equa-
tion, instead of saying that two different things can some- The Electron-Positron Pair
how be converted into each other, really means that mass is The negative-energy electrons and positrons called for, how-
just another form of energy (Haisch and Rueda, 1997). At a ever, appear to be permanently associated in pairs—epos.
fundamental level, all matter consists of charged particles in What can this mean? In our experience, an electron and a
harmonic motion (Cf. Feynman’s “parton” model of the pro- positron form “positronium,” then lose all their positive
ton/neutron). Mass appears to be the harmonic motion of energy and become undetectable. According to Dirac’s equa-
charged particles “trapped” within an energy well of some tion, they drop into the negative energy sea. What configu-
kind. This is why the most convenient and most often used ration do they assume there? For a possible answer, we need
unit expresses mass in terms of energy: the eV. to consider what Dirac’s equation says about the electron.
What then is this stuff, energy? As mentioned above, the Dirac’s equation describes a “spinor field.” In such a field,
SM has no idea what mass is. But as just another form of rotation of the wave function through 360˚ does not get it
energy, it appears to be firmly associated with motion: the back to its original state, but to its opposite: the electron has
harmonic vibration of a charge, or linear motion (momen- to “turn around twice” to get back to where it was. At 360˚,
tum). Many of the recent theories in Stochastic its wave function Ψ becomes -Ψ and it becomes, in effect, a
Electrodynamics (SED) use this kinetic definition (Puthoff, positron travelling backwards, to arrive at 0˚ and switch back
1989) which is of a piece with the general kinetic definition to an electron. (In QED, a positron is considered to be an

ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy 11

electron travelling backwards in time [Feynman, 1985].) So a tiples of this “quantum of time.” Since they travel at c as
positron is really only a totally out-of-phase electron. electromagnetic waves, this would make the “length” of
However, the equation also says (Huang, 1952) that the elec- an epo (a one-dimensional string, with a “point particle”
tron always travels at velocity c: its velocity eigenvalue is ±c. at each end) equal to τc, 2e 2/3mc2, or 1.87 x 10-15 meters.
Thus, in addition to whatever overall (macrocosmic) motion This is the measured diameter of the proton, which, as we
the electron has, which we could call its momentum, the elec- will see, is not a “mere coincidence.”
tron has an internal vibration at velocity ±c. Doesn’t this mean
that this internal vibration is as an electromagnetic wave? That’s “Pair Production”
the only momentum-carrying entity allowed to travel at c. We can now consider the interaction miscalled “creation.” A
Furthermore, this internal vibration must be in an “imaginary” high-energy photon collides with something, say a lead
direction, or, combined with its “momentum” velocity, it nucleus, and produces a “pair”—a “real” electron and positron,
would at times exceed c, which is not allowed in “real” direc- which separate at high velocity. Using the “complete” Dirac
tions for a “positive energy” particle. (This is the first explana- theory, we would regard this as the capture by a (negative ener-
tion ever given for this eigenvalue vibration that doesn’t violate gy) epo of sufficient positive energy to split the epo in half, and
the Lorentz relationship.) to give each half 0.511 MeV of “positive” energy plus sufficient
The only way it could travel at c and not at any other momentum to escape their mutual Coulomb attraction. They
velocity would be for the electron’s wave (Ψ) to be reflected at each now have a positive energy of mec2 plus momentum
360 degrees by the spinor “phase change” (positive to nega- energy, pc, in a “real” direction.
tive), thus changing electron to positron. (Since in this state However, the electron, as part of a negative-energy epo,
they have no “mass” or inertia, this reflection takes no time has a one-dimensional oscillation at ±c in an “imaginary”
or energy.) The analog would be a vibration traveling along direction. It retains this oscillation as a “real” electron—
a string fixed at each end, therefore reflected at each end. A hence its velocity eigenvalue of ±c (Huang, 1952). (Since this
spin 1/2 particle is out of phase with this phase change, and one-dimensional oscillation has no “mass” or inertia, it can’t
so is reflected. A spin 1 particle merely gets sent on its way, be affected by the capture, and the electron, obeying conser-
this being the fundamental difference between fermion and vation of angular momentum, retains it.) Therefore the
boson. This accounts for the fact that the fermion’s wave “real” electron’s wave function has a circular vibration at c in
doesn’t spread. (The Fourier sums of waves that have ampli- two “real” directions (giving it mc2 of positive energy) plus
tude only in a small area [“wave packets”] show that a non- a vibration at ±c in an “imaginary” direction, which adds no
spreading wave is possible, but don’t explain why this should positive energy. This makes its total (spherical) vibration
happen. Moreover, they do spread with time, as required by complex—part “real” and part “imaginary.” However, a com-
the uncertainty relationship. Also, the waves are still present ponent of the angular momentum of its “imaginary” spin car-
even in areas where they add to 0 amplitude.) ries over, giving the “real” electron its immense angular
This gives a possible model for a non-annihilating, non- momentum of \/2. Note that if all three vibrations were all
spreading electron-positron pair. For one thing, they are both positive energy, the electron’s energy would have been mc3,
fermions, so the probability of them being in the same place at around 1.5 x 108 MeV. As it is, because of our four “real”
the same time is exactly zero. (Another reason they can’t dimensions, the component of this complex spin energy in
“annihilate.”) Therefore they must establish some stable rela- any “real” direction appears to be 42(mc2) or around 16
tionship at a non-zero distance from each other. However, times the electron’s positive rest energy.
according to the above reciprocation, an electron and a This also accounts for the fact that this quantum number
positron could share a very stable relationship, vibrating in an is two-valued—”spin up” or “spin down,” as any “real”
imaginary direction while turning into each other every 360˚. direction can only be at right angles to three “imaginary”
On this model, they would be “particles” only at 0˚, 360˚, and directions at a time. And it of course accounts for the fact
720˚, turning into waves in between (“wave-particle duality”). that the electron’s wave function is a complex variable, with
And if they traveled as electromagnetic waves, they would not “real” and “imaginary” parts.
interfere with each other as they passed. Since in the least-ener- This further accounts for the hitherto mysterious fact that
gy arrangement their spins and charges would cancel, the epo the electron’s angular momentum is also complex, as the elec-
would appear to all the universe (and to the equations) as a tron’s angular momentum vector can not point in any “real”
neutral spin-zero boson, vibrating in an “imaginary” direction. direction. Consequently, neither can the electron’s orbital
(According to the kinetic theory, only charged entities can angular momentum vector in an atom (Treiman, 2000).
have energy, so any neutral spin-zero boson would have to be With this understanding, we have at a stroke eliminated the
an association of entities whose spins and charges cancelled.) massive violation of energy and angular momentum conserva-
Moreover, the period of this reciprocation would have to tion involved in “creation. The \/2 angular momentum of the
be the “quantum of time,” τ, equal to 2e2/3mc3, or 6.26 x electron is compounded from the epo’s vibration at ±c in an
10 -24 seconds. As shown above, this is the time required “imaginary” direction in the negative energy sea, and returns
for an “appreciable change” in the wave equation, which to that sea when it meets a matching positron. This under-
therefore only changes in increments of τ. This is Γe, the standing also eliminates the violation of conservation of
Lorentz-Abraham damping constant of the electron, and charge, as well as the violation of energy conservation involved
in classical electrodynamics, it is called the “damping con- in the “creation” of two charges, as a charge is energy—poten-
stant” (Jackson, 1975) or the “characteristic time” tial energy with respect to every other charged particle in the
(Jackson, 1993) of the electron. In particle physics, this is universe. The “creation” and “annihilation” of charges also
the minimum time taken by any interaction, and interac- violates, as we have seen, causality.
tions that take longer than this seem to require exact mul- We can further see reasons for some of the properties of

12 ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy

 of energy and time, the units of angular momentum, as in
It is perhaps unfortunate that QM the above inequality. It has always simply been assumed that
energy is the quantized entity, and you will find this stated as
came to maturity at the same time as fact in textbooks. But a photon can have any energy (witness
Relativity. Einstein convinced every- the results of a Doppler shift) and the equations of QM
would work exactly the same if it is assumed that time, not
one that a bastard unit, space-time, energy, is the quantized entity.
was a more accurate designation than It is perhaps unfortunate that QM came to maturity at the
same time as Relativity. Einstein convinced everyone that a
either space or time separately. bastard unit, space-time, was a more accurate designation
than either space or time separately. Thus physicists came to
accept another bastard unit, the energy-time of Planck’s con-
stant, which is not even a true constant, but a constant of pro-
the electron, properties totally inexplicable by conventional
portionality. Heisenberg (1938a, 1938b, 1944) always consid-
theory, properties that are just brushed aside with remarks
ered Planck’s constant to be shadow or projection of some true
like “Quantum mechanics is odd!” (Treiman, 2000)
constant in some other dimension, a constant that would
This is only the beginning of the riches to be mined from tak-
explain the “size” of the uncertainty principle. The constant
ing these equations seriously. For as is well known, every
he arrived at was τc, 2e2/3mc2, or 1.87 x 10-15 m. He attempt-
unmeasured quantum entity evolves as a wave, yet every meas-
ed to cut the universe into tiny cubes τc3 in size. This, of
urement reveals it to be a particle—as accurately as we can
course, was a failure. However, one wonders why he never
measure, a point-particle. (The latest measurements show the
suggested the more natural unit τ as his “pure” constant.
electron to be smaller than 10-18 m [Lederman, 1993], which is
Could it be that he realized that if time were quantized, his
2000 times smaller than the proton. And these measurements
“window” through which the paradigm had escaped would
are consistent with a true point-electron.) However, there are
be nonexistent?
severe difficulties with the point-electron model. A true point-
If we take Dirac’s equation seriously, moreover, time must be
electron, for instance, would have infinite density and infinite
quantized. As everyone from von Neuman (1928) to Pais (1993)
gravitational and Coulomb self-energy. Current theory is wild-
recognizes, the equation describes a spinor field in which elec-
ly divergent on this issue. The followers of Feynman and QED
tron changes to positron and vice versa every 360°, which as we
insist that everything behaves as particles, and QED treats them
have seen is the time τ. If this change happened at random
as point-particles (Feynman, 1985). Quantum field theorists
times, no charge could ever be measured, as our measuring
insist that everything is wave or field, that particles are mere
devices don’t work that fast. The result would be zero average
epiphenomena (Weinberg, 1977).
charge. So every electron in the universe must change polarity
There is, however, a logical way of resolving these views. In
at the exact same instant. In this case, at every phase angle oppo-
order to negotiate the “two slit” experiment and its variants,
site charges still attract, and like charges repel, no matter
the quantum object must have total knowledge of “the entire
whether the lepton is nominally electron or positron at that
measurement situation”—in theory, the entire physical uni-
instant. And since, as we will show, all matter is compounded
verse. That a single electron or photon should have such
of electrons and positrons, this means that all matter must
omniscience is of course absurd. However, if the unmeasured
change polarity in this same rhythm, the “quantum of time,”
quantum object exists as a non-local, multidimensional,
which is the “clock speed” of “least count” of the universe.
phase-entangled analog wave or set of interference patterns, as
In any case, Heisenberg clearly agreed with the above
the equations and experiments insist, then any interaction or
assessment of the “size” of the uncertainty principle.
measurement would represent a digital slice of this analog
Moreover, our understanding that this “size” is the inescapable
wave. Our “quantum of time” τ would then represent the
uncertainty involved in an analog-to-digital conversion clears
“reporting cycle” of this process, the minimum time between
up several further problems with the electron, particularly with
“reports.” As Gribben (1998a) says, the universe seems to
the infinities involved in the “point-electron” model.
“make the computation and present us with the result.” Thus,
when a measurement or interaction happens, the analog wave
is converted to a digital solution with the result reported to a
The Quantum Field
Assuming the reality of this negative energy epo sea, we can
specific set of coordinates—thus a “mathematical point.”
account for many of the hitherto mysterious properties of
Thus, every measurement or interaction involves an analog-
the electron. But how can we account mathematically for
to-digital conversion—and this involves a minimum quantiz-
the sea itself? Here quantum field theory comes to the res-
ing error proportionate to the “quantum of time.” This is the
cue. In his book The Odd Quantum, Sam Treiman (2000)
minimum time between digital “slices” of the analog wave,
introduces “only for pedagogical purposes” a very simple
and so fixes the minimum “uncertainty” of the conjugate vari-
“model field”: a single, scalar field φ (x,y,z,t) which classical-
ables. This is the first explanation ever given for the uncertain-
ly obeys the linear differential equation
ty principle—it represents merely the minimum quantizing
error. We can now see that the fundamental relation is that of
time and energy,

τ • ∆E ≥\.

The other conjugate (complementary) properties derive Treiman then goes on to quantize the field, and solve for
from this. the eigenvalues. The results, as he states, are “quite remark-
Of course, the units of Planck’s constant are the products

ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy 13

able.” Notably: terms in the differential equations that describe them in order
for there to be interactions, and this is why none of the theo-
. . .The allowed momentum eigenvalues p form a con- ries are exactly soluble.) But as we noted above, this “free field
tinuum, all magnitudes and directions being allowed. theory” exactly describes our strictly identical, negative-energy
For any given momentum p there is a particular state boson sea, in which electron and positron approach as if for a
with energy collision, but in fact they don’t collide, as they are both waves
at the time. (We will later show that this lack of interactions
E = [(cp)2 + (mc2)2]1/2, where m = \p/c.
between fields is a non-problem, because there is only one
This is just exactly the relativistic energy-momentum field, this simplest Dirac field.)
relation that holds for a material particle of mass m. The form that this negative-energy boson sea must take
It is natural to interpret this state as in fact describing can be seen as we approach the absolute zero state of the zero
just that; we may speak of this as a one-particle state. point. In laboratory ultra-cold studies, we remove “positive”
A particle has somehow emerged out of the quantum energy and achieve lower temperatures to come closer and
field. The parameter p that we started with fixes its closer to “zero absolute,” which is a state of no positive ener-
mass. [Emphasis his] gy. That there is still immense energy (hν/2) at this zero
point of no positive energy should immediately have informed
It is important to note that, to be accurate, the above us that positive energy is not the only kind of energy. So
expression should read “plus or minus E.” The one-particle what is the alternative to positive energy?
state can have either positive or negative energy. (Typically, As we approach the zero-point, some curious things hap-
as Dirac noted, the negative root is suppressed: if we pretend pen. First, centered at about 2.73˚K, we find an immense
it isn’t there, maybe it will go away.) number of photons. Then, at 0˚K, the equations of QM tell
The remarkable thing is that, starting with a simple field, us that there is unlimited energy. Let’s say you are approach-
particles emerge as quanta of the field. Treiman further notes ing a wall. As you approach, you detect a large amount of
that there are families of one, two, or all possible numbers of energy. And at the wall, you find it is glowing white hot. You
particles. More, in multiparticle states all the particles must be ask what is behind the wall, and someone tells you, “Oh,
exactly identical. And finally, this particular “model field,” delib- there is nothing behind the wall. The universe ends there.”
erately chosen for its simplicity, describes as its quanta neutral, Would you be inclined to believe it? Yet that’s what we are
spin-zero bosons. According to Treiman, “. . .it is easy to con- told about the zero-point. Energy and activity decline rapid-
struct analogous linear theories for charged as well as neutral ly with temperature, then near the wall, suddenly there are
particles of various spins. Theories involving charge yield both immense numbers of photons, and at the wall, unlimited
particles and antiparticles as their quanta.” (We have previous- energy. But nothing is behind it. Believe that, and there are
ly noted that the quantum spinor field governed by the Dirac some bridges you might be interested in buying.
equation has just such properties.) The matter that registers in our measuring devices is pos-
We are looking for simplicity here, applying Ockham’s itive energy. But all matter except the electron is composite,
Razor. And it turns out that the simplest possible quantum and positive energy is pushing-apart or explosive energy. It
field would necessarily be populated with all possible num- takes immense negative energy to bind matter together. If
bers of strictly identical, neutral, spin-zero bosons. Such parti- positive energy were the only energy, one would think that
cles, as noted above, can have either positive or negative at temperatures near absolute zero matter would lose its
energy. To quote Gribbin (1998b), “In the quantum world a cohesion and fall apart. Nothing of the kind—in fact matter
field must give rise to particles.” (Emphasis his.) However, no binds closer and closer together until it becomes all one
such field of unlimited numbers of neutral, spin-zero posi- thing. It takes energy to bind matter together, yet all positive
tive-energy bosons exists. Why not, if a field must give rise to energy has been removed. What is left? Only the negative ener-
particles? However, as we have argued above, a “sea” of neg- gy that is the result of negative forces.
ative-energy, neutral, spin-zero bosons is a requirement of
quantum mechanics itself: of the energy equation, and of The Bose-Einstein Condensate
the Dirac equation of the electron. Two of its solutions call Various typical changes occur in the physical characteristics of
for negative-energy electron-positron pairs, which would material substances near 0˚K. In a conductor, some of the elec-
necessarily associate as neutral spin-zero bosons. Thus the trons change their phase so that they become, in effect,
simplest possible form that the Vacuum Electromagnetic Field positrons. An electron and this pseudo-positron then form
could take would have as its unique solution exactly the what are called “Cooper pairs,” bosons formed of two fermi-
same result as the Dirac spinor field: a “sea” of unlimited ons, in which the two 1/2 spins add up to spin 1, and both
numbers of negative-energy electron-positron pairs. We must be in the same state governed by the same wave function.
have now approached this from three different directions, (The members of a Cooper pair are separated by about 10-6 m,
and they all point to the same result. thousands of times the distance between the ions in the con-
Treiman complains that, in the “model field” described ductor’s lattice.) At even lower temperatures a true Bose-
above, there are no interactions. It is what is called a “free field Einstein Condensate (BEC) may be formed, which acts as a sin-
theory,” a theory free of interactions. Start with a state in gle unit rather than as a collection of molecules. This permits
which two particles approach as for a collision, and in fact they the special states in which superconductivity and superfluidity
won’t collide, because the classical field equation on which it occur. These are very energetic states, as their behavior demon-
is based is linear: the sum of any set of solutions is also a solu- strates. They are states in which negative (binding) energy has
tion. (For this reason, quantum field theory, with its multiple overcome the tiny residual positive (freeing) energy, so that
fields, one for each “fundamental” particle, requires non-linear they are all governed by the same wave function.

14 ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy

 All this happens as we approach the zero-point. Order has no “left-behind potential hill.” Thus, changes in electro-
increases, everything is bound closer together. Negative magnetic potential must propagate apparently instanta-
(binding) energy becomes predominant. Everything seems neously over any distance.
to settle in toward a BEC. (Here we might note a further dif- The same is true of gravitation, as was shown in the clas-
ficulty with the Standard Model and its Grand Unified sical Laplace demonstration based on the absence of any
Theories [GUTs]. These assume that at higher and higher change in the angular momentum of the earth’s orbit
energies the forces and particles lose their identity and unify. (Laplace, 1966), and as has been repeatedly demonstrated by
However, the experimental evidence points exactly the other Van Flandern (1993, 1996, 1998). He shows that even in a
way. Higher positive energies allow entities more degrees of static field, if gravitation propagated merely at light speed, it
freedom to resonate in more and different modes, whereas at would result in a “couple,” which would measurably
lower energies they approach the BEC, in which the binding increase the earth’s angular momentum. This, of course,
(negative) energy is so strong that the parts lose every bit of does not happen. He further shows that General Relativity,
identity and must all be in the same state. This is empha- supposed to be a local theory, nonetheless assumes and
sized by the failure of the prediction made by every GUT requires instantaneous changes in the “curvature of empty
that the proton must be unstable. So far, no proton has ever space,” and so is non-local.
been observed to decay. Result: no GUTs.) Therefore, both electromagnetism and gravitation act
A BEC can only result from the total dominance of nega- non-locally. They also must be representative of the non-local
tive (binding) energy over positive. Looked at that way, the reality that Bell’s proof shows must contain the local effects
interface between negative and positive is not 0˚K, but a few we normally experience.
degrees higher, perhaps around 2.7˚K. In any case it is differ- However, there is one and apparently only one extended
ent for different substances, and certain BEC characteristics structure that exhibits non-locality: the BEC. If you insert an
manifest themselves at much higher temperatures. electron into one end of a BEC, however large, an electron
And at the zero-point, instead of no energy, there is sudden- emerges from the other end faster than light can travel that
ly a flood of it. (Zero-Point [ZP] energy—hν/2 for each mode of distance—this is the phenomenon of superconductivity. This
the vacuum electromagnetic field.) Why would this be, if there non-local action results from the fact that every constituent of
is “nothing” beyond it? What generates this energy, where does a BEC must be governed by the same wave function and every
it come from, if it isn’t another “miracle”? [Big Bang theory part must be in the same state and therefore act as one.
insists that the microwave background comes from the exact Bell’s proof and the experimental facts of electromagnet-
other end of the energy spectrum, from a state of infinitely ism and gravitation require a non-local reality. Dirac’s equa-
high energy and temperature, created out of nothing: by a tion, in requiring a universal BEC, provides just that.
“miracle.” We suggest that this is a violation of causality: infi- Therefore all these proofs of non-locality amount to proofs
nite temperatures can not be a “proximate cause” of an energy of a universal BEC, our one non-local extended structure. We
field near 0˚K. We suggest that the source of this energy should will later demonstrate that these non-local actions are not
be sought nearer at hand, at the adjacent “zero-point” with its literally instantaneous, but take the finite time τ. This results
unlimited energy, and beyond, in negative territory. We will in clear, intuitive non-local models of electromagnetism and
later look at this in more detail.] Again, this is real energy, with gravitation which nonetheless act by direct contact, and thus
many measurable effects. demonstrate causality.
What becomes clear from all this is that the negative ener- We will show that this ends the centuries-long debate
gy sea of bosons (epos) called for by the equations must exist between those who accept the evident action-at-a-distance
in the form of a BEC. According to the equations and everything of gravitation and electromagnetism as unmediated and
we know, our reality is surrounded by and immersed in a vast, all acausal and those who insist on causality despite the appear-
pervasive Bose-Einstein Condensate. ances. Accepting that we are imbedded in a universal BEC
This is a rather startling conclusion. However, it is support- gives the best possible answer to both. As we will see, it pro-
ed not only by the equations of quantum mechanics, but by a vides physical but non-local models which nonetheless
large and growing body of clear experimental evidence. demonstrate direct contact causality.
Bell’s Inequality and the now numerous proofs thereof From what we know of BECs from those we have man-
(Clauser and Shimony, 1978, Aspect et al., 1982) demon- aged to create in the laboratory, this BEC would be the
strate that our reality must be non-local, connected faster daddy of them all. It is composed all of negative-energy,
than light. As Nick Herbert (1985) puts it, “A universe that one-dimensional epos, all with identical negative energy
displays local phenomena built upon a non-local reality is the (but no “mass”). Each epo is charge condensed so that
only sort of world consistent with known facts and Bell’s each charge “sees” only its oppositely charged “pair” (as in
proof.” (Emphasis his.) Phase-entangled quantum objects the Cooper pair). No unbalanced charges allowed, no pos-
share information apparently instantaneously, no matter how itive energy allowed, and the entire BEC described by a sin-
great their spatial separation. gle wave function.
Non-local or faster than light action also must be a prop- How many times must nature describe this to us, before
erty of the electromagnetic field, according to a whole series we get the picture? We have looked at three equations, the
of experimental results starting with the Sherwin-Rawcliffe energy equation, Dirac’s equation, and this very simplest
experiment (1960) and continuing with those of the quantum field, which we might call the “Zeroth Quantum
Graneaus (1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1993) and Pappas (1983, Field” (ZQF). Each of them seem to be describing this same
1990A, 1990B). These experiments all show that changes in object, a universal BEC composed of unlimited numbers of
the electromagnetic field must propagate much faster than spin 0 neutral negative-energy bosons, which have to be
light, apparently instantaneously, so that a moving charge one-dimensional electron-positron pairs.

ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy 15

Figure 1. “Vacuum polarization” around unlike charges. Figure 2. “Vacuum polarization” around like charges.

Of course, the BEC wasn’t well described in 1934, so it “half a boson.” In terms of energy, “half a boson” is hν/2.
is no mystery why Dirac didn’t see that this is what his This is exactly the zero-point energy called for by the equa-
equation calls for. Only in the light of more recent find- tions. The electron and positron in the BEC have no positive
ings is it evident that Dirac’s “sea” must be a BEC. For, of energy, only charge. But together they make a neutral spin-
course, it fills the crucial needs of Dirac’s sea—it is “full,” zero boson whose energy is hν. In this case ν = 1/τ, around
so that no positive energy particle can “fall in” unless it 1.6 x 10 23 Hz. This would give the epo an energy (E = hν) of
first loses all its positive energy, and then only if a balanc- around 660 MeV, and give each “mode” of the vacuum elec-
ing antiparticle similarly divests itself. Further, it has no tromagnetic field an energy of half that, 330 MeV. Thus the
“mass,” hence no inertia or gravitational interaction, so it “Zero-Point Energy” (ZPE) and the jitter-motion
is virtually undetectable. [Haisch and Rueda (1997) insist (Zitterbewegung) caused by it both emerge as direct conse-
that negative “mass” is impossible, since “mass” is a result quences of Dirac’s equation. As we will see later, “half an
of the action of the ZPF on polarizable entities. Since this epo” is also “half a photon.”
would not include negative-energy epos in a BEC, they are
quite correct. They don’t have “mass.” Negative energy is The Electromagnetic Field
quite a different thing.] And as we will see, it is the source We have seen above that Dirac, Oppenheimer, and Heisenberg
of the unlimited polarized electron-positron pairs that the all proved that every ion must immediately be surrounded by
Dirac equation requires, and experiment shows, to be sur- unlimited numbers of the opposite charged ends of epos.
rounding every “bare” charge. Experiment has since confirmed this to better than ten signif-
icant figures. However, if these are “real” epos “created” by the
Physics Through the Looking-glass charge, this makes the mass of the ion “slightly infinite.”
Let’s step back a moment and look at what the full Dirac There is a further problem with the conventional view.
equation and the simplest quantum field, the ZQF, seem to Unlimited numbers of epos means that in every direction
call for. As Gribbin (1998a) remarks, “In the quantum world from an electron, for instance, there would be the positron
a field must give rise to particles.” Unlimited numbers of end of an epo. This would completely neutralize the charge
them, the quanta of the field. This is the famous “second of the electron, so that it could not be felt or measured out-
quantization.” According to QFT, there is nothing in the uni- side of this surrounding sphere of positrons. Recognizing
verse but quantized fields. We here invoke the simplest possi- this, conventional theory supposes that the “bare” charge of
ble quantum field which “must” supply the unlimited num- the electron must be some unknown higher value, probably
bers of epos called for by the full Dirac equation. The ques- infinite, which the sphere of positrons reduces to the
tion might then be “Why would this ZQF supply negative “dressed” charge that we measure (Pais, 1994). But this sup-
energy epos? One would think that the first ‘category’ to be position ignores one little matter: if the “bare” charge of the
filled would have positive energy.” Here we might recall that electron were infinite, so would be the charges of the
we call positive energy “positive” only because of Ben positron ends of the epos. Whatever “bare” charge one
Franklin’s mistaken choice. It would be much more logical chooses to assign to the electron, it would be completely
to call the electron, the very unit of electricity, positive in neutralized by this sphere of epos. Moreover, if the “bare”
sign, in which case what we call “negative energy” would be charge of the electron were infinite, the “bare” charge of the
positive energy, and would be the first “category.” proton would also have to be infinite.
That there is a negative-energy “sea” balancing the positive We have shown above that electron and positron must set
energy of our reality restores the symmetry between negative up a stable relationship at a distance of τc, 1.87 x 10-15 m.
and positive energy called for by the energy equation and However, this is the measured diameter of the proton, and in
Dirac’s equation. Moreover, there are indications that negative a nucleus the nucleons are packed closer together than this.
energy is primary. This has profound implications. Therefore, there is no way that the two protons in an alpha
For one thing, we can now follow the process miscalled particle, for instance, could be shielded from each other, so
“creation,” and see where the energies come from. If the if the proton had an infinite charge the alpha particle would
negative energy BEC is a completely filled sea of epos, under instantly explode. What is true of the alpha particle is a for-
every mode of the vacuum electromagnetic field would be tiori true of nuclei with even more protons packed closely
either an electron or a positron, one end of an epo—hence together. From this one must conclude that the proton can
16 ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy
only have a charge of exactly +e. However, a proton ion, as they are. So this pattern is a direct solution to the equation.)
shown by experiment, must instantly be surrounded by a Note that this result is only possible if the total number of
sphere of unlimited numbers of the electron ends of epos. positive and negative charges in the universe, whether in the
Since its charge must be exactly +e, this charge would be “positive energy” realm or the “negative energy” realm or
completely neutralized, which we know is not the case. So both, is exactly equal. And this means that the numbers in
something is terribly wrong with the “conventional” view. each can only change in pairs—epos.
However, all of these difficulties disappear when regard- Furthermore, however many epos the BEC “sacrifices” to
ed from the new viewpoint of an infinite sea of negative accomplish this neutralization, the number of epos in the BEC
energy epos. An ionic electron must instantly be surround- remains exactly the same. Infinity minus infinity is still infinity.
ed by a sphere of the positron ends of polarized epos, as has According to the Zeroth Quantum Field and the “unex-
been verified by experiment. The positrons must form a purgated” Dirac equation, verified by experiment, this pat-
sphere of diameter τc. But this takes no energy, since in the tern must happen. Moreover, since this complete sphere of
infinite sea there is already a positron and an electron at positrons would neutralize any charge of the “bare” electron,
the exact points necessary to make that sphere of polarized this induction pattern is the only way any charge on the electron
epos, each radial to the ion. The only difference is that could be felt or measured outside this sphere. Charge is carried
these are now positive energy epos, as their vectors point in by proxy by these chains of epos. The strength of the charge
real directions. So far this is the same as the conventional measured anywhere would vary as the inverse square of the
view, except that it does not violate conservation. distance, as the Coulomb gauge requires. (This strength
The story is not over, though, as each positron in the would be measured in “epo chains per unit area,” just as
inner sphere has a potential induced by the ionic electron. Faraday would have us measure “lines of force per unit
area.”) Since this pattern must happen, and since it duplicates
(At that tiny distance, the force between electron and
every aspect of the electromagnetic field, as is easily verified,
positron is enormous.) This would unbalance the epo,
we submit that this is the electromagnetic field, much as
inducing a potential between the positron and its electron,
Faraday or Maxwell would have drawn it, with Faraday’s
which would again force the electron end to polarize anoth-
“lines of force” exactly duplicated by chains of epos.
er epo, and so on indefinitely, forming chains of polarized
The model exactly combines the properties Maxwell
epos. These chains would continue into space until they ter-
expected his mechanical ether to exhibit, embodied in his
minated at a charge of opposite polarity. (See Figures 1 and
equations. This ether must, he argued, be in a condition of
2.) Again, this in a way is the same as the conventional view:
mechanical stress:
the equations call for unlimited numbers of epos. They do
not, however, say where they are, and the conventional view The nature of this stress is, as Faraday pointed out, a
does not carry the process to its logical conclusion, which is tension along the lines of force combined with an
shown in Figures 1 and 2. equal pressure in all directions at right angles to these
The equations call for a negative-energy BEC that fills all lines. . .From the hypothesis that electric action is not
space, but nearly undetectably, since it vibrates in “imagi- a direct action between bodies at a distance, but is
nary” directions. It is full of equal numbers of positive and exerted by means of the medium between the bodies,
negative charges, but they are “charge condensed,” so that we have deduced that this medium must be in a state
each charge only “sees” its paired antiparticle charge, mak- of stress. (Maxwell, 1873)
ing a one-dimensional vibrating object similar to the
“strings” in many of the popular string and superstring the- In this “epo model,” the “tension along the lines of force”
ories. This one dimensional string-epo can vibrate in any is supplied by the attraction between the aligned unlike
“imaginary” direction, but it must average τc in distance charges in the epo chains. The pressure in all directions at
from its antiparticle. right angles to the epo chains is supplied by repulsion
However, a BEC cannot tolerate an unbalanced charge. between the like charges in different chains lined up rough-
Therefore, an unbalanced charge, an ionized electron for ly parallel to each other. This also accounts for the repulsion
instance, must immediately be neutralized. As we have seen between like charges of “real” ions, as seen in Figure 2.
above, the equations call for it to be instantly surrounded by (These features are recognized in plasma physics, where they
the positive ends of an unlimited number of polarized epos. are called “MHD” or “Alfven” waves. No satisfactory expla-
We can now see that this “neutralization of a bare nation has hitherto been given for them. It is, moreover, an
charge” called for by the equations is a requirement of the effect that can not possibly be explained by the photon
BEC, which can’t tolerate an unbalanced charge; however, model.) And as Rosser (1971) showed, the magnetic force
it has unlimited (infinite) numbers of epos that it can can be derived from the Coulomb force for charged particles
throw at it, to neutralize it. in relative motion. A charged particle, negotiating this
Therefore, each “bare” electron is immediately surround- “field,” would follow a curved trajectory exactly in accor-
ed by unlimited numbers of epos. However, once again this dance with Maxwell’s equations.
would not solve the BEC’s problem. Only when every unbal- Note that, in SED, the quantized electromagnetic field is suc-
anced charge is neutralized by chains of epos connecting it to and cessfully modeled as a collection of one-dimensional oscilla-
neutralizing every opposite unbalanced charge is the BEC again tors, each a vector whose direction and force are determined by
stable. So the very stability of the BEC requires chains of epos its place in the “field.” Our “epo model” of a vector field of
in the patterns shown in these two figures. (And of course one-dimensional (massless) oscillators is an exact analog of this
Dirac’s equation calls for unlimited numbers of polarized model, “already quantized.” The same is true of conventional
epos—as is verified by experiment—but it doesn’t state where quantum theory. As Taylor (2001) remarks:

ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy 17

 In quantum theory, the electromagnetic field behaves energy carried by lines of epos pointing in the vector direction.
exactly as an assembly of arbitrarily many massless An epo carrying “real” angular momentum would
particles. The number of particles of a given momen- change from a spin-0 boson to a spin-1 intermediate vec-
tum and energy just corresponds to the energy level tor boson—vector because any amount of energy less than
of the corresponding electromagnetic oscillator. 2m ec2 is unstable, and can only be carried for one-half
cycle. Since it is unstable, it must dump the energy, polar-
Further, we note that what had been taken to be a math- izing the next epo in line. And since it is an “epo carrying
ematical abstraction, the “electromagnetic field,” now has a a photon,” we suggest the name “epho.”
definite physical reality. At this point the “photon” amounts to a wavefront trav-
So, merely by considering what Dirac’s negative energy eling at c, a coherent bunch of intermediate vector bosons,
“sea” must represent, we are presented with an unexpected each carrying a portion of the angular momentum. They take
bonus: the first direct contact, causal, workable model of an all possible paths, following the Feynman “path integral” or
already quantized electromagnetic field. “sum-over-histories” version of QM, with most of the paths
being cancelled by destructive interference. The remaining
Conservation of Angular Momentum paths, summed, make up the amplitude, the Ψ wave. (Again, a
(a.k.a. “The Photon”) “mathematical abstraction” takes on a certain physical form.)
If the epo is the quantum of the electromagnetic field, as
Note how exactly the Feynman sum-over-histories method
shown above, this would seem to leave the “photon” in
limbo. Let’s look at a single electron of hydrogen, orbiting mirrors the actual process. Like Feynman’s version, the
the proton at some energy level above its ground state. After “ephos” take all possible paths. Feynman breaks down each
a few thousandths of a second, it will jump to its ground path into a series of short arrows or vectors, the directions of
state. To do so, it must lose angular momentum—spin—in the which, summed, keep track of the path’s phase. We have seen
amount of hν. In the conventional view, the electron that each epho is a vector, rather shorter than Feynman’s, each
“emits”—instantly creates—a “particle” called the “photon,” epho being only 1.87 x 10-15 m long. Feynman could not
which is an electromagnetic “wavicle” traveling at velocity c explain why a “path” should have phase, he merely asserted
and which delivers the angular momentum intact to some that it did. We can now see that it has phase because each epho
other electron, whereupon it is no more. Since Einstein ban- on each “path” is itself an electromagnetic wave with phase.
ished the aether, however, the question has been “what is Together they form a coherent wavefront. Ephos on the “least
waving?” The photon has no rest mass, and contains no action” path will reinforce each other, and any epho that takes
charges—so it violates our kinetic definition of energy. a “wild” path gets out of phase with the wavefront, suffers
However, in every situation in the macrocosm (and destructive interference, its angular momentum is cancelled,
according to Newton’s laws) in order for a “real” object to get and it drops back into the epo “sea.” Thus the only ephos that
rid of spin angular momentum, that real object must set continue to carry energy are those that are close to the (least
some other real object spinning. Can the photon be the only action) “classical” trajectory.
exception? As we will see, it isn’t. For while an electron in its In the famous “two slit” experiment, many of the paths
ground state is “charge condensed,” in that it only “sees” its comprising the epho “wave” which represents the “single pho-
proton, and its proton only “sees” it, an electron in a higher ton” go through each slit, and interfere with each other, form-
orbit has a slight unbalanced charge which must cause the ing the well-known Ψ wave “interference pattern.” At the
BEC to surround it with epos, as above. And if an electron screen, one of them is randomly selected from this densité de
needs to lose spin, what more natural than that it set spin- présence according to |Ψ|2, the probability, to deliver all of the
ning those objects closest to it, the polarized epos that sur- wave’s angular momentum to a single electron in the screen.
round it? They have charges, and are pointing in “real” Again, the “collapse of the wave function” into a single
directions, so they can absorb the “real” (positive) spin ener- result has never been given a satisfactory explanation.
gy that the electron has to get rid of. However, it seems likely that the first epho positron to select a
So the electron gives a tiny sidewise “push” to certain “real” electron as its “other end” causes the collapse. Those
positrons in the sphere surrounding it, and then it is “gone”— who favor the “many universes” version of QM might say that
it is in its ground state. The epos are left “holding the spin,” all of the vector bosons deliver the full amount of angular
some more than others, because the lost spin is a vector quan- momentum to different electrons, but in different universes. It
tity, and its energy will go primarily to epos that are pointing in is a good thing that angular momentum is conserved in this
the vector direction. Since the electron is gone, the epos are no manner, one electron’s discarded spin all being delivered to
longer in chains, and the spin energy will travel up the epo
“string” (at velocity c) exactly the way a sidewise impulse will
travel up a plucked guitar string. (Note that a sidewise impulse One of the tragedies of science is
given to a charged particle [an “electric wave”] will, by
Maxwell’s equations, generate a magnetic wave at right angles.) Lorentz’s death in 1928, just as Dirac’s
By the time the energy has reached the electron end, the equation was formulated, as Lorentz
electron has become a positron, again with a sidewise impulse,
so to conserve angular momentum it must select and polarize surely would have recognized the nega-
some electron in exactly the right direction at the right dis-
tive-energy sea as responsible for his
tance. It thus initiates a vector line of epos, each carrying the
spin energy “bucket-brigade” style at velocity c. Therefore the electromagnetic aether.
“photon” at this point would be a wave, carried by epos,
spreading at velocity c in every direction, but with most of the

18 ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy

 another single electron, as other- Clauser, J. and Shimony, A. 1978. “Bell’s Theorem:
wise we would never see the stars. Experimental Tests and Implications,” Reports on Progress in
(The wavefront of a single “photon” Physics, 41, 1881.
from a distant star can be bigger Deutsch, D. 1997. The Fabric of Reality, London, Allen Lane.
than a continent—if this energy was Dirac, P.A.M. 1928a. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 117, 610.
not delivered to a single electron, Dirac, P.A.M. 1928b. Proceedings of the Royal Society A,
the energy would be so diffuse that 118, 351.
we probably would never have Dirac, P.A.M. 1930a. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 126, 360.
become aware that stars other than Dirac, P.A.M. 1934. Proceedings of the Cambridge Phil. Soc.,
our own sun existed.) 30, 150.
Considering the properties of the Dirac, P.A.M. 1963. Scientific American, May, p. 86.
H. A. Lorentz (1853-1928) BEC, however, we can make a cer- Feynman, R.P. 1985. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and
tain amount of sense of the process. Matter, Princeton.
The “rules of the game” seem to be that if the “photon” is Furry, W.H. and Oppenheimer, J.R. 1934. Physical Review,
generated by the jump of a single electron, the BEC must 45, 245, 343.
find a single electron, somewhere, to accept that angular Gleick, J. 1992. Genius: The Life and Science of Richard
momentum. (We may assume that the spreading Ψ wave car- Feynman, New York.
ries as information a certain “memory” of how it was gener- Graneau, P. 1982. “Electromagnetic Jet-propulsion in the
ated.) This amounts to an analog-to-digital conversion, with Direction of Current Flow,” Nature, 295, 311-312.
the sum of the angular momentum of the entire wave being Graneau, P. 1983. “First Indication of Ampère Tension in
delivered to a single electron, a “point event.” As Gribbin Solid Electric Conductors,” Physics Letters 97A, 253-255.
noted, above, the universe “makes the computation” and Graneau, P. 1987. “Amperian Recoil and the Efficiency of
presents us with the result. If, however, the signal was gener- Railguns,” Journal of Applied Physics, 3006-3009.
ated by the movement of many electrons as in a plasma or Graneau, P. and Graneau, N. 1985. “Electrodynamic
conductor, the resulting radio wave’s angular momentum Explosions in Liquids,” Applied Physics Letters, 46, 468-470.
can set multiple electrons moving, as in an antenna. Graneau, P. and Graneau, N. 1993. Newton versus Einstein,
So, again, another unexpected bonus: a model of the Carlton Press, New York.
“photon” that doesn’t violate the kinetic theory of energy. Gribbin, J. 1998a. Q is for Quantum, The Free Press, New York.
Note that the model gives physical meaning both to Gribbin, J. 1998b. The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and
Feynman’s path integral version of QM and to the Ψ wave. the Theory of Everything, London, Little Brown & Co.
Further, it should be noted that since each epho wave indi- Haisch, B., Rueda, A., and Puthoff, H.E. 1994. “Inertia as a
vidually travels at c, the velocity of light would be independ- Zero-point Lorentz Field,” Phys. Rev. A, 49, 678.
ent of the velocity of the source, and the same in any frame of Haisch, B. and Rueda, A. 1997. “The Zero-point Field and
reference. It would in fact be Lorentz’s electromagnetic aether the NASA Challenge to Create the Space Drive,” Jour. Sci.
(Lorentz, 1909). The transmission of light would agree with Explor., 11, 4, 473.
Lorentzian relativity, which meets all the tests devised for Heaviside, O. 1890. Electromagnetic Theory, London.
Special Relativity (Ives, 1946, 1949, 1950, 1951), including Heisenberg, W. 1928a. Letter to W. Pauli, PC, May 3, 1928,
those that SR fails, such as the Sagnac effect (Sagnac, 1913) and Vol. 1, p. 443.
the Silvertooth effect (Silvertooth, 1987, 1989, Silvertooth and Heisenberg, W. 1928b. Letter to W. Pauli, PC, July 31,
Whitney, 1992). One of the tragedies of science is Lorentz’s 1928, Vol. 1, p. 466.
death in 1928, just as Dirac’s equation was formulated, as Heisenberg, W. 1931. Annalen der Physik, 9, 338.
Lorentz surely would have recognized the negative-energy sea Heisenberg, W. 1934a. Letter to W. Pauli, PC, February 8,
as responsible for his electromagnetic aether. 1934, Vol. 2, p. 279.
Heisenberg, W. 1934b. Zeitschr. f. Phys., 90, 209.
Heisenberg, W. 1936. “Die selbstenergie des Electrons,”
In Part 2 (IE #44), the specific implications Zeitschr. f. Phys., 65, 4-13.
Heisenberg, W. 1938a. “Uber die in der Theorie der
of the negative energy sea will be examined, Elementarteilchen auftretende universelle Länge,” Annalen
which include everything from altered der Physik Lpz., 32, 20-33.
nuclear physics to the spacing of the planets. Heisenberg, W. 1938b. “Die Grenzen der Anwendbarkeit
der bisherigen Quantentheorie,” Z. Phys., 110, 3-4, 251.
Heisenberg, W. 1944. “Observable Magnitudes in the
Theory of Elementary Particles,” Z. Phys., 123, 1-2, 93.
Heisenberg, W. 1951. “On the Question of Causality in
References ________________________________________ the Quantum Theory of Elementary Particles,” Z.
Arp, H.C. 1987. Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, Naturforsch, 6a, 281.
Interstellar Media, Berkeley, CA. Herbert, N. 1985. Quantum Reality, Doubleday, New York.
Arp, H.C. 1998. Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Huang, K. 1952. Am. J. Phys., 20, 479.
Academic Science, Apeiron, Montreal. Ives, H. 1945. “Derivation of the Lorentz
Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., and Roger, G. 1982. “Experimental Transformations,” Philosophical Magazine, 36, 392-403.
Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-varying Analyzers,” Ives, H. 1949. “Lorentz-type Transformations as Derived
Physical Review Letters, 49, 1804. from Performable Rod and Clock Operations,” Journal of the

ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy 19

Optical Society of America, 39, 757-761. 1 by Robert Anton Wilson, 9th ed., 1993, New Falcon Press,
Ives, H. 1950. “Extrapolation from the Michelson-Morley Phoenix, Arizona.
Experiment,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, 40, 185-191. Sirag, S.-P. 2000. ISSO, October 8 - November 20.
Ives, H. 1951. “Revisions of the Lorentz Transformations,” Taylor, J.C. 2001. Hidden Unity in Nature’s Laws,
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 95, 125-131. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Jackson, J.R. 1975. Classical Electrodynamics, Univ. of Treiman, S. 2000. The Odd Quantum, Princeton University Press.
California, Berkeley. Van Flandern, T. 1993. Dark Matter, Missing Planets, and
Jackson, J.R. 1993. Classical Electrodynamics, Univ. of New Comets, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California.
California, Berkeley. Van Flandern, T. 1996. “Possible New Properties of
Kane, G. 1995. The Particle Garden, New York. Gravity,” Astrophysics and Space Science, 244, reprinted in
Laplace, P.-S. 1966. Mechanique Celeste, English Tr. Reprint Meta Research Bulletin, 5, 2, 3.
by Chelsea Pbl., New York. Van Flandern, T. 1998. Phys. Lett. A, 250, 1-11.
Lederman, L. 1993. The God Particle, Bantam Doubleday Von Neumann, J. 1928. Zeitschr. f. Phys., 48, 868.
Dell, New York. Weinberg, S. 1977. “The Search for Unity: Notes for a
Lerner, E. 1991. The Big Bang Never Happened, New York. History of Quantum Field Theory,” Daedalus, 106, 2, 23-33.
Lorentz, H.A. 1904. Proc. Acad. Scientific, Amsterdam, 6, 809.  D.L. Hotson, 2001. All rights reserved.
Lorentz, H.A. 1909. The Theory of Electrons, 2nd Ed.,
Dover, New York, 1952.
Maxwell, J.C. 1873. A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism,
Oxford University Press, London, 142, 670.
Minkowski, H. 1909. Phys. Zs., 10, 104.
Oppenheimer, J.R. 1930. Physical Review, 35, 461.
Pais, A. 1994. Inward Bound, Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
Pappas, P. 1983. “The Original Ampère Force and Biot-
Savart and Lorentz Forces,” Il nuovo cimento, 76B, 189-197. Featured in a Recent Issue
Pappas, P. 1990a. “On Ampère Electrodynamics and
• Pedro Paulet: Peruvian Space and Rocket Pioneer
Relativity,” Physics Essays, 3, 117-121.
by Sara Madueno Paulet de Vasquez
Pappas, P. 1990b. “The Non-equivalence of the Ampère
and Lorentz/Grassmann Force Laws and Longitudinal
Contact Interactions,” Physics Essays, 3, 15-23. • The Division of the Circle and Gauss's Concept of the Complex Domain
Phipps, T.E. Jr. 1976. “The Beta Structure Hypothesis,” by Bruce Director
Foundations of Physics, 6, 71.
Phipps, T.E. Jr. 1986. Heretical Verities: Mathematical •Kepler Exposes Aristotle's Sabotage of Astronomy,
Themes in Physical Description, Classic non-fiction Library, Translated by George Gregory
Urbana, Illinois.
Puthoff, H.E. 1987. “Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero- •The Context of Kepler's Attack on Aristotle's Lie
point-fluctuation-determined State,” Phys. Rev. D, 35, 10, 3266. by George Gregory
Puthoff, H.E. 1989. “Gravity as a Zero-point Fluctuation
Force,” Phys. Rev. A, 39, 2333. •Will the U.S. Join the World Fusion Effort? by Marsha Freeman
Puthoff, H.E. 1993. “Reply to ‘Comment on Gravity as a
Zero-point Fluctuation Force,’” Phys. Rev. A, 47, 3454. Subscribe!
Rosser, W.G.V. 1971. An Introduction to the Theory of
$25 for 6 issues (U.S.); $50 for 6 issues (Foreign)
Relativity, Butterworths, London.
Single copies $5 ($6 Foreign)
Sagnac, G. 1913. “The Luminiferous Ether Demonstrated Send check or money order (U.S. currency only) to:
by the Effect of the Relative Motion of the Ether in an 21st Century, P.O. Box 16285, Washington, D.C. 20041
Interferometer in Uniform Rotation,” Comptes rendus de
l’Academie des Sciences (Paris), 157, 708-710, 1410-1413. www.21stcenturysciencetech.com
Sherwin, C.W. and Rawcliffe, R.D. Report I-92 of March
14, 1960 of the Consolidated Science Laboratory, University
of Illinois, Urbana; obtainable from the U.S. Dept. of
Commerce Clearinghouse for Scientific and Technical Electrifying Times
Information, document AD 625706. Discussed in Phipps
(1986) and Van Flandern (1998). Latest Electric Car News
Silvertooth, E.W. 1987. “Experimental Detection of the
Only $12.00* per year for 3 issues.
Ether,” Speculations in Science and Technology, 10, 3-7.
Silvertooth, E.W. 1989. “Motion Through the Ether,” The only periodical in Amer ica with
n e w s s t a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n c o ve r i n g t h e f a s t
Electronics and Wireless World, 437-438. growing world of EV’ s and HEV’ s.
Silvertooth, E.W. and Whitney, C.K. 1992. “A New
Michelson-Morley Experiment,” Physics Essays, 5, 82-89. 63600 Deschutes Market Road • Bend, Oregon 97701
Phone: (541) 388–1908 • Fax: (541) 388–2750
Sirag, S.-P. 1977a. “A Combinatorial Derivation of Proton- Website: www.electrifyingtimes.com
Electron Mass Ratio,” Nature, 263, 88. E-mail: [email protected]
Sirag, S.-P. 1977b. “Afterwords” in Cosmic Trigger, Volume
*$18.00/yr Canada; $21.00/yr International

20 ISSUE 43, 2002 • Infinite Energy