Legend:
\text\ = italic text
_text_ = underlined text
_\text\_ = underlined italic text
____________________________________________________________________

My request to Bearden:

I was trying to obtain some references that you listed in "The
Final Secret of Free Energy" and one of them appears erroneous:
[1] R. Jackiw and J.R. Schrieffer, "The Decay of the Vacuum",
Nuclear Physics B, Vol. 190, 1981, p.944. The last article in that
book ends at page 810 and the article by Jackiw and Schrieffer is
on p. 253 and titled "Solitons with Fermion Number 1/2 in
Condensed Matter and Relativistic Theories". There is another paper
by R. Jackiw and P. Rossi in the same book but it is titled "Zero
Modes of the Vortex-Fermion System", p. 681. Also, any
experimental proofs to convince the skeptics?

His reply:

Fax to Alain Beaulieu, Ottawa, Canada
October 3, 1994

Dear Mr. Beaulieu:

Will try to answer at least some of your questions and needs, and
I see I have been remiss in not sending you the other material
promised. I will try to get that together and send along to you by
mail. I also appreciate you calling to my attention the error on
the Jackiw and Schrieffer reference location. I would like to
correct the location, but unfortunately no longer have access to
online search of large technical databases since being retired. It
would be simple to locate it on NERAC, e.g. in a moment or two. If
the technical databases are available to you for computer
searching, I would very much appreciate the correct citation of
the paper. I physically have the paper here somewhere, but "here"
is in my 1230 sq.ft. library and office in some one of myriads of
piles. I am some 10 years behind in my filing!

You asked about experimental proofs. We'll give you a couple of
things, and also some "jaw music" to rattle the classical EM cage
a bit too.

The simplest way to make a scalar EM wave is to perform the e
xperiment and examine closely a pumped PCR (phase conjugate mirror)
that emits a standard backward-travelling phase conjugate replica
(PCR) wave, in response to an input signal wave. The gain of the
mirror should be such that amplitudes of the emitted PCR wave and
the input signal wave are equal. [We accent that a true phase
conjugation must be used; pseudoconjugation by distorting the
wavefront of an ordinary wave is not sufficient]. By the distortion
theorem [e.g., see Amnon Yariv, _Optical Electronics_, 3rd Edn,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1985, p.500-501 for a precise
statement of the \very poorly named\ distortion correction theorem],
the PCR wave from the mirror will precisely "backtrack" the input
signal wave, spatially superposing it. The resulting "wave" is a
true scalar wave, comprised of a \hidden\ pair of EM waves. It is a
standing wave of pure potential. It will appear to have no E-Field
or B-Field at a point. A normal antenna probe can give you some
very strange effects. The wave at any \single point\ has a zero
resultant E-field and a zero-resultant B-field. Yet with respect to
any externally established electrical ground, any non-nodal point
comprises an oscillating voltage. Between two non-nodal points, the
wave will exhibit an oscillating voltage difference, if the points
are not related by a multiple of wavelength.

Here's the best part. This wave is a wave of rarefaction and
compression, or a "sound" type wave. One would model it as a
"longitudinal" wave, as in sonics, rather than as a transverse
"plucked string" transverse type of wave. It is also the normal
"EM" wave that we broadcast from all our antennas, etc.! Let me
explain why. It's the greatest joke in all of physics and
mathematics.

A stupendous error was made by the old mathematicians who first
derived the wave equation from study of plucked taut string on
stringed instruments. First, they assumed infinitely rigid holders
of the end of the string, with absolutely zero movement of these
"holder-ends". \In so doing, they discarded the equal and opposite
wave -- highly damped -- that is actually produced in the body of
the holder.\ There is no such thing as an _\infinitely\_ rigid
holder for a taut string in the entire universe. The wave in the
body of the instrument exists (my guitar depends for its tonal
quality on distortions of that wave in the instrument's wooden
body!) They focused upon the transverse wave produced in only
\half of the system actually perturbed by plucking\. So they wrote
the equation for the transverse wave that results in the taut
string. They did not describe the total disturbance of the system.
Most sophomores in physics and mechanics are still taught to derive
the wave equation in that manner or very similar. \Everytime a
student or professor or professional writes down the wave equation,
he has already thrown away half the phenomena!\ The "antiwave" is
always produced in consonance with the wave in the plucked string.
It may be highly damped, but it has energy density precisely equal
to the energy density in the normal wave. For that reason, in all
his experiments, he will actually have to account for the eerie
ghostlike emergence of an equal and opposite effect -- which he will
simply label as "Newton's third law". He gets the antiwave, make no
mistake about it; but he has discarded Newton's third law on the
front end when he derived the wave equation, and so he will have no
mechanism or explanation as to why the antiwave effect emerges. But
it will be there, and so he will have to name it so that he will
think he understands what happened.

Now let's switch this "plucked string in the body of the holder"
concept -- this string wave concept -- to EM Waves, launched from
a metal wire antenna. The lattice in the wire corresponds to the
body of the instrument. Most of the mass in the body is in the
nuclei of the atoms in that lattice. In turn, these nuclei are the
"holders" for the electrons. The electrons are much less massive
than the nuclei, and thus will exhibit a much larger range of
oscillation to a disturbing force (analogous to the taut string)
than will the nuclei (analogous to the "holder" of the string).
When this system is disturbed, equal and opposite forces are
impressed; the electrons are displaced very much more greatly than
are the nuclei, which are highly damped. Nevertheless, any wave in
the electrons "taken as a collective ensemble" will be accompanied
by an equal-energy antiwave created simultaneously in the nuclei
"taken as a collective ensemble".

Now whap the antenna with an "electron collective ensemble wave".
I.e., put a standard "transverse EM wave" upon its electrons, as
in the usual sense. An inverse, highly damped EM antiwave is
created in the atomic nuclei, of equal energy. As the E-M field
disturbances from the electron oscillations are launched, an
equally energetic antiwave is also launched from the atomic nuclei
of the lattice. The energy densities of the two waves are precisely
equal! The nuclei-launched antiwave, once launched and in the
vacuum, is now in precisely the same medium as the electron-launched
wave -- the universal vacuum. The damping for the antiwave is
therefore now exactly the same as the damping for the wave. Since
the two waves in the wavepair are equally energetic, the amplitude
of the nuclei-launched transverse antiwave now "snaps out" to
precisely the same amplitude as the electron-launched transverse
wave. So we have a wave and antiwave of equal amplitudes,
phase-locked together.

But the charge of the nuclei is a phase conjugate of the charge of
the electrons. I.e., as in the Dirac theory, the positive change is
a time-reversed negative charge. The nuclei of the lattice, taken
as a collective entity, thus launch a true \time-reversed\
transverse replica wave of the ordinary wave launched by the
collective electrons in the wire.

The end result is that the wave from the antenna -- i.e., the
actual EM wave in the vacuum -- is a "compression-rarefaction" wave,
or sound wave, or longitudinal wave anyway! It always has been. We
just lost half of the wave when the mathematicians and early
physicists unwittingly discarded it. It's always been a scalar wave,
not a transverse wave. It is a wave of pure oscillating potential.
And a scalar potential is always composed of one or more such
wave/antiwave wavepairs. See my often-quoted references by Stoney
and Whittaker on the proof.

Said another way, the early "plucked string wave" guys discarded
what later became "Newton's third law" and a "third law reaction"
wave. Think: all forces must occur in equal and opposite pairs, or
else the third law is destroyed. Now the third "law" is not a
mechanism; it is just a description of what is observed to happen.
It does not \explain\ it, it just \names\ it. The mechanism that
causes it is the antiwave's absorption. If you eliminate that
absoption, you eliminate Newton's third law recoil force. E.g.,
any phase conjugate mirror (PCM), when it emits a phase conjugate
replica (PCR) wave -- no matter how energetic -- does not recoil!
The reason is that the PCM "tricks" the antiwave from going into
the nucleus, and diverts it out of the mirror to backtrack the
signal wave. Since it does not strike the nucleus and get absorbed
there, it does not deliver a momentum change to the nucleus.
Consequently the mirror does not recoil. But if the mirror material
emits a normal EM wave -- such as one with a distorted wavefront,
often called "pseudoconjugation" -- then it does recoils.

Note that we can take an electron and its mirror positive charge
down in the nucleus, and call it a dipole. We thus can treat the
atom as a complex assembly of dipoles. The negative end of a
dipole exists in positive time (to the external observer) -- which
takes longer to explain that I have time for here in this paper --
while the positive end exists in negative time, according to the
modern view. If you disturb one end of a dipole, you disturb the
other equally. \You disturb a positive timestream and a negative
timestream at the same time.\ You get two waves, always, one from
each of the dipoles. Since the observer cannot "see" in reversed
time, he sees a reversed time entity as spatially reversed, as is
well known. So he sees the "time-reversed" wave disturbance
(translation) as a \spatial disturbance going in the opposite
direction.\

Every textbook in the Western world is flat wrong as to the nature
of an EM wave in vacuum. It's also quite easy to prove it. They
prove it every day themselves and do not notice what they do.

When the classical electromagnetics (CEM) theory was put together
by Maxwell, then curtailed to a simpler subset by Heaviside et al
some years later after Maxwell was already dead, the electron had
not yet been discovered. And certainly electron spin was not
known. Electricity was thought to be a thin material fluid, and
the ether was a thin fluid also. Electricity was thought to flow
through a wire as fluid flow through a pipe. Also, no one knew
what charge \was\ (and the electricians still to this day do not
know what it is and are unable to define it. (Describing its
behavior is not defining it!). So CEM assumes (1) a material
vacuum (they have never changed the equations in the slightest
from those of Oliver Heaviside); and (2) an electricity moving
as a fluid. Consequently, when their instruments detected
transverse electric fluid waves in their detections of EM waves
coming from the vacuum, that of course was thought to prove that
the CEM theory was correct and matched experiment.

In fact, simply by detecting an incoming EM wave and finding the
detected wave to be transverse, one totally proves that the vacuum
EM wave is longitudinal, and destroys the validity of the CEM
model foundation postulates. Again, let me explain.

We know today (both theoretically and experimentally) that the
electrons in a wire do not flow through the wire like water
through a pipe. In fact, the electrons displace radially a great
deal, and "slip" down the wire only a wee, wee bit -- a good
nominal figure in a circuit, e.g., might be 11 feet per hour. The
signal/disturbance, of course, races down the wire at nearly the
speed of light in vacuum. The slight slippage down the wire
-- which is the "amperage" -- is simply the "drift" current.

Examine a single conduction electron in a wire. The electrons
further down the wire repel this subject electron, if it tries
to move on down the wire. So it is quite restrained in the
"longitudinal flow" direction. There are far fewer electrons in
the radial direction, so it is much less restrained radially.
The electron also is spinning. Since it is substantially
restrained longitudinally but very little radially, and is also
spinning, rigorously it is a \gyroscope.\ So when it is perturbed
by an impressed force (i.e., a received/detected E-field), it
precesses, just as does any other gyro. Further, it precesses at
right angles to the disturbing force, by standard gyroscope theory.

Now we universally observe/detect the electrons to precess
laterally in our detector/wire/antenna/probe. That is, we measure
or detect transverse waves in our instruments. Everybody does it
all the time, it's universally known. However, that alone
conclusively proves that the incoming wave is longitudinal! It has
to be "at right angles" to the precession of the gyro electrons,
and they are universally observed to move radially. \Unless one
totally discards the notion of electron spin, then the detection
of transverse electron precession waves proves conclusively that
the vacuum wave is longitudinal.\ And that requires it to be a
compression and rarefaction wave, just as Nikola Tesla stated. And
it requires us to go back and pick up and account for the missing
antiwave that the "old boys" discarded so long ago. And it then
gives us the mechanism that \generates\ Newton's third law reaction.
That's nice, because it can be engineered, which means that we can
engineer Newton's third law, once we understand what generates it.

The blunt truth is that we have been observing electron precession
waves, and still using the same tired old interpretation the old
guys originally put on things when they thought they were observing
a thin fluid's oscillations, and believed that the antenna simply
"intersected" the fluid oscillations in the ether that struck it!
From their viewpoint, they simply intersected transverse shaking
waves in the fluid ether, because that's the type of shaking that
the electric fluid in their detecting wires and circuits was doing.

Would [wish] to God we could get some really good electricians
-- far more capable than me -- to rigorously examine the
assumptions in their foundations postulates and models!

Now for more direct proof. It will take a bit of doing, but bear
with me and I'll give a simple experiment that I think is
generating something directly related.

In _Gravitobiology_, I published the exact manner in which a
_\quantum potential\_ can be generated, along with some
illustrative drawings. I had presented the mechanism as early as
1989, at a conference in California. Basically, one simply examines
the potential from each charged particles in a group of similar
charged particles. One then decomposes that potential
mathematically,  la Whittaker 1903, into a harmonic set of
bidirectional EM transverse wavepairs. As this potential spreads
out from a charge, it encounters another charged particle. That is,
its hidden wavepairs encounter the second particle. But a pair of
waves constitutes pumpwaves; hence the second particle is now
slightly pumped. Each particle is a "high nonlinearity" to the
hidden wavepairs, hence it acts as a phase conjugate mirror. When
pumped by the first particle, it phase conjugates and thereby
increases the energy distribution of its own potential in that
direction. The first particle is now pumped, and does the same
narrowing. This iterative phase conjugation is known as
"self-targeting". In this case, it is a "hidden " self-targeting,
and not limited to the speed of light in 3-space, since the
decomposition biwaves exist in hyperspace outside 3-space.
Eventually, under the proper circumstances, the potential among
the charged particles actually exists as laser-like beams between
the particles, in the perfect case. In the real world, the
particles are in vibration and translation, so the self-targeting
is disturbed and not perfect. But it is there nonetheless. It
forms at least partially a very weak "area  potential" not
originating from a single particle. In other words, it forms at
least a weak _\quantum potential.\_

Now if the charged entities acting as the phase conjugate mirrors
are stabilized, with little or no vibration and displacement, and
if each mirror is an identical twin of any other, then the
formation of the quantum potential will be much stronger. Further,
it will now produce directly detectable effects in the macroworld,
even quite large effects.

In the simplest superconductivity, you cool everything down almost
to absolute zero. That is, you limit the vibration and translation
well toward zero. In that case, e.g., the electrons can form a
quantum potential amongst themselves. They will arrange in pairs
because of the paired Stoney/Whittaker waves composing the "laser
beam-like" potentials between them. In that case, one can move the
electrons through the lattice without striking it, hence one can
get superconductivity. In the higher temperature superconductors,
one is able to get the quantum potential even with greater
vibration and translation, because of the increased nonlinearity
of the "phase conjugate mirrors" in the lattice. I.e., the main
effect here is on the antiwave portions, which are active in the
nuclei portion of the dipoles formed between nuclei and electrons.
In this case, electrons can flow freely even though the temperature
is higher.

The key to the accomplishment of room temperature superconductivity
is simply sufficient and correct nonlinearity in the lattice
materials, to allow the formation of quantum potentials between the
nuclei, and correspondingly by the electrons due to the paired
wave/antiwave actions. I do wish recognition of this because I
intend to file a patent application within the next year on a
derivative mechanism using the quantum potential. So far as I am
aware, no one has ever filed a patent for a process and apparatus
for making quantum potential. We hope to do so in the future.

Now with that background, we cite the requirements for a good
quantum potential having easily observable effects: (1) the
"nonlinear charge" elements must be the same material or type, and
capable of acting as PCMs and pumped PCMs at the frequency of
interest, (2) a signal wave input at the frequency of interest must
be introduced. When those conditions exist, we should see an
emergence of the emitted PCR effects, which will be coherent
frequency emission effects, and thus directly similar to coherent
emission by lasers.

The experiment has been done, although the experimenters are
unaware that they are dealing with a quantum potential formation.
You simply utilize some white paint based on TiO2 as the white
pigment, and a small laser to illuminate it. That gives you a
suspension of TiO2 crystalline particles in the medium. The TiO2
particles are well-known to be optically active. In the medium,
they are highly nonlinear compared to the rest of the medium.
Further, the TiO2 particles are all the same material.
Consequently, when you illuminate the paint with a small laser,
you will get self-targetting of the hidden biwave structure of
the individual potentials, between particles, and the formation
of a quantum potential joining the TiO2 particles. One will see
a violation of scattering theory's predictions. Instead of just
scattering, you will see the paint reflect/emit a soft, coherent
glow of light, very similar to some new form of lasing.

The reference for the experiment is Nabil M. Lawandy;
R. Balachandran, A.S.L. Gomes and E. Sauvain, "Laser action in
strongly scattering media", _Nature_, Letters, 368(6470),
Mar 31, 1994, p.436-438. Lawandy and his fellow researchers of
Brown University, Providence, R.I., report discovery that tiny
particles of titanium dioxide (a key ingredient of white paint),
although randomly distributed, act together to amplify light
emitted by dye molecules that are excited by a laser or some other
external energy source. I have written a letter to Lawandy
suggesting they are creating a quantum potential, but have not
received a reply back. Understandably, when one is suddenly faced
with an explanation of forming a quantum potential, it is quite
likely to seem an \alien\ concept.

At any rate, I hope this answers your questions, and I appreciate
the interest you have taken in all the material. Here we continue
to plow along in some heavy sledding, but we are slowly making
some progress.

Best wishes to you for all your endeavours.

Sincerely,


T.E. Bearden
October 3, 1994