Tweet
The 7 Types of "Scalar Waves"
11/26/99 by Rick Andersen
One of my never-ending quests at this Web page is to try and unravel the mysteries behind Thomas Bearden's "Scalar Waves"... What are they, exactly, and how do you go about making them? After studying so much of his work, scouring the Net and alt-sci sources, and talking to people about the subject, I slowly began to see that there are not one, but several variations on the Scalar theme. Some of them are dissenting viewpoints, and some are Bearden himself evolving his Scalar EM (now called Energetics). Lately I have added my own two cents, in the form of computer models of apparently "new" types of waves that I think fit the "scalar" category. Here's my summary of the 7 types of "scalar" waves you'll find out there. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to understand them all, and then find out which, if any, is the "right" one!
1) Outphased waves
In Tom Bearden's earliest books, the "scalar wave" was described as being composed of a pair of "normal" transverse waves, travelling together in the same direction, but each having its electric and magnetic field vector 180 degrees out of phase with those of its partner, so that the fields all superpose to zero and are no longer detectable at all. This would be accomplished by delaying one wave by 180 electrical degrees; when the two waves superpose, one wave's electric field vectors would point "up" in a given moment of time, while the other wave's would point "down" at that same time, leaving a net E-field of zero. The perpendicular magnetic field vectors would likewise counteract each other. Outphased, nulled, or cancelled, in other words, as far as the "target" (toward which the overlapping waves are traveling) is concerned.
Yet, we were not to believe that 'that was the end of that', electromagnetically speaking; instead we read that the aether itself-- pure spacetime-- was now the thing being rhythmically "stressed" by the invisible scalar wave, and that this stress represented a structure or "patterning in spacetime" that was essentially electrogravitational. In plain English, to make a gravity wave you cancel out two normal electromagnetic waves to a "zero vector". What gets confusing, as you follow the Bearden literature through the years, is just WHICH vectors must be zeroed; if it's the E and B (or H) fields, then that means the waves are traveling together in the same direction. If the 3rd axis-- the Poynting Vector-- is the one that must be zeroed, then we have to make the waves travel into each other from opposite directions (counterpropagate). But if, like Bearden, you don't believe that free-space waves are transverse at all, but longitudinal, then what? The waters become murky.
But returning to the first view, where two out-of-phase waves travel together as a zero-vector pair... This is the view of scalar energy that is most often represented by "alt-sci" researchers and "New Age" gimmick-makers who are all basically winding coils in a way that causes the coil's magnetic field to be cancelled out. The prevailing opinion is that cancelling the B-field in this way leaves the A-field (magnetic vector potential) and any other "electric"-like fields that may exist, free to radiate outward from the non-inductive coil; the reference here is to William Hooper's "motional electric field" as well as Wilbert Smith's "Tempic field" (also referred to as a "time-stressing" or "tensor" field). Most of the alt-sci underground believe that such coils produce energies ("CHI", "orgone", etc.) that may affect life processes, and/or gravity fields and/or time-warping energies. The thing that bothers me most is that nobody has proven any of this, in the 30 or so years that these "designs" have been around. Instead, we always hear that "psychics" and "clairvoyants" seem to be the only ones "gifted" enough to see or feel the energies emanating from such coils. As I'm fond of saying, and to paraphrase Bearden, that ain't the same as "engineering General Relativity on the lab bench"!
Bearden himself has long-since discarded this view of scalar waves being produced by simple phase-cancellation (although "bucking" fields may still be relevant here); he now insists that the component waves are "in phase spatially, out of phase in the time dimension". Also, that there needs to be a nonlinear mass (such as ferrite core or photorefractive crystal) at the focus of the wave superposition--- just mixing waves isn't enough.
I myself am still wondering about these simple phase-nulled waves, though... If I illuminate a 'target' with, say, 1000 watts of RF carrier wave, that target will heat up measureably, especially at close range. But if I now superimpose another transmitter's beam onto the same target, at exactly the same frequency, coming from the same direction, but 180 degrees out of phase with respect to the first transmitter's beam, what then? Do we not have 2000 watts of power being focused onto that target? Is there not a Poynting Vector (S=ExH) representing energy per unit area, which is the cross product of the E and H field intensities, present in each beam?
Yet if we phase-cancel the fields at the target, do the two Poynting vectors vanish, too? Or is there still a component of energy there, "stressing" the target? Well, the E and H fields cancelled because their respective vectors were pointing in opposite directions... but both of their Poynting vectors were "pointing" in the SAME direction-- so I say they don't cancel... if the Poynting vector is a "real" entity!
So the question is, Is the Poynting vector "real" in the sense of being an independent entity or "energy", or is it just a mathematical 'artifact' that describes the vector product of the E and H fields, expressed as a measure of total energy per unit area in the wavefront? Does it automatically disappear when the E and H fields themselves are cancelled, or can it exist while they're in cancellation such as at a "node" point which is followed by an "antinode" point further down the signal path? Isn't the energy still there, even though we can't detect it while it's at a null point? Else how can it emerge again after that? Something is weird here!
I still don't buy Bearden's complete rejection of the transverse wave in vacuum; yet I do suspect that something is wrong with our present insistence on there being no such thing as a "longitudinal EM wave"... isn't the Poynting vector the very component in the S=ExH triad that has to be longitudinal by the laws of vector multiplication? Isn't it the longitudinally-oriented "pulsation" that we insist can't be "real" because it might mean that there's an aether after all (which is being called the Virtual Particle Flux by today's Quantum physicists.)???
Or is the Poynting vector just a "mathematical artifact", like classical electrodynamics always said about "potentials" vs. "fields", until the Aharonov-Bohm effect blew that dogma out of the water by showing that potentials can have observable effects on charges even when no fields are present? Nowadays the modern view is just the opposite of what it had been before Aharonov-Bohm: the potentials are the cause, and the fields are the effects!
I say that we need to prove or disprove the existence of the Poynting vector as a separate entity, when the E and H fields themselves have been phase-cancelled. It's hard to believe that 2000 watts of power shining on you from a pair of nearby transmitters has absolutely no effect on you just because there's no electric or magnetic field present. Like squeezing a water balloon, the energy is going to bulge out somewhere else.
A reader responds that EM waves ARE longitudinal (ala Bearden) and not necessarily transverse, CAN still carry a vertical or horizontal polarization anyway, and that non-inductive coils DO "do something"...
My 1993 article called POLARIZE.HTM <http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/polar1.htm> argued that if EM waves in free space are longitudinal and not transverse, then there's nothing in the wave's structure that is able to "tell" the receiving antenna anything about the wave's polarization, so we shouldn't need to orient our antennas in the vertical or horizontal plane to get optimal reception-- and yet we see this phenomenon right before our eyes every time we orient a TV antenna or put on a pair of Polaroid glasses. Turns out that what I thought I'd "figured out" by myself was argued a long time ago by eminent physicists working out the structure of light waves. Bearden's response was so unreasonable, when I asked him about it, that I wrote my sarcastic POLARIZE file as a wake-up call to him and his followers to get serious if they really wanted Scalar EM to become accepted in the academic world. Even though Bearden and I have no 'hard feelings' about that discussion or file, I occasionally get Email "spankings" from Bearden supporters who think I was "mean" and should apologize to Bearden and retract the file I wrote.
No way. I stand by my view that Scalar EM ought to be able to account for the observed phenomenon of wave polarization, and for 'historical' reasons I'm leaving that file online. But we still haven't heard from Bearden on the subject.
In a refreshing turn of events, however, a correspondent named Graham Gunderson recently Emailed me a very interesting defense of Bearden's view that EM waves can be longitudinal and still carry a polarization sense. And, relevant to outphased waves, Gunderson takes issue with another argument-- the one that asserts that self-cancelling coils "do nothing". He says they do indeed "do something", and describes some of his experimentation along these lines. This is what I like to see-- calm, rational explanation and some experiments to back it up.
You can read Gunderson's presentation here. <http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/graham.htm>
11/26/99 by Rick Andersen
One of my never-ending quests at this Web page is to try and unravel the mysteries behind Thomas Bearden's "Scalar Waves"... What are they, exactly, and how do you go about making them? After studying so much of his work, scouring the Net and alt-sci sources, and talking to people about the subject, I slowly began to see that there are not one, but several variations on the Scalar theme. Some of them are dissenting viewpoints, and some are Bearden himself evolving his Scalar EM (now called Energetics). Lately I have added my own two cents, in the form of computer models of apparently "new" types of waves that I think fit the "scalar" category. Here's my summary of the 7 types of "scalar" waves you'll find out there. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to understand them all, and then find out which, if any, is the "right" one!
1) Outphased waves
In Tom Bearden's earliest books, the "scalar wave" was described as being composed of a pair of "normal" transverse waves, travelling together in the same direction, but each having its electric and magnetic field vector 180 degrees out of phase with those of its partner, so that the fields all superpose to zero and are no longer detectable at all. This would be accomplished by delaying one wave by 180 electrical degrees; when the two waves superpose, one wave's electric field vectors would point "up" in a given moment of time, while the other wave's would point "down" at that same time, leaving a net E-field of zero. The perpendicular magnetic field vectors would likewise counteract each other. Outphased, nulled, or cancelled, in other words, as far as the "target" (toward which the overlapping waves are traveling) is concerned.
Yet, we were not to believe that 'that was the end of that', electromagnetically speaking; instead we read that the aether itself-- pure spacetime-- was now the thing being rhythmically "stressed" by the invisible scalar wave, and that this stress represented a structure or "patterning in spacetime" that was essentially electrogravitational. In plain English, to make a gravity wave you cancel out two normal electromagnetic waves to a "zero vector". What gets confusing, as you follow the Bearden literature through the years, is just WHICH vectors must be zeroed; if it's the E and B (or H) fields, then that means the waves are traveling together in the same direction. If the 3rd axis-- the Poynting Vector-- is the one that must be zeroed, then we have to make the waves travel into each other from opposite directions (counterpropagate). But if, like Bearden, you don't believe that free-space waves are transverse at all, but longitudinal, then what? The waters become murky.
But returning to the first view, where two out-of-phase waves travel together as a zero-vector pair... This is the view of scalar energy that is most often represented by "alt-sci" researchers and "New Age" gimmick-makers who are all basically winding coils in a way that causes the coil's magnetic field to be cancelled out. The prevailing opinion is that cancelling the B-field in this way leaves the A-field (magnetic vector potential) and any other "electric"-like fields that may exist, free to radiate outward from the non-inductive coil; the reference here is to William Hooper's "motional electric field" as well as Wilbert Smith's "Tempic field" (also referred to as a "time-stressing" or "tensor" field). Most of the alt-sci underground believe that such coils produce energies ("CHI", "orgone", etc.) that may affect life processes, and/or gravity fields and/or time-warping energies. The thing that bothers me most is that nobody has proven any of this, in the 30 or so years that these "designs" have been around. Instead, we always hear that "psychics" and "clairvoyants" seem to be the only ones "gifted" enough to see or feel the energies emanating from such coils. As I'm fond of saying, and to paraphrase Bearden, that ain't the same as "engineering General Relativity on the lab bench"!
Bearden himself has long-since discarded this view of scalar waves being produced by simple phase-cancellation (although "bucking" fields may still be relevant here); he now insists that the component waves are "in phase spatially, out of phase in the time dimension". Also, that there needs to be a nonlinear mass (such as ferrite core or photorefractive crystal) at the focus of the wave superposition--- just mixing waves isn't enough.
I myself am still wondering about these simple phase-nulled waves, though... If I illuminate a 'target' with, say, 1000 watts of RF carrier wave, that target will heat up measureably, especially at close range. But if I now superimpose another transmitter's beam onto the same target, at exactly the same frequency, coming from the same direction, but 180 degrees out of phase with respect to the first transmitter's beam, what then? Do we not have 2000 watts of power being focused onto that target? Is there not a Poynting Vector (S=ExH) representing energy per unit area, which is the cross product of the E and H field intensities, present in each beam?
Yet if we phase-cancel the fields at the target, do the two Poynting vectors vanish, too? Or is there still a component of energy there, "stressing" the target? Well, the E and H fields cancelled because their respective vectors were pointing in opposite directions... but both of their Poynting vectors were "pointing" in the SAME direction-- so I say they don't cancel... if the Poynting vector is a "real" entity!
So the question is, Is the Poynting vector "real" in the sense of being an independent entity or "energy", or is it just a mathematical 'artifact' that describes the vector product of the E and H fields, expressed as a measure of total energy per unit area in the wavefront? Does it automatically disappear when the E and H fields themselves are cancelled, or can it exist while they're in cancellation such as at a "node" point which is followed by an "antinode" point further down the signal path? Isn't the energy still there, even though we can't detect it while it's at a null point? Else how can it emerge again after that? Something is weird here!
I still don't buy Bearden's complete rejection of the transverse wave in vacuum; yet I do suspect that something is wrong with our present insistence on there being no such thing as a "longitudinal EM wave"... isn't the Poynting vector the very component in the S=ExH triad that has to be longitudinal by the laws of vector multiplication? Isn't it the longitudinally-oriented "pulsation" that we insist can't be "real" because it might mean that there's an aether after all (which is being called the Virtual Particle Flux by today's Quantum physicists.)???
Or is the Poynting vector just a "mathematical artifact", like classical electrodynamics always said about "potentials" vs. "fields", until the Aharonov-Bohm effect blew that dogma out of the water by showing that potentials can have observable effects on charges even when no fields are present? Nowadays the modern view is just the opposite of what it had been before Aharonov-Bohm: the potentials are the cause, and the fields are the effects!
I say that we need to prove or disprove the existence of the Poynting vector as a separate entity, when the E and H fields themselves have been phase-cancelled. It's hard to believe that 2000 watts of power shining on you from a pair of nearby transmitters has absolutely no effect on you just because there's no electric or magnetic field present. Like squeezing a water balloon, the energy is going to bulge out somewhere else.
A reader responds that EM waves ARE longitudinal (ala Bearden) and not necessarily transverse, CAN still carry a vertical or horizontal polarization anyway, and that non-inductive coils DO "do something"...
My 1993 article called POLARIZE.HTM <http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/polar1.htm> argued that if EM waves in free space are longitudinal and not transverse, then there's nothing in the wave's structure that is able to "tell" the receiving antenna anything about the wave's polarization, so we shouldn't need to orient our antennas in the vertical or horizontal plane to get optimal reception-- and yet we see this phenomenon right before our eyes every time we orient a TV antenna or put on a pair of Polaroid glasses. Turns out that what I thought I'd "figured out" by myself was argued a long time ago by eminent physicists working out the structure of light waves. Bearden's response was so unreasonable, when I asked him about it, that I wrote my sarcastic POLARIZE file as a wake-up call to him and his followers to get serious if they really wanted Scalar EM to become accepted in the academic world. Even though Bearden and I have no 'hard feelings' about that discussion or file, I occasionally get Email "spankings" from Bearden supporters who think I was "mean" and should apologize to Bearden and retract the file I wrote.
No way. I stand by my view that Scalar EM ought to be able to account for the observed phenomenon of wave polarization, and for 'historical' reasons I'm leaving that file online. But we still haven't heard from Bearden on the subject.
In a refreshing turn of events, however, a correspondent named Graham Gunderson recently Emailed me a very interesting defense of Bearden's view that EM waves can be longitudinal and still carry a polarization sense. And, relevant to outphased waves, Gunderson takes issue with another argument-- the one that asserts that self-cancelling coils "do nothing". He says they do indeed "do something", and describes some of his experimentation along these lines. This is what I like to see-- calm, rational explanation and some experiments to back it up.
You can read Gunderson's presentation here. <http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/graham.htm>
Comment