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, à 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