It has occurred to me recently that the gulf between the Einsteinian local action verses the Copenhagen quantum non local action theories may be closed and the differences reconciled by viewing the two as complimentary to each other just as wave and particle actions are complimentary in the quantum sense. That is, since the notion that a particle can have both a wave and particle aspect ascribed to its nature depending on whether or not it is observed, the parallel concept may be adopted when considering whether the action is viewed using photons or not. If viewed by photon methods of measurement, then the action may be considered to be local and time like. If the action is not viewed by photon reaction, then the action may be considered space like. It is possible that a particle may be ascribed either nature according to the method of measurement. Then both space like and time like are characteristics that all quantum particles can have at any time. Further, all quantum particles are connected to each other through the space like attribute with a zero time of interaction.
The space like nature of a particle is able to correlate action to a dual partner in zero time (this has been proven in repeated experiments) and thus offers no paradox to the nature of special relativity. The time like nature of a photon reaction measurement is subject to special relativity and thus would be considered a local reaction.
The electrogravitational action as proposed
in my book, "Electrogravitation As A Unified Field Theory," is of the space
like zero time nature. As such, it is not an electromagnetic action but
rather occurs through what I call energy space, where all points in our
normal space become one point in energy space.
The following is a copy of a letter I posted to my Associates in Electrogravitation list and hopefully will help to clarify the non-local vs local aspect of the cosmos.
Date: Mar 21 2001 00:48:33 EST
Subject: Locality vs Non-Locality
Dear Associates in Electrogravitation and All:
Recently, I have had the fortuitous experience of reading the book,
NON-LOCAL UNIVERSE" by Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos and I recommend it for
its clarity in explaining why non-locality is a proven fact and how this
relates to accepted locality only theories. A few quotes from this remarkable
book are presented below.
"When we consider that all quanta have interacted at some point in the
history of the cosmos in the manner that quanta interact at the source of
origins in these experiments and that there is no limit on the number of
correlations that can exist between these quanta, this leads to another
dramatic conclusion----nonlocality is a fundamental property of the entire
UNQUOTE. p. 4.
There are experiments that have proven the non-local nature of quanta
following is quoted that substantiate the proof of the non-local nature of
"The results of experiments testing Bell's theorem clearly reveal that
Einstein's assumption in the EPR thought experiment---that correlations
between paired protons over space-like separated regions could not possibly
occur---was wrong. The experiments show that the correlations do, in fact,
hold over any distance instantly, or in "no time." Since this violates
assumptions in local realistic theories, physical reality is not, as Einstein
felt it should and must be, local. The experiments clearly indicate that
physical reality is non-local." p. 74.
Also is quoted the following:
"The recent experiments by Nicolus Gisin and his team at the University of
Geneva provided even more dramatic evidence that nonlocality is a fact of
nature. The Gisin experiments were designed to determine whether the strength
of correlations between paired photons in space-like separated regions would
weaken or diminish over significantly large distances. This explains why the
distance between the detectors was extended in the Gisin experiments to
eleven kilometers, or roughly seven miles......The results of the Gisin
experiments provided unequivocal evidence that correlations between detectors
located in these space-like regions did not weaken as the distance increased.
And this obliged physicists to conclude that nonlocality or non-seperability
is a global or universal dynamic of the life of the cosmos." p. 79.
In my theory of electrogravitation I have made use of the instantaneous
aspect of the quantum interaction between two systems of energy as a basic
mechanism of the gravitational action. Therefore, I predict that the
gravitational waves (which have yet to be detected or correlated with
observed astronomical events) will not be detected as waves that can be
correlated since they are assumed to travel in local space-time and thus
match the velocity of light. In my theory, electrogravitational action occurs
in zero time over any distance and therefore observed light phenomena such as
super novas will have arrived far too late to correlate the light event to
the gravitational event.
Local events are associated with 'timelike' and non-local events
associated with 'spacelike'. Local events are defined as not traveling faster
than the velocity of light while spacelike events are faster than the
velocity of light. I see the nature of both to represent bubbles of local
space-time connected with threads of non-local zero-time action lines which
connects both versions of reality.
That is why my electrogravitational equations present (in the least
two local systems of energy connected by the least quantum distance of their
minimum de Broglie radius to each other through what I call energy space.
Energy space is then connected to all matter through non-local fashion and
all basic quantum matter has a zero time connection to all other matter
through that energy space connection. A speed of light connection (in the
external field of the quanta) to all matter in normal space also exists.
Thus, we can have the case for local Einsteinien relativity in the
choose to observe via photons and we can have the case for the non-local
quantum space when we choose to make measurements of correlated quanta over
space-like distances. Zero time (or NO time) does not violate the
relativistic nature of Einstein space which requires time to be considered.
I understand why many physicists abhor the concept of zero time space
it also dispenses with the notion that we must move up to higher dimensions
to unify gravity with the rest of the force fields. This (zero action time)
is a proven fact, however.
When we look again at the Faraday disk in the aspect of non-local
local action, the relativity explanations of why the homopolar action of the
disk and magnet work the way that they do is discarded in favor of the
following: When the disk is turning (and generating a current and potential
between the center and outside of the disk) and the magnet is stationary, we
are looking at local space time action. When the magnet is turning while the
disk is held motionless (no current and voltage are generated), we are
looking at non-local magnetic field potential being established in zero time,
thus there is no motion relative to the disk. Relativity by itself cannot
rationally explain both observed actions.
Finally, I strongly endorse the above mentioned book as being required
reading by all souls who are brave enough to accept as fact that which at
first glance seems so impossible but has been proven otherwise: Non-locality
is the nature of the universe.
Jerry E. Bayles
Dear Associates in Electrogravitation:
Recently I posted a letter (above) concerning quantum locality vs.
wherein I quoted several paragraphs from the book "The Non-Local Universe."
Those quotes dealt with proof not only of the existence but the requirement
of non-locality being fundamental to the construct of the universe.
In the most excellent book concerning the accelerated expansion of
universe, namely: "The Runaway Universe" by Donald Goldsmith, copyright 2000,
Perseus books publisher, the following is quoted concerning locality verses
non-locality on the macro-scale.
"Of course, we must pay a price for believing this: [Referenced above this
quote in the book is: (A 10^60 expansion of the universe is responsible for the flatness
we see)] : The region of space that turns out so well must expand far more
rapidly than the speed of light during the inflationary epoch. How can this
be possible? Doesn't Einstein's theory of relativity forbid ant motion at
speeds greater than the speed of light?
Not completely, comes the answer from the physicists.
Careful examination of
Einstein's special theory of relativity---an examination that began as soon
as Einstein published it and has continued to the present---shows that the
theory forbids only local motions that exceed the speed of light. The word
local here refers to objects that occupy the same vicinity and pass by one
another at relatively modest separations. Relativity theory prohibits a
satellite from orbiting the Earth at speeds greater than light speed or an
astronaut from leaving the solar system at a velocity greater than c. But the
theory does not bar distant parts of the universe from receding at speeds
greater than the speed of light." p. 57.
Then, in brief, an observation made between objects in a space-time
using photons as the information carrier is subject to the speed limit of
light and is thus is in the local action classification. The big bang
requires that a non-local action must occur to allow for not only the
accelerated expansion of the universe, but also for expansion of the universe
in what was the original scenario of the non-accelerated universe.
"It turns out that even in the standard big-bang model of the universe,
different regions move apart from one another more rapidly than the speed of
light. Even so, the standard big-bang model cannot really explain the horizon
problem." p. 58.
Thus even in the large scale of the total universe's vast distance,
non-locality not just a requirement theoretically but is a fact as measured
by the most recent astrophysical measurements. (Explained much more
thoroughly in the book.)
Zero time, for quantum action, is non-local and is not subject to
limiting velocity of light since it is not electromagnetic in nature but is
through the space I call energy space which is the connecting space to all
matter in normal space. Transition time through energy space is in zero time
and is thus non-local. The gravitational action between two systems is
non-local in my theory as was explained in my previous letter concerning
local vs. non-local action.
Jerry E. Bayles
Dear John Kooiman:
You have asked me to condense what my theory represents in your letter below.
I will attempt to be brief while still covering the basic concept.
Firstly, I perceive that the so called 'static'
electric and magnetic force
fields are of a higher order than the electromagnetic field since it requires
either a changing electric or magnetic field to create an electromagnetic
wave which is also a photon. Further, the space through which the
gravitational action occurs is energy space and is instantaneous. It may not
occur in the time domain sense. The highest order of energy space is creation
space and all normal space matter is refreshed in the same manner as the
first creation event, the Big Bang. Our so called normal space is a time
domain construct while energy (creation) space is in the frequency domain.
My theory does not require higher dimensions
or photons to be the action
mechanism of unification of force (energy) fields.
Any two energy systems (or more than two) in
our normal space are capable of
being connected through energy space via the creation refresh action point
centered in each basic particle. Further, I perceive that basic particles
such as electrons and protons are a standing wave construct that is torus
shaped with a little bit of non closure so as to allow for the energy left
over that causes the electrogravitational (our space) action through energy
space to restore. Thus all basic particles are connected through their
centers to all other basic particles through energy space. There is no up or
down or time at all in energy space. It is connected to all matter in our
normal space through a constant least quantum interval. The energy that is
pumped into each particle that restores the energy lost to the gravitational,
electric and magnetic fields works to keep the particles stable. The energy
that is 'lost' to normal space is that energy that may be attributed to dark
matter and dark energy, the latter of which is likely responsible for the
accelerated expansion of our universe.
As per David Bohm's quantum potential, energy
may suddenly be pumped into an
electron to cause it to suddenly displace to some other point in space time
by changing the phase of the standing wave that represents the toroidal
construct of the electron. In other words, in order that the electron
structure be maintained, energy is input from energy space if the phase of
the standing wave that is the electron is perturbed by a photon for instance.
In summary, since the so called static electric
or magnetic field can each
engender a force interaction with a like field, they are a higher order field
than the electromagnetic field which is generated from a change in either one
of them. To limit the action to that which may be engendered by the photon is
to live in a closed room with a light bulb as the only source of illumination
while ignoring the possibility of an outside world even existing.
My theory is not based on "Aether Mechanics"
since I perceive that space is
defined by the field that occupies that space and therefore space is
effectively empty otherwise. I do not agree with the present day explanation
of the Casimer effect being the result of a vacuum occurring between two
close plates of metal causing the plates to be pushed together by the virtual
particles on the outsides of the plates. If virtual particles cannot be
detected in normal space they should not be able to create a real force by
any means. I do however suggest that the force is likely caused by a near
field standing wave action coupling through the very close proximity of the
metal plates to the particles that make up those plates.
Finally, advancements in science have always
occurred when the allowable
notions of what is correct science have been reformed by new ideas that push
back the limits. While it is true that what I am proposing is indeed a new
science, it is a rational new science.
Jerry E. Bayles
In a message dated 3/11/01 10:32:34 PM Pacific
Date: 3/11/01 10:32:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: email@example.com (John Kooiman)
I am impressed by the elegance and the mathematical
thoroughness of your
Electrogravitational theory, but I must admit that I am having difficulty
understanding the basic concepts behind this theory. It is basically a
case of not understanding the layout of the forest, because I am lost in
the details of the trees. I am a BSEE with a specialization in
electromagnetic theory, but I find that I am having the same problem with
your theory, that I had with many of my college professors. Specifically,
I find that rows and rows of equations do not give me a "gut feel"
understanding of the basic concepts involved. I find that I need to have a
non mathematical explanation, in order to understand the layout of the
forest, before I can make the detailed mathematics of the trees fit into
I am in agreement with you, that the Vector
Magnetic Potential not only
exists, but is likely to be the carrier of the Gravitational force. I am
having difficulty understanding just how the gravitational force is
transmitted through the Vector Magnetic Potential. You talk about how
rotating standing waves may produce the effect of mass (or negative mass),
but I am having difficulty visualizing how this would work.
I am wondering if you can provide a non mathematical
overview of what is
going on here, in order to help me get the layout of the "forest", so that
I can begin to understand why the "trees" are arranged the way that they
are. Can this be explained in terms of "Aether Mechanics", since this is
what Maxwell's original equations were based upon?
Can you please provide a non mathematical overview
of the basics of your
theory to help us "non geniuses" to get a better handle on what is going on
behind your theory?
I would appreciate whatever clarification you
can provide in this matter.
I thank Mr. Chris Hardeman for the letter of
explanation below which he originally submitted to the electrogravitation
list as a response to a request for simplification of my electrogravitational
theory without the usual 'dreaded' equations.
The following is a brief general overview of
Theory presented by Jerry E. Bayles as I understand it.
One of the postulates of Einstein was that
mass distorted space and this
distortion is manifest in the so called gravity field. Jerry Bayles
shows that fundamentally, it is a very basic electrical-magnetic action
force of standing wave energy fields of matter that is the cause of the
By calling the electric and magnetic forces
a single force
(electromagnetic in photon sense) the magnetic force is treated as a
non-consequential force in Physics literature. The electron is a
fundamental particle in the sense that it can not be reduced into
smaller bits of matter. The electronís fundamental nature and existence
is due to magnetic vector field energy that has been forced into a
nearly closed torus alignment shape. This standing wave energy field now
has a momentum from spin, and it is this combination we perceive as the
electron of matter.
Because the electron radiates energy into space,
the electron is
created repeatedly from the vacuum energy through a series of quantum
field "gates". It is thus recreated from one quantum time interval to
Electric charge results from the near
field vector closure of the
magnetic standing wave and can be positive or negative (a consequence of
vector mirror image). Particles such as the neutron, have a closed field
The two charge-field systems of matter interact
to create the force
Quantum magnetic interaction "gravity" occurs
between particles with
certain characteristic frequencies. Lambda (VLm) is the fundamental
electrogravitational and magnetic wavelength and the frequency 35.20756
GHz is an associated frequency.
Energy induction and Phase disturbances involving
standing wave, allows the electron to transport to a new point in normal
This next letter concerns a question of where the energy comes from that restores the electrogravitational (magnetic vector potential) field:
Dear Dave Squires:
Concerning your comment below of:
"> > consider where the energy is coming from.
Is it electron motion,
> > dipole stiffness in the crystal structure, both, something else?
> > This fits with your static field and force concepts. Something to
> > think about."
Firstly, I consider the whole of creation as being made of a little of what we can observe and much more of what we cannot. Since photons are generally what we use to make our observations with, and what we can observe is very limited, photons play a very limited role in what is the total energy realm.
Next, I consider that the basic electric and magnetic field to be a higher energy source than the photon field since the electromagnetic (photon) field is derived from either one of them if either the electric or magnetic field is changing over time.
The quantum uncertainty principle when applied to standing wave fields creates a 'phase wave' capable of causing a 'local force and energy action' instantly at distant points. Further, I consider energy space to be the same space that may also be called creation space. Creation space supplied the energy that created our universe through the Big Bang process and is still inputting energy that is causing the expansion of our universe at an accelerating rate as well as refreshing matter in an overall continuous fashion.
Therefore, the energy that is contained in the so-called static electric and magnetic field is related to the quantum uncertainty of the particles that generate the fields in the first place. That would be the electron and proton. In my theory, the electron and the proton are complex energy standing wave toroidal constructs consisting of two current waves almost 90 degrees to each other which resemble a spring coiled around to almost meet itself. The very slight energy differential forms a long standing wave that is the magnetic quantum standing wave related directly to the uncertainty of the particle and the slight discrepancy of the non-closure of the current spiral current path. This is not an energy wave based on a value that changes over time but only on the very small differential in energy per creation of the spiral that forms up the charged particle. This energy is replaced every particle creation cycle and thus our space is continually flooded with energy from energy space. Two of the quantum uncertainty standing wave magnetic 'systems' interacting cause the force of gravity as my equations have stated in my book and related papers. Further, my equations suggest that the electric force field contains a power constant while the gravitational field contains a force constant. Tapping into either should allow for an output energy depending on the mechanics of the device used to do so.
Then in answer to your question of where the energy comes from, the energy comes from creation space via the quantum uncertainty of the 'magnetic' very long standing wave. Maxwell's equations suggest that there cannot be a magnetic monopole and using photon theory, he is likely correct. However, a quantum uncertain magnetic long wave standing wave is another 'creature' entirely. It is not acceleration based and the quantum-current uncertainty is not a closed circuit in the conventional sense.
All of the ideas above are contained in my
book and papers online at:
In closing, a couple of questions concerning your magnetic motor/generator:
1. Have you actually built a working prototype?
2. If you have built a working prototype, can you supply to the list picture graphics and efficiency data?
Jerry E. Bayles
In a message dated 3/5/01 4:43:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
Jerry Kreps wrote:
> Associates in Electrogravitation - http://www.electrogravity.com
> > On Monday 26 February 2001 11:04, you wrote:
> > Associates in Electrogravitation - http://www.electrogravity.com
> > Jerry,
> > I wanted to get your opinion on where the energy comes from if
> > I am able to create a force asymmetry with NdFeB permanent
> > magnets in a flux gating system. I have proven with conventional
> > FEA magnetics analysis that this can be done. I stumbled on a
> > way to create this force asymmetry and then to create a
> > self-powered motor/generator. The forces I am talking about are
> > those felt by ferro-magnetic core materials. It turns out it is
> > easy to create this force asymmetry of a stronger pull-in force
> > than the pull-back force on exit. Now assuming this is true, which
> > it is, where is the energy coming from if I build a unit that runs
> > with no power input from outside
> > other than the static field of the permanent magnet? And then
> > I create very large electrical power output from powerful NdFeB
> > magnets and the system sees only a slight change in the force
> > asymmetry picture.
> > It remains self-powered even under full load. It is interesting to
> I'm not the "Jerry" your refering to, but my curiosity requires that
> I ask: what kind of "load" are you talking about?
"Load" would mean electrical load creating
Lenz's Law back EMF and
> Are you turning a
> dynamo and generating more electrical power out that the devices is
> using? (I.e., over-unity?). Got some wattage figures?
Not turning a separate "dynamo". It is both
in one unit. Magnetic forces
are managed mainly from NdFeB permanent magnets acting on "reluctance"
elements to give a net positive average force at all times even under
back EMF conditions. The unit under consideration could potentially
over 200KW. The device would not "use" any classical "external" input
at all. Permanent magnets provide the motive force to power it. Full back
from output coils only reduces the shaft torque by about 30%.
So where does the energy come from as far as
the permanent magnets are
This is the question to be pondered and answered. It has been said by
that there is no energy in magnets. The assumption being that you must
mechanically force the permanent magnet field against the back EMF
to generator power. This is the conventional generator case. I say that
is wrong. But we still would like to answer the question posed above.
> > consider where the energy is coming from.
Is it electron motion,
> > dipole stiffness in the crystal structure, both, something else?
> > This fits with your static field and force concepts. Something to
> > think about.
> > Regards,
> > Dave Squires