Seemingly Random Behavior Can Be Adaptively Controlled

One has to be extremely careful these days about many of the old statements that were drummed into us as axioms.  Some of them no longer hold, or are even true.  Others have to be modified from their "absolute" form.

Such a dead notion is the belief that randomness cannot be controlled.  That is no longer true. In modern adaptive nonlinear control theory combined with nonlinear oscillation theory, random oscillations can indeed be brought under control and used.

We do not intend to belabor this fairly recent development, but just state that it casts a quite new eye on the notion in some quarters that random fluctuations of zero-point vacuum energy can certainly not be "controlled".  That statement is no longer absolute, and must be modified in the light of new knowledge.  In fact, we propose that the ordering by a charge of a portion of its received disordered or random virtual energy, is just such an adaptive control mechanism, "controlling" part of the disorder by adapting to it so as to cohere and integrate a portion of it into observable form.

We leave this interesting but complex subject by quoting from the very first scientific work successfully combining both nonlinear control theory and nonlinear oscillation theory.  Quoting from Fradkov and Programsky { [44] }, p. 8:

“In fact, the fields of nonlinear control and nonlinear oscillations were developed surprisingly independently.  The present book is perhaps the first one to bring together these two important branches of nonlinear science.”

And again, quoting from Fradkov and Programsky { [45] }, p. 359-360:

“1. There is … great benefit of using the modern nonlinear and adaptive control theory. …2.  There is no need to distinguish periodic and chaotic behavior.  Accurate control is possible without accurate prediction. …3. There is no need to define chaos in order to control it. … 4.  There is no need to use probability in order to control systems with seemingly random behavior.”

We must leave further investigation of this promising avenue to far better theorists than the present author!  We mention it, however, because if the random perturbations of the vacuum energy interaction can be controlled, obviously one can extract EM energy from the vacuum.  A simple charge or dipole already possesses the ability to do just that.

The Unresolved Problem of the Source Charge and Its Field Energy

But to return to the so-called "source charge".  In the rigorous sense, there are no energy sources and there are no energy sinks.   For example, quoting from Semiz { [46] }, p. 151:

"The very expression 'energy source' is actually a misnomer.  As is known since the early days of thermodynamics, and formulated as the first law, energy is conserved in any physical process.  Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, nothing can be an energy source, or sink.  Devices we call energy sources do not create energy, they convert it from a form not suitable for our needs to a form that is suitable, a form we can do work with."

So there are "charge field-energy gates" and charge "field-energy converters", but there are no "source charges" and there are no energy sinks. [17]

            However, one must keep one's sense of humor.  Ironically, classical electrodynamicists may already be the most dedicated perpetual motion machine "advocates" in the world!  In the overunity researchers' wildest nightmares, we could never begin to approach the vast scale of perpetual motion machines that the electrodynamicists already accept and prescribe.

            It's that totally false concept of "source charge" that they advocate!  They would have us believe that the source charge continuallycreates right out of nothing that enormous EM energy it continuously pours out across the universe in all directions.  They would have us believe that a fearsome energy output is generated by the "source charge"  without any input of energy from the environment to that charge. Classical EM assumes the inert vacuum, and nothing at all furnishing the energy to that source charge.

Of course that violates the most sacrosanct conservation law of all: that energy cannot be created or destroyed.  But many electrodynamicists just "hide" that little problem and seldom state it explicitly.  When pressed, they do—as stated by Sen { [47] }— admit that

"The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics."

 In short, the electrodynamicists haven't solved the "source charge problem" yet.  My comment is a question: How many more decades should it take, just to read the solution already arrived at by the particle physicists, and accordingly change the flawed classical electrodynamics by adding in the required active vacuum and the broken symmetry of the source charge?

Classical EM seriously errs in ignoring the active vacuum.  It's well known that no mass system can even be in equilibrium without the presence of the vacuum interaction.  So just to observe a power system sitting in equilibrium on the floor, is to automatically "prove" that vacuum interaction is occurring with it.

Particle physicists solved that "source charge" problem over 40 years ago, but the electrodynamicists have not yet changed their 137-years-old { [48] } seriously flawed theory accordingly.  One simply has to include the active vacuum exchange with the charge and the dipole, and the broken symmetry of the charge and of the dipole, since a priori any energy source is actually an energy converter.

Particle physicists proved (both theoretically and experimentally) that the vacuum is active, highly energetic, etc.  Nobel prizes were awarded, such as to Lamb [18] and to Lee. [19]  

The particle physicists also proved that any charge is a broken symmetry in the fierce virtual energy exchange between the seething vacuum and that charge. [20]   The very definition of broken symmetry means that something virtual has become observable.  In other words,some of that enormous virtual disordered energy that the charge absorbs from the vacuum, is not reradiated as virtual and disordered energy at all.  Instead, that component is first organized by the charge (by its spin?) into observable size groupings.  This component is reradiated as the energy flow pouring continuously out from that "source charge" across the entire universe in all directions, thereby providing the energy in the fields and potentials from that charge. [21]   Again, every energy "source" is a priori an energy converter!  So is an energy "sink".

            The charge does not create the energy it continuously emits, but gates and organizes some of the energy it continuously receives from its vacuum exchange.  It is not a source charge, but an ordering and gating charge.

            The charge is thus an open system far from thermodynamic equilibrium.  Since one has lots and lots of such charges in an EM power system, and every one of them is an open system freely receiving and gating energy from the vacuum, a priori it should be possible to tame and use some of that observable EM energy flow that the charges freely pour out, to power loads and run the system, without the operator having to continually input additional energy to the system!

            That we do not do so is not a commentary on nature's prohibitions, but a commentary on the inadequacy and wrong direction of our scientific research on EM power systems.