Electromagnetic physics : discussion

Both popular and engineering approaches to NIEMR present the physics ‘as best understood’. It is perhaps unfortunate that if, as is said, quantum physics is the best understanding we can have of the world, it is simultaneously beyond our true comprehension!

We use NIEMR every day for making life modern and convenient. It lights lamps, turns motors, carries TV and radio. We know what works, but still the unexpected can happen and questions remain, not least about the so-called wave-particle duality, how radio goes through empty space, or indeed as ground waves. Where do the electrons go when they’ve lit your light bulbs? Do they know how to get home?! Net currents are a feature of closely wired houses, where currents return via neighbouring circuits. And is frequency just a function of useful modulation to enable us to harness electromagnetic phenomena for communications and power? Or is it already such a feature of nature that adding to it so massively may be disturbing the way things have evolved to thrive? Does our choice of frequencies, after all, matter? It just isn’t quite as tidy as that first bulb, battery wire and switch kit at school. This is not to say that NIEMR, fields, currents and potentials are unpredictable: just that they are so far from simple we still have puzzles.

So it should be no surprise that there is some contention between traditional Maxwellian theory (as published) and differing ideas from the likes of Nikola Tesla, or indeed from quantum theory. Modern physicists such as Konstantin Meyl propose quite different explanations for electromagnetism. In between these views lie an enigmatic group of engineers who claim to draw energy from the zero point field. [And there lies another h.e.s.e. subject, since this refusal to invest despite an urgent need to readdress energy sources is so human, impacts directly on our ecology, would potentially create social (and political) revolution, and faces truly enormous global economic resistance.] Are these people wrong because they are different? Or should we be ready for a paradigm shift in our understanding of reality?

Any civilisation that considers itself on the final lap towards complete enlightenment should be prepared for a rude shock. The premise that modern physics is on the last lap towards a grand unified theory, may be over-optimistic. Gravity and time still elude us, yet they are intimately tied up with the total environment in which EM fields operate. Perhaps we should just say that we understand as much as is currently useful, and remain open to further knowledge.

Into this we should interject the physics of EM radiation. Antenna engineers and designers will be all too aware of the true patterns of distribution of radiation and the shape of fields. Those addressing difficult engineering situations, such as metal-enclosed spaces, underground tunnels, complex cityscapes, will be aware that a lot happens between transmitter and receiver, and between transmitters in producing a clean signal. They do it pretty well. But contentious transmission, such as GWEN, or ELF ground waves, or HAARP, or claims of scalar wave weaponry or energy transmission (we leave you to trawl the Internet yourself here) shows that complex interactions with the environment may not always be recognised, neat and tidy, or desirable.

And why physics? Why not biology? The problem with bio-electromagnetics is that it requires a deep understanding across disciplines, and is not a traditional subject. Our understanding of the role of electric, magnetic and EM fields and flows in the body is poor. Mainstream experts include those who can see that electricity plays a central systemic role, to those who see it merely as a by-product, and while some regard magnetic material (such as magnetite crystals) as functional, others claim the body is completely non-magnetic and susceptible to no external fields.

So in trying to understand the impact of external fields, and at a wide range of time-varying frequencies, there is a great deal of contention. Physics and biology are closely bound in living organisms: one view (perhaps over-reductionist) is that everything is energy anyway, expressed through frequencies and condensed in places as mass. Whether that is extreme does not matter: the interactions being discovered are more subtle and more important than many have thought.

From the 1920s to the 1940s, Royal Raymond Rife claimed through thousands of experiments to be able to demonstrate specific frequencies at which bacteria resonated and self-destructed. From the 1960s Robert Becker investigated the role of minute electric currents in healing, indeed in restoring amputed amphibian limbs. These men were just two of many who have investigated the energetics of living organisms. So why (whilst we use TENS machines from the high street) were these life’s works rejected? Either because they didn’t fit the current paradigm, went against current scientific experts, or stood to undermine pharmaceuticals?

The question remains: how much of do we not know will turn out to be important to understanding life, our environment, and the influences with which we are unwittingly presenting ourselves?

print-friendly page print-friendly page

top of page
top of page
 

© 2008 The h.e.s.e. Project : Human Ecological Social Economic About this site