Norman Albers

A usual wave equation reads: [math]\nabla^2\phi - \frac 1 {c^2} \ddot \phi =0 [/math], and usually [math]c^2[/math] is positive. If it is not, then you are faced with: [MATH] -k^2 -\omega^2 =0,, or,, k^2=-\omega^2[/math]. See, something has a real exponential decay now. Also, if you look at EM or even electronics, transverse waves mirror inductance and capacitance, with resistance at right angles to both in the complex plane. . . . . . The methodology in my inhomogeneous electron model (earlier paper) said, let there be an analytically well-behaved charge density cloud constituting the particle nearfield. Charge may be interpreted as a divergence of the electric field; if there is a polarizable medium the accounting may be attributed to the (-) divergence of a polarization field vector. A further step looking at the total field yields up local polarizability, as per dielectric theory.[You too can be way cool with '\ddot' as well as '\nabla'.]. . . . . . . . . .Look up EM equations in a plasma or conducting medium. There is conductivity depending upon responsiveness and density of charge carriers. With electrons there is e/m and so there is a plasma frequency of resonance above which there is a phase shift. Resistance (loss) is quantified at a complex right angle to conductance. . . . . . . . . . I have elucidated a rich cache of phenomenology in GR in the Schwarzschild and the Kerr metrics. There is a fine project in front of me. I read an equation I think by Puthoff that put a scalar polarizability thru the Schroedinger wringer. There should be a richer tensorial relationship to be interpreted here, and I am tuning my dreamcatcher for it. Speak to me in a few... eons. [sorry for my confusion, I will look for that paper.]

Good question, Primordial. Planck worked on the blackbody spectrum and published in 1901, but before then ??? What do you know? Martin I do not want to be offensive; I am expressing my frustration over trying to get to physics of quantum foam that do not produce the untenable results of our "first efforts" wherein we assume the vacuum has all possible modes in equal distribution. My brother scalbers sent me the calculator figure for Planck pressure. It is some very large number and I ask, so what??? What is? Our theory must make sense both in the small and in the large.

When you consider a polarizable medium like a dielectric, the availability of polarizable dipole moments produces a slowing of the speed of light. Conversely if Nature produces a situation where the SOL is greater than c, it bespeaks a decrease in the available polarizability compared to the usual vacuum [math]\epsilon_0[/math]. Inversely, a negative response is that of a superconductor, and imaginary parts in the response indicate absorption. If the radial SOL reaches a high, real and negative value I suppose this indicates a weak superconducting response from the vacuum.

It seems to me everyone is being poked at. That was the brilliance of the movie "Airplane". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When i use blue boldface italics I am feeling badass.

Verry good question dammit. The term "conservatism' has been jacked around so badly. The good aspect is government respecting the people and the economic market. The market goes crazy, and we see there is need for further intelligence. Buddy, can you par-a-digm??? Stay tuned, folks, for further signs of intelligent life. PHI FOR ALL, WE ONLY GROW OLD ONCE, BUT WE CAN BE IMMATURE OUR WHOLE LIVES!!

The fascisti cannot handle my humor. May they dwell asymptotically in time in a thermally high energy regime. I was not making fun of Obama or anyone. This is how we talk in southwest Oregon. We are not on the same page.

I made one mistake above, as I am just gathering the results I have produced. As one approaches the ring of r=a, z=0, propagation speeds in [math]\phi[/math] go through zero at [math]\rho=2m[/math] and then approach -1. Propagations in z go as: [math]\frac {dz} {dx^0}=r/\rho[/math], and since [math]\rho[/math] is going to zero, this blows up in the real range. On the other hand, radially the square root of [math] 1-2m/\rho [/math] becomes zero, then imaginary, but the total value of interest, the larger fraction, converges on a real negative large value, the inverse of what I thought on 1/2/09, namely -a/2m. Go figure. I certainly am trying to.

Now realize the wide possibilities. Vocalists and fretless string players are quite free to detail the pitch of notes other than open strings. Consider the major third interval. In the tempered scale there is a beat in the 5/4 partial which is 6-7 per second just below middle C. I hear many performers seeking naturally the more pure beatless interval which is quite a lot lower than the tempered in the third. This is part of the glory of real music: there are built-in beats which are indeed vibrato and then again there is all the hopefully tasteful chaos of the symphony orchestra. Great writers like Beethoven knew when they wanted to score one, two, or three clarinets or whatever, playing the same note. The listing by Externet is a mathematical virtual piano. Now think about guitars and how you place the bridge exactly according to how the harmonics, especially the octave, relates to the fretted octave. However much inharmonicity there is in the guitar string will make the frequency of the freely vibrating "harmonicked" note actually a little higher than 2.000 but you will not care. You are establishing the most harmonius scale in the ranges of that one instrument. Now think about a bass guitar, with really thick strings. Quite wild!

I suspect this is an inconsequential result but I was surprised by how close are the values of [math]\hbar[/math] and [math] c^-4[/math].

This is to me an exciting paper, nice to be able to download it. I'll recommend it to solidspin.

You may recall me asking how far apart two "slits" may be? Along the same lines, what am I to make of the description (Feynman) of the probability of a photon to be emitted into a (small) differential solid angle?

Doy, doy, I am just waking up. Thanks. In a faraway forum in a distant galaxy I learned that up to very high energies, two photons do not interfere or scatter. At some high energy they do and this puts a limit on their populations. Do folks here agree?

Could you elaborate on this?

The issue was stated as having a "clear material" which is a slightly absorbing medium of some higher index of refraction. This defining statement says that "not much energy" will be absorbed. Then consider the many holes (like a honeycomb pattern presumably) which are air environments, and the interference of different paths.

Have you been eating mushrooms? Little circles of them?¿?¿ [bIGTEETH]

After three weeks the Russian JETP responds that my paper is not sufficiently urgent for them to publish. I certainly understand this! I've done better than re-discovering Saturn; this time I parachuted within the past forty or so years. I am eager to learn what sense people make of these faerie rings, and I shall hopefully produce a vacuum polarizability thesis worthy of all this. I thanked the journal for considering my paper. {{Wouldn't you know it, John Wheeler's name is associated with "geons". Burinskii's early paper uses this term in the context I share. I am trying to find the lay of the 4-space territory. Wheeler speaks of grav. waves, and Burinskii of rings. }}

You may parse this several ways. Any "steady frequency" wave packet of finite extent decomposes upon Fourier analysis into a spread, but, so what? What are the questions of physical analysis? On what time frame are we visualizing a system?

The bounce of the universe is "inconsequential"?

I do not need your calculator. You have shown me relationships I needed to get to.

If you rule your actions by immediate response you will not act. I get very little response from most of my posts. I do not offer them because my ego demands magnification. I do so because after long months of work I see things I did not previously see. Now Google on 'Kerr electron' and witness I am at top of the page along with A. Burinskii. He has worked here more than forty years. I hope to catch up with him.

Ferchrissake I will not make further private jokes about putting things into the B-field!¡!¡! I worked outside the beamline in the data shack at the Brookhaven Nat. lab beamline at 3 GEV, for two months in 1970. We wore radiation badges checked weekly. No doubt a few errant tools are found when a synchrotron first circulates. Safety regs???

Cool, Martin, I shall enjoy this discussion in another locale. Carry on, please. You are giving me important tools of vision. Others will certainly appreciate this.

In the angular momentum Kerr metric field, a dimensionless ratio comes out: m/a where the two are as defined in General Relativity construction, as geometric mass and geometric angular momentum (density...) It seems to come out around E-44 and can be written as: [math] \frac {GM^2}{ Jc} [/math] for the electron. Note that it contains spin and not charge. The Reissner-Nordstrom metric becomes significant down around E-23 meters, IIRC. OK Martin the thing I need to ask you here is what of electron Schwarzschild radii of E-57? Is this beyond the pale of what may be described??? Normally I wouldn't care to be honest! Now, though, this ring singularity at E-13 meters is supposedly that thin and I suspend judgements... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAny other mass-energy states are not so far from the half-MEV of the electron (5-6 orders ?) that they, too, have a ring singularity of smaller radius, as [math]a_{GR} =J/Mc[/math]. The reason I say normally I would not Kerr <> about the Schwarzschild radius is that I figure things really do fall apart into quantum foam in the Planck regime. I trust that the essence that I portray in my inhomogeneous electron study is indeed fulfilled at that level at least. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI don't mean to muck up your presentation with needless ratios, but there are several length dimensions produced in GR and these are what concern me.

I hear you and thank you, Martin. I pull up this stuff in my quantum GR studies.

What are we to make of a ring of E-13 (ten to the -13th power) meters, with a "hula hoop" thickess of only E-57 meters? Then too, sliced to eliminate the inner half! I am not used to considering physics below the Planck length. This could be the crunch point between two theoretic representations. Even if we cannot theorize vacuum physics down to the Schwarzschild dimension, we are still left with a radical physical geometry, a crinkle in the vacuum, which we can expect to have quantum properties of current and flux.