Norman Albers

We're getting warmer! We know the reflections from the coating are greenish-blue, and we know it is designed to reflect infrared, out in summer and hold it in for winter. It's hard to see such a strong change given the small percent change in your curves, Swansont, but thanks for good data. . . I am leaning to my guess of half-wave, whole-wave layer thickness. If it was tuned to reflect IR at three times the wavelength of green, say 1.2 microns, then it would pass waves half that length, and again reflect those three times (one-third). So it would pass low red visible, say 6000 A., but reflect 4000. Plausible?

Prior to or after inflation? I thought inflation was supposed to iron out all the wrinkles.

Everything vibrates, but velocity is discernible in a relative sense only given more than one entity. On the other hand it is so that the cosmic microwave background is a blackbody spectrum and this indeed has a preferred frame of reference - there was sort of a theoretical BODY, namely the WALLS in the analysis, or the average mass-energy density in this region at the time of cosmic decoupling of the radiation. The spectrum is not Lorentz invariant.

Entanglement is.

All right, John, I shall work to see your terms and ideas. Good luck with the frustrations! I sailed through peer review at Journal of Mathematical Physics with my Gravitation paper, and three weeks later the editor did not include it in publication. Two weeks after that, H. Puthoff answered me. Pursue sending a paper to people who work in such realms.

Cool, I'll see it when I spend time on my homework.

Yes, but there is energy-mass conversion so don't we say, there is conservation of mass-energy?

"First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is...", George Harrison. There is mass, more and less. It is energy tied up in some sort of bundle, as opposed to light energy at c. The rest is relative to your measuring frame.

You are right on, thank you Snail. As usual when we ass'u'me that someone knows things we risk mistake. I know some things really well and others dimly. If the "slits" are "widely" separated, then you are out in the lower interference amplitudes. I need to look up a source like Feynman Lectures, but you are on it. What do you mean by "...angle of maximum intensity has decreased"?

Thanks for fleshing out the study's details, Martin. I am tweaked by the idea that we may be observing the effects of something beyond the visible horizon.

Yes, but did you think we see all that is to be accounted for in any Big Bang? Or Big Bounce or whatever?

Yes, depending on your frame of reference.

Science News of Oct. 25 reports "Galaxy clusters slide to the south". I quote the article: "Clusters of galaxies are flowing through space, seemingly under the influence of a mysterious attractive force outside the visible universe, a new study suggests. Researchers have detected what they have dubbed 'dark flow' while surveying 700 galaxy clusters [within one billion LY of Earth]. On average the clusters appeared to move at about 1,000 km/sec in a uniform direction toward a point in the southern sky." My my, it seems there is sort a hole in our baloon. We work with the Robertson-Walker metric assumptions of uniformity, and this is clearly a simple model. Hang onto your hats, folks.

The magic term seems to be symmetry groups. When I started all this eight years ago I went into a used bookstore and one book I picked up was "Algebraic Geometry" by E. Artin, Princeton U., 1957. Now I look at it and weep. In Chap. 1 we read of iso- and homomorphisms, Abelian groups, and Archimedean fields. In Chap. 5 we read of Clifford algebra. This book is the last of a series: TOPOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATION GROUPS, by D. Montgomery and L. Zippin; and PLANE WAVES AND SPHERICAL MEANS Applied to Partial Differential Equations, by Fritz John. Are there Cliff notes on Clifford algebra??? solidspin, can you tell me in twenty-five words what is F4? . . . . . . . In Wiki, on 'symmetry groups', we get right to it...

Scalbers, here is the punchline, I think of the reference you gave (Schwinger): "The vacuum states with definite chiral charge and zero electric charge have the form (R,L~L,R) O, ~2~-n = N exp ]/.~ mg KC~ (30) where n = 0, 1 .... and N is a normalization constant. We see that the zero mode is present not only in the Hamiltonian of the system (21) but also in the ground-state wave function. It follows from (27) and (28) that the vacuum condensate is a chiral condensate. This circumstance ensures screening (bosonization) of the system if its chirality is nonzero. Indeed, the physical vacuum is one of the linear combinations of the ground states (30) and does not have definite chirality. Therefore, the chirality of the physical system goes over in the case of screening to the vacuum." (Boldface my emphasis.) I appreciate the statement on vacuum degeneracy (accepting of either matter or antimatter) as well as hints to "screening" which I seek to understand, as I make my own models of these things.

The salient detail I've picked up is the statement that one layer of glass (of two) is coated, on the inside. I figure it's the outer one in this case. I caught a reflection of the sun, and it too was bluish-green. Another is that the coating is more dense than the glass. No one says, half- or quarter-wave...

A quantum of energy proportional to the frequency of the light is absorbed at a particular "spot". We cannot tell much from one event (is this true?) but the pattern built up over many gives the interference pattern of the wavetank. I am still looking for discussion of the interference from more and more widely separated "slits". Isn't it weaker and weaker?

Reality shows our ignorance. I have written a study (URL below) on how there might be a localized EM disturbance, i.e., photon. It is based on a reasonable model of vacuum response to changing fields, or vacuum polarizability. This may or may not have to do with what is real! I am reading a series of papers gathered for me by my brother, and I have made a comment or two gleaned from these. The best minds today seem quite equivocal on the 'conspiracies' involved in Nature that manifest the lightfield.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html ...I hunger to know this level of mathematics, to see what he (and my friend solidspin) see in the rotations of this E8 space. . . . . . . . . . . .On a different tack, I just read June '08 Sci.Am. by Sean Carroll on "Cosmic Origins of Time". This is exciting and touches on some of the things I have mentioned, like the meaning of time flow in the large, cosmologic sense. Looking at BH event horizons, I wondered aloud, why don't we admit the sign of [math]d\tau /dt [/math] reverses inside? If you transform to isotropic coordinates and also if you consider only proper frames, this can escape your notice.

It would be excellent if in the midst of the construction of GR, there was an implication of quantum field analysis. I just listened to Anthony Lisi on TED.com, and I recommend it.

Light photons have total energy which has mass equivalent, but mass is usefully defined as those energy states which more or less "hang out", not boogeying at 'c'.

What if the distances of the two observers are not at all the same? solidspin informs me that they sort of are equal, but what if one is close and the other later and farther? Does this change the results? How close is close?

I completed a wave packet analysis of an assumed EM Gaussian disturbance. I allowed myself the mathematic privilege of "riding along with the packet". This is not a real option, at least for massive entities. However, this is analysis. In this frame of reference, one can understand the need for waves going both ways in terms of k-space, but what does this say about the transform back to our experience? I have rewritten things in terms of a co-moving [math] X=x-ct[/math] and there are no time-dependent terms in such a choice. One gets +/- contributions in k-space. Stay tuned.

Smoke more sativa.

Low-E coating is tuned to reflect infrared, I think. It would be a quarter-wave thickness of the IR. The quarter-wave thickness presents a reflection of a half-wave difference which cancels some of the surface reflection. I guess that at twice this frequency, which is tuned to some microwave value (1 or 2 microns?) the film is reinforcing. At three times frequency, again there's cancellation. At four times, reinforcement again. Thanks to all of you for checking in with ideas. KLAYNOS, if I ever chuck anything through one of these I'll send a sample!!!. . . .I feel confused. Don't we make low-E glass to reflect back IR energy? Does this mean it is half-wave thickness? . . . . On the trail, I Wiki on 'insulated glazing'. . .