Norman Albers

One of you guys is going to have to accept this mission. My last major foray into photography was Physics 301 lab where I made a lovely hologram of my Venus de Milo statue, then spent an inordinate amount of time appreciating it from different angles. Babe. This in 1969.

We change only the illumination intensity, and the exposure time. One has to accomplish the first without altering its distribution. You tell me: can we put a smoked glass filter, such as we view eclipses with, in front of the output of our light? Otherwise, could we maybe run a laser a lower power?

Thank you Jacques, good questions. I'd think, though, that any "noise in the signal" would be worse on the long exposure. You would need black walls, actually, right? Otherwise scattering could be above a threshold, on the short exposure???

He described an inside space with shuttered windows to eliminate change. Then a "controlled" light source. Maybe a heavy smoked glass filter is fair here, what do you think? You may not "dim an incandescent bulb" thus changing its color, etc.

Thank you Klaynos. Is there overlap and wash in the higher intensity field? Like I mentioned, you may not throttle down the light level by, say, making it more point-like. Hang in here, Gcol, we are in danger of learning something. I am not changing grain sizes so this may or may not apply to digital mode; I'll ask my friend who was working with film, I think.

I called my friend to ask his help. Compare the photo at a certain light intensity for one minute, to the photo at 1/60 the energy intensity, for one hour. Steve S. says there is a clarity in the longer photo.

"The same bucketful of photons", namely, longer exposure at lower level.

I am in trouble as I am not a photog! I think he was saying, same setup on a steady tripod with all changes of background light eliminated, same film and aperture. Now I should ask him about the light source, how its intensity is reduced. That has to be done without any change in its quality.

I have a friend who is an experienced photographer. He said that an exposure with the "same bucketful of photons" at high or low level for a shorter or longer time with the same aperture, yields pictures of discernably different quality. The low-level exposure gives a clearer picture, and I am curious why.

Good one, Farsight. I recently ran this through with BenTheMan who said, yes, at energies of around 100 GEV (roughly 10^-17 m, I guess) what's manifested are the higher energy bosons instead of photons. Then too I read the opposite opinion. You speak of 10^-13 m which corresponds to maybe 10 MEV.

Lucaspa, I enjoy many of your viewpoints. I must add the caution to be aware of strong political forces in funding for science research. I co-authored a book while at Stanford, along with Stanton Glantz, M.D, and the actual man who busted Big Tobacco later (look up "Tilting at Tobacco). In 1972 about half of the large funding for science and technologies went through the Dept. of Defense, and the other half through Nat. Science Found. Professors told us it was "Santa Claus money"; I personally went to the Pentagon and was handed a two-inch thick stack of the military relevance of all 110 contracts at Stanford. Now we may say that many things researched and developed here had relevance beyond just military application. Do not miss the larger picture of what is here and what is not here.

Dude, I'm sorry you're feeling so bad.

I've not yet read your paper but will as soon as I can. In my own gravitation study I distinguish radial and transverse permittivities.

Such an accelerator! Can we see any collider physics with these suckers? Granted, collimation and luminosity are nothing to write home about. Are cross-sections low at these momenta?

Fresh news on the wires: a set of 1600 detector tanks in Argentina is showing that ultra-high-energy cosmic particles (rays) around 10^19ev are sourced by nearby active galactic nuceii. This is good news because we think they interact with the CMB sufficiently that their energy is scattered down over distances larger than 300 million LY.

Fred, I love it and might be able to understand something of it. See, I guess "extremal" means regimes of possible energetics. <<I figure the gold lines in circuitboards are snakes, and the one that appears on the great photo I'm chasing bridged the high-current pins.>> Back to business: It seems pretty clear to me that the solutions we have of both mass and electromagnetics in the interior, sourcing region, are low-field approximations in both senses of characteristic distance. Lense-Thirring portrays a spinning mass of constant "low" density, for instance. I would like to learn if the regime I am suggesting, where to first order angular momentum alone is significant, is used in exterior solutions. Actually it seems to me now that I need to keep terms of [math] <a/\rho, (a/\rho)^2, m/\rho> [/math] to get anything polar out of the equations. No I do not yet know quite what I am doing.

You flatter me but I had no clue. This is all fun. Publication date on that is 2008. (Personally I loved it and I think the Google people did also when I mistakenly dated my paper on gravitation, issued last year, one year in the future. )

Stellar collapses involve blasting off of outer layers, a significant fraction of the total original mass. What angular momentum transfers are possible here? If a "skater drawing in their arms" and thus moment of inertia, also tries to couple to another skater going outward, there will be transfer, no?

Reading your http, it sounds like they were considered "missing" from theoretic numbers of early galaxy birth and death, as opposed to cosmologic bookkeeping. Does this change much how much must be accounted for in dark ways? It was exciting to read, a few years ago, of diffuse galaxies of low luminosity, being numerous in count. Generally too dust-shrouded to see, if one was as close as Andromeda, it would span quite an impressive angular distance in the night sky! I guess this did not change much the overall cosmologic balance.

Cool, Jacques. On earth that speaks to the separation to some extent of internal flows not identical to external ones, I would think. We speak of iron core flows that shift greatly, in fact.

Why do pulsars pulse? Isn't the output beam coaxial to rotation?

When we get the Schwarschild solution we see a characteristic length, or "geometrized mass", of [math]m=GM/c^2[/math]. In the Kerr metric, the rotation gives another characteristic, using this first term. The "geometric angular momentum" is [math]am=GJ/c^3[/math], and if we subsitute for 'm', this shows that [math] a=J/Mc [/math] and has units of length also. In normal stellar physics, stars have Schwarzschild radii of some kilometers' scale, but 'a' is notably smaller. Examine the null hypersurfaces defined by [math]\rho_\pm = m \pm \sqrt{m^2-a^2}[/math] in the Kerr metric. Note that this is distinct from the infinite redshift surface which is oblate outside the outer null surface, and a figure '8' inside the inner one. We can see that if 'a' becomes equal to 'm', the hypersurfaces become degenerate spheres. Now, fast-forward to my considerations of the electron. Here 'm' is of the order E-57m, but on the other hand, angular momentum gives 'a' about E-23m. Thus the electron is "much electromagnetic ado about nothing" as measured by its mass. If we are to investigate what GR might show here, we will make expansions in appropriate places acknowledging relative magnitudes. I am not sure if anyone else has taken things this far. (Newman et. al.) In describing an effective potential, I follow the procedure of determining geodesics of motion, which yields essentially an energy equation for [math] \mu^2\dot{\rho}^2 [/math]. In the Schwarzschild metric this shows as [math](E^2-V^2)/c^4 [/math] and it is clear how we may speak of this potential 'V'. It is not nearly so clear how to interpret the Kerr form, and I am even having an argument with my textbook. However one does yield the statement I made. The expansion I got is distinct from what I read on Schwarzschild in that it does not depend upon the orbit path. One gets a term there of [math] L^2/2\mu r^2[/math]; in the Kerr expansion a "Limit of small 'a'" yields a term of [math] 2macL/\rho^3[/math]. Both of these are dependent on angular momentum [math]L[/math] which is path-dependent. What am I really looking for? Unification, I guess. The same vacuum medium gives polar forms as in E&M, and neutral forms in gravitation. I see frame-dragging outside neutron stars, whose rotating mass I see as a "neutral current", and Ahoronov-Bohm rotation of phase for charged particles, whose source is a polar current of neutral net charge. I want to know how all this connects through the different regimes we are considering in GR.

Where's that beautiful picture of a burned-out circuitboard from last winter? (With the snake.)

Sorry if the reference above is not addressed. Try this: http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan07/newmodel012907.html

Thank you, yes. What is implied when we state that there exists: [math] \epsilon_0 [/math] ???