Norman Albers

Charge is divergence of electric field.

I theorize a sheath of alternating charge density, in fact two concentric and oppositely charge helices.

Thanks, Fred56. I could send you some mind-blowing papers on the universe as a solid state. In the Kerr metric there are two intrinsic terms with dimension <length>, namely 'm' or "geometric mass" equal to GM/c^2 (this is Schw. radius) and then further, "geometric angular momentum" whose total is am=GJ/c^3. The units on both sides are (length)^2; m has units of length and so does 'a'. So 'a' is dimensionalized angular momentum per unit "mass". I am working with the distinct regimes. Given the dynamics I see, we can call electrons "zit instabilities". The questions involve characteristics. My MS was in plasma physics...Thanks, babe, don't stress but isn't this fun??? Since we're on the subject, I see I cannot expect a simple link between solenoid current circulation and the Ahoronov-Bohm phase "circulation", and the frame-dragging of a massive object. However, I expect these to be aspects of the "vacuum field", just as I am showing electrons to be polar organization, and gravitation to be non-polar organization, of the vacuum field. I just pulled out a far-field result (Reissner... thread) that I hope applies to the electron itself, where mass-energy is "small" but AM is high (angular momentum). This is not the case where a current is made to energize a solenoid. Those electrons are in the usual regime of low AM. It's the same damn vacuum doo-dah field, whatever you want to call it.

I like the knots or tangles idea. I have shown how, given an inverse-square electric field, and an available population of charge fluctuations from the vacuum, we can see they will respond and skew their population in ways that sustain, or are indeed the essence of, the electron. Starting with an inhomogeneous electrodynamic argument this seems to blend well with the ideas of the quantum vacuum.

Nice overview, Martin. I read one interpretation recently that things will expand to the point where the matter field falls apart. I guess we're talking about the vacuum itself. . . . Yes, after rereading this reference: Documents and Settings\User\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\01Y34563\UNC News release -- Endless universe made possible by new model.htmC:\ , I see they speak of an equation of state for dark energy. I wonder if they've seen my photon paper. The authors are Frampton and Baum. Good stuff, Fred. This describes the regime in which my friend solidspin is constructing QFT.

By gosh and by golly I have some kind of result. By expanding the Kerr to second order in terms of a/r, and without the term in m, I get a new effective potential. The original forms include [math]\mu c^2[/math], for rest mass of the test particle whose geodesic we are examining. Even when this mass has low angular momentum (in the high-AM field) there is a second-order contribution now: [math]V= \mu c^2 \sqrt{1+ a^2/\rho^2}[/math]. [math]\rho[/math] is the real part of the "complexified position" or whatever describes how we wrote 1/r knowing it solves Laplace, then in Cartesian form added to <z> to let it be <z + ia>. This is the trick that pulls Kerr out of the hat. I can certainly expand my SQRT for far-fields where rho converges with r, and say: [math] V(far) = \mu c^2[1 + 1/2(a/r)^2][/math]. This is different from both the Schwarzschild and usual Kerr expansions. Note that it's like coming in through the roof, in that we psyched out the tensor equations through the form of the degenerate metric and found all the info in the Laplace form. Thus I am able to get some real entertainment in the far-field without having solved my interior form yet. [EDIT] In the first line above I should speak in terms of radial coordinate [math]\rho[/math] rather than [math]r[/math]. Only in the far field do they converge. We have expressed a transformed system by allowing: [math] \omega= [x^2 + y^2 + (z-ia)^2]^{1/2} [/math] and we identify the real part of this expression as [math]\rho[/math].

There are two parameters having dimension of length which appear in the Kerr exterior solution, namely the "geometric mass" m=GM/c^2, which is half the Schwarzschild radius; and then too the "geometric angular momentum" which is the product term: ma=-GJ/c^3 which involves both total "m" amd also angular momentum "J". Both m and a have dimensions of mength. Usually angular momentum is "less than" massive effects; as we approach relativistic large masses, the terms become comparable; in particles, Schwarschild radii are more than twenty magnitudes smaller than angular momentum terms...

I know the older flourescent lights needed to be supplied by more current than you'd think by examining the power load. Beyond the power consumed in the bulb, there was a larger current being utilized but at an inductive phase angle so it is not power-consuming. Thus the volt-amp rating was maybe 2-1/2 times the power put out. This means you have to size the supply wire to yield this much current. Is the same thing true with the electronic balast screw-ins we have now?

I was impressed a few months ago when somebody, maybe Swansont, cited Fermi as having constucted a theory of neutrons as four leptons, so I didn't know but I did not see any "diagrams". Onwards we lurch. It does seem we are not alone. This morning I heard Somerset Maugham quoted as saying there are three rules for writing a novel and no one knows what they are.

Perhaps you meant to say "Feynman diagrams".

Elas, I read Wikipedia on Hall fractional states so now I am an expert [bIG TEETH]. Seriously where would you direct me to read further, and are you using "quasi-particle" terminology?

Good clean fun, Mr. Skeptic, I've never seen this presented. I talked with BenTheMan somewhere recently and he thought above maybe 100 GEV photons gave way to heavy bosons and so don't exist as a predominant form. I think the implied frequency of electrons is about 10^21, so this higher energy would have nu of 10^26 or so. I did read something heavy-duty about the gyromagnetic ratio of a black hole...

Good one, scalbers. I had not heard of this type and it's wild. The rotating source produces a field which has inner singular surfaces in two symmetric polar lobes, and an outer surface also. Because of the rotation the singular surface is not the same as the surface of infinite redshift, but that's not the point here. You are elucidating rotation so strong that these two, inner and outer, shift and merge. Wow! Is there anisotropic opening then, maybe polar? The GR isotropic solution is not the same; there is no singular surface, except maybe at the singularity where your physics sort of falls apart. I don't yet know, however, how angular momentum manifests here.

Fred, this is an excellent tease. I am fairly ignorant in quantum field theory so I cannot even answer directly. Maybe somebody like Martin can interpret this for us.

That's cool, Fred, and I also appreciate Martin's statement of us all having different trainings and areas of understanding. General relativity is built up as a four-space mathematics in which changes are assumed to be representable as differentially smooth fields. Thus we always speak of "d - this" and "d-that", since the properties are allowed to change as we go to different placees. The Schwarzschild solution is more general in that we allow different behavior in the radial and transverse senses, the B® and C® above. If you ask for a solution where they are the same, you get "dark gray holes" where there is no outer horizon, just an approach to a singularity.

To sum up: when you consider spherically symmetric centrally-sourced fields, in the GR considerations we ask for a bilinear metric and get immediately to the differential expression: [math]ds^2=c^2A®dt^2 - B®dr^2 - C®r^2(d^2\theta +sin^2\theta d^2 \phi) [/math]. We may either proceed allowing B® and C® to be the same (isotropic solution) or allow them to be distinct, whereby we cook up the Schwarzschild solution.

As I pointed out in the DOOMSDAY WHEEL thread any matter-energy structure has to have extreme attitude to want to hang together in relativistic regimes. So we follow our hunches.

Generally we should keep clear on the distinction between event horizon and singularity. I am reading to try to understand the "collapsing dust ball" and interior metric treated as a "truncated Friedman metric". One of the reasons to be amused here is that there is a school of thought where event horizons do not exist distinct from the singularity. These are "dark gray holes" and are the solution of the Einstein field that you get if you do not distinguish the stretching of radial and transverse dimensions as you do setting up the Schwarzschild solution. It's called the isotropic solution (Puthoff wrote on it). So these guys are smiling at the rest of us wondering about interiors. I am trying to understand the relation between proper time and coordinate time. If you accept Schwarzschild physics can you show that the approach to singularity occurs in finite "external" coordinate time? My text shows how, in proper time even on the surface of a collapsing dustball, we go to zero radius in an unceremoniously short time. Does this actually get to happen in finite external time?

Looked at with my polarizable vacuum perspective, the interior modes of radiation in the transverse senses (tangent to a sphere) are strongly absorbed except near the center. This might imply a degenerate one-dimensional mode-space. Fred, yes but let's try to get clear on the relation of the "passage of time" in the different frames of reference. The ticking of clocks for the infalling observer really gets slower than the outer observer's. Yes one can speak of the experience of infalling but it takes asymptotically long by external clocks, and this will be mirrored by the apparent blueshift and time-lapse perception of the light coming in from the outer observer. Now maybe this becomes not relevant as the time constant is not that long, to where we get within quantum wavelengths, but you have to deal with the fact that the metric coefficient (1-2m/r) becomes zero. Then again, maybe the answer here lies in the question, "Given a BH and a shell of accreting matter, can we say this collapses to a BH of that much more mass?"

Fred, YES! I have been looking at the transverse permittivity in the interior, which is negative, expressed in "external" flat-space coordinates. This implies a real exponent of decay for transverse radiation, leaving only a one-dimensional manifold. Interestingly this effect goes to zero as does radial permittivity which remained positive, toward the origin. Look at my gravitation paper and plot out the two permittivities. You might be seriously amused. Martin, thanks, I'll get with the reference. I just admitted over in the 'gedanken' thread that I am not yet schooled in interpretions of the interior metric. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=364640#post364640 It is easy to say "radial intervals are time-like and time intervals are space-like" but what are we saying, and what are our assumptions about physics? Surprisingly last winter H. Puthoff agreed with me that the concept of proper-time physics is overextended. What gets to happen?

Yes Farsight, put that print through a 1/r inversion. Now I'm not ready to get sucked into interior physics; this makes turkeys of most of us. As I approach that study I will look at assumptions about proper-time physics, as it seems to me it might be looked at as a phase change in the vacuum fields.

It is as if the radial space from inside the event horizon was compressed into the exterior space.

Elas, I agree if you are seeking a unified description. The question is, what are the forms that energy takes? Talking about varying speed-of-light, I too think we can speak of different states of the vacuum permittivity, yeah even phase changes. I would say, though, that light from outside a dense region is blue-shifted, no? Another question, how do you relate to angular momentum? It is fundamental.

I have shown how to account for an electron near-field. We seek the correct accounting of that total field of background and singularities.

D H, Cool and thank you. [bIGTEETH]