Norman Albers

Farsight, don't even think of professional journals, but I'm sure there are an expanding number of expression possibilities. Starting three years ago, I submitted my electron and photon papers, which are rather mathematical, to Russian JETP and also US JMP(Journal Mathematical Physics). They agreed between themselves to have the Russians read me. They spent two and a half weeks reading two and a half pages, then refused saying NOTHING. I got the photon paper to Nature, Physics (UK) and they said, this is provocative but 'not sufficiently accepted for us to publish', which I sort of liked. One year ago exactly, JMP read my gravitation paper, and it passed peer review. After three weeks on the final editor's desk, it was turned down for that issue. I do not wish this on you. On the other hand, I was somewhat thrilled, and a few weeks later, H.Puthoff answered me and we embarked on a five-month exchange, honoring the fact that we do similar physics in the Polarizable Vacuum. This is all I need, namely, CONTACT. Publication is a main route there, but I do not have to care now. My job is to find the end of the usefulness of my hypothesis. There is yet none in sight. I am working with a brilliant man who is formulating further QFT very much in line with what you've heard from John Baez and a few others, and who sees my ideas as completely parallel.

Photon-photon interaction to get to pair production requires levels of luminosity obtainable in one way by having x-ray ports at the accelerator storage rings at SLAC, creating "dueling lasers" aimed at a small region. I gather there are other ways, since we have pulsed lasers whose momentary power output is high. I'm playing with figuring energy densities; if I come up with anything decent I'll share it here. Swansont, in what energy ranges were you working? Elas we are on the same page. I was amused once to answer a QM student whose impressively stated integral for the average field of a photon was zero. Magnetic moments I guess are supposed to come from the Easter Bunny.

Good discussion, Jacques. Isn't this what they do in QFT, figure all possible transition paths according to quantum math?

I'm hoping scalbers will post some stuff on evanescent waves.

[math]r\times A [/math]. Thanks, mate! Here is a compatible reference I have downloaded: http://amath.colorado.edu/documentation/LaTeX/Symbols.pdf

I calculate, according to electrodynamic rules, angular momentum density of the field. The contribution from inhomogeneous sourcing in my model is: [math] J_x =\int d^3 V \rho \hat x \cdot r \times A [/math]. I use a coordinate origin riding with the center of the packet. Where there exists vector potential A and charge density [math]\rho[/math] there is linear momentum of their product. Angular momentum is the crossproduct [math] r\times \rho A [/math], and I take the component in the x-direction.

Vector cross-product?

After reading the first few references offered by Swansont. I am struck by the representation of Gaussian wave packets. I raise questions comparing these to my modelling, over in: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=357929#post357929

I won't say I have wrapped my head around your offerings but your vision is intriguing, Elas. You speak on constants of the vacuum in place of a nucleus. I dial up electrons and photons as responses from the vacuum field characterized by the fine structure constant, which expresses the proportional response of the vacuum to the field and thus the envelope of the disturbance. . . . .Over in 'German claim...' I read of Gaussian wave packets. I suspect they are not the same as the ones I have dialed up in my photon paper. Doesn't quantum wave theory start with an uncertainty spread in momentum in the propagation direction? What is achieved? Is there a repeating pattern which is normalized, and is there any falloff in the transverse direction? Nobody commented on my efforts to Fourier transform my model, but if I have done it correctly there is a well-defined single momentum in the x-direction producing a delta function in [math]k_x[/math] but a spread in the transverse spectrum reflecting the exponential falloff.

Stormwarrior, thank you. Attitude and style really do matter. We are all learning things. Klaynos, right on as usual. scalbers is ahead of me in understanding.

Stormwarrior, no I do not agree and I think you are sucked in by headlines. I am not afraid to challenge orthodoxy when mathematics I have completed gives me something important to say. Read Part III, Manifesto, in my photon paper. I do not, however, enter with trash talk like you do. I will demand that people answer as to the usefulness of the statements I hear the mathematics saying.

Dude, get a brain. Consider the following problem which applies in weather, and in exploding stars. Look at a circular wavefront impinging at high expansion speed, on a relatively flat surface. If you calculate the sideways spread of the position of contact, which at first is a point, at this first moment it is infinite. This is a phase velocity of the situation. It is not hard to write the equation of a circle and take the derivative. Do this. It describes slapping your face, or the impact of a flattened piano hammer which needs my work to file it round again with sandpaper. Thus I control the harmonics excited upon impact with the strings. I have more than 30 years experience in this sort of wave mechanics. There are series of astronomic photographs of supernova explosion shells impinging months or years later on regions of gas clouds. You will look at these and see a ring of contact spreading out at superluminal velocities. WOW!

If you look at the metric expression, it tells you that radial changes are the same; there is no coefficient in front of the [math]dr^2[/math] term. On the other hand, there is time dilation and Lorentz contraction of the circumference. Also the first term implies relativistic mass increase. I guess it's sort of the opposite of the Schwarzschild scenario, where as you near a horizon the circumference is less than [math]2\pi r[/math]. Here there is similar behavior but applying to the circumferential measures, so the result is opposite. In the example of 10,000 rpm, I figure an acceleration of one million meters/sec/sec, or a hundred thousand g's for each meter of radius in the nonrelativistic regime. I've not thought enough here yet to describe the cinema. You have created another ultimate challenge to SPIDERMAN....Thwwppp.

Ditto. Now if one of you guys can go engineer a metamaterial with index of refraction less than unity, I'd really like to hear about it. I ran this by and I think Klaynos explained why I shouldn't hold my breath. [if only we could mix a region of 3/4 unit permittivty with a 1/4 sprinkling of metamaterial of index -1...]

losfomot, you calculate the centrifugal force on a kilogram of even SPIDERMAN SILK at the radius and speed we are talking of. To get us started in the relativistic discussion, the differential expression in coordinates riding along with the rotation is: [math]ds^2=(1-\frac{\omega^2 r^2)}{c^2}) c^2dt^2 - [dr^2+(1-\frac{\omega^2r^2}{c^2})^{-1}r^2d\phi^2 + dz^2] [/math].

Pioneer, the actual speed of light measured by us not in the medium is less than c according to multiplication by the inverse of the index of refraction. Meditate on [math]\epsilon_0[/math], the electric permittivity of the vacuum. This very idea says that the vacuum acts like an availability of polarization. An optically clear but thicker medium, i.e. with higher index, adds more of this polarizability. It's like after church service (as a kid) we all stood in line to shake the pastor's hand. The shaking was mutual so no net energy was exchanged, yet the line moved slowly.

People are currently building high-kinetic energy storage flywheels, perhaps to 10,000 rpm, for vehicle or fixed energy storage. Yes they fly apart from the extreme centrifugal forces so folks are working out the engineering here. When you get to a significant fraction of the SOL yes, things really get out of hand.

Excellent, Swansont, exciting references. Severian, can you help us understand the f2([math]\gamma[/math]) function in your ref?

You ask good questions. Up to the energy level you describe photons don't interact, though I have heard knowledgeable people say they repel somewhat; a Stonybrook prof. put it: "they oppose 'til they superpose, I suppose." At high energies interaction becomes possible; I've heard it described as nonlinear process. Also S.Doniach at Stanford described dueling x-ray lasers, from the e-p storage rings at SLAC, where a region of very high intensity could be expected to "boil the vacuum" and show pair production. Look up "Schwinger pair ...". Talking with Puthoff: (NA): I think we can both say the vacuum gets thicker in terms of dipole manifestation, but how do we connect this with permeability? (HP): I think (loosely) of the vacuum as a virtual electron-positron plasma. The permeability would be associate with the spins. There has been recent measurement of birefringence induced in the vacuum by a magnetic field, which supports this idea. They definitely conclude that the vacuum is a medium. Published in Phys Rev I think. Hal ...................There is an electromagnetic background, the CMB of blackbody sprectrum. This is not the same as the virtual fluctuation field. Google on 'virtual fluctuations' and you'll read why I am doing what I am. A blackbody equilibrium spectrum described by the Planck distribution does not Lorentz-transform into itself. The QM vacuum spectrum is described with an [math]\omega^3[/math] dependence which does L-t into itself. I went on to argue against his saying we need spins intrinsically to do E&M business.

It seems to me nowadays we call it the virtual field.

Jacques, good statement: yes, the vacuum is a medium. I corresponded a good deal with H. Puthoff and he certainly agreed that it is being seen as such. (We exchanged quite a bit on the topic of gravitation, but disappointingly he has offered nothing on this photon study.) I have allowed it to be so and derived the "superconducting" response I wrote. In a superconducting material, there is an electron population giving a finite, massive, but resistanceless response to impinging magnetic fields, and until overwhelmed by intensity, a skin current forms keeping out the B-field. Here, and in my electron study, I express "massless" dipole field availability; this seems to fit well with the QM concept of zero-point fluctuations of the virtual electron-positron field.

One year into my working with my electric garden cart I am happy to see two full cords of hardwood (dried) stacked in my shed, plus a half-cord of sticks. This is all I need for a fairly cold winter. The cart is strong as per these specs on loads: "90 kg. on level surfaces; 70 kg. on 10-degree slopes; 68 kg. on a 20-degree slope." This is for real and I torque nice loads up the path to my shed. Five bags of groceries or glass recyclables? No problem, house door to car door.

Jacques, usually when we write Maxwells equations we insist on a complete vacuum except for specified unit point charges, in the small. As a plasma physicist I got used to dealing with regions of charge density, in a plasma involving populations of usually different species, electrons and ions. My study here is "simply" solving what is implied by having a wave packet. When you solve Maxwell's eqs. for waves you produce plane-wave solutions with no transverse falloff. Consider a microwave waveguide or even optic fiber. If we call propagation direction x, there are electric and magnetic fields in y,z. Where this energy impinges on the conducting wall, the wall mirrors the electric field and thus reflects it back in. Since we thus supply a "sheath", we have created a field where in a region (inside) there exists electric field in say, the y-direction, but beyond the wall, in the y-direction, there is no field, right? A mirror is a charge-current responsive availability at the frequencies you're dealing with; this is the nature of a conductor........So, I start with a disarmingly simple statement, "suppose there exists this wave packet which moves along at c in the x-direction, and that its intensity in all three dimensions, looked at in its centered frame of reference, falls off as a Gaussian exponent with a characteristic length of 'many cycles'." I proceed through the two or three steps to solve for the implied charge and current fields. The existence of such a packet requires a "diffuse mirror" to be supplied by the vacuum. This is the charge density field describing a double-double helix characterizing the thinning envelope. Grouping terms and looking at this for quite some time, I finally came to the expression for current whose first term is just what you get solving response from a superconductor: [math] j=(-\lambda^2 + \rho/U)A [/math]. Mathematically, charge density is described as "divergence of the electric field", [math]\nabla \cdot E[/math]. I offer these extensions to Maxwell's equations, namely right-hand-side source terms cooked up by the time-dependent vacuum polarizability in the small. The inference of a characteristic length of "many cycles" implies a pure number, and I needed a few thousand, so why not the square of the fine structure constant?There are not many pure numbers floating around in this circumstance.

This is worth carrying on elsewhere if you care to.

Thirty years ago at a colloquium at Princeton someone described the most dense state as a single quantum from which would bounce forth a further evolution. Pretty heady stuff and I'm sure people are still thinking here, though I've not read much lately.