Norman Albers

It is beautiful and strange to see such a straight structure coming from a fluid medium. A friend (WBW) responded saying oh that's minimum packing, but these are large fluid forms presumably from vortexes.

Sorry, 15,000 miles or 25,000 km.

Five frustrating days and many pieces of paper with matrices later, this is starting to make sense. I don't have examples of magnetic terms in spherical form being treated in the Minkowski tensor and it is a disaster if you don't follow the correct formalisms. I think it is coming out nicely like my spread-out electric field did: there is another near-field term in the current equation, and a metric coefficient multiplies the current term on the RHS. More when I convince myself this is correctly done. Is anyone out there experienced in contravariant representations?

A fourth-year grad student on another site (PhysOrg) has offered a quantum operator interpretation of these fields. This is exciting, but will be more so when I learn his language. I don't yet know QFT; this person does.

You are experienced here, Tater, so you must have seen procedures at different orchards. I hope it is correct that spraying is done either early on tree wood or later on fruit. The flowers would be very much a fresh, fairly untainted yielding of nectar. Happy spring!

In the NY Times yesterday or so was a great picture of a large hexagonal cloud structure about one of the poles, having a scale of 15,000 km.

Here's [math] a\pi [/math] in yer eye!

STATES OF ENERGY . . . . . . . . . . .If you follow a light-ray through a piece of clear material whose optic density changes, what will you see?

WaTTo, nice to hear from you. This stimulates me to finish doing the magnetic part. I am wondering about the simple original choice of the metric form. It should become clear if this is not consistent. FURTHER OPEN QUESTION: I am informed that deep inelastic scattering gets us to the realm of effectively [math]10^{-21}[/math] meters (correspondende with H.Puthoff). From this perspective the electron is still "pointlike", and in fact we experience an effective fine structure constant maybe 5% or so higher. How does this match with considerations of electromagnetic field energy densities? Integrated from infinity to the classical radius, we already have mass-energy in the range of a half-MEV. The integral is simply equal to 1/r, evaluated wherever you think the physics holds. This relationship must yield at smaller magnitudes, where we are deep into inhomogenous physics.

H.Puthoff writes that our strongest electron scattering experiments show nothing but "pointlike" character in the range of [math]10^{-21} [/math]m. Indeed this is where we interpret a somewhat higher fine structure constant. There cannot, however, be electric field of inverse-square proportion much inside of the classical radius; the energy density totals would exceed half-MEV.

One should distinguish discussions of small Reissner-Nordstrom systems, such as my electron theory, from listings to be seen on Google for R-N black holes. This is an important characteristic of the metric; for the mass of an electron, the Schwarzschild radius is something like twenty magnitudes smaller than the Planck length. Thus I call them degenerate horizons.

Detectors are radiating their possibilities. Well, in the far-field sense not radiating, but there is a far-field.

Information at separate locations.

If you take a QM view of the vacuum there is a default value of 1/2 as the ground state of possible oscillation states. Tell me if this makes sense, but certainly as a magnitude estimate, thinking about photons and the zero-point fluctuation field, if you expect an average value of 1/2 in a given photon energy state, you can say the uncertainty in the product of energy with time must be not less than [math]h/2[/math]. Given a photon energy of [math]\hbar\omega, or, h\nu[/math]. lo and behold the time such a fluctuation can be expected to last is of the order of one cyle. Aha, I was talking to an electronics whiz about building noise-cancelling headphones, after reading an article about the theory and limitations of Bose manufactured products. I said why can we not just add a negative half-wave out of phase with each input half-wave and cancel it? He said, you are too late. I smiled, thankful for the lesson in noise theory.

GR gives possibilities of interpreting space-time based on minimal mathematic assumptions like vectors changing smoothly in their representation as they are moved around, and then too that the Lorentz form <1,-1,-1,-1> describes physics anywhere locally and everywhere "in the far" with respect to gravitational sources. Now look at a straw in a glass of water or light going into a lens, and we see changes of light-speed from what we call "optic index". Many theorists have written on interpreting the Scwarzschild metrics as the result of a scalar field of permittivity, and plugging this into the assumed geometry, we can see first why light follows the geodesics it does. Go a big step further and acknowledge that this vacuum physics is the actual substrate of matter, and we can see why mass follows the paths it does. I am trying to go them one better by tracing the whole metric phenomenon to the nature of particles themselves, and showing how this produces what was mathematically shown to be a reasonable geometry with which to represent what we need. I think it may be a poor assumption that physics does not change inside horizons; it seems to me there is fundamental change in the form of the vacuum fields and thus matter and energy are "collapsed". . . . . . . .Now get an E&M textbook that has a good section on dielectric theory, and you'll see the effect of a finite polarizability giving rise to a singular state of polarization.

What is the algorithm, in case this is not sufficiently accurate? [bIGTEETH]

I celebrated 3.83 hours into the day.

Did we ever find a good series representation for pi?

I would enjoy some elaboration here. Klaynos offered the observation that if two detectors manifest information nonlocally, this is not yet known until the information travels at the speed of light to an "accountant".

This is the theoretic picture we are still coming to understand, and it is expressed in General Relativity. It comes down to differential calculus which is designed on the principles that: 1) speed-of-light is, locally, is always measured the same. I observe that this assumes physics is always the same, and if there are black holes I doubt this is so. 2)Isotropy; this is clear except in rotating systems. 3) The reduced Riemann curvature tensor [math]R_{ik}[/math] expressing the local changes. What is experienced in one frame will be measured with signal exchange according to the ratio of the metric factors of the two locales.

There must be some way out of here, said the joker to the thief... Good one. Farsight. As far as I know, cosmologies have no outside It does seem that no one gets out alive. . . . . time passes...... multiple cosmologies have separate spaces, I guess.

The last cartoon shows A.E. looking sad and saying, "Ah the cosmologic constant, my biggest blunder..." Then there's the woman at the table exclaiming, "It's perfect! Everything cancels." The little Oliphant figure in the corner comments, "Perfectly nothing." After that, a man at a desk: "Nothing cancels. This is a mess." Then too, there are the MAXWELL TARPITS, wherein lie many DEAD BONES .

If you spent a hundred hours grinding a telescope mirror, and then set it up and discovered Saturn, I would congratulate you and buy you a consolation beer, while breaking it gently to you that this was accomplished four hundred years ago, also. I got my nail to turn, and am quite thrilled. Draw the field lines of a tilted magnet and you may see that at the 90-degree sides, they share components which both add or subtract. One of a set of cartoons I drew of the Pitfalls of Theoretical Physics, says, wait at least a half hour before announcing great breakthroughs to anyone.

Consider the electric field in this model: [math]E=-r^{-2} + (r^{-2}+r^{-1)}e^{-r}[/math]. The first term may be thought of as a divergenceless polarization. In the far field this is all there is, effectively. In the near field it is balanced by the opposite, diverging polarization. In the limit at the origin they cancel in orders [math]<r^{-2}, r^{-1}>[/math] so there is a finite E-field, namely -1/2. Remember that a polarization reflects a net field of oriented dipoles, and in both the positive and negative parts identified separately here there must be strong [math]r^{-2}[/math] behavior at the origin. This can be associated with an increase of the polarizability of the vacuum to a value of 3 as per dielectric theory. The relatively smaller value of the inhomogeneous part can be linked to favored annihilation of that population orientation. If you think about the fate of a randomly oriented dipole introduced here, there will be some rotation regardless, and I have not done specific analysis here, but the radial population will be biased as the oppositely-oriented dipoles are repelled and speeded to annihilation by virtue of being drawn closer together. At this point one needs a statistics of the vacuum.

For quite some time we just lived with acceptance of vacuum permittivity and the propagation of E&M fields. This did not prevent us from getting a lot of physics accomplished. Should we admit we do not know everything?