Norman Albers

In the quotation with which I opened this thread, the last point was perhaps not relevant, as it refers to "particle sources". This does not affect my larger thrust of investigation into the essentially entwined enitites of photon, electron, and vacuum fields. By allowing the vacuum to manifest inhomogeneous response we get an equation for normal modes which is homogeneous.

Both gravitation and charged particles involve increases in vacuum polarizability. Electric fields involve divergence of the polarization state of this field, and this includes, or may be a thinning of radially-oriented dipoles which oppose the sense of the net field.

Thank heavens, I am not ready for tabletop CP violation. Inspect the magnet closely for hairs. Yo, Swansont, thus I said look for a torque on startup.

Does rotation reverse with battery polarity? If not, I feel queasy.

If you have it is the best day of your life. What do we experience of the magnet itself when we rotate it rapidly? If you thought that magnetization was an innate negative current there would be a different result than if it were a positive current. I know it not so simple since the magnetism comes from atomic scale. In our rest-frame there is total charge neutrality. Is this the case still under rotation? Where's Sally when we need her?

Does the motion depend on the disposition of the nail's feedwire? Eliminate a magnetic field from it by trailing it down parallel to the nail, to near the plate. Does this change anything? I see a mechanism by which the B-field from a sideways-exiting feed will torque the magnet. Do you notice any net torque sideways when you start?

Doesn't a system become seemingly nondeterministic when the set of possible combinations becomes so large compared with the measurable observations we might make, that bookkeeping is not reasonable? My brother Steve works at NOAA numerically crunching models for mesoscale weather prediction of tornadoes in the central US. We debate the butterfly changing the weather issue.

I solved the problem by integration by parts, and so am still beset by the fear of convolution. You may read over in "open question on QM".

What's the orientation of the magnet field? Do I read your setup as a magnet on top of a nail, with some DC current put through the nail to the plate?

I have solved the normal mode equations assuming a photon charge/current sheath where current [math]j_{y,z} =4a^2(1-a^2r^2)A_{y,z}[/math]. Here a is the envelope distance scale and is taken as [math]a= \alpha_{fsc} k_o[/math], and [math]k_o[/math] is the photon wave vector. One does not have to write out the actual Fourier transform of the A field since the normal mode equation is homogneous and is written: [math] d\alpha/dt + i\omega\alpha =-2i\omega_o[\alpha_{fsc}^2 + (k_y^2+k_z^2)/ k_o^2]\alpha[/math]. The RHS adds terms to the frequency expressed on the left, the first of which is small. The second term is large for components manifesting [math]k_{y,z}[/math] and shows high phase velocities for these. If we consider the "effective omega" as the sum of terms we can then look at group velocity, [math]d\omega/dk= c[1+2\alpha^2-(k_r^2)/(k_o^2][/math]. I welcome help to understand what this means. The normal mode function [math]\alpha=(2\epsilon_o \omega/\hbar)^{1/2}F.T.[A_{y,z}]_{trans}[/math].

Perhaps it is useful to say that gravitational and electromagnetic disturbances are the first and second multipole orders of a common neutral field.

I am trying to calculate a convolution integral in Fourier transform, and still struggling with my fear of convolution. In the inhomogneous field of my photon model the source term of current involves [math][-\lambda^2 + a^2(y^2 + z^2)]A[/math] , where the vector potential was constructed as a Gaussian wave packet of cylindric symmetry. I'd welcome comments to help me see my way clear here; these expressions in k-space can be awkward. Is there an easy generalizable statement, given that I have written the transform of [math] A_y= A_o cos(kX-\omega t)e^{-a^2(X^2+y^2+z^2)}[/math]?

Look at the case where you maintain polarized detectors "at the same angle in space". The relative angle is zero; why is the answer only 3/4? Since we have offered a "monte carlo" of random polarizations, some of those detected in one counter do not make it in the other.

On that third slide/page, it says in the range of 10^12 to 10^15 ev, there are about 50% proton events, 25% alphas, 13% combined nuclei C/N/O, 1% electrons, and 0.1% gammas.

I could not get back on the site yesterday. Go to HiRes and click on the site map. On slide #3 there is a statement about tera-and peta-volt "rays".

Wikipedia says they are 90% protons, 9% alphas, and 1% electrons. Think about the magnitudes of energy here. Can we even detect a photon at 10^18 ev? When these energetic particles crash through atmosphere it's one hell of a pinball game.. . . . . . . . . . time passes. . . . . . . . I am reading on the HiRes program, and they mention that if a highly energetic proton or other nucleus interacts with gas molecules near the production site, then neutral products such as gammas and neutrinos may be produced, and might be of detectable strength. Am I reading this correctly?

I thought cosmic "rays" are alpha particles and such. They come into the upper atmosphere, some at VERY high energies, like 10^20 ev. Thus they produce a shower miles deep as they repeatedly scatter, producing gammas and particle pairs.

I have read contradictory things: that above several GEV there are not photons because the energy probabilities are manifesting whatever all they do there. On the other hand, I read that there is no theoretic limit to k. This seems crazy if I think in terms on photons whose equilibirum state, if that exists as I am presenting it, is conformal to a Gaussian packet. Here, if the three spatial dimentions shrink with k, and also the energy density iincreases by k, then total density goes up by the fourth power of k . Things are getting awfully dense and you'd think it must yield. What can folks tell me here?

I have e-mailed my photon paper with additions on the photon position operator to Margaret Hawton. Don't ask me what's not going on. It's nice of you to ask, though. Oh no, up ahead is that a green light ?!?

Are we identifying a space between particles? This sort of fundamental identification is what is important. We sort of know what we are talking about in a dielectric material. What about in the vacuum itself? As I said, the meditation is, what is epsilon-nought?.................................................................................................................... ...................................................ALBERS to PUTHOFF: Have you convinced yourself of what epsilon-nought is? PUTHOFF:Yes. For a medium (say a crystal) you have D = eE = e_oE + P = e_oE + aE where a is the polarizability per unit vol of the crystal. This makes it clear that e_o is the polarizability per unit volume of the vacuum (due in this case not to actual charges like in the crystal but due to virtual electron-positron pairs in the vacuum). See my attached paper for discussion of this.

We have no photon position operator because our electrodynamics includes no inhomogeneous response from the vacuum fields. I do no yet know how to represent quantum field polarization response such as I have dialed up from an expanded E&M standpoint, and I wish someone knowledgeable here could help.

Lo and behold, Googling on 'photon position operator', as of the past few years, others are here also.

Don't you think something spins? I do. Electrons have a magnetic moment. If you look at my model, you see locally angular momentum vectors pointing along the surface of the sphere, but they have a z-component (sin(theta)) in summation. Quantum mechanics gives us relations between total angular momentum and z-component. I wound many electromagnets as a kid and believe in this physics. Here, the carrier is the superconducting vacuum. Now think about differentials in automobile drivelines. They deal with different spin rates. Somewhere in the Feynman Lectures I read "maybe we'll find the internal gears of the electron." I am speaking of the characeristics of rotation of whatever.

I have achieved a few points of clarity in this solution. The association of the inverse-square (in radius) term in the metric as electromagnetic energy density of the field is bogus. This has confused many discussions, and one should not so easily relate different quantities. When you posit all the divergence of an electron to the center point, you get a theory showing that. Whether or not you do that, or allow it to be spread out a bit as I have, you get whatever variation of the near field, blending into the far field, reflected as a variation on the 1/r^2 term previously taken to solve the metric. If you assumed a point, the field energy you calculate as a function of radius becomes infinte near zero, clearly, because the model is not adequate. It is stupid to associate the integral of the field energy of an r^-2 field with the source, because you can only integrate the energy outside of your radius. The integral blows up at the origin and is not defined. THEREFORE, it is not reasonable to say the original solution shows mass to be something separate from the energy in the field. The metric solutions offer possible physical responses of both first and second order, though the second-order term vanishes for my assumptions, near the origin. I started to freak out when I thought the sign of my near-field term in 1/r might cancel the -2m/r, but happily this in not the case; it reinforces and is of the same magnitude, assuming roughly classical radius where the farfield yields.

The term "axions" was named as the concept to "clean up the problem". You have to appreciate the sense of humor.