Norman Albers

Are you describing an electric 'plugin' with lithium-ion batteries?

I think it is not true that locally there is no charge density.

One of the most salient results I have is that magnetic energy content of the electron is about 15% larger than electric, measured respectively by the integrals of j 'dot' A, and rho(U). Can anyone help relate other understanding?

Yes, the small diesel sounds good. A young friend once made some here and it is pretty cool, except he spilled enough that went rancid and smelled up my downwind space. Not to mention open fire in the middle of fire season, so I had to boot him out. It is a great idea in the right place, industrially, and you really do smell french fries, it's cool!

An Irishman walks into a Scottish inn, and asks the proprietor if she has a meal to offer him. She says, would you like some day-old soup? Yes, he answers. "Then come back tomorrow!"

The paper is finished. I have it in pdf form, and within a day or so it will be available in my cache (at my brother's NOAA address) as PARTS III and IV of the electron study.

There is another term to the magnetic interaction energy and I have finished the entire analysis. This is related under "Inhomogeneous..." A paper will be written forthwith.

I am excited to annouce I have completed my electrodynamic analysis of the electron magnetic moment viv-a-vis my inhomogeneous model. There are two interaction terms (not one as I first thought) to integrate directly the magnetic interaction energy. Then, I express:[math]\mu=\hbar e/2m[/math], and integrate the other three quantities of the field. Mass is a surprise, since total electric energy (without 2pi) is unity, while total magnetic energy is 1.16. Angular momentum is the z-component of r-cross-(rho)A. It might be possible to show this analytically but it surely not simple as you have the product of sums on each side. I am gratified that the numbers came out the same! I was not sure to expect this, but I will finish a paper detailing all this within a few days.

error

Twenty years ago I kept a Honda Civic in tune and three of us drove a thousand km. and back. We went with a tailwind and returned against it. Mileage on the way down was 43 mpg, and back, 41-42. That engine (like a sewing machine inside) had CCCV, namely, a third valve to inlet a richer mixture right near the sparkplug. It was a smaller intake valve. This was a small, competent sedan.

May I put here a question on Casimir effect? Don't two well polished conducting plates have a strong Van der Waals sort of stiction when brought together, just from mirroring each others charges and fluctuations?

I'm trying to understand the evolution of our antiparticle theory vis-a-vis the CP revolution. Wasn't that well established already, so that this symmetry violation had to be grafted into both sides of what is otherwise symmetric? I read that all other levels of interaction show no violation.

Look out, I am snorting today! I like this sign on a neighbor's porch. I am blessedly child-free, and was a step-dad for more than a decade. I once said to YT after a lively argument, that he should come spend some time out on the farm sometime, and now I repeat this to all of you. Once a deer doe died right at my fence, having been shot once. A friend knew how to butcher; I gave thanks and we did it. I was quite at peace, though it is alarming when you have not been forced to integrate the pieces of your personality in this way before. I live in foothills land excellent for small farms, and anyone here with a pasture and some cows will look at you quizzically if you question their mode of efficiency. Sunlight, water, some space growing grass which we'd like to up-convert. Now don't judge me quickly, as I was influenced hugely by the "Diet for a Small Planet" and was thrilled to be able to tell a 10-yr. old friend doing gymnastics that if she was going to eat small (she is thin) she needs to educate herself as to protein facts and the whole discussion. I love my tofu, whole grains and fresh veggies, and my meatloaf is to die for. If we cannot live in reasonable harmony here, there are too many of us here. . . . . . . . To offer something positive, protein produced from something like algae sources seems appetizing, like soy products. I try to include more of such things; Soyrizo is a nice version of chorizo.

One of the classical orchestral directors of the mid-20th century had a poor attitude toward women (I think it was Leopold Stokowski) and was said to have baited a player, saying, "Madame, would you sleep with me if I offered a million dollars?" She said she probably would. Then, he offered her $100, to which she indignantly replied, "What do you think I am, a whore?" "We have already established what you are, madame, and now we are haggling over the price." (Don't shoot the messenger!!)

Locally raised buffalo, 20 km distant, is usually available at $5.50/lb. Today, as it occasionally is, it was $3.79 and I hooted and bought 3 lb. and am about to eat my soon-to-be-famous buffalo-jalapeno meatloaf. I have raised hogs on compost and goat's milk and watched the guy shoot them. A few times a week, I need meat. If you are nice I will share my recipes. No, I have not yet read the no doubt erudite head-tripping on this last page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Now let's all sing along, "Home, home, on Lagrange..."

Given a magnetic vector potential field in [math]A_\phi[/math] such as in my electron model, I have shown, by integration by parts, that the total magnetic moment of the field may be read simply as: [math]\mu= 8/3\pi \lim r^2 A®[/math] at large radius. So long as the near field has been shaded to any higher-order dependence in r there is no singular contribution at the center.

Intuition says "hydrogen is light" and therefore we get less energy per unit gas volume (not weight). This was nagging at me until reading on the first page that compression can go way up if we deal with nitrogen oxides.

Thank you, folks. This is many months old and I am foaming. I believe it must be so because QM people have lost track of their electrodynamic roots. What I have achieved in the photon paper is exquisite. There is so much cool work to be done further, like I am finally blasting through the field calculus to demonstrate the Bohr magnetic moment of the electron field; this work does not happen when I spend the time trying to publish or communicate. This is a for real drama. I think we got somewhat confused 100 years ago. I have answered the question, "If charge is not to be relegated to delta function points, what must it be like?" Turns out the same sort of smoothed-out charge density fields are just like the walls in your microwave waveguide when we talk of photons. Why don't people see these electrodynamic concepts??? I am just letting them maybe be there and indeed coming out with great answers.

The lack of intellectual response here pulls high vacuum.

Research has revealed four types of human orgasms: 1) the positive orgasm, "oh yes, it's so good", etc. 2) the religious orgasm, "oh Jesus, Buddha, God", 3) the scatological orgasm, "oh **** **** my ***", etc. and finally, 4) the fake orgasm, "Oh, Gilded".

SEVERIAN, two questions for you: how do you relate to the concept of quasi-monochromatic wave packet? Then, can you relate to terminology like: "Electrons are, after neutrinos, the first quantized vortex of the polarization field"? I can refer you to some very cool papers on the wave equation and fluid mechanics, vortices in fluids and in solids!

We have constructed a theory which is devoid of transverse divergence, which is the manifestation of localization. Clearly the theory has successfully distilled the momentum nature of quanta and the rules of interaction, but I feel we have achieved part of the understanding we might. Somehow what I have accomplished, namely a description of how, electrodynamically, there can be a localized (bunched) wave packet, must be combined with the uncertainty of the polarization background which I see as primary. I am feeling my way here, but the mathematics I have speak very clearly. I have nothing against renormalization per se, other than that I think the whole theory is a good first attempt. Generally my mathematical sense is that we do a top-down approach which is appropriate in the Standard Model to get to the patterns of particle resonances. Lederman, in his book, "The God Particle", after trashing theorists throughout, admits in the end that the model gives geometric structure but no clues for the twenty or so constants to be plugged in for the magnitudes of things. Clearly we do not understand essence, here. The only thing disunified around here is us.

To clarify my positions, I think that when we achieve a renormalized theory we should appreciate it, as a beginning and not as an end. When we have a theory it is a mistake to think we know everyting. We have started. Search for my thread mentioning "Charlie Chan". The specific challenge I offer is to the identification of the vacuum as a quantized ficticious oscillator. I had hoped to completely banish the last two words but to my chagrin I have not. I do have good reason to say it is a mistake to think it is a necessarily quantized oscillator. There can be no quantization until Nature defines a length or bound state.