Norman Albers

I don't know but I'm gonna go read on the Wigner transform of spin.

Wouldn't it be nice to have further theoretics with no infinite wallpapers? It is exciting to me to see these two masters learning and evolving in their last years! The above quote from Dirac is from his 1977 speech in Florida. Then, later in 1985, Feynman speaks of a "dippy process". I cannot stop laughing.

Wow, thank you for this quote from Feynman! He was more mathematically cool than I knew. In describing polarization response we get the mechanism for eliminating the infinities.

Witness, in 1977, Dirac calling the success of QED "essentially coincidence". He was fundamentally a mathematician, and was staring at Richard Feynman who no doubt wanted to spit. Here we are again. Love it.

I have offered ad nauseum the perspective I have come to by working with electrodynamics of quasi-monochromatic wave packets. I have not much more to say. http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na

Horsefeathers.

I am not clear on S-G filters applied to spins parallel or anti- with velocity. Can we get signal this way on randomly oriented decays? Maybe a collimator to the right and some electrical acceleration upward?

I say it is a mistake to connect the fact that there exist many quantized photons, with the characterization of space as only a quantum oscillator. This is ad hoc. We atoms are as vending machines working on nickels, dimes, and quarters. What can we know of any possible sea of pennies?

I say it needs a Boltzman exponent and some fiscal responsibility. I challenge the concept.

How does this relate to conservation of charge? Conservation of the probability: is this how you say "the same physics of experiencing" whatever? I was appreciating the fact that the electron field must be featureless with the agreed symmetries. I have not yet connnected my electromagnetic visions with the Schroedinger eq., but I am working on this. They are clearly not the same statements but somehow they spring from the same Hamiltonian roots. I firmly believe there is more to be learned here. . . . . Specifically, in a spherical system the quantum phase in a superconducting loop must change by integrals of 2pi so the wave function 'catches its tail'. I realize that the 'theta' is usually a generalized function of position but once you declare geometric symmetry it becomes more specific. I do not intend to confuse the two ways of doing mechanics. QM assumes states of mass, charge, angular momentum, etc., and characterizes interaction probabilities. Inhomogeneous electrodynamics allows vacuum polarization to flesh out some details of local field densities.

Thanks, ecoli. It looks like Europe is in the range $5-6/gal, and I thought you folks always were at $4-5. We've doubled in a couple of years.

I have just found a statement near the end on VOL.I, Feynman lectures, about symmetries where I have been working: "The conservation law which is connected to the quantum mechanical phase seems to be that of conservation of electric charge". This is exciting to me, because, electrodynamically, I found the only possible model of the type I have done involves zero azimuthal variation: cylindrical symmetry of current and spherical symmetry of charge. I got there by investigating the realm of zero frequency, omega=0. If you do this in the current equation, you produce a term which looks like you declared <m=1>, but in fact you have not!

How are gasoline prices going elsewhere (I am in Oregon, USA)? We are back over $3/gallon, and finally, polls say many people want smaller vehicles, and hybrids. I do trust the market here to force people out of their bad habits. There are many 'hog' trucks in a little rural city like Grants Pass and if these people are hurting I am not sorry. Are Europe, Australia, etc., seeing such a rise from your previous price levels? (I get 30 mi/gal in my Subaru wagon with piano tuning tools and parts),

Funny stuff: "...modern soft drink makers lag millions of years behind the curve, still catching up with the purveyors of tasty, sugary beverages...Most kinds of additives dreamed up by today's drink manufacturers have, with recent research, been recognized in plant nectars. Coloring to beguile the eye? Scents to interest the nose? Health boosters? Preservatives?" Great article.

HOLY GOD, m = 13!!! You must give me some time. I was going to start on m=3.

Yes, reading Wikipedia on 'weak interaction' shows that I am right up against the whole construction of the standard model. At least I got the definition of V-A: Vector minus Axial theory, and I thank you for pointing me in this direction. My own attitude allows me to pose the question: "Since relativity shows the equivalence of mass and energy, why can we not characterize the question of mass by asking how and why does energy form stable, localized states?" I have achieved powerful suggestions through inhomogeneous electrodynamics. When people speak of mass stemming from Higgs field and Higgs bosons, it has never made sense to me. It would make sense if we are referring to the establishment of the lower temperature order wherein symmetry is broken, in the range of gigavolt cooling.

I'm afraid I don't see how your answer connects clearly to my questions. It seems to me easy to correlate axial vectors; the mystery is including a polar velocity here. I am asking about the role of the lab field. It is not clear from what I have yet read, that its presence is not part of the cause here. I do know what you are saying. It seems the question is more one of velocity preferedness being distilled out of nowhere, in this context.

Thank you, these educational clues are helpful and appreciated. I am hungry to learn of these things and do need to figure out books to seek out. I have spent a lot of time studying helicity in the electromagnetic field, so my background is, I think, good. It's not clear to me if we saying that the preferred emission happens WRT nuclear orientation or if it happens only when we apply a lab field. Can we know if randomly oriented atoms show the same vector correspondence? Namely, spin opposite velocity in the electrons.

Thank you both. Meir, isn't this angular momentum transfer to the filter a sometimes unaccounted piece of the puzzle? I don't yet see specifically where but I think this is a worthy question. Polarizers are part of non-locality detections, yah?

Why do you think this? Say, Meir, can you help me get into what you offer, namely V-A whatever? This is new to me, as I have never done nuclear theory per se. Are you saying that there is process to be appreciated at the nuclear level that is only coincidently related to the atom's alignment? It is, I guess, only the nuclear magnetic moment and its alignment about which we speak. Temperature washes out the alignment, that's all. Is the point that I can say how the electron and neutrino spins must add to the unit of change from <5> to <4> in nuclear spin, but that I cannot say why electron velocity is opposite its spin? Actually I'm quite confused: are nuclear spin and magnetic moment parallel, and, do they point South?

Thanks, I shall look further. Would you agree there is here a preferred low-energy state magnetically? I read something like seven to one probability. You seem to infer that we are not seeing a fundamental clue here, but I say it is clearly logically connected.

Yes, and electron magnetic moment is antiparallel to its spin. The results show angular momentum tending to be opposite velocity. This says to me that the electron magnetic moment is produced opposite to the B-field, thus in a lower energy configuration. This suggests to me the interaction is strongly magnetic. The whole thing is a major little enlightenment for me, having found this a bit mystical. It's not! Rather it is where we had to let go of a principle, CP symmetry, and go further. Thus CPT symmetry, including time reversal and antimatter, does show symmetry. Is this where we start playing with time-reversed waves? I guess we could be anti-people moving backwards in time. Quantum non-locality can be presented as a sum of "past" and "future" waves; I am mystified here.

I challenge the quantum hypothesis of the vacuum. Just because there are many quantized photons does not mean that the native characteristic of the vacuum is that of a "ficticious oscillator". Quantum theory as we have applied it produces a ridiculous result that is not small. Ten with one hundred and twenty zeroes???

I am reading Feynman Lectures Vol.II, p.52-11. Cobalt in a magnetic field produces beta decay with electrons preferentially going out the South pole, a striking state of affairs. This is not such a mystery, though, if you correlate the electron spin with the current sense in the magnet coils. If I am correct that electron spin has a fixed relation to its velocity vector, then there is the answer, no?

Thinking of the "transparent membrane" over specialized nerves, how about looking back to translucent fish? Doesn't the body sort of focus light on the spinal cord?