Norman Albers

The last hit I got on this was bubble universes sort of gallumping away from each other through inflation. Can we save my model? You have "little hole" but we are, I think, asking about possible connectedness.

Maybe I can find fame with the Albers accelerative driving force. YOU CAN BELIEVE IT BECAUSE IT'S TRUE, as a gospel preacher said. When you enter a turn there is a second sideways shear force on the tires and car and road proportional to how fast you are changing the steering wheel position. This is IN ADDITION TO the momentary centrifugal force which is proportional to the turn radius at the moment. This is important, because it says that if you need to make a sudden veer, if you jerk the steering wheel rapidly you induce a momentarily high shear force sideways and compromise traction. I have caught myself doing this as I come back into lane after passing. It is a stupid move; never move the wheel too fast. If you have to make an emergency swerve at the limit of what you can, move the wheel boldly but surely. To understand this physics, consider the moment of inertia for 'yaw', or rotation as if you look down from a helicopter. Consider the rotation rate of the car as it relates to turn radius. . . . . . This is not news to race drivers; what do they call it?

Ouch! Don't transmission ratios matter as we go? If an engine torques at an RPM, we then go through trans and differential where we trade torque for rotation speed? (Any lever trades force and distance.) This is fun and here is a corallary riddle: exactly where is a car propelled forward? On what pieces of what?

Yellow paper is still cheap, thank God. Last year, Max Born died with his sliderule in his hand. This is the tool with which he worked on the Manhattan project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUST SAYING NO: What is the divergence of one over r-squared evaluated at the origin?

I have long championed the Albers yeasted swiss-cheese multiverse theory (I am the Metaphor Mangler). Philosophically and physically it is unthinkable (or at least I don't like it) that there be just one. Could there be a giant manifold with regions of coming together (Big Crunches) and regions of going apart (Bangs)? An evolution like yeasted dough. Galactic structure is like this, no? Bubble walls, in the large. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hearing a bell ringing in my hear, I picked up Brian Greene's "Elegant Universe" and located chapter 11: Tearing the Fabric of Space. Let us read.

Cohen-Tannoudji, p.378: "...for a physical state, the energy associated with the longitudinal variables compensates exactly that associated with the scalar variables, the only contribution being provided, as it must be, by the transverse variables."

As often we are looking for the right question. Listen carefully to your assumptions. You said air is 'going through' at the same rate. You have spent fan energy making it rotate. Maybe air being sucked in the center of a vortex manifests a situation where there is magnified flow rate at the center compared to at the wall; is this what you sense? You spent energy creating this, though.

Yes, the light-field is more like water! What have we observed but a quantized exchange of energy? Yes I say Planck's constant is a characteristic only of the bound state and only incidently of the radiation field. THE STRING UNCUT AND UNSTRUNG HAS NO NOTE. There is no quantization until Nature defines a length. When I say 'us' I simply mean atoms which have the quantized states. LOCALIZATION and QUANTIZATION are the two (somewhat) separate aspects of the phenomenon. Do you understand that if a certain illumination is evenly distributed over the large number of atoms in a surface that it would take something like ten million seconds to get absorption that actually happens in one second? Thus my wave story is what we must account for. This is localization. Ten million happens to be roughly the cube of the fine structure constant which scales each of the three dimensions in my model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I agree that emissions are quantized. We have no evidence that the radiation field presented exactly that amount on absorption. It must have presented at least that much. It seems to me we go through a lot of monkey motions trying to represent photons as the quantized generalization of a transverse representation. We get the difficulty that might be expected, and there are many manifestations of what I am trying to say. There is no position operator for the photon because that is the type of mechanics we constructed, thinking that is all we are allowed. My photons have it all, unabashedly. Four modes and flaunting them. Seriously, are the scalar-long. mode pair involved in photon theory? I am achieving a unity of inhomogeneity with the fields. Just say no to delta functions.

I would assume to fish you were messing around in the water with your hands, spears, or nets. We were not fly-casting from the shore. I'd want my spear back, too.

If you say the air moves through the same then velocity along the tubes is the same, but vorticity means that the spinning one has sideways velocity also, so the total velocity will be larger; there will be more friction and chaos, I would guess. If not, tell me! Friction and eddies go by total velocity relative to the wall.

It is the bound state which has the quantum constraint. There are plenty of perfectly respectable quanta flying around having been emitted by bound states, but it is a mistake to put that characteristic onto the medium itself. There must be inherently localization but the total energetic units exchanged are set by the emitters/recievers, i.e., us. Thus I differentiate between localization and quantization. The barrel in the surf declares the volume which fills it. The surf must supply transversely localized wave chop events containing at least that much. Bunches less than three meters high will be energetically dark with respect to the barrel.

It is not justified by the photoelectric effect. This phenomenon demands localization, or bunching of what cannot be considered in the small to be a simple plane wavefield. If we thought a beach had one-meter high roller waves, we could plant some three-meter high barrels and expect no water to fill them. In fact we come back and find a percentage of the barrels full of water, so something is not right in our picture. The waves must be chop.

No, I just produced the last of this a few months ago, and just got a computer for the first time then. As far as zero-point fluctuations there may be no difference at low energies. Saying there are uncertainties of h-nu/2 may be the same as saying there may be randomly packets in the size range of <0,1>; what do you think? At higher energies there will be less under my accounting with a statistical Boltzmann factor falloff. What processes to we explain involving this fluctuation background? What phenomenology do you see demanded of us by the photoelectric effect?

In Cohen-Tannoudji, "Photons and Atoms", p.189: "...the ground state of the quantum field, that is, the vacuum (0>), has a nonzero absolute energy, and that the variances of E and B in this state are non-zero. This is a purely quantum effect...at every point in space an electromagnetic field with zero mean value and infinite variance." Zero-point energy. I am led to propose a more 'fiscally responsible' vacuum.

If you Google on 'fractional photons' you'll see me about #11. This is highly amusing because, as I read in the first paper, "There is always unit angular momentum", but not in my theory. We made an arbitrary move to assign the "ficticious quantum oscillator" nature to the vacuum. We all agree any q. oscillator has a ground state of 1/2. I do not agree it is wise to make this assignation.

I have not so much objections, as I admit I do not know your theory that well and am happy to learn. Indeed, I am here with a novel perspective and looking for knowledgeable, open minds to see if there is something further of substance. The one quantum result that's easy to not like is the vacuum fluctuation energy. Isn't it some ridiculously large number? I say we made a wrong-headed move with our interpretation of the photoelectric effect, and that Planck's constant is not a native characteristic of the field. You have to be willing to look at why I see this. In my Manifesto I declare localization to be distinct from quantization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specifically to be helpful tell me the role of vacuum polarization in electron theory.

I don't understand, my papers are at the URL in my PROFILE: http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na and people got tired of me carrying on in my Speculative post.

You say, I think, "vacuum polarization response". I say "necessary neutral massless plasma, i.e., superconductor".

I thought so, but I have been mucking about in the foundations from which we produced this theory. How does QFT relate to the above current which I say is the appropriate extension of Maxwell's current eq. to describe a localized E&M disturbance? At the moment I cannot reconcile my semiclassical work with the definition of a wave function whose square can be interpreted as charge. On the day I figure this we will have a grand discussion. (Maybe I have heard premature reports of death about differential field theories, of which one is General Relativity, yah? It is created with a premise of smooth relationship through a manifold. QM is created utterly the other way.)

Is it so, as it reads in the texts often, that at this point of witnessing canonical Hamiltonian constructions we pass from electrodynamics into QM and do not look back? We put into Schroedinger's eq. electromagnetic potentials, no? Have we otherwise thrown out electrodynamics? Some are fond of saying field theory is dead. Maybe the cadaver sits up in church.

I have seen many physicists be unable to converse with each other. I have perhaps original thoughts from mathematics in electrodynamics, which every Ph.D has taken. Not one of many has been able to see what I say, and this is bizarre. You sound like a bio-head, which will be even funnier. The Russian JETP read my first photon part for two and a half weeks and said nothing. USA's JMP said little after a week. British Nature Physics called the whole piece a stimulating treatise too unestablished for them to publish. That was rather nice to hear, refreshingly honest.

PERTURBATION: I look up vac polarization as virtual e-p pairs. I am taking a semiclassical field viewpoint and simply asking the question, "What must it be like?" For photons, quantized or not, it means the above statement of current is the implied extension of the Maxwell current eq., the RHS.

I have read much of and understand about half of, Cohen, Tannoudji's "Photons and Atoms", QED text. In Lorentz gauge we create normal variables in k-space; they are defined as transverse parts of the fields. Then our Lagrangian shows up four lovely oscillators: two transverse modes, the scalar and the longitudinal. We said 'oscillators' because if the RHS of the eq is zero then we have a free oscillator. It seems to me that not far from here we lose our nerve in electrodynmamics, or, whatever, choose to quantize things. Can we not create further mechanics by dealing with my right-hand-side? I am investigating here, working on the Fourier transforms. This will be a generally inhomogeneous mechanics with our quantum mechanics as a subset. We create quantum mechanics by looking at our expressions in 'alpha, alpha-star' which are the FT variables of the field, and saying, OK now we 'consider' these to be creation and annihilation operators of quanta. We brilliantly create QM.

How excellent, thank you. Somewhere (35 years ago) I heard "Brillouin" zone but I never got grounding in solids.

Very nice, thank you!