Norman Albers

This is a vector differential operator: define unit vectors of direction, such as Cartesian x-hat, y-hat, z-hat. Then the DEL operator is: (x-hat)d/dx + (y-hat)d/dy + (z-hat)d/dz . This is treated like a vector; imagine my 'd' is the partial differential.

Can folks help me understand the nature of interactions between normal photons and particle pairs in the hot plasma? What is it like, say, between one MEV and one GEV? Protons would be stable but not yet electrons. It must be that the antiprotons have annihilated since both stabilized and were free to seek their final equilibrium (???) . I do not see clearly here, because where is the balancing charge? What species are present, and what scattering characterizes the plasma?

Get more colors of chalk!

I like your thinking. This is the gift to us from Einstein. A theorist in pure geometry is as happy as a pig in compost. I depict photons with a "cotton-candy" charge sheath. Which comes first? This is not a useful meditation here! It is all a circle of phenomenology. This becomes clear when you hang out long enough with one system: there is a circle to be completed but it does not matter much where you enter this circle.

I'll look around because I'm not sure what your notation of "F" is but are we talking about like J(J+1), or its SQRT?

Today I think that as soon as any high energy particle state was able to exist in equilbrium, from then on unit photons were coupled to particles, until plasma recombination. I don't need to consider a stage-wise decoupling.

I am productively confused. Can a plane-(PP) wave be absorbed spectrally?.........I thought <L> had to change by one unit.

Whoa, Betty! Don't they always carry angular momentum coming out of interactions with particles? Then again, going into detectors?

I refer readers to the continued discussion at: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13250

Can there be a single plane-polarized photon? One one hand they are bosons and I read that massless bosons are disallowed the zero spin state. (For masses, rules say <+L,-L> including integer states between.) Don't they have to carry angular momentum? How then can there be plane polarization, which we can see as superposition of opposite helicities, without two photons' worth of energy present?

I see three fundamental questions, which never seem to appear in other people's ten most important Q list. The first is just above. The second is of the nature of the not-vacuum, which I am dealing with in my thesis. The third is the WTF of gravitation, which is sourced and experienced by all forms. Quantum non-locality will make a fool out of you also, but at least it's somehow connected to #2.....................Planck's constant is of angular momentum and bespeaks cranking, literally. I say that angular momentum density of a field is A x (Adot+del(U) - ®rho) and in bound states the cranking 'meets its own tail' and must be quantized. Am I saying WHAT IT IS? Nope.

Am I accurate to use the factor ten to the fourth between temperature and average energy? This would say 200 kilovolts.

The wires were changed from tungsten to steel.

In my investigation of wave packets it seems that the field can support disturbances of less than unit angular momentum in the total packet. We know atoms emit and absorb whole units only, but from my semiclassical perspective there may exist packets in the range <0,1> of h-bar, or correspondingly total energy of a fraction of h-nu. Having written this a few months ago from a position of near isolation and having yet no computer, now I Google and find quantum mechanics people (I guess) dealing in this. You will see me as the eleventh entry under 'fractional photons'. I say that these packets constitute dark energy, and I am observing here their very different cosmologic evolution. I am not yet educated in, say, intermediate QM or Quantum Field Theory, but I think I have a valid offering. Can you tell me just how others are using this term? It would be an unseeable part of the fluctuation background, akin to but decoupled from the blackbody radiation. In the population of unit photons we see really THE BODY, not the full possible native characteristic of the radiation field.

We think that in an era some 300,000 years into the cosmic expansion, there was sufficient cooling that electrons joined protons in stable, neutral atoms. The other great change at this point is the decoupling of light which was previously caught in an interactive dance with the charged particles. I am looking at the possibility of fractional photons and they have a very different history. At earlier stages where states of higher energy (protons, etc.) condensed, there would have been the decoupling of the fractional part of the energies at those and higher levels. This is a much earlier freedom and is surely important to cosmic evolution at those earlier stages.

I guess all things are fundamentally electric but are phonon vibrations characterized by currents?

Is it so that the E&M energy of photons is fundamentally absorbed by electrons; is this either by quantum state transition of an atom or by available outer electrons? Then, are phonons vibrations involving the more massive nucleii or ions? I read they are in some sense acoustic.

Then does a dielectric medium not necessarily have Tyndall scattering? You have given me the missing keys of vibrational modes that you imply interact statistically. This answers the question!

I was driving at phonon exitations when using the concepts of local structural vibrations. These are what I understand poorly. My confusions still are: how does visible light warm things, if being warm means having spectral energy at lower regimes, microwave and IR? Why is an object opaque or transparent?

Good, now we are getting to the missing pieces in my understanding. My books deal not so much with solids, and I am acquainted with vibration-rotation states. The phenomenology in solids is what I need to see. When do we deal with electrons, and when do we see modes involving the mass of the nucleii?

. This is where I lose your context (this quote from the other thread).

Are you thinking structures, or fuel or energy storage?

X-rays scatter only slightly from bone, so that's why images are not strong. Have you seen the series of small-angle reflector plates used to focus astronomical X-rays? We are in the same realm as my thread "light..dark..matter" where I started talking about this with Swansont. Stubighead makes a clear statement. I am still clueless as to Swansont's last offering about atoms emitting to their local structural vibrations.

I worked this out myself, in relative isolation, and am asking what you know is said of these things.