Inhomogeneous field theory of photons and electrons

[Norman Albers]

I have described current terms for the right-hand side of the Maxwell current equation which localize the quasi-monochromatic wave packet, and also describe electrons as a superconducting plasma. URL: http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na

[Norman Albers]

Rather than repeat it all here, check out our discussion in the thread, Implications ...Unified... and the thread, Quan...+Relat.... I see reason to say that our quantum theorization of vacuum energies is not complete.

[Norman Albers]

We understand that bound states (particles) exchange quantized photons, and thus we created a quantum mechanics of them. It seemed appropriate to speak of "ficticious oscillators" as though somehow the field knew this as its only possibility. This is a wrong-headed assumption, and looking at wave packet localzation I conclude that the "photon field" has a phenomenology which bunches, or localizes, disturbances at whatever magnitude. Locally, energy density and angular momentum density have a ratio of omega, but the global total of angular momentum in the packet may be fractional compared to the usual units of Planck's constant. Absorbing atoms with their selection rules of unit change in angular momentum are what declares the quantized currency of exchange. Thus it is not appropriate to assign a ground state default of 1/2h-bar necessarily for every available mode. Now if we allow fractional states in the range <0,1>, this would be phenomemologically different at some level of physics, and I don't yet know where to point. At low energies, there would be present the same energy total if all modes automatically have 1/2 unit energy or if they average that! I produce a diverging situation as energy rises, though, with a Boltzmann-like term, and it seems to me this is rightly applied at both calculation points in my Dark Energy paper. This changes the population and shifts it toward zero where we have treated it as 1/2 going up to some cooked-up cutoff.

[Norman Albers]

To wit, Planck's constant is not a native characteristic of the radiation field. There is no quantization, shy of the Planck length anyway, without the defining of a length. Lengths are defined in universe radius, field fluctuations of whatever epoch, and bound 'particle' states. The vacuum itself is a string uncut and unstrung, not a 'ficticious oscillator'.

[Norman Albers]

We must revisit photoelectric effects because we wrongly posited the necessary quantization as characteristic of the radiation field. What is necessary is a localization, or bunching, such that energy is exchanged in the characteristic emission/absorption times. The field must present a packet of at least the energy required by the bound state to make a transition.

[Norman Albers]

error

[Norman Albers]

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.

[Norman Albers]

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.

[Norman Albers]

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?

[Norman Albers]

Some fields near the center of the electron model become arbitrarily large as radius goes to zero (charge density, radial B-field), there must be a general relativistic solution constructed to adequately represent the inner region. In stellar research we acknowledge that when energy density exceeds, maybe, 10^15 gm/cc, neutron star range, the metric tensor becomes notable. I am working now to structure this analysis, observing that, at least in the basic studies I have available, we deal with either: 1) charges on massive particles which we represent at low-beta, so that a simple matter continuity equation may be used to start, neglecting E&M densities. This yields the source tensor: [math]S^{ij}=c^{-2} (F^i_a F^{aj}+ 1/4g^{ij} F^{ab} F_{ab})[/math]; 2) an electron field outside of a point source, and so divergenceless. This gives us the electron field solution of the Nordstrom-Reissner metric: [math] g_{00}= c^2(1-2m/r-C\epsilon^2/2c^2r^2)[/math]. I have a third approach becuase I deal with charge as only infinitesimal field divergence in a region, and it moves at lightspeed. So I construct a 4-vector: [math] s^i=\rho (1,-1,-1,-1)[/math] which should yield something workable to add essentially to the Schwarzchild solution. I'll let you know, and I would appreciate help understanding what I'm talking about! Namely, what is the essence of our restriction in the first case; then, is it necessary to work with the Minkowski tensor, and not a potential form? I work in the latter as does QED.