Excuses for massiveness

[Klaynos]

Do you have any research evidence that supports your ideas?

[Norman Albers]

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?

[Severian]

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.

 

But why do you think that is undesirable?

[Norman Albers]

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.

[Severian]

The photoelectric effect demands quantisation, which is exactly what QED gives you, so where is the problem?

[Norman Albers]

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.

[Severian]

I fail to see why localisation need have anything to do with quantisation. A raindrop is localized water, but it isn't quantised - I can have big or small raindrops.

 

Also, your idea places a special status for 'emitters/receivers' - you require a special property when interacting with them. Now, if the emitters/receivers where really 'us' (as you say) then I wouldn't be so worried about that, but the plate emitting the photon in the photoelectric effect is not 'us'. If the photon is quantised when leaving the plate, why would it not continue to be a quantised field?

[Norman Albers]

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.

[Norman Albers]

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."

[gcol]

Norman:

 

Following your posts with interest but insufficient detailed knowledge.

 

But this statement resonates strongly with me:

 

because that is the type of mechanics we constructed, thinking that is all we are allowed.

 

More power to your elbow.

[Norman Albers]

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?

[Norman Albers]

My photon model shows quadrupole peaks (like the towers of the Golden Gate Bridge I mentioned in Speculative) of the far-field sheath, terms that go like Xyz(e^ikX) e^-[(a^2) X^2]. There's also y- and z- falloff I leave out. Could this be an experimentally detectable thing? If it was detectable it would yield a double-pulse signal. . . . . . . . . Regarding electrons, does QFT model the current for the magnetic moment at all? Or is this more subtlely built in? What are we seeing as we interact now at sufficiently high energy that photon exchange shows a fine structure constant of at least 1/120, last I heard and I"m not read up? This is just getting into a near field it seems to me.

[Norman Albers]

By saying "there is a quasi-monochromatic wave packet" you have gotten yourself into deep semiclassical waters. In the following discussions I will try to keep clear on use of the word "transverse". It is easy to use it for "fields orthogonal to propagation", but it is more specifically defined in Fourier transform analysis. The FT is a three-vector in the complex range whose domain is wave-vector "k" as in real space. We start with vector potential "A" defined in y-hat and z-hat. Under Fourier analysis one gets a nice delta function, which is here welcome, for wave components "k-sub-x". The transform is expressed in <y,z> of k-space and one gets opposing contributions constructing the falloff cylindrically. This is where we created transverse (first meaning; under FT this is a nonsequitor) divergence. When the transform has nonzero terms parallel to the "k" being considered, we call this the longitudinal part. Here, in real space I figure the implied divergence of "A". Lorentz gauge assumption relates this to U-dot. Obtaining "U" requires careful bookkeeping of the integrations by parts. We may then examine the implied charge espressed as the D'Alembertian of U. All contributions from d^2/dx^2 - d^2/dt^2 vanish, as we assumed a wave in x-hat. We do have E and B fields in "x" which I call an "accordian" mode. Energy squeezes back and forth and there are magnetic backstraps, to look at it. The charge field expressions stared me down for maybe two years, until I broke the code that I was looking at a linear sum of two beautifully expressible terms. In structure they are concentric double helices.

[Norman Albers]

While I await your thoughts please allow me a final mathematical consideration. A wave packet of visible light such as I describe is much larger than an atom; in fact atomic spacing in solids is usually roughly an Angstrom. So the near-field emission process is well modelled with the usual "dipole approximation" where we depict antenna as small compared to wavelength. I am presuming a more equilbrium far-field structure. Even if this form is not correct the study elucidates important principles. I might hope to construct the Lagrangian of the sytem but I cannot, for a fundamental reason! If I use the concept of polarization density, it is available only in the time-integrated form. I may state its rate of change, identifying it as the current. The goal would be to include a term like P-dot-E in the Lagrangian, which is expressed in the potentials, but there are present three orders of time derivatives and this is not appropriate for such analysis! Do relativistic treatments, such as I see "out there" and am a starting to read, surmount this problem? It says to me that I have introduced more physics without thoroughly accounting for it. Can it work as part of a j-dot-A term? I think we need both. PERTURBATION: You answered on the first page that QFT does not put in terms with potentials? What then is the range of the theory?

[Perturbation]

No, I said we don't just whack a Coloumb potential into Schrodinger's equation to get QED. We can get ourselves potentials from QFT if we apply the non-relativistic limit and use the Born approximation, which relates S-matrices to the classical potential (that in the Schrodinger equation). The Coloumb potential comes quite nicely out of QED.

[Norman Albers]

Thank you, all such explanations are helpful. I am not "in school" and am behind on my piano shop work, just so you get some feel for who I am. It seems to me I have pulled out more results than I ever dreamed possible from the 'old perspective' made new, and there are certainly a good handful of papers out there dealing with electrodynamics and polarization from more mainstream writers. I look forward to recasting my entire work in relativistic formalism. I could have gotten up tight about not knowing current quantum theory. I knew, though, that all you people do, and this was simply not my job. I saw the possibility of constructing what I have, and here repeat the question in my first panel: What explanation of mass is further needed if we find the key to the electron as bound state? Does our theory say why it exists? I started five years ago reading (painfully, bad place to start) Dirac's little black book, the first third of which is exposition. All of a sudden he says, 'I do not know what the electron is. The eigenvalues are always 'e' and 'm' so I use them. I give you mechanics of things of charge 'e', mass 'm', and spin 1/2 h-bar.' This stunned me. I heard: Norm, the backdoor is wide open and it would sure be cool to figure this mystery out. Then I read Feynman saying "the possibility exists that the mass is completely electromagnetic", and thought, no kidding. You will find me humble about ignorant statements; the mathematics is speaking too loudly for me to be able to walk away from it.

[Norman Albers]

All of our theoretics are constrained by the GIGO principle: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Programmers know this so well. In a more positive vein I am reading Cohen-Tannoudji p.298, developing the Born approximation. Here though is my bug-a-boo once again. We are discussing interaction Hamiltonians, and develope a picture wherein we assume a far field of 'no' interaction, then witness this statement: "...it is convenient then to take for lambda a function (of 't') which increases slowly from 0 to 1...then decreases slowly...an easy way to simulate the approach and overlapping of two "quasi-monochromatic" wave packets which initially do not interact..." I am a little more openminded than Dirac, who said in 1977(The Relativistic Wave Eq.), "The successes of QED are essentially coincidence." THIS IS AN UNPARALLED SPECTACLE. Producing eleven-decimal accuracy meant nothing to a truly deep mathematician who was not happy with what I call "infinite wallpaper representation". Richard Feynman wanted to spit, I'm sure. These giants are here stuck on the horns of either/or. Dirac: "the great body of theoretical physicists...are complacent about the difficulties of QED...It is a complacency which blocks further progress. Any substantial further progress, I feel, must come from some drastic changes in the basic equations...similar to the changed that Heisenberg introduced. THE ONLY FEATURE OF THE NEW THEORY WHICH ONE CAN BE SURE OF IS THAT IT MUST BE BASED ON SOUND AND BEAUTIFUL MATHEMATICS.".............................My point is that we usually seem to sneak in such an envelope or cutoff point to deal with what we know we must but have not elegantly done so. Now granted, the QED book goes on to say this is "only one convenient way to intruduce the S-matrix by taking as asymptotic states /psi_a> and /psi_b>..." ; what can you tell me here? ....................................................................................................................................In the old Charlie Chan movies there is always a scene where someone is snooping in a library-den, presses a button to make a whole section of bookcase swing open. They make their escape down the secret staircase and the shelf swings shut. Where do you build your secret door? Answer: in the most immovable-looking piece of the architecture. Where best to hide further physics than behind the success of eleven decimals?

[Norman Albers]

What better question is there but, "Why does an amount of energy find itself stable in a certain configuration?"

[Norman Albers]

H.Puthoff writes that our strongest electron scattering experiments show nothing but "pointlike" character in the range of [math]10^{-21} [/math]m. Indeed this is where we interpret a somewhat higher fine structure constant. There cannot, however, be electric field of inverse-square proportion much inside of the classical radius; the energy density totals would exceed half-MEV.

[Norman Albers]

When you figure the energy contribution of my electron polarization field which has a positive sign for the inhomogeneous part of the electron's field, you get a negative energy contribution. This is the cancellation of both the [math]r^{-2}[/math] and [math] r^{-1} [/math] contributions. You may say, ah the electron is as a point source. At whatever level, certainly the Planck distance level, what I am talking about is the case. I am not talking ignorantly about 'something going around'. I am talking about a circulation in the energy field.

[Norman Albers]

It may be so that my depiction of an inhomogeneous electron nearfield is not sufficiently sharp. I will understand this when I learn how to interpret the scattering data we have vis-a-vis interpretations of charge and/or fine structure constant. However, mathematically I observe the strong fact that several lines of theoretic invesitgation, starting with Einstein and as I have read by D. Sweetser on another site, and then interpreted by H.Puthoff in an identical form in his isotropic GR "dark gray holes" analysis, have produced the "continuing polynomial" of EXP[-1/r]. I have read a paper by a person named Blinder who arrived at this also, with a different model of where to put the "epsilon-nought", basically, in modelling the electron. . So I see clear signs I should investigate a recasting of my approach, employing such an assumption. We theorists are somewhat shameless in this way.