in between

[Norman Albers]

I am proposing that the vacuum polarization field does not need to have spin or rotational characteristics to transmit magnetic forces. Locally, elements of moving charge can be analyzed in a frame of reference where electric field alone describes the field medium. If the vacuum manifestation Lorentz transforms so as to preserve this relation, then the hypothesis is valid. I have been talking with H.Puthoff on this and have some support.

[Norman Albers]

The tricky case to look at is that of a charge approaching a current (beam or wire). We know the wire has an encircling B-field. The approaching charge crosses this and we expect it to "cyclotron" sideways. How to get side force out of an apparently electrically symmetric situation? I laid awake one night over this, but I had drawn the right diagram. We may transform to the frame of the charge, and the current wire is approaching us. Look at differential current elements on the wire, and treat them like the individual electron field we know about. Charges with a velocity component approaching you have a reduced Lorentz-transformed E-field. On the other side of center, the inidividual velocity vectors are broadside to you, and that E-field is larger by gamma-squared. VOILA, "ELECTRIC SIDE FORCE". . . . . . . . Puthoff noticed that you cannot simply L-t away a loop current source. No, but locally you can, per differential element. Now he surprises me by agreeing that E-fields are dispositions of vacuum dipoles which to him are a manifestation of the omega-cubed vacuum fluctuation spectrum, which cleanly is Lorentz-transformable. I am reading his paper on the sourcing of the vacuum field and will have more to say shortly.

[Norman Albers]

zippo

[Norman Albers]

The Puthoff paper I referred to speaks to an intrinsic ZPF bouncing off the matter field of the large scale, and not surprisingly describes equilibrium. His interesting conclusion is cosmologic, where he integrates the "Olbers paradox". This does not help me see further in understanding "nowhere at all", as a responsive place. I connect homogeneous and inhomogeneous as one field. There is always a frame of reference locally in terms of charge and current, in which interaction may be seen as purely electric. Is this sufficient to say our vacuum theory on this level needs no curl, no spins?

[fredrik]

Hello Norman, you didn't receive much feedback and I am not prepare to give any specific comments either since I am now trying to re-evaluate the whole concept of spacetime and causality from scratch because I have a distinct feeling that just starting "in the middle" means everything is floating the philosophical side of me rejects the problem as somewhat undefined or arbitrary... so while I don't have any sensible comments on what you are doing... the last time i looked briefly at the normal formalism my hunch was that all of the fields might be transformed away, of course it's not possible only within the lorentz group, you need more general transformations, but so what? I think that is not so strange, given the weird properties of the electron. From what I remember the electron can consistently be interpreted as a "dynamical property" of a boson field, and I forgot the details. Considering this "dynamic property" is also what generates the half integer spin. Then when I realized that all of this work was made on floating ground I didn't find the motivation to go on... until I could attach the floating ground to something more fundamental... so I postpone the higher level applications until the fundamentals are in place because I suspect that once the fundamentals are rectified alot of the higher order formalism may be flipped and need to be reworked anyway, and I suspect that many problems today will simply be gone at that point.

 

So... I have no other comments but to say keep working on your projects I have alot of catching up to do as well since I didn't do much in 10 years. The good part is that I feel like I have a fresh mind now... starting by questioning things that I didn't have time to question before. I sense that the concept of spacetime dynamics is really sort of arbitrary until we nailed the nature of spacetime itself. Becauase that is also entangled up in the foundations of defining our sample space. And there seems to be several logically related samples spaces of different orders, and we tend to mix a priori information from different event spaces... making the interpretation of conditional probability hairy enough.

 

/Fredrik