Norman Albers

Maybe I see what you are seeing, drawing on paper one charge passing by another. If they are like charges, the magnetic effect pushes them away. I don't see what your four-charge calc involves. You have nicely alarmed me. Minds like yours are dangerous. How does a circular field such as I describe (A-sub-phi) Lorentz transform? Does your effect work in the longitudinal direction? Looking at charges approaching each other straight on, isn't magnetic interaction zero (neglecting spin)? Do you need to dial up a transverse L-transform?

I view magnetism as crosstalk between currents. Electron currents, did someone say? Do read my paper! http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na

Remember the 'Ice Man' they pulled out of one of your glaciers? That was an amazing snapshot of the past (when was he dated?) . I do think I read that autopsy found something like fifty - 50! - different kinds of seeds in his gut. This gives me a pretty clear answer to the question, what did we used to eat? Answer: everything we could. Seems to me that grass fields were being gathered and threshed. Is this how we approached agriculture?

I think fructose is more complex and needs another breakdown step. My McGraw-Hill Dictionary calls it the sweetest of sugars, curiously. I wonder about our ancestors often not getting three square meals a day (to say the least), and the natural role of feasting, insulin, and fat storage. It is not a coincidence that we have Thanksgiving at fall harvest. Winter has come and we need some 'bearfat'. . . . . . . .Nectars are fructose. I have heard the term' glycemic index', no? Why is dextrose welcome after exertion, Will? . . . . . . . . . . I read that people get fat from carbos in diet soda, also.

I appreciate my horticultural cannabis and Oregon has fairly enlightened attitudes here. It is medicinally allowed and police no longer care. This was not what I was talking about, but it all matters!!! Have you ever tasted a slightly old cucumber in the garden? It has a bit of vinegar taste. I am serious about drunk and happy birds and bears. Given our half-year mutual phase shift this could be a useful relationship.

In September robins are getting drunk on my madrone tree berries. In late October, bears are wallering contentedly away from grape vineyards in the early morning. We give them leeway.

I just heard on radio that a can of soda can contain maybe ten or twelve teaspoons of sugar. Dear God. I have no sugar in my house and eat whole grains and vegetables and good meats. When you are weaned of sugar and salt you appreciate good long-time-constant energy. Do not ask why school teens are crazy. I like a small glass of fruit juice. SCIENTIFICALLY, I noticed a mention of storing fat, pot bellies, etc. Naturally, when the blackberries are ripe in August, you can identify a 'native' of Oregon by the purple stains on their fingers and mouth. Are we built to absorb a lot of input? Fruit sugar is slower to matabolise and this is what matters, as well as insulin response. Our ancestors must have lived (and died) with difficult irregularities of hunting and gathering.

Innies and outties are where I begin!!! For $6.25 I get a good lunch at the China Buffet, where we do not share many words. One day, however, we got on down together as I held forth on this topic. Now hold up both hands with fists and hitch-hikers' thumbs. Consider the obvious YIN-YANG. Now connect thumbs; imagine more thumbs in; what sticks out?? Now imagine the opposite. The first presents YIN to the outside. Both are BUILT OF ONE STICK!!! Chinese culture is built on YIN-YANG. I kept exclaiming, 'One stick!' and everyone (Chinese) nodded and smiled. ONE STICK. Opposite appearances. Do not ask, where are the magnetic monopoles? Rather, rejoice that we are delivered of the concept of electric monopoles. __________________ The string uncut and unstrung has no note.

Scalar what? I have only partly done the Fourier transform of my photon field and don't know what to say about it yet. I have allowed what I think is a scalar-longitudinal manifestation without mass. Divergence of "A" gives "U" which gives rho but I simply allow the fields to cook these things up. I assume there may be regions of diverging E-field; this is simply what you declare by saying "quasi-monochromatic wave packet". Energy sloshes back and forth, positive and negative, in the "accordian" mode. This seems like internal business related to the structure rather than propagating energy. I have longitudinal terms under FT so I use that word, and I have a scalar potential, so I use also that word. Can you folks help me by saying more of where these two manifest in QED? It is exciting to be almost talking the same language and I think if we both (all) make the effort we might really get somewhere. I am just coming out of confusion to say that there are not separate homogeneous and inhomogeneous field "backgrounds". I got confused by the good question, "what is epsilon-nought?" To me it is just a coupling constant and my physics is describing that phased-array antenna which manifests the entire field.

I shall refresh the ENTIRE topic of vector model of atoms, which was slightly more rusty than I knew, but this won't take long. Nice table for Clebsch-Gordon coeffs., with a zero symmetrically in the center <m=0> . What to you is the helicity op.? To me it is curl. I appreciate QM for vocabulary that's minimal and accurate. My papers do accounting of inhomogeneous fields and my goal is to interpret what is necessarily so insofar as such equations are still to be considered useful. You say "quanta" and that is a nice word for what I call a "bound state". Can you relate to that word? My whole understanding is that we stop thinking mass is anything but energy localized for a spell. LIGHT IN A BOX, a very serious concept given my A_phi solution. . . . . . . In photons, can you relate to my angular momentum density of: A-cross-[A-dot + del(U) - (rho)r] ? How do you describe the ang. mom. of the (pi)-polarized (am I getting hip?) case? PERTURBATION: Now we are getting hot. I say electrons can be considered as nothing but a construct of polarization. The polarization crunch which needs to yield a positive "4pi" at an inner limit can be thought to cancel what we thought was a negative delta function we needed in introduce. They cancel, or maybe don't exist??? I think of one over r-squared as a mode of the field available upon this dipole stuff poking in (arbitrary to out) at arbitrarily high intensities. . SEVERIAN, I got nervous but I do see exactly how you use these words now. No problem getting started, anyway.

Help, I'm being Shanghai'd by QFT!!! Thank you mate, and sorry for my edit confusion which is now at rest. Nothing is necessarily obvious to me, though I am primed to catch up to what you are offering. We are getting warm, as per my "excuses" mention of Higgs. We are all somehow talking about the same stuff; there is nowhere to hide, but I think we are not finished. I don't expect to add much about your fine structures at their level. However, Ledermann admitted we are clueless about the twenty or so constants which flesh out the Standard Model. I think it is time we finished all this business.

I inhabit the realm of differential vector calculus. Only now can I see why I worked by defining "A" in y-hat(cosX) + z-hat(sinX). There is subtle confusion if you try to represent <y,z>-hats as the real and imaginary components of e^ikX. The "A" above is what maps to plus or minus one times itself, if you consider also the opposite sign on the z-component. Constructing an eigenvector for zero demands supersposition, though. Witness: We might try to say, A=y-hat (e^ikX) looks like a plane wave and works if we take only real components. If you try to say, A is only y-hat(cosX), then curls puts this into z-hat, essentially a complex eigenvalue because you have rotated the phase. Is this why we invented vector bosons? If we want to use complex notation do we build plane waves as A+A* (normalized) and this all works because A* is the opposite spin? Am I getting somewhere? To construct my original "A", I would have to write: y-hat(A+A*) - z-hat(i)(A-A*). This can be rewritten: A(y-hat + iz-hat) + cc. This seems to be the only way to make complex notation work in the real domain! If you Fourier transform everything, complex quantities are no longer an embarasssment. We all agree, though, that "fields we experience" must come out real. I feel not quite finished here.

Klaynos, I'm sorry I did not pay attention specifically to your question. Remember the hydrogen ionization energy of 13.6 V? When things were hotter than that (a gas with average one ev energy per particle is about ten thousand degrees), few atoms were able to recombine, just like water held above freezing. Then as things cooled the electrons were able to stick to protons without being blasted off again. This is expressible as a rate process sort of thing: coming together and falling apart, think again of water molecules freezing. SO, light intereacts strongly with charged things; it disturbs them and they reflect or scatter photons. Thus the light is caught, in general, with the mass of particles, until plasma recombination. Then, fairly suddenly, hydrogen atoms condensed stably. Light was no longer impeded and set out freely, still of course bound to gravitational metrics. So what would have looked like a glowing plasma (how hot, what frequency?) ceased to glow and the light entered the phase of less intense interaction by ionization of already established atoms; later molecules H2.

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?

The centripetal force exerted by the tire is v-squared over 'r'; the accelerative force is omega-dot times the yaw moment of inertia. Packing loads near your center of mass reduces this moment.

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.

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?

Fascinating, thanks. You seem to be saying that such a large scale superstructure is not theorizable. It would be satisfying philosophically: I can live with an infinity better than a lone manifestation, and it would be humbling to know we're heading to a crunch. Physics does not necessarily follow our pet philosophies, however. At least you offer multiplicity. Are the bubbles necessarily separate informationally?

This is a different discussion than the one being offered by 'the tree' on the universe being open or closed. I'd like to know if a cosmology is possible wherein there is an infinite manifold of regions coalescing or expanding, like we see in our galactic bubble structure. Think of yeasted bread dough or/and Swiss cheese. Thinking simply, if our region were approaching a wall-like attractor, couldn't we be accelerated before the beginning of collapse?

Thank you, my friend. Is there a name for this accelerative force? As for my recent bad habit, "a fool repeats his mistakes but the idiot does not even realize them!" Hopefully I can claim the first. I'll let you know. . . . . . . You Europeans may have seen this, but I have a Czech couple of friends who had a circus act where he drove a car ON TWO WHEELS ON ITS SIDE while she in sequinns did handstands and otherwise looked good. The video was cool. . . . . . . . . . . SERIOUSLY, a woman who went off the highway ten minutes before I had to detour, said in the newspapers "I overcorrected". This could easily have actually been, "I moved too quickly", in physical truth.

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.

"A different force on the wheel" is a different torque at same.

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.

Torque at the engine is not changing but torque at the wheels is. Power is the product of torque and angular speed. That comes through unchanged except for loss.

OK, I see you are in the multidimensional beyond four. Not to confuse things I will stop using my term in this sense. (This is not my attitude about fractional photons!)