Norman Albers

Why do we have to create a temperature so cold before quantum condensates can be experienced? Obviously that's where the thermal energies die away sufficiently but why are the magnitudes such? In solid superconducting materials (2 or 3 elements) temperatures can be higher but still cryogenic. There you have a captured electron cloud.

We understand that molecular assemblies find their different phase changes in pressure and temperature regimes. This is a useful picture to see how the light-field achieves a standing wave but with no apparent oscillation, when given the opportunity (enough energy density) to coalesce. Such a state satisfies Maxwell's equations in an inhomogeneous extension. Neither phases nor superconductivity are new concepts, but combined in the present context offer further vision.

Weird. As soon as I take off my reading glasses the change starts happening about a third of the way. Levels of detail?

I assume the electron charge can be represented by a near-field which goes as (r^-1)e^-r, as opposed to an unexplained delta function singularity. Mathematically this is reasonable; indeed any potential or field quantity which goes at the origin as r^-2, or higher order, produces no residue to integration there. Charge density must rapidly fall off to nothing in the far; electric field must have the expected far field. Mathematically we are free to do this, as I show. Rather than interpret this as a 'monopole density', we can see it as a dielectric-like response from the vacuum. It is better to think of a neutral plasma of equal, massless species. Charge can thus be seen as a field phenomenon. I started 4-5 years ago trying to wrap two lightwave forms in a circle. Any variation around the circle produces quadratures of infinite but antisymmetric form, so I deal only with a uniform, time-invariant model. It is as if the phase is frozen, and this actually makes sense if we think about precession of the spin vector under a rotation of the frame. This precession cancels identically the helical spin of free photons, and we witness a different phase state of the energy, as clearly as ice is a phase of water. Electrons are literally crystals of light.

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.

I am talking to those who see there is something missing in our foundation.

1) Epsilon, Oh, Epsilon () 2) Dithering Bytes (Emily Bronte)

See my post in 'blackholes and EM waves' where the foundation of GR as a smoothly differential calculus is declared. I need to learn from you people and from books I don't have, on the implications of vacuum fluctuation theory to all this. Also I would like to learn the nature of 'virtual particle' theory and momentum loops. I describe necessary charge/current manifestation, and ask how does (or does not) QM say this?

B-b-bingo! I didn't want to waste repeats but maybe we should look here at simultaneity. You in your fast train show clocks in each car window. A line of cameras on the platform takes pictures simultaneously (according to them). No picture shows the same time, and you will be upset at first. Fisticuffs could erupt if a relativist is not on the scene to calm emotions. dkv: yes it is that simple, sort of, except no THING travels at 'c'. Look at two space-time points (you at one goalpost, me at the other, and the chosen time moments for each). Let's say light-speed is 100 yards per second. If we define the points 'you right now' and 'me a half-second later', then light could not have travelled between us in that time. If we chose 'you now' and 'me 1-1/2 sec later' the opposite is true. The first we speak of as a space-like interval, and the second is time-like. Yo, Severian, I can explain more about General Rel. than Special in terms of starting from a simple premise. Can we derive SR from the one fact that 'c' is constant to all?

I have my days, and really appreciate the astrological term 'VOID OF COURSE'. Say it however.

Write E as gamma-mc^2 and square both sides.

We are literally beings of light, and I am not talking wu-wu stuff either. You must face headon the fact that when you chase light, you change and you see Doppler-shifted frequencies and measure, still, 'c'. I think we are about to see this more completely. Space and time are thoroughly resliced by motion and by gravitation. Rather than repeat, go see my post in Philosophy, Time Not Universal, where we got into simultaneity. Like quantum mechanics you just have to do it and hang out with it until your old mind falls away.

Plus or minus the panic. The glitter trick works well if there is, say, only one 'k'. Where I have a wave packet falling off exponentially, there are 'k' and 'a'. Selective glue application is called for. In my papers you'll see I am always defining away constants. Please, PURE B******T, simply for convenience. Feynman has some fun here, defining 'unworldliness' by saying the D'alembertian of 'unworldliness' is zero. We have achieved ultimate elegance but said not much. HEY, JACQUES, remember in Hesse' Magister Ludi they end up at the Magic Theater where the price of admission is: your mind. Yes we have lost something, it will mess up your mind, and you will love it because that's why you came, no?

Thank you! I sensed there was a mess here.

Consciousness is overblown.

OHMYGOD. I just read about z-pinch. DOY DOY my masters was in plasma

Yes, with cholera, up into the attic nest.

Very nice, now I have some meditations while I string a set of bass strings, especially your observations on the boys, gcol.

How can this be if there is recoil? Is no energy lost there? We have a small energy impinging on a large one, if we can estimate by saying our light is 1/10 to 10 ev, and the mass-energy of the electron is 0.511 Mev. The effect wouldn't be large, but there must be some momentum kinematically, no?

So is the apparent frequency of spectral line of absorption not exactly what the atom absorbs? Also, is there inelastic scattering to warm the cat?

I mean still longer than an angstrom, inter-atomic spacing.

What are the different ways in which light at different frequencies interacts? Sometimes we reflect off the 'mobile electron surface". Atoms can absorb specific frequencies. Is there just no such level below visible? How does visible light warm the cat? Is there not a linear momentum exchange when atoms absorb? That's for starters, do you see? How is it things are transparent or not?

Our talk on eye lenses clued me to the fact that I have a poor overview of light absorption. It is a complicated subject, starting with, say ordinary matter with typical atomic spacing of an Angstrom or so. Am I correct in this, speaking of solids? CRC tables had that number if I am. Visible light is maybe 5,000 A, so in a discussion where highest frequencies are ultraviolet, the light wave is still longer. Interaction changes so strongly down through different ranges. I've been through much of this but I need to feel what are the different regimes and why because I have launched a thesis of fractional photons, dark energy. I figure I had better get clear (heehee) first in the light we are accustomed to.

This seems non-intuitive and bothers me. I would set up such projectile problems with the statement that we supply a force acting through a distance on some mass. This is not the same as identifying a specific impulse which is force over time. Here, the heavier shot comes out slower, but the energy input is fixed, say E. Then, E = (1/2)mv^2, so v = SQRT(2E/m), and we can write mv = SQRT(2mE). How can we keep getting more momentum with a heavier weight? If we put my eight pound wedge on your rattrap, it's hard to see it going fast enough to hurt me. Should I then not identify momentum with 'hurt'? Seems like it's really E that counts. Talkin' crash-test dummies.

Kinematics can be learned by looking at momentum and energy balance when one 'ball' hits another. Do the simple in-line case first, and vary the relative size. Clearly different exchanges happen when a small ball knocks a large one, or the opposite. I had a good discussion with a young friend just getting a rifle, and we talked about momentum transfer viv-a-vis bullet mass. Similar questions as here........A few years ago I injured a disc or two in my spine. Now nearly what I was, to my pleasure I found that a six-pound splitting maul is so much easier to lift and develop a swing, compared with the eight-pounder that is now too much to swing, that I get more momentum to split wood with the six. As a youth I disdained it. We change.