I have composed two pages in which I equate the Schwarzschild metric term with a speed-of-light moderated by changing permittivity. This reproduces the phenomenology of the GR equations, but I think it says we can interpret an event horizon as dielectric runaway. A finite 'thickening' of vacuum polarization produces this, an infinite vaue of permittivity. We can perhaps do physics on a Euclidean manifold, interpreting the geodesics of light, etc., as slowing of light in an optically thick space. Available in pdf at: http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na
QUOTE (Albers+Aug 2 2006, 10:05 PM)
We can perhaps do physics on a Euclidean manifold, interpreting the geodesics of light, etc., as slowing of light in an optically thick space.
Of course, this is a common interpretation of relativistic aberration, gravitation lenses and other phenomenas by Aether Wave theory (AWT).
Of course, this is a common interpretation of relativistic aberration, gravitation lenses and other phenomenas by Aether Wave theory (AWT).
Where does AWT stand among different thinkers lately? Actually, what matters is: do folks speak of a Lorentz-transformable aether? It should be.
QUOTE (Albers+Aug 4 2006, 12:15 AM)
Where does AWT stand among different thinkers lately?
The AWT is pretty close to all modern field theories, in fact. All these protosimplex, M-branes, twistors and/or LQG simplexes & spin networks concepts can be explained on the base of AWT easily, despite the fact, all these theories are based on particular math models, which binds down these theories by its formalism. Bellow is the spin network, protosimplexes and membrane models of vacuum with compare of the quantum foam of AWT. The deep similarity of all these concepts is quite obvious, so they're forming just a different views to the same reality.
The AWT is pretty close to all modern field theories, in fact. All these protosimplex, M-branes, twistors and/or LQG simplexes & spin networks concepts can be explained on the base of AWT easily, despite the fact, all these theories are based on particular math models, which binds down these theories by its formalism. Bellow is the spin network, protosimplexes and membrane models of vacuum with compare of the quantum foam of AWT. The deep similarity of all these concepts is quite obvious, so they're forming just a different views to the same reality.
QUOTE (Albers+Aug 4 2006, 12:15 AM)
do folks speak of a Lorentz-transformable aether? It should be
The Maxwell's Aether was Lorentz-transformable from its very beginning considering the fact, the Lorentz transforms were derived from it by more than ten years before the special realativity! It's undeniable susses of Aether theory in fact, because the relativity just changes the global philosphy by the way, which I consider neobhajitelný from long term perpsective, because of deep formal antagonism between quantum mechanic and relativity theory.
The recursive quantum foam model fulfills both the models of quantum gravity, both the model of elastic massive environment, aka Aether of the pre-einsteinian era.
The Maxwell's Aether was Lorentz-transformable from its very beginning considering the fact, the Lorentz transforms were derived from it by more than ten years before the special realativity! It's undeniable susses of Aether theory in fact, because the relativity just changes the global philosphy by the way, which I consider neobhajitelný from long term perpsective, because of deep formal antagonism between quantum mechanic and relativity theory.
The recursive quantum foam model fulfills both the models of quantum gravity, both the model of elastic massive environment, aka Aether of the pre-einsteinian era.
Nice, thanks, I am eager to learn more. I offer a certain perspective that has been highly productive. Having found reason to doubt our quantum radiation construction, (not for its usefulness but for its assumption of characterizing 'all that is' in the sense of radiation disturbance), I am trying to let basic ideas, rendered in mathematics, dictate the necessary characteristics of the sea of possibilities in which we are one, or many.
QUOTE (Albers+Aug 4 2006, 01:05 AM)
I offer a certain perspective that has been highly productive.
As you can see, the reality can be observed/described by many ways, each of these can be useful in some particular case. The AWT recursive wave model is just global insight, useful with respect of common phenomenology. Feel free to develop your own models.
The formal math is the key approach in Nature understanding, but it's always important to know, what it describes in fact. The AWT supplies an easy answer to such general question. After all, all the conceptual problems aren't solved yet even at the case of AWT. Here's a lot of work to do.
As you can see, the reality can be observed/described by many ways, each of these can be useful in some particular case. The AWT recursive wave model is just global insight, useful with respect of common phenomenology. Feel free to develop your own models.
The formal math is the key approach in Nature understanding, but it's always important to know, what it describes in fact. The AWT supplies an easy answer to such general question. After all, all the conceptual problems aren't solved yet even at the case of AWT. Here's a lot of work to do.
Polarization is cooking up everything under the sun, for me. Is there a Phlogiston Society I can join?
I have the first notable result from looking at the curves of permittivity generated in this study. Inside the event horizon, the transverse permittivity is negative. This results in the argument of the spatial exponent being real, implying absorption. Thus there can be no propagation of transverse radiation inside. Radial propagation is as we analyzed before, though understanding of the phenomenology will be welcome!
QUOTE (Albers+Aug 22 2006, 06:56 PM)
Inside the event horizon, the transverse permittivity is negative.
Yep, the vacuum behaves like sort of metamaterial, being composed from more dense subtle particles, recursively.
This is the only reason for formation of event horizon, by the way. Without it, all the black holes should behave like naked singularities. From the same reason follows the another interesting properties of black holes, like the negative heat capacity and mass - entropy dependence.
Yep, the vacuum behaves like sort of metamaterial, being composed from more dense subtle particles, recursively.
This is the only reason for formation of event horizon, by the way. Without it, all the black holes should behave like naked singularities. From the same reason follows the another interesting properties of black holes, like the negative heat capacity and mass - entropy dependence.
It's nice to not be totally alone. This is day 20 of final edit decision at JMP. I seek to further our physics of the vacuum. It is the substrate of the matter field as well as radiation.
QUOTE (Albers+Aug 22 2006, 07:07 PM)
It's nice to not be totally alone.
Why alone? The vacuum polarization has even some experimental background and practical applications (magnetar jets theory).
I don't understand your theory too much, but I suppose, in high gravitational gradients the effects of electromagnetic and gravitational fields are complementary.
Why alone? The vacuum polarization has even some experimental background and practical applications (magnetar jets theory).
I don't understand your theory too much, but I suppose, in high gravitational gradients the effects of electromagnetic and gravitational fields are complementary.
We can picture both the electron, and the exterior of a black hole by constructing in our mind a plastic cylinder. We have a masterful tech shop, and we can create a region between two radii of increasing index of refraction going inward, to the tune of 1/r. This is a bit like a fiberoptic cable, where the center is slightly thicker optically so waves going out toward the wall cladding are steered back in without contact. Do you see that the speed of light decreases inward so that wavefronts pivot like a marching band? Our shop may not take us inside some small radius but the point has been shown. My tech shop is ultracool and can dope preferentially in the transverse sense. We can see how light will bend. If we then accept that we are speaking about the vacuum medium which underlies the manifestation of matter, it too behaves as if it's in heavier and heavier optical medium. If you picture the differential rings of current with which I construct electrons, they will transform appropriately. I am simply positing this to the vaccum because it works so nicely, yeah, offers a major unification.
Hey Albers...This is the almost exact model I use in my unified theory, in fact. The difference is in that I treat my "aether" as an actual massive fluid. The GR geodesics are just refractions of waves and other disturbances that flow through changes in density within this medium then. I can also produce electromagnetism and the weak nuclear forces, as well as explain the details of the early universe and how matter (and so little anti-matter) came into being in the first place. The other very interesting thing is that the Lorentz-transformations can actually be derived from my model through the use of acceleration and the corresponding radiative gravitational waves. The model is based entirely in an Euclidean 4-dimensional space.
QUOTE (Albers+Aug 22 2006, 04:48 PM)
We can picture both the electron, and the exterior of a black hole by constructing in our mind a plastic cylinder. We have a masterful tech shop, and we can create a region between two radii of increasing index of refraction going inward, to the tune of 1/r. This is a bit like a fiberoptic cable, where the center is slightly thicker optically so waves going out toward the wall cladding are steered back in without contact. Do you see that the speed of light decreases inward so that wavefronts pivot like a marching band? Our shop may not take us inside some small radius but the point has been shown. My tech shop is ultracool and can dope preferentially in the transverse sense. We can see how light will bend. If we then accept that we are speaking about the vacuum medium which underlies the manifestation of matter, it too behaves as if it's in heavier and heavier optical medium. If you picture the differential rings of current with which I construct electrons, they will transform appropriately. I am simply positing this to the vaccum because it works so nicely, yeah, offers a major unification.
I think the blackbody radiation of space works like this also.
Imagine our space as being the central part of this fiber and having a very "thin" path of constant density passing throughout space.
Now if we're sandwhich along a density gradient, then light could potentially also travel perpendicular to our space and into more or less dense space, but on average not very far as it tends to reflect over some distance due to this gradient. The peak wavelength for blackbody radiation likely correlates with how steep this gradient is.
If the universe is more compressed, the gradient changes faster and light not travelling with our thin plane tends to be reflected faster and with a shorter wavelength, so if the Big Bang began in a more compressed space then nothing could travel very far without being reflected and we'd have short/energetic wavelengths.
Likely a similar thing occurs with mass. We see EMF radiating away from mass and into space (though possibly the same effect occurs complimentarily inside mass with energy inside reflected back by the steep gradient along the boundary and trapped inside as subatomic particles) and the more massive a particle is, the greater the gradient could be and hence the shorter the wavelength, so in this sense the primary physically detectable characteristic is not the mass itself but the interface and the rate at which the density changes.
Consider also this if mass is not entirely self-contained, it can diffuse over time and expand. Smaller masses diffuse relatively to their own sizes at a faster rate than larger masses (similar to how a smaller planet cools faster than a larger one - the ratios of the surface area to volume and the gradient throughout this is steeper for smaller masses), so over time a unit of mass would tend to acquire a rather fixed volume.
This diffusion could be seen similar to gravity without needing an invisible force. If masses scale up in size over time, measurements made using masses would still retain relative scales of measurements the same, though the space between could appear to become smaller relative to this, so scales of distances could be altered over time. The weak forces and gravity might be due to an effect like this. But basically the gravity we experience on Earth could be a product of the mass diffusing outward and us being accelerated on the surface away from the center (the math for the scaling of this force in the interior works out also). Also, space diffuses into mass in a reciprocal manner and sizes appear to remain similar because we relative measures for scales so can't determine how much the universe has expanded in an absolute sense at any point in time. (Though can flip this idea around and say gravity pulls things in also, but the idea seems similar except in the case of diffusion you only need a field generated by point to point interactions instead of long distance gravitons or background 'pushing' EMF etc.)
Anyway, regarding the last half of this post, I'm just tossing out some thoughts but I think blackbody radiation is correlated to the general "thickness" of our lightspeed plane in space. There are also reasons due to self cancellation that seem to require most light to travel and resonate along a thin plane instead of diving into more or less dense spaces and returning (though it's possible without self interference, it's just not easy to do).
I think the blackbody radiation of space works like this also.
Imagine our space as being the central part of this fiber and having a very "thin" path of constant density passing throughout space.
Now if we're sandwhich along a density gradient, then light could potentially also travel perpendicular to our space and into more or less dense space, but on average not very far as it tends to reflect over some distance due to this gradient. The peak wavelength for blackbody radiation likely correlates with how steep this gradient is.
If the universe is more compressed, the gradient changes faster and light not travelling with our thin plane tends to be reflected faster and with a shorter wavelength, so if the Big Bang began in a more compressed space then nothing could travel very far without being reflected and we'd have short/energetic wavelengths.
Likely a similar thing occurs with mass. We see EMF radiating away from mass and into space (though possibly the same effect occurs complimentarily inside mass with energy inside reflected back by the steep gradient along the boundary and trapped inside as subatomic particles) and the more massive a particle is, the greater the gradient could be and hence the shorter the wavelength, so in this sense the primary physically detectable characteristic is not the mass itself but the interface and the rate at which the density changes.
Consider also this if mass is not entirely self-contained, it can diffuse over time and expand. Smaller masses diffuse relatively to their own sizes at a faster rate than larger masses (similar to how a smaller planet cools faster than a larger one - the ratios of the surface area to volume and the gradient throughout this is steeper for smaller masses), so over time a unit of mass would tend to acquire a rather fixed volume.
This diffusion could be seen similar to gravity without needing an invisible force. If masses scale up in size over time, measurements made using masses would still retain relative scales of measurements the same, though the space between could appear to become smaller relative to this, so scales of distances could be altered over time. The weak forces and gravity might be due to an effect like this. But basically the gravity we experience on Earth could be a product of the mass diffusing outward and us being accelerated on the surface away from the center (the math for the scaling of this force in the interior works out also). Also, space diffuses into mass in a reciprocal manner and sizes appear to remain similar because we relative measures for scales so can't determine how much the universe has expanded in an absolute sense at any point in time. (Though can flip this idea around and say gravity pulls things in also, but the idea seems similar except in the case of diffusion you only need a field generated by point to point interactions instead of long distance gravitons or background 'pushing' EMF etc.)
Anyway, regarding the last half of this post, I'm just tossing out some thoughts but I think blackbody radiation is correlated to the general "thickness" of our lightspeed plane in space. There are also reasons due to self cancellation that seem to require most light to travel and resonate along a thin plane instead of diving into more or less dense spaces and returning (though it's possible without self interference, it's just not easy to do).
QUOTE (cefarix+Aug 23 2006, 10:36 AM)
Hey Albers...This is the almost exact model I use in my unified theory, in fact. The difference is in that I treat my "aether" as an actual massive fluid. The GR geodesics are just refractions of waves and other disturbances that flow through changes in density within this medium then. I can also produce electromagnetism and the weak nuclear forces, as well as explain the details of the early universe and how matter (and so little anti-matter) came into being in the first place. The other very interesting thing is that the Lorentz-transformations can actually be derived from my model through the use of acceleration and the corresponding radiative gravitational waves. The model is based entirely in an Euclidean 4-dimensional space.
Yo, babe, you said you wanted help figuring geodesics? Damn good issue, huh! Basically Schwarzschild did it and I just plugged in the permittivity. One would start by saying, let's take the gradient of the permittivity (index of refraction) field. However, it is not just a scalar quantity; I'm not sure yet about representations but I suspect we need a tensor. I am just approaching quantum mechanics here and there is a polarization tensor. Actually, I guess it should be a polarizability tensor to multiply a field vector and yield a polarization vector. I'll let you know.
Yo, babe, you said you wanted help figuring geodesics? Damn good issue, huh! Basically Schwarzschild did it and I just plugged in the permittivity. One would start by saying, let's take the gradient of the permittivity (index of refraction) field. However, it is not just a scalar quantity; I'm not sure yet about representations but I suspect we need a tensor. I am just approaching quantum mechanics here and there is a polarization tensor. Actually, I guess it should be a polarizability tensor to multiply a field vector and yield a polarization vector. I'll let you know.
QUOTE (Albers+Aug 22 2006, 04:48 PM)
We can picture both the electron, and the exterior of a black hole by constructing in our mind a plastic cylinder. We have a masterful tech shop, and we can create a region between two radii of increasing index of refraction going inward, to the tune of 1/r. This is a bit like a fiberoptic cable, where the center is slightly thicker optically so waves going out toward the wall cladding are steered back in without contact. Do you see that the speed of light decreases inward so that wavefronts pivot like a marching band? Our shop may not take us inside some small radius but the point has been shown. My tech shop is ultracool and can dope preferentially in the transverse sense. We can see how light will bend. If we then accept that we are speaking about the vacuum medium which underlies the manifestation of matter, it too behaves as if it's in heavier and heavier optical medium. If you picture the differential rings of current with which I construct electrons, they will transform appropriately. I am simply positing this to the vaccum because it works so nicely, yeah, offers a major unification.
Are you saying there is a pinch effect due to the variation of the dielectric constant or the permittivity within an optical fiber? If so, one could use this to focus the output for diverse use.
Are you saying there is a pinch effect due to the variation of the dielectric constant or the permittivity within an optical fiber? If so, one could use this to focus the output for diverse use.
Yes but not a plasma pinch. Optic fiber cables are designed with higher index of refraction in the center axis so that modes which are wandering out of the center get steered back in. Did you ever wonder why waves always go parallel to a beach? What if the prevailing wind is blowing along it and creating waves in the transverse direction as you experience out away from shore? Where these waves touch the shallowing region their velocity slows. This is the marching band effect.
It has long been seen in the interior Schwarzschild solution, that gravitational tides become extreme going in toward the singularity. This has been called "spaghettification". If behavior is such as I have described, then near the event horizon absorption is extreme and the two radial dimensions are collapsed. There would be only one-dimensional oscillations. Now doesn't this sound familiar? There would be nothing but strings, with some interesting pathology going to the center.
QUOTE (Albers+Oct 21 2006, 06:34 PM)
...there would be nothing but strings...
This is an general misunderstanding of string denomination, introduced by the string theory into physic. As the "string" is called the result of undulation of environment, not the environment as such.
By superstring theory the strings are called some abstract pieces of matter, hanging in the vacuum like cherries - a solely unphysical concept. The string is the environment, which undulates (i.e. the Aether) of course - not the undulations as such.
Such misunderstanding of reality is given by the fact, the Aether foam appears more dense at the places, where the undulation takes place due the E=mc^2 equivalence principle. From this point of view, the undulation piece of Aether appears more massive and inertial then the rest of environement - but such stance is just a part of reality. By AWT even the WHOLE the vacuum is massive, and the less inertial parts of it appears less massive, just because they're more chaotic, by the same way, like the underwater appears massive with respect of the surface waves. But here's no fundamental difference between the strings, forming our vacuum and the strings, forming the particles of observable matter. Everything is formed by the same stuff and by the same mechanism.
The superstring theory was pretty close to final understanding, but it wasted its historical chance, because it never contained/considered the Aether concept, i.e. the concept of inertial massive environment, which decreases the number of postulates required for such model to the single wave equation, recursively. From this point of view the superstring theory will remain just an abstract, uselles part of scientific history without no testable predictions, the understanding of the Universe nature the less.
The observable Universe is even much more simpler and elegant, then the string theorists are saying about superstring theory. It's built upon the single simple wave equation and the vacuum is stringy by the same way, like all the observable matter.
This is an general misunderstanding of string denomination, introduced by the string theory into physic. As the "string" is called the result of undulation of environment, not the environment as such.
By superstring theory the strings are called some abstract pieces of matter, hanging in the vacuum like cherries - a solely unphysical concept. The string is the environment, which undulates (i.e. the Aether) of course - not the undulations as such.
Such misunderstanding of reality is given by the fact, the Aether foam appears more dense at the places, where the undulation takes place due the E=mc^2 equivalence principle. From this point of view, the undulation piece of Aether appears more massive and inertial then the rest of environement - but such stance is just a part of reality. By AWT even the WHOLE the vacuum is massive, and the less inertial parts of it appears less massive, just because they're more chaotic, by the same way, like the underwater appears massive with respect of the surface waves. But here's no fundamental difference between the strings, forming our vacuum and the strings, forming the particles of observable matter. Everything is formed by the same stuff and by the same mechanism.
The superstring theory was pretty close to final understanding, but it wasted its historical chance, because it never contained/considered the Aether concept, i.e. the concept of inertial massive environment, which decreases the number of postulates required for such model to the single wave equation, recursively. From this point of view the superstring theory will remain just an abstract, uselles part of scientific history without no testable predictions, the understanding of the Universe nature the less.
The observable Universe is even much more simpler and elegant, then the string theorists are saying about superstring theory. It's built upon the single simple wave equation and the vacuum is stringy by the same way, like all the observable matter.
I speak to the visions I am trying to present. I see reason to say the transverse dimensions relative to radius are collapsed.
After thinking and exchanging with H. Puthoff I am now ready to see the vacuum magnetic permeability as derivative of the polarization field just as he nicely explains in a section on the fine structure constant. Indeed I take it further because any current source can be seen in some frame of reference to be a purely electric force on a "test charge". Therefore I am positing that the vacuum fields, whatever they are, need not have intrinsic spin in order to transmit magnetic fields. This gives physics of both permittivity and permeability changing in the same proportion from whatever metric phenomenology. It is their product which in the speed of light (squared). From a metric we take local measures, but the relation to physics of the vacuum is now shared in this product. In this way I am writing a further interpretation.
All questions I care about point equally to the small and to the large.
REISSNER-NORDSTROM- : I have reached a solution of the Reissner-Nordstrom type of metric, with my inhomogeneous electron field substituted for the usual homogenous inverse radius square. It shows very interesting characteristics. The electron field was created to cancel the near-field singularity to the necessary extent: so observables integrate to finite quantities. In the usual R-N metric we see 1 - 2m/r + Ge^2/r^2. In my model the second term is not extreme at the origin, it is cancelled. Most interestingly, there is produced, in the expansion of the solution, a specific term in 1/r, only near the origin. As per the original solution, the linear term is simply available as a "constant of integration" in the entire field. This is subtle and critical. It is tempting to associate the second-order term with total energy density of the 1/r^2 field. THIS IS INCORRECT, SINCE THIS ENERGY CAN BE SUMMED ONLY OUTSIDE OF ANY RADIUS.. This has been a major source of confusion as to energy density not being adequate to account for MASS. This is a mistake.
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 3 2007, 05:00 AM)
REISSNER-NORDSTROM- : I have reached a solution of the Reissner-Nordstrom type of metric, with my inhomogeneous electron field substituted for the usual homogenous inverse radius square. It shows very interesting characteristics. The electron field was created to cancel the near-field singularity to the necessary extent: so observables integrate to finite quantities. In the usual R-N metric we see 1 - 2m/r + Ge^2/r^2. In my model the second term is not extreme at the origin, it is cancelled. Most interestingly, there is produced, in the expansion of the solution, a specific term in 1/r, only near the origin. As per the original solution, the linear term is simply available as a "constant of integration" in the entire field. This is subtle and critical. It is tempting to associate the second-order term with total energy density of the 1/r^2 field. THIS IS INCORRECT, SINCE THIS ENERGY CAN BE SUMMED ONLY OUTSIDE OF ANY RADIUS.. This has been a major source of confusion as to energy density not being adequate to account for MASS. This is a mistake.
Please explain again for me, in a simpler way. I am always fascinated by things You seem to be finding out, but I can not understand them.
On other hand, if they are real, they have to be explainable. Only Maya is complex, reality is simple.
What is a mistake?
Doe it mean there is EXTERNAL and internal energy? Where is the surface which separates these regions, e.g. for electron?
Please explain again for me, in a simpler way. I am always fascinated by things You seem to be finding out, but I can not understand them.
On other hand, if they are real, they have to be explainable. Only Maya is complex, reality is simple.
What is a mistake?
Doe it mean there is EXTERNAL and internal energy? Where is the surface which separates these regions, e.g. for electron?
Commonly we look the the R-N metric and see that at large radius, the inverse square term falls of WRT the 1/r term, and we see the far gravitational field we expect. Now I quote you the first exercise on p.532 of my text (Adler, Bazin, Schiffer): "An interesting interpretation of the the R-N metric can be obtained. Consider the energy density of the electric field surrounding a point particle. Obtain the total mass-equivalent energy inside a sphere of radius r using E=mc^2, and use Gauss' law to show that its gravitational potential falls off like r^-2. If this extra potential is added to the usual point-mass potential, the result is identical with the R-N equation." I think this is a mess. In an r^-2 electric field, energy density is the square, or r^-4. Doing a volume integral in spherical coords. multiplies by r^2dr, so the integral goes as 1/r which cannot be evaluated at the origin, of course. You assumed a point there. I sense a deep mistake here. We think we have to identify something called "mass" as distinct from the field energy, and thus we are greatly confused. I need to meditate further to find words for you; I am a mathematician.
HEAD FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF THE METRIC!!!
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
North for matter, South for antimatter? Feynman said it's like one pole of an otherwise arbitrary N-S designation grew hairs.
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 3 2007, 11:31 PM)
North for matter, South for antimatter? Feynman said it's like one pole of an otherwise arbitrary N-S designation grew hairs.
BY SMASHING PROTONS AND ANTI PROTONS TOGETHER IN A COLLIDER YOU DON'T GET THE SOUTH SIDE OF ANTI MATTER. YOU GET MORE MATTER. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN POPULAR SCIENCE ABOUT THIS SOMEWHERE.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
BY SMASHING PROTONS AND ANTI PROTONS TOGETHER IN A COLLIDER YOU DON'T GET THE SOUTH SIDE OF ANTI MATTER. YOU GET MORE MATTER. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN POPULAR SCIENCE ABOUT THIS SOMEWHERE.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
In my latter two years at college I had an RA working as part of an accelerator research team. We had beam time at the Brookhaven 3GEV line and were smashing protons into protons, looking at pions. I did computer kinematics (relativistic billiards) with Monte Carlo simulations: you try to run a good random sammple of events through to see if they fall on your counters. Then I helped the shop tech build a wall of neutron detectors. Then I ran night shift in the data shack on the beamline at Brookhaven as a lowly student, and loved it. The bar-graphs showed resonances happening at a nice rate.........Given excess energy, nature produces what is seen in a strong B-field as "ram's-horns", namely particle-anti-particle pairs which spiral off in opposite senses. Locally, energetics are totally symmetric, at least in these strong interactions...
Hello, Dr. Albers -
Your paper is truly compelling...on page 2 of your paper, you state:
What if I gave you a self-consistent (physical) reason? What if I could give you a value that we could test?
Further, you state on p. 3
What if I gave you a self-consistent (physical) reason? What if I could give you a value that we could test?
Further, you state on p. 3 one must clearly have a relativistic model 1
What if I gave you an example where one did not need a relativistic model (no new physics here, just standard QM, mathematically standard, just a creative idea {and an unconventional, but self-consistent basis set} using Foch space. See, for starters, Grosso, Pastori-Parravicini. Solid State Physics, p 686)
Also, on p 4, you state:
As background, I'm a 4th yr in a PhD prg @ Stony Brook (chemical physics) and I'm a user @ BNL. I'm pretty darn sure I see where you're going w/ your paper, but could I work w/ you on these ideas (a diff. basis set, but one that's non-intuitive might work better)? Please send me a specific message, as I've consulted w/ my father-in-law, who's a physicist and has been helping me w/ an idea quite similar to yours - you seem to have some pieces of this, the greatest of puzzles.
- solidspin
Albers
Could you please explain which phase transitions you are looking for?
Thanks
Your paper is truly compelling...on page 2 of your paper, you state:
QUOTE
I offer no physical justification for choosing mass-energy so; this is the only analytically soluble case and is thus useful.
What if I gave you a self-consistent (physical) reason? What if I could give you a value that we could test?
Further, you state on p. 3
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I offer no physical justification for choosing mass-energy so; this is the only analytically soluble case and is thus useful. |
What if I gave you a self-consistent (physical) reason? What if I could give you a value that we could test?
Further, you state on p. 3 one must clearly have a relativistic model 1
What if I gave you an example where one did not need a relativistic model (no new physics here, just standard QM, mathematically standard, just a creative idea {and an unconventional, but self-consistent basis set} using Foch space. See, for starters, Grosso, Pastori-Parravicini. Solid State Physics, p 686)
Also, on p 4, you state:
QUOTE
This preserves a coherent circulation of energy,
since despite the assumption of no dAsubphi/dphi , energy does flow in {unit vector phi} and imagined wavefronts pivot
. I completely agree, but look at the famous A & B paper -> Phys. Rev. 115, 485 - 491 (1959) [Issue 3 – August 1959]. You can manage the phase issue cleverly and get what we want out of it (control)!since despite the assumption of no dAsubphi/dphi , energy does flow in {unit vector phi} and imagined wavefronts pivot
As background, I'm a 4th yr in a PhD prg @ Stony Brook (chemical physics) and I'm a user @ BNL. I'm pretty darn sure I see where you're going w/ your paper, but could I work w/ you on these ideas (a diff. basis set, but one that's non-intuitive might work better)? Please send me a specific message, as I've consulted w/ my father-in-law, who's a physicist and has been helping me w/ an idea quite similar to yours - you seem to have some pieces of this, the greatest of puzzles.
- solidspin
solidspin, how nice to hear from you! I wanted to consider the rho.U energy density, or even a general case. My brother at the NOAA lab crunched solutions numerically and none of the other forms converged. I am eager to hear your thoughts, as I only partly see why the j.dot.A energy is appropriate. YOU THINK YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING? COOL, I NEVER DO. I have moved to an understanding of permeability being proportional to permittivity; read in Puthoff's paper on the "PV theory". (I have it.) This interpretation would make the phase velocity fall off faster, erasing the "marching band" picture. I also intend to investigate the form EXP[1/r] because it appears in Puthoff's isotropic metric; also in a paper by Binder on an electron model; also from Doug Sweetser on PhysicsForums (or whatever that's called). Along with the R-N developments, I am completely rewriting the electron paper. It is organizationally a mess. Also, in a laughingly simple answer, Puthoff said yes, why not interpret the homogeneous inverse square term as dipoles also? Dang boy, how stupidly simple. I had approached the problem only from the standpoint of accounting for inhomogeneity. I feel right now like a rolling tumbleweed. Yes I want help from someone who can connect to quantum mechanics. Have you read my statements on the photon position operator?
Because of solidspin's comment on my electron field energy, I went back to look and now I feel a little foolish for not understanding this! Check it out: the question is how to relate charge density in a magnetic field to momentum and to current. Primary is the identification of momentum as rhoA. If we could multiply a momentum by charge/mass, we might have current. No problem, as I have defined the current as [c]rho. One just solves for "mass" and gets mc^2 = j.dot.A. Better late than never and I thank you for the dialogue! Did I say completely rewriting? To be fair to myself, though, this is hindsight. I started by thinking the relevant mass-energy would be rhoU. This was not analytically soluble in that it gave a current of j_u = [c]rho[cA/U]. My brother crunched these and we showed there was no convergence of a far-field. I was not able to analytically show this and it would be a good mathematical item to achieve. So I arrived at j = [c]rho. . . . . . . . . . . . . I am somewhat familiar with Aharanov and Bohm, but I'll be checking out the other references you offered.
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 4 2007, 09:37 PM)
Because of solidspin's comment on my electron field energy, I went back to look and now I feel a little foolish for not understanding this! Check it out: the question is how to relate charge density in a magnetic field to momentum and to current. Primary is the identification of momentum as rhoA. If we could multiply a momentum by charge/mass, we might have current. No problem, as I have defined the current as [c]rho. One just solves for "mass" and gets mc^2 = j.dot.A. Better late than never and I thank you for the dialogue! Did I say completely rewriting? To be fair to myself, though, this is hindsight. I started by thinking the relevant mass-energy would be rhoU. This was not analytically soluble in that it gave a current of j_u = [c]rho[cA/U]. My brother crunched these and we showed there was no convergence of a far-field. I was not able to analytically show this and it would be a good mathematical item to achieve. So I arrived at j = [c]rho. . . . . . . . . . . . . I am somewhat familiar with Aharanov and Bohm, but I'll be checking out the other references you offered.
Current of photons?
Current of photons?
DC current in circular shells. I assumed the vacuum can cook up charge density, and if there is a polarization density which changes in a divergent manner, this produces a net charge density of -DEL.dot.P. Look up dielectrics in an E&M book. Without doing quantum mechanics, I work on inhomogeneous field possibilities, and in the manner described in my Scwarzschild discussion, tie the same vacuum manifestation, whatever it is, to gravitation. Here there is not a net charge field so I can say there may not be divergence in the vacuum polarization density. I have just come to see my homogeneous r^-2 as also polarization "dipoles"; why not? Such a distribution will have zero divergence and thus charge density, yet manifest electric field. Thus my electron has a non-diverging (homogeneous) polarization balanced by the near field inhomogeneous (diverging) population.
I suspect I am guilty of confusing polarizability, which is the epsilon or epsilon-nought of space, with polarization fields, which are the electric disposition of these. My electron theory is couched in language of polarization, mostly, while the discussion of gravitation of neutral masses speaks of the density field of polarizability, as this is what is responding to any electromagnetic or particle disturbance. In Reissner-Nordstrom metric discussions both aspects are present. More as I figure it.
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 5 2007, 02:19 AM)
I suspect I am guilty of confusing polarizability, which is the epsilon or epsilon-nought of space, with polarization fields, which are the electric disposition of these. My electron theory is couched in language of polarization, mostly, while the discussion of gravitation of neutral masses speaks of the density field of polarizability, as this is what is responding to any electromagnetic or particle disturbance. In Reissner-Nordstrom metric discussions both aspects are present. More as I figure it.
DC current in circular shells - why not couple it with magnetic direct "current" in circular shells. May be You have done it already.
Then think how to make quanta on surfaces/volumes of these shells.
Zero charge density sounds intuitively right for me
PLEASE EXPLAIN a little bit SIMPLER....
DC current in circular shells - why not couple it with magnetic direct "current" in circular shells. May be You have done it already.
Then think how to make quanta on surfaces/volumes of these shells.
Zero charge density sounds intuitively right for me
PLEASE EXPLAIN a little bit SIMPLER....
Dr. Albers -
Some excellent steps forward - I'm very impressed. If you want an outstanding treatment of current which seems like it will help you, I urge you to (re)read Bamberg, Sternberg. A Course in Mathematics for Students of Physics, Vol. 2, p 476. ISBN: 0-521-33245-1
Further, you state:
I see nothing wrong at all w/ your conclusion. But if you draw a schematic that conforms a potential falling off as r^-2, what n-space shape does one get (it's not spherical, which is why I mentioned this before)? Aamof, I have a schematic that I would like to share w/ you which may solve your query regarding your statement above, as "polarization dipoles" - I believe this is a perfect example of dipoles, but in a sense that treats your proposal in a QM manner. I will send you a msg, giving you my email address, so I can send you the pdf...
So appropriate you place such weight on polarizability (which I, again, believe correct). Please see Bonin, Kresin. Electric-dipole Polarizabilities of Atoms, Molecules and Clusters. ISBN: 981-022-4931 p. 11. As you correctly mention, dielectrics are directly related to polarizabilities by the Debye eq:
alpha = 3/4pi*n(eta^2 - 1/eta^2 + 2) - musub0^2/3kT where the first term of the eq. is the Lorentz-Lorenz relation.
So, as strange as this sounds, could you think about eta^2 (i.e., permittivity), but as a lim rho->some upper limit defined by the density of some regular object? The second term above will end up having a fractional coefficient in front of it, making it less relevant (but not zero). The reason why I ask is b/z there must be a weak dependence on kT, as in the case of regular matter, such that vacuum density is greater inside massive objects. Further, there will definitely be a difference in vacuum density in an object w/ mass, as compared to free spacetime.
Let me send you a msg. w/ my email address and I can explain in more detail why there are physically reasonable, QM grounds for this.
-ss
Some excellent steps forward - I'm very impressed. If you want an outstanding treatment of current which seems like it will help you, I urge you to (re)read Bamberg, Sternberg. A Course in Mathematics for Students of Physics, Vol. 2, p 476. ISBN: 0-521-33245-1
Further, you state:
QUOTE
Here there is not a net charge field so I can say there may not be divergence in the vacuum polarization density. I have just come to see my homogeneous r^-2 as also polarization "dipoles"; why not? Such a distribution will have zero divergence and thus charge density, yet manifest electric field. Thus my electron has a non-diverging (homogeneous) polarization balanced by the near field inhomogeneous (diverging) population.
I see nothing wrong at all w/ your conclusion. But if you draw a schematic that conforms a potential falling off as r^-2, what n-space shape does one get (it's not spherical, which is why I mentioned this before)? Aamof, I have a schematic that I would like to share w/ you which may solve your query regarding your statement above, as "polarization dipoles" - I believe this is a perfect example of dipoles, but in a sense that treats your proposal in a QM manner. I will send you a msg, giving you my email address, so I can send you the pdf...
So appropriate you place such weight on polarizability (which I, again, believe correct). Please see Bonin, Kresin. Electric-dipole Polarizabilities of Atoms, Molecules and Clusters. ISBN: 981-022-4931 p. 11. As you correctly mention, dielectrics are directly related to polarizabilities by the Debye eq:
alpha = 3/4pi*n(eta^2 - 1/eta^2 + 2) - musub0^2/3kT where the first term of the eq. is the Lorentz-Lorenz relation.
So, as strange as this sounds, could you think about eta^2 (i.e., permittivity), but as a lim rho->some upper limit defined by the density of some regular object? The second term above will end up having a fractional coefficient in front of it, making it less relevant (but not zero). The reason why I ask is b/z there must be a weak dependence on kT, as in the case of regular matter, such that vacuum density is greater inside massive objects. Further, there will definitely be a difference in vacuum density in an object w/ mass, as compared to free spacetime.
Let me send you a msg. w/ my email address and I can explain in more detail why there are physically reasonable, QM grounds for this.
-ss
SOLIDSPIN, how nice to talk shop, and I look forward to sharing with you. In QM you are quite a bit ahead of me, but I am a fast learner and clearly primed. I shall seek the references you offer.
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 5 2007, 11:07 PM)
SOLIDSPIN, how nice to talk shop, and I look forward to sharing with you. In QM you are quite a bit ahead of me, but I am a fast learner and clearly primed. I shall seek the references you offer.
Do NOT forget Navier Stokes in frictionless liquid:)
The interesting thing is , this solution is not stable; as soon as You solve it there appears fractal external dimension which causes friction....
I would love to know language of mathematics so well as to say exactly what I mean. I am fast learner.
What would You suggest for UNDERSTANDING of Navier Stokes? Feynmann? Some other book?
Do NOT forget Navier Stokes in frictionless liquid:)
The interesting thing is , this solution is not stable; as soon as You solve it there appears fractal external dimension which causes friction....
I would love to know language of mathematics so well as to say exactly what I mean. I am fast learner.
What would You suggest for UNDERSTANDING of Navier Stokes? Feynmann? Some other book?
QUOTE (Ivars+Mar 8 2007, 02:53 PM)
The interesting thing is , this solution is not stable; as soon as You solve it there appears fractal external dimension which causes friction....
This friction is the result of the inertia of the mutual collisions of particles, which are forming this fluid.
This friction is the result of the inertia of the mutual collisions of particles, which are forming this fluid.
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 4 2007, 11:34 PM)
My electron theory is couched in language of polarization, mostly, while the discussion of gravitation of neutral masses speaks of the density field of polarizability...
Sounds familiar Albers. Sounds like my GRAVITY EXPLAINED layman's essay. I'd be grateful if you could look at it and give me some feedback. In your view, does it give the gist?
GRAVITY EXPLAINED
Sounds familiar Albers. Sounds like my GRAVITY EXPLAINED layman's essay. I'd be grateful if you could look at it and give me some feedback. In your view, does it give the gist?
GRAVITY EXPLAINED
might be that beyond Schwartzschild matter transform back into quanta of space. Gravity force is so strong there that prevails all other forces. All particles get transformed into basic quanta of energy that are quanta of space.
Ivars,[/b] Navier-Stokes equations with no viscosity are the realm of the perfect compressible fluid. There is a lot of fluid mechanics here for which you need an appropriate source. One can consider viscosity, or not, and also with compressibility: water is hardly compressible. The connection in the Feynman Lectures is the [b]solution of the general compressible case for a perfect superconducting fluid. [b]Farsight[/b], yes we seem to barking up the same tree. LONG LIVE MOEBIUS BAGELS, even though I don't see them being consistent with the "frozen yogurt" phase of a half-photon unwound. Amrit, yes I]am looking for the phase transitions of the the vacuum.. Zephirolo, what then is the difference between pressure and viscosity?
Albers
QUOTE
yes I]am looking for the phase transitions of the the vacuum.
Could you please explain which phase transitions you are looking for?
Thanks
Fizzeksman, the phase transition of immediate interest is the collapse of the matter field and manifestation of the metric inside an event horizon. I am working with an interpretation of a real exponent regarding transverse propagation. This reflects the physics of radially-oriented dipoles of the vacuum, since you are always involving the vacuum population transverse to your wave propagation. The gravitational field outside can be seen as an increase of vacuum polarizability beyond the farfield of epsilon_nought, to the value 3. This is the situation of dielectric runaway. Now what are duh fizziks we need to cook up inside??? For a good time, plot out the expressions in my gravitation paper for the two R's and the two K's.
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 8 2007, 07:25 PM)
..what then is the difference between pressure and viscosity?
The pressure is the different manifestation of the same thing: the inertia of particles, which are forming the fluid. If these particles will be massless, no pressure gradient or dynamic viscosity can be observed at all. Therefore, it's pretty naive to try to explain all the forces just by dynamic viscosity of Aether. It's evident, the inertia concept is recursive and it can be "explained" only by less or more apparent assumption of another inertia. Despite the fact, the fluid concept brings many other assumptions into Aether hypothesis on the background.
Therefore the AWT doesn't uses any ad-hoc assumptions about Aether structure, behavior or internal forces, which doesn't follow from the wave equation directly. It even doesn't require the waves, but I'm afraid, the recursive inertial diffusion is even much more difficult to formalize, while it remains fully dependent on the inertia concept and as such dual to the wave description, so it brings any new insight into Aether model.
By my opinion, if somebody will propose the relevant explanation of the inertia without inertia, it should be Nobel Price nominated immediately, because this is a key to the unlocking of the Universe origin. While the AWT can simplify the understanding of this insight significantly, I don't believe, it contains the finite solution of this problem. But the important thing is, everybody from us can fetch through this solution, so here's a chance for virtually everybody.
The pressure is the different manifestation of the same thing: the inertia of particles, which are forming the fluid. If these particles will be massless, no pressure gradient or dynamic viscosity can be observed at all. Therefore, it's pretty naive to try to explain all the forces just by dynamic viscosity of Aether. It's evident, the inertia concept is recursive and it can be "explained" only by less or more apparent assumption of another inertia. Despite the fact, the fluid concept brings many other assumptions into Aether hypothesis on the background.
Therefore the AWT doesn't uses any ad-hoc assumptions about Aether structure, behavior or internal forces, which doesn't follow from the wave equation directly. It even doesn't require the waves, but I'm afraid, the recursive inertial diffusion is even much more difficult to formalize, while it remains fully dependent on the inertia concept and as such dual to the wave description, so it brings any new insight into Aether model.
By my opinion, if somebody will propose the relevant explanation of the inertia without inertia, it should be Nobel Price nominated immediately, because this is a key to the unlocking of the Universe origin. While the AWT can simplify the understanding of this insight significantly, I don't believe, it contains the finite solution of this problem. But the important thing is, everybody from us can fetch through this solution, so here's a chance for virtually everybody.
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 8 2007, 07:25 PM)
am looking for the phase transitions of the the vacuum.
The formation of real vacuum from false vacuum during inflation can be considered as the phase transition of the vacuum - after all, by the very same way, like whole the Big Bang event at all. While the most stable state of Aether is 6D foam formed by 3D nested bubbles recursively, it will undergo the repetitive phase transforms (i.e. the condensation) repetitively.
The formation of real vacuum from false vacuum during inflation can be considered as the phase transition of the vacuum - after all, by the very same way, like whole the Big Bang event at all. While the most stable state of Aether is 6D foam formed by 3D nested bubbles recursively, it will undergo the repetitive phase transforms (i.e. the condensation) repetitively.
QUOTE (Zephir+Mar 8 2007, 06:23 PM)
The pressure is the different manifestation of the same thing: the inertia of particles, which are forming the fluid. If these particles will be massless, no pressure gradient or dynamic viscosity can be observed at all.
I think we need more here. Pressure is a gradient thing but viscosity is a shear thing. Nice talk about phase transitions. Can we talk about each stage of cosmic cooling in this way? I think of high-energy photon-particle soup cooling and condensing. The big deal there is helicity and CP violation.
I think we need more here. Pressure is a gradient thing but viscosity is a shear thing. Nice talk about phase transitions. Can we talk about each stage of cosmic cooling in this way? I think of high-energy photon-particle soup cooling and condensing. The big deal there is helicity and CP violation.
Just an observation - I know that a "particle" isn't necessarily a point, but I tend to avoid using the word because of the association with "point" particles. For example an electron is often considered to be pointlike mathematically, but it jitters, which means it isn't a point.
Albers/Zephir: do experiment with Falaco Solitons. You need a swimming pool or pond, though perhaps a bath will do. It's best if it's well lit, such as in sunlight. Take a dinnerplate and dip it halfway into the water, then give it a gentle paddlestroke. You create what is in essence a U-tube whirlpool. If you create a number of them, you can observe a very pleasing analogy of charge:
http://www.americanantigravity.com/article...iton/Page1.html
edit: I note the webaddress with interest! It's what came up on google.
Albers/Zephir: do experiment with Falaco Solitons. You need a swimming pool or pond, though perhaps a bath will do. It's best if it's well lit, such as in sunlight. Take a dinnerplate and dip it halfway into the water, then give it a gentle paddlestroke. You create what is in essence a U-tube whirlpool. If you create a number of them, you can observe a very pleasing analogy of charge:
http://www.americanantigravity.com/article...iton/Page1.html
edit: I note the webaddress with interest! It's what came up on google.
Particles are vortex singularities of the vacuum energy. I see interesting contradictions here for me and for established theory. I say the inverse square electric field cannot continue to exist much inside the classical radius. It is at that scale that the amount of energy outside that radius equals half an MEV. Yet H.Puthoff answers that poking near to 10^-21 meters is "getting rather point-like". I cannot yet interpret the quantum mechanics of interaction which leads us to say the electron is still pointlike, but this sounds inconsistent. We speak of experiencing a higher fine structure constant and higher effective charge closeup. You cannot say the nearfield energetics are those of an energy density of 1/r^4. In a model such as mine, there is negative energy from the inhomogenous polarization field which eliminates this singularity. One can argue my model is not sufficiently pointlike, and I will respect this. I believed the prinicples are good and am working to investigate a possible form involving EXP[1/r]. Only when I completely understand how current theory casts the phenomomon of the electron and of the vacuum fields will I be able to clarify further. One must acknowledge the permittivty of the regime.
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 8 2007, 10:06 PM)
you can observe a very pleasing analogy of charge
But such "cute" analogy isn't able to explain/predict nothing more, then the simple vortex ring model. While the falaco soliton isn't nothing more, then the vortex ring cutted off in half (and maybe stabilized) by the water surface.
But such "cute" analogy isn't able to explain/predict nothing more, then the simple vortex ring model. While the falaco soliton isn't nothing more, then the vortex ring cutted off in half (and maybe stabilized) by the water surface.
How I wish I could show you the last page of my Introduction to General Relativity by Adler, Bazin, Schiffer(1975). It ends the chapter on Electromagnetism and General Relativity where they admit to the singularity and theoretic conundrums of the electron. THERE IS HERE A PICTURE OF GLOBE WITH HANDLE, JUST LIKE A TETHER-BALL, WITH THE HANDLE BEING A GEOMETRIC CONTINUATION TO HANDLE THE SINGULARITIES. THIS IS HIGHLY ENTERTAINING, AND IS JOHN WHEELER'S CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-SPACE DEFORMED LIKE A BEER STEIN.
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 8 2007, 11:25 PM)
there is here a picture of globe with handle, just like a tether-ball, with the handle being a geometric continuation to handle the singularities. this is highly entertaining, and is john wheeler's construction of a four-space deformed like a beer stein.
U mean this picture, probably? This is a model of worm hole, which is used quite often in inertial cosmology. Unfortunately all these models lacks quantization, so they should be considered just as a partial model of reality, relevant at long distance scales, but definitelly not at the case of electron charge.
U mean this picture, probably? This is a model of worm hole, which is used quite often in inertial cosmology. Unfortunately all these models lacks quantization, so they should be considered just as a partial model of reality, relevant at long distance scales, but definitelly not at the case of electron charge.
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 8 2007, 08:25 PM)
How I wish I could show you the last page of my Introduction to General Relativity by Adler, Bazin, Schiffer(1975). It ends the chapter on Electromagnetism and General Relativity where they admit to the singularity and theoretic conundrums of the electron. THERE IS HERE A PICTURE OF GLOBE WITH HANDLE, JUST LIKE A TETHER-BALL, WITH THE HANDLE BEING A GEOMETRIC CONTINUATION TO HANDLE THE SINGULARITIES. THIS IS HIGHLY ENTERTAINING, AND IS JOHN WHEELER'S CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-SPACE DEFORMED LIKE A BEER STEIN.
It is a Klein bottle; the handle is used to move "trash", the structures that has dissipated due to failure to meet global resonance conditions.
They end up being transferred into Heatworks at the bottom. to be reworked into elementary constituents, and then given another try to move up the neck and try to form a perfect resonance disclike structure (e.g. Universe, spinal bone element, etc. ) that rotating and moving along vertical axis will pass via upper opening PASSING the opening of a handle because a globally stable structure will be BIGGER that a hole in the handle by the definition of Klein bottle- the hole in handle is always slightly, just slightly smaller ( 2x d surface) then the hole in the neck of the bottle.
So the aim of each rotating resonance structure forming from HEAT-WORKS substance is to pass the test of size under given resonance conditions imposed by volume and surface of the given Klein bottle. If it succeeds, it goes to next level. If fails, another cycle of rebirth is waiting .
The resonance discs are actually not rotating, and the volume liquid is not moving it is the surface of the Klein bottle that is moving, creating a local reference coordinates.
In this picture, look at Egyptian bottle with woman's shape; the handle and neck are both placed ABOVE its head.
http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/picture...ss%201%20la.htm
Just look carefully at human embryo(or any almost). Look for gastrula stage. At first, a tube goes inside and attaches asymmetrically to one side, forming an inverse Klein bottle, then via surface flow it turns itself inside out, forming something similar to Klein bottle,?
http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/comparative_embryo.jpg
Unfortunately, we can not see the neck of the bottle, going via head,as it is pure Aether formation; what we see is the matter part of embryo. String still unwound?Uncut and Unwound? It has no tone yet...
Someone has tried to model it:
http://torus.math.uiuc.edu/jms/Papers/isama/color/opt4.htm
It is a Klein bottle; the handle is used to move "trash", the structures that has dissipated due to failure to meet global resonance conditions.
They end up being transferred into Heatworks at the bottom. to be reworked into elementary constituents, and then given another try to move up the neck and try to form a perfect resonance disclike structure (e.g. Universe, spinal bone element, etc. ) that rotating and moving along vertical axis will pass via upper opening PASSING the opening of a handle because a globally stable structure will be BIGGER that a hole in the handle by the definition of Klein bottle- the hole in handle is always slightly, just slightly smaller ( 2x d surface) then the hole in the neck of the bottle.
So the aim of each rotating resonance structure forming from HEAT-WORKS substance is to pass the test of size under given resonance conditions imposed by volume and surface of the given Klein bottle. If it succeeds, it goes to next level. If fails, another cycle of rebirth is waiting .
The resonance discs are actually not rotating, and the volume liquid is not moving it is the surface of the Klein bottle that is moving, creating a local reference coordinates.
In this picture, look at Egyptian bottle with woman's shape; the handle and neck are both placed ABOVE its head.
http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/picture...ss%201%20la.htm
Just look carefully at human embryo(or any almost). Look for gastrula stage. At first, a tube goes inside and attaches asymmetrically to one side, forming an inverse Klein bottle, then via surface flow it turns itself inside out, forming something similar to Klein bottle,?
http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/pix/comparative_embryo.jpg
Unfortunately, we can not see the neck of the bottle, going via head,as it is pure Aether formation; what we see is the matter part of embryo. String still unwound?Uncut and Unwound? It has no tone yet...
Someone has tried to model it:
http://torus.math.uiuc.edu/jms/Papers/isama/color/opt4.htm
The book stops here: "We need these singularities to serve as sinks and sources for lines of force; more mathematically, we need singularities only in order to circumvent the uniqueness theorems on the solutions of partial-differential-equation sytems...Wheeler accomplishes this without introducing singularities by endowing the world with an appropriate novel topology. Suppose, for example, that in first approximation the world is a sphere in four-space. One may deform the sphere by adding a handle between world-points...Since the topology of a surface is part of its geometry, the field equations would determine the development of geometry and topology in time. That is, we could calculate how the sources and sinks more about in time... This is an imposing program for the geometrization of classical physics. It is clear that the actual carrying out of this progrm will run into great mathematical difficulties..." The mathematical buck stops here. Incidentally, the name of my research institute is "Singularities-R-Us". Norman Albers, CEO and principal instigator.
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 8 2007, 11:14 PM)
The book stops here: "We need these singularities to serve as sinks and sources for lines of force; more mathematically, we need singularities only in order to circumvent the uniqueness theorems on the solutions of partial-differential-equation sytems...Wheeler accomplishes this without introducing singularities by endowing the world with an appropriate novel topology. Suppose, for example, that in first approximation the world is a sphere in four-space. One may deform the sphere by adding a handle between world-points...Since the topology of a surface is part of its geometry, the field equations would determine the development of geometry and topology in time. That is, we could calculate how the sources and sinks more about in time... This is an imposing program for the geometrization of classical physics. It is clear that the actual carrying out of this progrm will run into great mathematical difficulties..." The mathematical buck stops here. Incidentally, the name of my research institute is "Singularities-R-Us". Norman Albers, CEO and principal instigator.
Care to solve Navier stokes for frictionless liquid ?
The Key is to understand Space etc. structure to be able to chose correct variables , their orientation and how they act; and separate Aether and matter ( before friction, there is no matter, so things should simplify a lot .) After that, although complex, only numerical calcualtions remain but STRUCTURES and their fundamental relations will be rational numbers, exponents , most of structures would be constructable geometrically.
Klein bottle with moving skin model of Aether flow puts certain constraints on possible solutions.
The number of variables is may be right, but they are definitely wrong ones as they are macroscopic consequences of TRUE microscopic variables in action.
I guess R.M. Kiehns numerous works on Navier stokes closed solutions by topological develpment methods may come in handy.
http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/bohmplus.pdf
Care to solve Navier stokes for frictionless liquid ?
The Key is to understand Space etc. structure to be able to chose correct variables , their orientation and how they act; and separate Aether and matter ( before friction, there is no matter, so things should simplify a lot .) After that, although complex, only numerical calcualtions remain but STRUCTURES and their fundamental relations will be rational numbers, exponents , most of structures would be constructable geometrically.
Klein bottle with moving skin model of Aether flow puts certain constraints on possible solutions.
The number of variables is may be right, but they are definitely wrong ones as they are macroscopic consequences of TRUE microscopic variables in action.
I guess R.M. Kiehns numerous works on Navier stokes closed solutions by topological develpment methods may come in handy.
http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/bohmplus.pdf
QUOTE (Ivars+Mar 9 2007, 02:38 AM)
Klein bottle with moving skin model of Aether flow puts certain constraints on possible solutions.
The very general theory shouldn't use any artificial geometrical constraints, or it becomes over-parametrized. This is the main problem of string theory, for example.
The AWT is supposed to be the Aether theory, not the Klein bottles or branes or flat donuts theory. Please consider, the density fluctuations inside the condensing foam are well shaped even without any ad-hoc assumptions about internal geometry of this system.
The very general theory shouldn't use any artificial geometrical constraints, or it becomes over-parametrized. This is the main problem of string theory, for example.
The AWT is supposed to be the Aether theory, not the Klein bottles or branes or flat donuts theory. Please consider, the density fluctuations inside the condensing foam are well shaped even without any ad-hoc assumptions about internal geometry of this system.
Ivars, I caught your mention of that important stuff concerning the real and imaginary wave equation parts. This is mathematically provocative to say the least., (Authored by Kiehn) and deals with the superconducting solution I mentioned in Feynman. I don't want to talk about quantum mechanics per se here, as I have also a discussion on the photon position operator elsewhere, based on my thoughts on photon fields. It does all connect when talking basics on electron field and gravitation, but, today, outside on my property I loppered and dug out blackberries on a certain area "in discussion".
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 9 2007, 12:02 AM)
Ivars, I caught your mention of that important stuff concerning the real and imaginary wave equation parts. This is mathematically provocative to say the least., (Authored by Kiehn) and deals with the superconducting solution I mentioned in Feynman. I don't want to talk about quantum mechanics per se here, as I have also a discussion on the photon position operator elsewhere, based on my thoughts on photon fields. It does all connect when talking basics on electron field and gravitation, but, today, outside on my property I loppered and dug out blackberries on a certain area "in discussion".
The problem is, the imaginary and real part can be separated ONLY for times < 1 tick=period of function ; mathematically it is not the problem, it seems, BUT:
It is like obtaining a solution as sin ( x) where all places at maximums contain a hole. Difficult to imagine that such is solution can be obtained from continuous equation
HEY now I understood where Fourier transformation of aperiodic functions comes from and why do we need Diracs Comb... Or I thought I understood...I do not like those infinities . Quantization means that infinite fourier transform can not be used in our Universe, and, a things start with smallest quanta , it is very important that we exactly now how big it is .
Here Aether Kolmogorv scale comes in handy, leading to exact value of Kolmogorov time which is either the searched Period or very close to it ( via fractional n/4 powers of 10. I forgot the exact value, but I can retrieve it).
Once we know what the minimum between ticks is, we can calculate the Dirac funtion integral which will be < 1!!! Right?
To find out exact value of Dirac function in our Universe we need space quanta; Again Kolmogorov helps - it is 0.675*10-59 m or 0.675 * 10 ^-11/4 *10-59m ( have to check). Now we know also value of DIRAC function < infinity in our space? Or do we?
Once we know this, cen we say something more baout the equations we should be using? I do not know. But to eliminate all singularities in a similar way where appropriate we can, right?
Klein bottle helps form other side- it is a BOUNDARY condition! Superfluid - visosity out of the window.
I must put it together somehow..
The problem is, the imaginary and real part can be separated ONLY for times < 1 tick=period of function ; mathematically it is not the problem, it seems, BUT:
It is like obtaining a solution as sin ( x) where all places at maximums contain a hole. Difficult to imagine that such is solution can be obtained from continuous equation
HEY now I understood where Fourier transformation of aperiodic functions comes from and why do we need Diracs Comb... Or I thought I understood...I do not like those infinities . Quantization means that infinite fourier transform can not be used in our Universe, and, a things start with smallest quanta , it is very important that we exactly now how big it is .
Here Aether Kolmogorv scale comes in handy, leading to exact value of Kolmogorov time which is either the searched Period or very close to it ( via fractional n/4 powers of 10. I forgot the exact value, but I can retrieve it).
Once we know what the minimum between ticks is, we can calculate the Dirac funtion integral which will be < 1!!! Right?
To find out exact value of Dirac function in our Universe we need space quanta; Again Kolmogorov helps - it is 0.675*10-59 m or 0.675 * 10 ^-11/4 *10-59m ( have to check). Now we know also value of DIRAC function < infinity in our space? Or do we?
Once we know this, cen we say something more baout the equations we should be using? I do not know. But to eliminate all singularities in a similar way where appropriate we can, right?
Klein bottle helps form other side- it is a BOUNDARY condition! Superfluid - visosity out of the window.
I must put it together somehow..
So let us say, for time dimension, Dirac function at base is = kolmogorov time for Aether .
I was wrong about the VALUE of intergar of DIRAC function, it is 1 because it COUNTS!
so we can calculate height of DIRAC function = elementary tick, cause of loop eddy in Aether volume = r of this elementary eddy. Which is j, Aether current.
And there is i which is a third ring linking them together.
Its Radius obviously is the distance between 2 ticks. I would not be surprised if
r = 0.675*10^-11/4 *10E-58. R = 0,675*10-58 m.
Now the distance between 2 ticks them also have to be
so there is T such that t = 0,675 * 10-58/c = the period between ticks! This relates to per
Then there is t which is Komogorov time which may be period of rotation of j, k, i , or vice versa.
Bloody chaotic, I agree.
We need to get RE W(x?)/x(1+W(x)), Im W(x) /x(1+W(x) into this - this function and its inverse are part of the solution, together with at least 6 other space parameters.
How to separate solution with inertia ( j loop), and solution BEFORE this loop forms?
I was wrong about the VALUE of intergar of DIRAC function, it is 1 because it COUNTS!
so we can calculate height of DIRAC function = elementary tick, cause of loop eddy in Aether volume = r of this elementary eddy. Which is j, Aether current.
And there is i which is a third ring linking them together.
Its Radius obviously is the distance between 2 ticks. I would not be surprised if
r = 0.675*10^-11/4 *10E-58. R = 0,675*10-58 m.
Now the distance between 2 ticks them also have to be
so there is T such that t = 0,675 * 10-58/c = the period between ticks! This relates to per
Then there is t which is Komogorov time which may be period of rotation of j, k, i , or vice versa.
Bloody chaotic, I agree.
We need to get RE W(x?)/x(1+W(x)), Im W(x) /x(1+W(x) into this - this function and its inverse are part of the solution, together with at least 6 other space parameters.
How to separate solution with inertia ( j loop), and solution BEFORE this loop forms?
Many of the things you mention I am not ready to deal with here and ask you to bring them up elsewhere. I do feel sympathetic chords, strung, at the examination of infinte strings of representation. The more I read your references the more sense you make, but communicating with you is mysterious. If you can make smaller, clear steps between what I am talking about, here, and your own thoughts, do so please.
My mathematical goal is to model a certain point of connection with a vacuum theory which supplies dipole availability and to let the results show necessary characteristics of what I cannot directly see. I do not think this polarized manifestation is necessarily a quantized field. Indeed the zero-point radiation field consists of a random chaos averaging a half-unit of the usual total supposed by the theory for one photon. More to the point is my connection of charge densities to photons as the inhomogeneous response from the vacuum. This phenomenology manifests in the electron near and far fields, and the Reissner-Nordstrom approach can be seen to indeed offer understanding of electromagnetic fields and gravitation as different multipole orders of a common field..
Sounds good, Albers. Not that I caught all of that. I don't know if it's relevant but you know how we normally talk about charge as something fundamental? It's something that an electron has. But I wonder if it's the other way around. The fundamental thing is what the photon has, and it's merely wrapped so that you see one side of it or the other in an electron or a positron.
Zephir, thanks for the pictures. As regards that pleasing analogy, note that your smoke ring is rolling the other way. Oh, and for a bit of fun, note the similarities between the first two images:
Zephir, thanks for the pictures. As regards that pleasing analogy, note that your smoke ring is rolling the other way. Oh, and for a bit of fun, note the similarities between the first two images:
Interesting comments, Farsight. It seems our photon/radiation theory does not include charge/current densities: it is a homogeneous construction, and this is why we have to step in and strong-arm quantization the way we have. We must unite our understandings here.
hi
yes i see gravity similar (as a dialectric phenomen)
in my theory gravity acts between guanta of space (QS) that have a volume of Planck
QS change electrical charge from positive to negative in a planck time, they have their "basic frequency"
i believe gravity force is a kind of electric force between quanta of space
see more on my post
space, matter, gravity, mass
yes i see gravity similar (as a dialectric phenomen)
in my theory gravity acts between guanta of space (QS) that have a volume of Planck
QS change electrical charge from positive to negative in a planck time, they have their "basic frequency"
i believe gravity force is a kind of electric force between quanta of space
see more on my post
space, matter, gravity, mass
Amrit, I am taken with what you offer (I've not yet read your thread but shall) and wonder what we truly need to cook up here. Our theory must supply "dipole availability", and a glass of good red wine. You could either give me alternating charges or alternating dipoles. Cheers. Norm
Both gravitation and particle charge involve an increase of the vacuum polarizability. Gravitation involves no net polarization.
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 13 2007, 11:52 PM)
Both gravitation and particle charge involve an increase of the vacuum polarizability. Gravitation involves no net polarization.
If the vacuum contains virtual particles that is like a plasma in Planck time.
The gravity is a curvature because of the inwards oscillation of the vacuum and a charge may be created if the background becomes polarized.
The real particle is created if in high energetic space is a magnetic momentum.
Such a condition is close to Black Hole Like Object. The star is rotating and posses a magnetic field with a very energetic space. The antimatter annihilate very soon in BH environment but the matter may be ejected in a jet.
The inner space of the Black Hole Like Object becomes very energetic because of the annihilation with the antimatter. It may be a pure energy inside BH at least. Is it possible ?
If the vacuum contains virtual particles that is like a plasma in Planck time.
The gravity is a curvature because of the inwards oscillation of the vacuum and a charge may be created if the background becomes polarized.
The real particle is created if in high energetic space is a magnetic momentum.
Such a condition is close to Black Hole Like Object. The star is rotating and posses a magnetic field with a very energetic space. The antimatter annihilate very soon in BH environment but the matter may be ejected in a jet.
The inner space of the Black Hole Like Object becomes very energetic because of the annihilation with the antimatter. It may be a pure energy inside BH at least. Is it possible ?
I'm working on the hypothesis that inside an event horizon the possibility of transverse vibrations is collapsed.
AMRIT YOU ARE STUCK IN APPEARENCES. THIS WAS EINSTEIN'S PROBLEM TOO. 
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL ---
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL ---
QUOTE (Albers+Mar 13 2007, 11:52 PM)
Both gravitation and particle charge involve an increase of the vacuum polarizability. Gravitation involves no net polarization.
See? There is no fundamental difference.
In gravitation, surfaces are smooth.
Charge-surfaces become hairy and unbalanced- there is more hairs to the inside than to outside, by a certain factor.
What is Fundamental in those 2 sentences? SURFACES.
See? There is no fundamental difference.
In gravitation, surfaces are smooth.
Charge-surfaces become hairy and unbalanced- there is more hairs to the inside than to outside, by a certain factor.
What is Fundamental in those 2 sentences? SURFACES.
QUOTE (Ivars+Mar 15 2007, 06:27 AM)
See? There is no fundamental difference.
hairy and unbalanced
This speaks for itself.
hairy and unbalanced
This speaks for itself.
QUOTE (Ivars+Mar 15 2007, 06:27 AM)
hairy and unbalanced- there is more hairs to the inside than to outside, by a certain factor.
QUOTE
This speaks for itself.
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 8 2007, 07:06 PM)
Just an observation - I know that a "particle" isn't necessarily a point, but I tend to avoid using the word because of the association with "point" particles. For example an electron is often considered to be pointlike mathematically, but it jitters, which means it isn't a point.
Both electrons and photons are what you ask them to be, to an extent. They are stable resonances of the field, but electrons spread to reflect their atomic situation, and photons find modes in reflecting cavities.
Both electrons and photons are what you ask them to be, to an extent. They are stable resonances of the field, but electrons spread to reflect their atomic situation, and photons find modes in reflecting cavities.
QUOTE (Farsight+Mar 9 2007, 02:29 PM)
I wonder if it's the other way around. The fundamental thing is what the photon has, and it's merely wrapped so that you see one side of it or the other in an electron or a positron.
There is no preferred other way, except in particular circumstances. We are talking about the fundamental states of whatever merely IS.
There is no preferred other way, except in particular circumstances. We are talking about the fundamental states of whatever merely IS.
QUOTE (Zephir+Mar 8 2007, 07:38 PM)
]
[Zephir, As a youth with my family we drove through Manhattan to New Jersey and my Aunt's place monthly. Somewhere in Manhattan there was the giant smoke ring blowing out of some fifteen-story landmark tobacco officebuilding (1950's). The form may pertain to the electron magnetic field but not so much in gravitation.] The Schwarzschild effects, or metric, can be mathematically equated with vacuum permittivity changes of anisotropic nature. Approaching an event horizon from the outside one sees permittivity asymptotically increasing, but if you accept theory of polarizable mediums applied here, this is accomplished with a rise of the polarizability from the farfield epsilon-nought to an excess of '3'.... Inside the horizon, it might be interpreted that propagation of transverse modes of radiation are strongly damped, as per the negative sign in the exponent of the wave. This constitutes a phase change of the vacuum, and is the regime in which the matter of the collapsing object became degenerate.
I have constructed the GR stress-energy tensor for my electron model, for solving the Reissner-Nordstrom geometry. As I start with the statement of an A_phi, it involves spherical coordinate transforms and the correct statement of the Minkowski tensor in the spherical basis. The pseudo-vector nature of the vector potential in this coordinate transform shows when you see you may construct a seemingly contravariant A by multiplying it by the scale matrix, but this geometric entity cannot be index-lowered to be covariant. However, when you construct the Minkowski F_ab as the curl of A, it can be transformed between coordinate representations by tensor rules.
Well done Albers. Sorry I haven't sent you CHARGE EXPLAINED. I've been advised to sit on it for the time being.
I have written a first version of a relativistic stress-energy tensor for my electron model. Check it out on ScienceForums.
Fake matter.
ie here : http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthr...?t=25048&page=2
How did you derive your tensor? You can't just 'invent' an energy momentum tensor, you have to justify it.
Also, you have parameters/variables nu and lambda in there which you fail to define.
Is E_r something other than the radial component of the electric field? If not, why do you consider it to be different from A_theta? You derive E from A. That's the point of the vector potential. Is it covariantly constant?
Does it satisfy the Einstein Field Equations? Given you say you're talking about the space-time metric of the Schwarzchild black hole, I'm dubious about it satisfying said equations, since the LHS of the EFE is defined by g_ab, which in term defines the RHS of the EFE, which is T_ab. Thus you can't change T_ab without changing g_ab, which you claim not to have done.
This is the problem with plucking T_ab from nowhere. You can't. You solve the EFEs one by one (or a few at a time if they are coupled) and derive what T_ab a given physical system would have.
How did you derive your tensor? You can't just 'invent' an energy momentum tensor, you have to justify it.
Also, you have parameters/variables nu and lambda in there which you fail to define.
Is E_r something other than the radial component of the electric field? If not, why do you consider it to be different from A_theta? You derive E from A. That's the point of the vector potential. Is it covariantly constant?
Does it satisfy the Einstein Field Equations? Given you say you're talking about the space-time metric of the Schwarzchild black hole, I'm dubious about it satisfying said equations, since the LHS of the EFE is defined by g_ab, which in term defines the RHS of the EFE, which is T_ab. Thus you can't change T_ab without changing g_ab, which you claim not to have done.
This is the problem with plucking T_ab from nowhere. You can't. You solve the EFEs one by one (or a few at a time if they are coupled) and derive what T_ab a given physical system would have.
I have nothing further to say on this shameful forum.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 24 2007, 09:46 PM)
Given you say you're talking about the space-time metric of the Schwarzchild black hole,
What other black holes are there?
What other black holes are there?
A series of honest, relevant and direct questions on a technical topic and you refuse to answer.
If you wanted to prove to me you weren't just blowing hot air and that you're serious about this, surely answering my questions would be the best way to go about it? But instead you act like the kid who doesn't want to play ball anymore so picks it up and walks home.
Or were you just hoping noone would ask such questions and you'd just get replies like "Wow Albers, that looks technical. You must be doing some really good work". Sorry, I expect equations to have some justification. Can you provide any?
If you wanted to prove to me you weren't just blowing hot air and that you're serious about this, surely answering my questions would be the best way to go about it? But instead you act like the kid who doesn't want to play ball anymore so picks it up and walks home.
Or were you just hoping noone would ask such questions and you'd just get replies like "Wow Albers, that looks technical. You must be doing some really good work". Sorry, I expect equations to have some justification. Can you provide any?
QUOTE (Nick+)
What other black holes are there?
There's the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole solution (a stationary but charged black hole) found in roughly 1926, there's the Kerr black hole solution (a rotating, uncharged black hole) found in the early 60s and then there's the Kerr-Newman black hole solution (a rotathing, charged black hole) sound a year or two later.
Your ignorance shines through again Nick. What was that you were saying about "education is false". Education obviously passed you by.
Your ignorance shines through again Nick. What was that you were saying about "education is false". Education obviously passed you by.
What are black holes?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.