Albers
I am not yet well-versed in quantum theory of the vacuum, but I certainly have encountered it everywhere I have turned in my studies. Since my electron paper is unwieldy I want to run by folks my thoughts of percolations in the vacuum. So many people have spoken of "electrons and positrons popping in and out", I used to hate this line. Now, it's clear the vacuum must be something like this.
Given an electron field, at smaller and smaller distances the electric field gets very high. Consider the possible effects of combing the populations of dipoles of the virtual field. Picture the electron on the left of the page. Now consider the fates of dipole pairs nearby, of different orientations. I presume the vacuum cooks up a random offering. For any pair with the electron further away to the right, and the + charge closer in, consider the force on the particles separately, and then as a pair. In this case, the + is attracted inward, but the - is repelled, to a lesser extent. Therefore, as a unit the dipole will be pulled in a bit in its brief life. The +/- will be slightly separated so its lifetime will be longer. The opposite case behaves oppositely: the -/+ are speeded to annihilation.
Divergence of the field is posited to "charge" . Realize also, that given a polarization field with divergence, its negative also constitutes a charge field. See, then, that if the vacuum field is 'combed' as I described, there well be a net population of dipoles acting favorably to sustain the electric field. Now consider the +/- pair migrating a bit inward. If there is a poloidal magnetic field, as the particles cross it they will be accelerated oppositely, and sideways. This is harmonious with the current flow assumed in my inhomogeneous model.
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (Albers+Jul 5 2012, 07:58 PM)
Now, it's clear the vacuum must be something like this.
Given an electron field, at smaller and smaller distances the electric field gets very high.  Consider the possible effects of combing the populations of dipoles of the virtual field. Picture the electron on the left of the page. Now consider the fates of dipole pairs nearby, of different orientations.

What do you mean by "combing" ?

.
QUOTE
Now consider the fates of dipole pairs nearby, of different orientations.  I presume the vacuum cooks up a random offering.   For any pair with the electron further away to the right, and the + charge closer in, consider the force on the particles separately, and then as a pair.

QED says the vacuum acts like a dielectric, the dipoles of which has the effect of shielding electron charge(and mass) and changing its effective value (at very close distance, maybe < 10^-15 m. ), usually referred to as 'radiative corrections'.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Now consider the fates of dipole pairs nearby, of different orientations.  I presume the vacuum cooks up a random offering.   For any pair with the electron further away to the right, and the + charge closer in, consider the force on the particles separately, and then as a pair.

QED says the vacuum acts like a dielectric, the dipoles of which has the effect of shielding electron charge(and mass) and changing its effective value (at very close distance, maybe < 10^-15 m. ), usually referred to as 'radiative corrections'.

.  In this case, the + is attracted inward, but the - is repelled, to a lesser extent.  Therefore, as a unit the dipole will be pulled in a bit in its brief life. The +/- will be slightly separated so its lifetime will be longer. The opposite case behaves oppositely: the -/+ are speeded to annihilation.

Interesting thought, but your temporal analysis makes the assumption that each + and - partner in the vitual pair re-combines with the SAME partner in that pair. In reality there could be an antiparticle closer to its position from a formerly previous pair. So I'm not sure that there is actually a temporal difference in annhilation time
Any change in dipole length and its effect would involve a complete QED (QFT) anaysis and involve HUP .. (delta E)(deltaT) > h(bar)

.However, what exactly are you getting at?

The rest of your post seems to be pure incomprehensible speculation.

Lunar
Albers
Pay attention to my details. By 'combing' I mean making a selection of the population which serves to support the field I assumed to start with. When we build an arch with stones, we need a scaffold. At the end when the keystone is put in place, the scaffold may be removed...What I call a pair need not be as per their creation, but they are whatever fluctuations are nearest each other. In fact last week 'solidspin' laid this on me. Cool. What's not cool is you saying "..pure incomprehensible speculation." We'll see if anyone else can entertain thoughts slightly outside the usual. I do appreciate your knowledge.
"Knowledge will not take us further, for it only walks the known paths. What we need to go futher is imagination." (Albert Einstein)
Albers
We always stash the entire divergence of the electric field at the center 'point', and say that yes even to terravolt collision energies, they are POINTS. I have several things to say to this. First off, UNCERTAINTY says that if at some interactional instant you pin down a location, you don't know nearly so well where the particle is a very short time later. Thus I find it useful to think of the electron as a dancing singularity, reflecting the very nature of the vacuum. In this vision it is a process of fields in a percolating vacuum. SECONDLY, I have a quietly wicked little piece of analysis which says, given the inhomogeneous near-field of charge and current of this model, and if we interpret the polarization field as the response of an increasingly thick medium, as per the model, then as we get very near the origin, really most of the inhomogeneous charge cloud is outside your radius. Yet, THE LOCAL PERMITTIVITY OF SPACE IS VERY HIGH, AND YOUR 'eyeglasses' ARE CONVINCING YOU THAT STILL WITHIN THIS RADIUS, YOU ARE LOOKING AT A CHARGE OF THE USUAL QUANTIZED MAGNITUDE. Actually, this is illusion.
Albers
I am questiioning fundamentally our representation of physics in strong nearfields. We say the vacuum is <epsilon-nought>, and think we account for physics with our model. I think not.
Albers
Now if somebody could tell me how this all melts down at the PLANCK LENGTH, I would be grateful. In my inhomogeneous model, things start to get thick, as usual, at about the classical energy radius.
brucep
QUOTE (Albers+Jul 7 2012, 01:27 AM)
Now if somebody could tell me how this all melts down at the PLANCK LENGTH, I would be grateful. In my inhomogeneous model, things start to get thick, as usual, at about the classical energy radius.

I'm not sure what you mean but the Planck era is quantum gravity domain of applicability.
Albers
I modelled electrons as not points but mathematically reasonale regions of asymptotic charge density. I use the same simple expression Yukawa used. This may or may not be exactly what NATURE does but it is a successful and useful analysis. NOBODY HAS A PATENT ON: [1/r] EXP(-r)
Albers
One nice aspect of this electron model is that even though fields and charge density become infinite at the origin, they do so in a calmly integrable manner. That's what is mathematically so useful about (1/r)EXP[-r].
Albers
WE CAN SAY WE SEE ELECTRONS, IN INTIMATE MEASUREMENTS AT OUR HIGHEST PERCEIVABLE ENERGIES, AS POINTS. This may be relevant to these interactions, but hey, 'where is' this electron attoseconds later?
Albers
Get yerself a blank piece of paper. On the far left draw the 'electron field center' whatever that may be. Then in the middle draw a +/- dipole, first going inward, then outward, then laterally (or vertically on the paper). Consider what will happen, even if only in a rather short quantum fluctuation's worth of time. Realize the E-field is strong, and I'll bet there is a clear statistical 'combing' of the random snow of +/- vacuum fluctuations. . . . Realize also the near field is a strong 'bar magnet' field core, so consider lateral currents resulting from lateral migrations of both charges.
Albers
YES THIS IS SPECULATION and it hangs together just fine.
niels
QUOTE (Albers+Jul 10 2012, 09:04 PM)
YES THIS IS SPECULATION and it hangs together just fine.

Imagine that you follow the @3D trajectory@ of an electron (which is a field but behaves like a point if being observed at a certain distance) and the electron is moving into circles and at the same time gliding along a linear trajectory. This would give you an EM pattern with ups and downs as the electric wave component, and side to side as the magnetic component, always in full sync. The frequency would be according to the time one circle takes and the amplitudes would be according to the extension of the field that one full circle covers.
Albers
In EM theory, a changing transverse E-field produces a rt. angle transverse B-field, AND VICE VERSA. No problem with circularity.
niels
QUOTE (Albers+Jul 10 2012, 10:51 PM)
In EM theory, a changing transverse E-field produces a rt. angle transverse B-field, AND VICE VERSA. No problem with circularity.

Not meant as something strange / just meant as a simple expanation that fits into a 3D re configuring picture where particle wave duality plays..
Albers
neils...BOHR??? ¿¿¿
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.