three is a magic number

[Albers]

I have modelled the electron as an electrodynamic field of essentially <m=0>, saying there is no azimuthal variation. This is a field of frozen phase where asymptotically intense rotation cancels intrinsic helicity of light. Now I offer a study I did a few years ago as a simple geometric investigation on three-vertex rings, or possible <m=3> structures of circulating light energy of free rotation with helicity. I imagine possible vertex transformations of either phase or spin. The game is to construct a positively reinforcing ring structure that lays consistently with itself. I set the distance between vertices at one-half wavelength so the wave has gone through that change. Then each vertex is an operator which does, or does not, change phase by pi radians, and/or spin by flipping. Given that a helical wave proceeds between vertices, what combinations make possible a standing wave? SPIN is a binary quantity here and must go through zero or two flips to match itself. PHASE goes through three flips because we set up a three-sided model. Therefore, among the three vertex operators, either one or three of them must flip phase. It turns out there are twenty or so combinations and fascinatingly, there are two pairs of the form: <a,b,b> , <a,a,b> . GO FIGURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tell me all about quark theory while I tear apart my player piano pneumatics.

[Albers]

When I started my electron theory a few lifetimes ago I figured I could either look up coordinate transforms of spherical fields, or spend time recreating them myself because I needed to become thoroughly comfortable here, and I needed practice with matrices. In that spirit here is an interesting simple study in attraction/repulsion/geometry whose results surprise me. Consider one attracting center. How many oppositely charged 'particles' can be held by the one? Place a <+> between two <->'s. Repulsion is only one-fourth of the attraction so one can hold two opposites. Nature here is bigamist. Now consider three <-> for which the highest symmetry is clearly a triangle. I calculate components such that there is still net attraction. With four the answer is more interesting. Arranged in a planar square, repulsion wins. Given the higher separation and symmetry of the tetragon, there is net attraction still, small but positive. Unabashed polygamy!

[Epsilon=One]

...here is an interesting simple study in attraction/repulsion/geometry whose results surprise me. Consider one attracting center. How many oppositely charged 'particles' can be held by the one? Place a <+> between two <->'s. Repulsion is only one-fourth of the attraction so one can hold two opposites. Nature here is bigamist. Now consider three <-> for which the highest symmetry is clearly a triangle.Your insight is truly amazing.

Take a close look at the last (bottom of page) Tini Circle group (www.CQthus.com/PT/TiniCirs). (This image was done more than ten years ago and requires some minor tweaking.) Where you see three inscribed tangent circles suppose that the the three circles are pulsing with each adjacent circle (and group of three circles) spinning and pulsing opposingly. Then, imagine that the action of each "pulsing spinner" determines what is referred to as "charge" and "spin."

Also note: The curvature of the largest circle ("A") can be any Natural integer (www.CQthus.com/PT/NI) and that all the other inscribed tangent circles will also have integer curvatures.

With four the answer is more interesting.Four times three gives us twelve . . . the mysterious number of quarks. Four has to do with cycles; three has to do with variation.

Arranged in a planar square…How ‘bout resonating spheres arranged in tetrahedron form. Suppose three tennis balls are tightly grouped on a plane; then, a fourth is placed in the center on top. This tetrahedral arrangement of four resonating, interacting spheres is the structure of a photon arranged behind the wave front of its ellipsoidal envelope.

Your interest in the number three has prompted me to develop a post where an equilateral triangle (in three dimensions a tetrahedron) is related to: all elliptical shapes; all arithmetic functions including numbers from One up; the revised Fibonacci sequence (www.101123.com), the Golden Ratio (www.CQthus.com/PT/GR), etc.

I have started it. I will keep you informed. It may be a day or so (Never enough time in a day. Don't hesitate to nag re my promises.) until I can get to a computer with the graphics I need. I will probably post it at several threads ???

[Albers]

Among the innumerable studies of several or many pages starting from the elementary, five years ago, there is nothing in my Devil's Tower of which I am ashamed. Thank heavens, soon into the game I started numbering series, many worlds ago. Have you heard the lovely song, "Three Is A Magic Number"?

[Epsilon=One]

Have you heard the lovely song, "Three Is A Magic Number"?Three, oh, it's the magic number,
Yeah it is, it's the magic number.

Somewhere in that ancient mystic trinity
You get three.
It's the magic number.It takes two to make three; and, one to make two.

The trick is to get your mind around what makes one.

[Albers]

ONE sucks. Innies and outties are where I begin!!! For $6.25 I get a good lunch at the China Buffet, where we do not share many words. One day, however, we got on down together as I held forth on this topic. Now hold up both hands with fists and hitch-hikers' thumbs. Consider the obvious YIN-YANG. Now connect thumbs; imagine more thumbs in; what sticks out?? Now imagine the opposite. The first presents YIN to the outside. Both are BUILT OF ONE STICK!!! Chinese culture is built on YIN-YANG. I kept exclaiming, 'One stick!' and everyone (Chinese) nodded and smiled. ONE STICK. Opposite appearances. Do not ask, where are the magnetic monopoles? Rather, rejoice that we are delivered of the concept of electric monopoles.

[Epsilon=One]

ONE sucks.Gödel would agree; I don't.

I believe that a starting "point" must be a point. And, that it is possible to get from there to Yin-Yang.

Do not ask, where are the magnetic monopoles? Rather, rejoice that we are delivered of the concept of electric monopoles.I do not believe in monopoles anymore than I believe that a big bang started it all.

By the way, what "actually" is magnetism? What is its speed? Is it hyper-relativistic like gravity? Is it voodoo action-at-a-distance? What's its medium of action?

[Albers]

Just Say No! . . . . . . . "Actually"? I tried to warn you about words like this. All seriousness aside, to me I guess it is what happens when the thumb and fist separate. To me, all of space is hitch-hiking. Currents happen. Mutual induction is an attempt to balance out the disturbance, perfectly evident in the superconductor, or electron writ large. Space evidences an elastic reaction. Available bound states are moved in reaction. Yes somehow it is basically circles.

[Epsilon=One]

Currents happen. Mutual induction is an attempt to balance out the disturbance, perfectly evident in the superconductor, or electron writ large. Space evidences an elastic reaction. Available bound states are moved in reaction.This reads more like an engineer than a theoretical physicist.

Transformers are just as "spooky" as a pair of magnets.

[Albers]

My Princeton degree was Aero Engineering, so I can take this!!! 'Tis a rollicking and excellent discussion. My instincts are saying that epistemology has to be let go. We can never hope to find terms external to this reality with which to describe it. Like many of the things I hear myself saying lately this is somewhat new just because I have not deeply thought about it. You ask a fundamental question. Even charge is still spooky then, to you. Fine if I explain dipole construction as the near field but this blends into the far field which is, to you, spooky, right? In another forum I read a similarly profound question, "What is epsilon-nought, permittivity of space?" I visualize, in my photons, an "A" field plowing a bilateral current. I'm tempted to say massless, but it is time to get beyond this mask. The only question to me is localization of energy and here the second term of my current expression bespeaks a "mass-energy" of (rho)U. In the electron model it is necessary to use a different expression, namely j-dot-A, to make sense in this different situation. I have not yet made a connection to the homogeneous permittivity and will be meditating here. I sense the presence of the laughing fox. Without both Platonists and engineers we wouldn't get far. Physics starts by induction, not deduction. We first perceive a pattern.

[Albers]

The patterns we experience in electricity and magnetism are nicely expressed in Maxwell's equations, as far as they go. Why do you disparage this so? Is is because you see it all coming from a deeper manifestation, a "spray can" that I am slowly learning to sense? How do you relate to any field of one over r-squared? You may brilliantly describe the substrata of our existence but it's gotta give r-squared in our experience. Pictures, essences, reproducible experiences.

[Epsilon=One]

My Princeton degree was Aero Engineering, so I can take this!!!Princeton is it? I hijacked a very large Princeton flag from a pole atop Schoellkopf Field (Ithaca) during a football game; subsequently, the flag flew for many party weekends above the Beta House at Cornell. Rumor has it that I also won the Heisman Trophy for Dick Kazmeier that year. Also enjoyed several visits to Princeton . . . though, could never find the girls . . .

My instincts are saying that epistemology has to be let go. We can never hope to find terms external to this reality with which to describe it.There is merit to your instincts; though, you’d be amazed at how optimistic I remain concerning the ability of human knowledge to eventually penetrate the etiology of our environment; if only preconceived myths created by pomo physicists, and other cults, would disappear from the equation.

Even charge is still spooky then, to you.It’s the “field” and “action-at-a-distance” concepts that are spooky. There must be a mechanical explanation of force on an object.

Fine if I explain dipole construction as the near field but this blends into the far field which is, to you, spooky, right?Yes; unless the “fields” are more precisely defined.

In another forum I read a similarly profound question, "What is epsilon-nought, permittivity of space?"Permittivity has nothing to do with space (Again, there is no such quantum that is internally devoid of motion.)

I visualize, in my photons, an "A" field plowing a bilateral current.I think Pauling expressed it well as a manifestation of the availability of bonds which were in themselves reorientating orbitals and resonances of fundamental phenomena.

I'm tempted to say massless, but it is time to get beyond this mask.I agree. It implies to many that “weight” is an intrinsic phenomenon.

The only question to me is localization of energy and here the second term of my current expression bespeaks a "mass-energy" of (rho)U.This seems to be an engineers mathematical approach rather than a theoretical physicist’s visualization.

In the electron model it is necessary to use a different expression, namely j-dot-A, to make sense in this different situation. I have not yet made a connection to the homogeneous permittivity and will be meditating here.I don’t understand “j-dot-A”; nor, your understanding of “homogeneous” permittivity.

Without both Platonists and engineers we wouldn't get far. Physics starts by induction, not deduction. We first perceive a pattern.Yes!!! That’s as it should be; but, not as I understand what has occurred.

The patterns we experience in electricity and magnetism are nicely expressed in Maxwell's equations, as far as they go. Why do you disparage this so? Is is because you see it all coming from a deeper manifestation…Yes. Maxwell was concerned with "How?"; and, contrived the equations from observed data without asking: “Why??? And, Why??? And, Why???

How do you relate to any field of one over r-squared? You may brilliantly describe the substrata of our existence but it's gotta give r-squared in our experience. Pictures, essences, reproducible experiences.You are correct. I see in the soliton “x-squared minus x”; and, both the Golden Ratio (GR) and Fibonacci sequence that demonstrate physically (Inverse Square Law) reciprocals of squares.

[Albers]

Thank you for a wonderful discussion. We get descriptions of motion by constructing a Lagrangian as the difference of "kinetic" and "potential" energy terms in sum. Using the concept of minimization, or shortest path, we produce all of our classical equations. Any charge 'rho' in a voltage 'U' has energy of rho-U to be included (charging a battery). Any current 'j' in another magnetic potential 'A' bespeaks energy. Usually in this case in a lab we are forcing a current through a plasma. I examine what is created by the plow: the rate of separation of "what must be there and is like a neutral, massless plasma" if photons are localized, not all spread out. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I am impressed by your optimism, and find myself of two minds here on epistomology. On the one hand is the suspicion which I first voiced, that there are first principles which can be described but not explained. On the other, I listen to myself saying that and think, bummer, I've given up. Perhaps I can say this is the particular affliction we share, my fellow Asberger's! (One day I intend to start a public speech with that.)

[Albers]

Before we include any inhomogeneous charge sheath we start with the homogeneous wave equations which give us simply plane waves and such. "Homogeneous" specifically means that there are no source terms for charge on the RHS of the equation. This is what we do if we relegate charge to little point "delta functions" and choose to have none present. I am enjoying my discussion in Science Forums where I went for it, saying, "Just say no to delta functions!" It is a bad habit of weak theory, for the most part. I simply asked, what diffuse antennae must be supplied by Nature to make these forms possible? This is the inhomogeneous "available dipole manifestation". The permittivity of space with no such dipole consideration, the old "empty vacuum", is epsilon-nought. Given the right-angle relationship of electric field to magnetic field in such time-dependent situations, this is simply a coupling constant, one of two necessary scale parameters which multiply together to yield the speed of light. The other is the magnetic permeability term. The fox is teasing me because it is a plasma problem staring me in the face, and my Masters degree was in plasmas.

[Epsilon=One]

We get descriptions of motion by constructing a Lagrangian as the difference of "kinetic" and "potential" energy terms in sum.O.K. But, does the description explain what is moving?

Using the concept of minimization, or shortest path, we produce all of our classical equations.I get my equations from the minimization of geometry.

Any charge 'rho' in a voltage 'U' has energy of rho-U to be included.Wow! “Charge” and now “voltage.” What a strange menagerie. Fitting for Lewis Carroll.

Any current 'j' in another magnetic potential 'A' bespeaks energy. Usually in this case in a lab we are forcing a current through a plasma. Thanks. I have a lot to learn. In my day, EE’s were a strange bunch.

I examine what is created by the plow: the rate of separation of "what must be there and is like a neutral, massless plasma" if photons are localized, not all spread out.This I respect. It’s those that process this information through theoretical paradigms that amuse me.

…the suspicion which I first voiced, that there are first principles which can be described but not explained. …I listen to myself saying that and think, bummer, I've given up.No, you haven’t; you’re here. Those that have given up are in the peer reviewed journals.

Perhaps I can say this is the particular affliction we share, my fellow Asberger's! That’s about the mildest rebuke that I’ve encountered from the learned.

[Albers]

I am at peace with my syndrome. I draw funny symbols on yellow paper for hours at a time, often calculus, sometimes even tetragons. This is to me the most lovely gymnasium in the sky. In fact, today I cursed Xerxes, who administers 'Advanced Physics Forum', for knowing and respecting nothing of this aspect of physics. His attitude must die, and I shall decide whether or not to trash his site and make him ban me permanently. I'd rather be talking shop, like us. Yes we must produce results which can be experienced, but people like him and Leon Lederman have a garbage attitude toward those who lay the pathways for their small minds. I threw in his face the words of Dirac, whose equations they have the nerve to use: "They are complacent about the difficulties of quantum electrodynamics... which blocks further progress... The only feature of the new theory which one can be sure of is that it must be based on sound and beautiful mathematics." Xerxes is sadly not capable of even seeing this! He responded to me saying only, the first and most important thing is to produce experiment. I detest this man for his attitude. He had to erase my saying I am sailing away from his ship of fools.

[Epsilon=One]

Before we include any inhomogeneous charge sheath we start with the homogeneous wave equations which give us simply plane waves and such.

"Homogeneous" specifically means that there are no source terms for charge on the RHS of the equation.Now you interest me with situations I had not thought of. I must study a bit to understand what is happening. And, where it fits in . . .

This is what we do if we relegate charge to little point "delta functions" and choose to have none present.This is permittivity?

I am enjoying my discussion in Science Forums where I went for it, saying, "Just say no to delta functions!"

It is a bad habit of weak theory, for the most part. I simply asked, what diffuse antennae must be supplied by Nature to make these forms possible? I always find myself banned from other forums when I ask questions and then defend the questions. I note I’m never banned until the threads become active with many views and responses. Go figure . . .

This is the inhomogeneous "available dipole manifestation".

The permittivity of space with no such dipole consideration, the old "empty vacuum", is epsilon-nought. Given the right-angle relationship of electric field to magnetic field in such time-dependent situations, this is simply a coupling constant, one of two necessary scale parameters which multiply together to yield the speed of light. O.K. I understand what you are saying. The concept takes a bit more thought; particularly, the speed of light part. Is this result documented without the possibility of deviation???

[Albers]

In materials which transmit light there can be available atoms and/or molecular arrangements which are stretched by a passing electric field to manifest (key word!) momentary dipole response. Without absorbing energy this slows down the passage of light, like shaking everyone's hand as you make your way to the door. This is called dielectric coefficient and is identical to 'relative permittivity'. Speed-of-light is the inverse square root, and if anyone can show a change over cosmologic time it will be a major surprise.

[Epsilon=One]

I am at peace with my syndrome. I draw funny symbols on yellow paper for hours at a time, often calculus, sometimes even tetragons. This is to me the most lovely gymnasium in the sky. In fact, today I cursed Xerxes, who administers 'Advanced Physics Forum', for knowing and respecting nothing of this aspect of physics. His attitude must die, and I shall decide whether or not to trash his site and make him ban me permanently. I do understand; and concur. Xerxes-types abound; don’t get Dr. E going on the subject.

I'd rather be talking shop, like us. Yes we must produce results which can be experienced, but people like him and Leon Lederman have a garbage attitude toward those who lay the pathways for their small minds.You make my day!!! I believe you have the renaissance spirit of this forum. If only there were more that would find their way here. I know they are somewhere.

I threw in his face the words of Dirac, whose equations they have the nerve to use: "They are complacent about the difficulties of quantum electrodynamics... which blocks further progress... The only feature of the new theory which one can be sure of is that it must be based on sound and beautiful mathematics."A mantra I could live by. Or, possibly die for.

Xerxes is sadly not capable of even seeing this! He responded to me saying only, the first and most important thing is to produce experiment. I detest this man for his attitude. He had to erase my saying I am sailing away from his ship of fools.I know the feeling. My Xerxes was J. R. Oppenheimer.

[Albers]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am somewhat experienced at hardcore politics. Search for the Stanford Alumni Monthly, 1996, and Dr. Stanton Glantz, "Tilting at Tobacco". Read about me on page 5 or so and you will learn much about me, like why I am on this mountain which I love. I will never go back and become like them. Originally Posted by Albers:
We get descriptions of motion by constructing a Lagrangian as the difference of "kinetic" and "potential" energy terms in sum.
Epsilon-One:
O.K. But, does the description explain what is moving?
Me: Whatever forms you are accounting.

[Epsilon=One]

Search for the Stanford Alumni Monthly, 1996, and Dr. Stanton Glantz, "Tilting at Tobacco".For those interested.

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1996/novdec/articles/tobacco.html

I will never go back and become like them.Is it ever lonely?

I lost a full scholarship with paid expenses, was diagnosed insane; and, when that didn't work, was sent to the DMZ in Korea. Not bad for having served on the New Jersey in the Atlantic and Gitmo. The nice part is that I outlived all the bastards.

In the early 90s I often visited Stanford and EPRI.

[Albers]

I wrestled for a long time with the difference between lonesome and lonely. The first implies, to me, being alone, simply. This is my necessary state much of the time. My work required me to sit most mornings with a completely available mind. I made a deal with the Spirit when walls starting falling before me with some regularity, and I said I will give most of myself to this search since it seems I am succeeding at a unique path. At a moment of deep pain a few years ago I wrote a powerful song, "Grateful for the Blues". When I wept this winter in frustration, I wrote another sign on the wall: "If I falter, I am not being as strong as the truth in this mathematics." This brings me peace. It is no longer about me, I know who I am and what I have done, and it is larger than me. I can tire and falter, but really, it does not matter. It is our choice to entertain our emotional dramas, and if you have really taken care of whatever business you need to, you may truly detach yourself from emotional pain. It is like training; if I drink too much the next morning I feel low and the doubts can creep in. I can, thankfully, see this and remind myself to not drink so much! This is a spiritual challenge like nothing I have ever known or expected. I put a Boltzmann statistical exponent into the dark energy equation. He killed himself when no one supported his kinetic theory with atoms. My friend, let us weep together for this world. I have for five years consorted with the dead. Live people do not impress me lately, for the most part. I have the few true friends I need, and there are more people "of power", as I call them, than I feared. All others no longer interest me. We cross bridges and that's OK.

[Epsilon=One]

I wrestled for a long time with the difference between lonesome and lonely. The first implies, to me, being alone, simply. This is my necessary state much of the time. My work required me to sit most mornings with a completely available mind.Cell phones, iPods, Blackberries, etc. how does a multitasker ever focus on the introspection that’s so important for wisdom’s growth? Does anyone care anymore?

I made a deal with the Spirit when walls starting falling before me with some regularity, and I said I will give most of myself to this search since it seems I am succeeding at a unique path.I gave up the tilting at windmills for more than forty years. I assumed that physics resolved its problems and got on with my life. Little did I imagine that nothing had changed; in fact, without Einstein as a keel, the entire field sold out to grants, sinecures, and the cult of personalities. Encouragement from the military/industrial complex certainly played a part.

This brings me peace. It is no longer about me, I know who I am and what I have done, and it is larger than me. …I put a Boltzmann statistical exponent into the dark energy equation. He killed himself when no one supported his kinetic theory with atoms. My friend, let us weep together for this world.There are hundreds of other tragic lives among those that brought us “great ideas that shaped our world.”

In the late 80s I realized what I considered the greatest threat to world civilization was an expanding, unrecognized fundamentalism (including secular fundamentalism). I felt only an understanding of physics, in the hands of laypersons, could relieve the problem. Now, that I understand the personal fallacies of theoretical physicists, I believe they, themselves, are a large part of the problem.

Science, Theology, and Philosophy must be united.

How nice to be on a renaissance forum that lets us drift a bit.

[Albers]

This song I cannot sing in public: (I): When the way is dark, with no sign to show, and nobody can find the right way to go; I feel something inside me rise up like a snake, it rattles me deep and says, "Take this on faith................I will show you the truth if you'll pay me the dues. Are you ready, to be grateful.........for the blues?" (II) You know this tight feeling up here in your guts? Let it lead you where others will leave you for nuts. There is something's been missed by the others who searched, you must stay here and find it, sitting patiently perched. There's a way through this wall and the damned thing will fall.......if you're grateful.......for the blues. (III) There's a light that shines, if you'll just allow. Let go your old self, you don't need that now! There is something must change and I think now I see, that what stands in the way is part you and part me! At the heart of this matter all that's not true must shatter. We'll be grateful.........for the blues. (IV) If you'd seek to find what nobody else sees, know: the light will be blinding, it'll bring you to your knees. It will surely be different from what you had guessed, you will cry, then you'll laugh 'cause you know you've been blessed, to have danced at the point where the NOW MEETS FOREVER. NOW YOU'RE GRATEFUL..............FOR THE BLUES.

[Epsilon=One]

...you will cry, then you'll laugh 'cause you know you've been blessed, to have danced at the point where the NOW MEETS FOREVER. NOW YOU'RE GRATEFUL..............FOR THE BLUES.I work with the blues. W. C. Handy is in my pantheon.

[Epsilon=One]

My Princeton degree was Aero Engineering, so I can take this!!!Did you know Frank von Hipple?

[Albers]

No. Two years ago or so the Portland Oregonian wrote a feature on Pete von Hippel. The byline: "A good scientist is never wrong. He or she is only incomplete. There are just dimensions to the problem that you don't know about." This is just over my above-mentioned addition on the wall. I knew the sharp firecracker Bogdanoff (Boggie) and wish I could write him. He was sad to see me leave. Aero, physics, plasmas, I figured I'd work on something interdisciplinary. Oh, my! (I heard last summer we are still fairly clueless about reentry dynamics where atoms are too far spaced to do fluid theory! That's what I thought I'd be doing.).............................Here is my latest entry in the fairly receptive Science Forums: . . . . . "In the old Charlie Chan movies there is always a scene where someone is snooping in a library-den, presses a button to make a whole section of bookcase swing open. They make their escape down the secret staircase and the shelf swings shut. Where do you build your secret door? Answer: in the most immovable-looking piece of the architecture. Where best to hide further physics than behind the success of eleven decimals?" (pins are now dropping)

[Epsilon=One]

Where best to hide further physics than behind the success of eleven decimals?Decimals are for the research physicists; integers should be the tools of the theoretical physicist.

[Albers]

Your visions bring us integers. As you see in my three-fold standing wave study, it is nice to get to root in such a clean place as to produce answers like <a,a,b>, <a,b,b>. My other work brings not so easy integrations over the space of beautifully conceived fields, and show that quanta are not the necessary characteristic of light. All light emitted by quantized oscillators, namely all bound states, is quantized. BEHOLD THE FIREBIRD----------------

This exchange took place yesterday between me and Xerxes: The GIGO principle



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of our theoretics are constrained by the GIGO principle: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Programmers know this so well. In a more positive vein I am reading Cohen-Tannoudji p.298, developing the Born approximation. Here though is my bug-a-boo once again. We are discussing interaction Hamiltonians, and develope a picture wherein we assume a far field of 'no' interaction, then witness this statement: "...it is convenient then to take for lambda a function (of 't') which increases slowly from 0 to 1...then decreases slowly...an easy way to simulate the approach and overlapping of two "quasi-monochromatic" wave packets which initially do not interact..." I am a little more openminded than Dirac, who said in 1977(The Relativistic Wave Eq.), "The successes of QED are essentially coincidence." THIS IS AN UNPARALLED SPECTACLE. Producing eleven-decimal accuracy meant nothing to a truly deep mathematician who was not happy with what I call "infinite wallpaper representation". Richard Feynman wanted to spit, I'm sure. These giants are here stuck on the horns of either/or. Dirac: "the great body of theoretical physicists...are complacent about the difficulties of QED...It is a complacency which blocks further progress. Any substantial further progress, I feel, must come from some drastic changes in the basic equations...similar to the changed that Heisenberg introduced. THE ONLY FEATURE OF THE NEW THEORY WHICH ONE CAN BE SURE OF IS THAT IT MUST BE BASED ON SOUND AND BEAUTIFUL MATHEMATICS.".............................My point is that we usually seem to sneak in such an envelope or cutoff point to deal with what we know we must but have not elegantly done so. Now granted, the QED book goes on to say this is "only one convenient way to intruduce the S-matrix by taking as asymptotic states /psi_a> and /psi_b>..." ; what can you tell me here? .................................................. ........................In the old Charlie Chan movies there is always a scene where someone is snooping in a library-den, presses a button to make a whole section of bookcase swing open. They make their escape down the secret staircase and the shelf swings shut. Where do you build your secret door? Answer: in the most immovable-looking piece of the architecture. Where best to hide further physics than behind the success of eleven decimals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . XERXES:
"The most important feature of a theory one should be sure of is that
IT MATCHES EXPERIMENT.

Anyone who says otherwise is a crackpot or a philosopher, not a
physicist."

Xerxes, you seem incapable of appreciating Dirac's words and certainly have not spoken to them, yet you have the gall to work with his spinors and matrix formulations. Why do you carry on so psychotically as if I don't know this also?
__________________
THE STRING UNCUT AND UNSTRUNG HAS NO NOTE.

[Epsilon=One]

Just discovered something interesting.

When you edited the above reply; it blew out my response to the unedited post. ?????

I really, really enjoyed your above post. But, don't have time today to rewrite my detailed reply concerning a fine distinction that I find when discussing quanticized light.

There are XERXES all about. They defend the status quo better than fundamental, religious zealots.

If you really want to upset XERXES send him a link to Pulsoid Theory (www.PulsoidTheory.com) (www.PulsoidTheory.com) and ask him if there is an Elliptical Constant (EC.101123.com). Be prepared to be banned.

[Albers]

We probably landed right on top of each other. Also, I cannot dial up sent messages. From our sharing yesterday I finally became clear on where Xx is a jerk and made it public. I told him privately a month ago that I would smite him down in public forum by his rules. My Dad is a Lutheran minister and when I start getting Biblical you had better start running. It is a good day to swing the sword, my friend. "Despues de llorando, bailamos con los muertos." STING: "On and on the rain will fall; how fragile we are, how fragile we are."

[Albers]

I have no television or other devices, and got this first computer four months ago. I have an excellent piano, and an electronic keyboard rig of two or three boards, drum box, with which I did some entertaining before time and carrying energy became more precious. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is slowly coming in over my cosmic modem that I do not need to distinguish epsilon-nought. My model answers the question: what co-moving phased-array antenna must be part of the photon to allow it to be so? Once I identify the charge-field as such, it is all a self-consistent proposition. This "spread-out cotton candy" array implies the entire phenomenon. This is not your game of dialing things up from a BASIS. It is an important step.

[Albers]

I'm seeing flashing Cerenkov lights! Do you relate to tachyons?

[Epsilon=One]

I'm seeing flashing Cerenkov lights! Do you relate to tachyons?Absolutely!!! You are beginning to understand my world.

[Albers]

You trash the level of Maxwell's equations that indicates their possibility.

[Epsilon=One]

You trash the level of Maxwell's equations that indicates their possibility.I greatly admire both Maxwell and his equations.

I just don't believe that Maxwell understood where his equations originated. Little was known of the physical environment in his day. Maxwell did not have the handful of subsequent giants of wisdom to show the way; as today's theoretical physicists have.

[Albers]

I am not quite so impressed as you by our progress even though we revere the same accomplished MOVERS. I deal in this unfinished business.

[Albers]

I am upset, nicely! Check out Sally, on Science Forums: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=263092&posted=1#post263092 She does away with magnetism by letting charge increase relativistically. It seems to work!!! This stuns me.

[Epsilon=One]

I am not quite so impressed as you by our progress even though we revere the same accomplished MOVERS. I deal in this unfinished business.Touche!

Don't confuse my nexus of "giants of wisdom" and "today's theoretical physicists" in the same sentence as meaning that I see any meaningful relationship.

[Epsilon=One]

I am upset, nicely! Check out Sally, on Science Forums: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=263092&posted=1#post263092 She does away with magnetism by letting charge increase relativistically. It seems to work!!! This stuns me.While you are on the Science Forums site you might check out (Search) posts by: "Brunardot" and "Proof of One" two of the names I posted under and was banned after interest and Views soared. You should also be able to find some excellent comments by "McGucken" (Dr. E) before he was banned. His banning was a goal for which I strived.

I find Tom Mattson particularly irksome; though, in my opinion, more knowledgeable and reasonable than Xerxes. Many of my rebuttal posts to their nonsense have been deleted from the site but much still remains of my salient arguments.

The above thread you refer to is interesting. I very much like Sally's argument. However, I was paricularly piqued concerning Mattson’s classic take on “spin.” I know of no world-class physicist that precisely understands what is happening with ½ spin.

I firmly believe that the difference has to do with the orientation of the Natural function (x^2 – x) along the major diameter of the quantum’s “envelope.” The resulting resonance spin (Resoloid) is quite different if the ellipsoidal “envelope,” whose harmonics creates the resonance, has half its wavelength along the major diameter smaller than the perigee of said ellipsoid. In both instances the radius of the resonance is identical; but, its orientation within the ellipsoidal “envelope” is quite different.

The resonance I refer to is actually an interaction of four spheroids (not spheres). This interaction is drastically different for bosons and fermions.

[Albers]

Working through some of my approach to sally's idea, it looks to me now that it doesn't hold up to symmetry argument, but it is a fun tweaker. I'll have more to say. Yes, I told you my preferences between live and dead guys. I finished saying what had to be said to King Xerxes. I've never done anything like this before but you don't treat my man Dirac like he does and get away with it. To his face I declared him intellectually bankrupt. It is not erased. Onwards!

[Epsilon=One]

Working through some of my approach to sally's idea, it looks to me now that it doesn't hold up to symmetry argument...As I see it, which is not too clearly, the symmetry increases with each frequency pulse. Such that the difference quickly becomes minuscule. I may be misunderstanding something.

Do your equations allow for this approach to symmetry???

[Albers]

I was not at all specific. Two opposite currents adjacent to one another repel. So do the charges. You can, though recreate one current with the opposite species going the other way, and I'm not sure her construct handles this. Here, magnetics would be the same, but charges attract. There has to be a polarity symmetry, but now the magnetic force subtracts from the electric.

[Epsilon=One]

Two opposite currents adjacent to one another repel. So do the charges. You can, though recreate one current with the opposite species going the other way, and I'm not sure her construct handles this. Here, magnetics would be the same, but charges attract. There has to be a polarity symmetry, but now the magnetic force subtracts from the electric.More importantly, to me, is that, I believe, that C. A. Bjerknes, more than a hundred years ago, demonstrated that oscillations in phase (not opposed) are attractive.

[Albers]

I have looked without success to try to see this, so my hat is off. The only way things could be in phase is if they are all broadcast from some common background, no? Am I catching your tachyon flux? On the more local scale of two wires, parallel currents do attract laterally. Antiparallel wire pairs repel, and I'm here to tell you about it when the cables shorted outside the mill one day. Horrific! I hope you're never as close as I was.

[Epsilon=One]

The only way things could be in phase is if they are all broadcast from some common background, no?You’ve obviously got a “feel” for my imaginations. At the level where this phenomenon is observed, and in theory, the background is not cluttered.

Am I catching your tachyon flux?Yes.

On the more local scale of two wires, parallel currents do attract laterally.Exactly. I think of this as fundamental coalescence . . . a consequence of harmony. Of course this begs the question of how do “likes” attract, which is an important aspect of interchanging orbits, fundamental bonding . . . and Pulsoid Theory (www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis). It was Philip Morrison (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/morrison.html) that answered my first queries by referencing hydrodynamic “action-at-a-distance.” I’ve never looked back.

Antiparallel wire pairs repel…Yes; this would follow.

[Albers]

FIND OUT, WHAT IT MEANS....................................It is no less than the currency of possible relationship. Friend, or foe? Aretha Franklin got this right forty years ago. Slowly, with patience, we share deeply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Was Morrison the writer of endpages for Sci.Am.? Lovely stuff.

[Epsilon=One]

Aretha Franklin got this right forty years ago. Slowly, with patience, we share deeply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Yes. And, I have a few of her CDs.

Was Morrison the writer of endpages for Sci.Am.? Lovely stuff.Yes. And, Yes.

[Albers]

In field-speak, each current has a magnetic field which means there is energy in the surrounding space. The parallel pair have opposite, cancelling magnitudes and so the energy density is reduced. Energy minimization is a powerful tool of vision.

[Albers]

The idea advanced by 'sally' in panel#38 is clever but I feel somewhat contrived. It works to say what she says but unspoken elements are propping up the idea. I think there is singling out of longitudinal and transverse components without having copped to vector mathematics. I am, however, enjoying this discussion with a person who dares to think!

[Epsilon=One]

The idea advanced by 'sally' in panel#38 is clever but I feel somewhat contrived. It works to say what she says but unspoken elements are propping up the idea. I think there is singling out of longitudinal and transverse components without having copped to vector mathematics. I am, however, enjoying this discussion with a person who dares to think!I concur with your assessments.

It can be career threatening to be one "who dares to think!" in academia.

I also enjoy the comments of the contributors, but I get so upset with the attitude of the moderators that I can only take about 15 minutes of it.

[Albers]

I have learned to try not to thumb my nose as 'sally' literally does. I certainly share her feelings and can understand. I have, however, through five years of an "unending journey" gotten to hear a great laughter surrounding me. Depending on how certain I am of my latest theoretic visions, I can know that God is laughing and I think for the most part with me. Humility and well-placed grenades.

[Epsilon=One]

I have...gotten to hear a great laughter surrounding me. ...I can know that God is laughing and I think for the most part with me. Humility and well-placed grenades.LOL!!!

Gave up on humility years ago. My grenades have little effect. Think I'll move on to IEDs.

I have waited over six months for a challenge to the Elliptical Constant (EC.101123.com) from academia. The silence is thundering. Except for the other fourms that ban me when I insist there is an Elliptical Constant (EC.101123.com).

I'm sitting on the second half for rebuttal . . . and nothing to rebut.

I think it's bigger than pi, the Pythagorean theorem, the Fibonacci sequence, and the Golden Ration.

And, I revised the Fibonacci sequence (www.101123.com) and not a peep from the Fibonacci addicts.

No one challenges that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is wrong.

Does no one care enough about anything sacred anymore to defend CW.

Any suggestions? Or, am I delusional?

[Albers]

Are developments of your work that recent, in the past year?

[Epsilon=One]

Are developments of your work that recent, in the past year?Most of the theory is 50 years old. I finally put the math to it in the early 90s when I discovered academia had made a sharp wrong turn about 30 some years earlier.

I subsequently discovered that no one active in academia (including grad students) had the guts to even argue that my ideas were wrong. Astronomers ridiculed me the most before Hubble (HST) began operating. The intimidation of peer pressure is truly astounding; I suspect largely because of grants for the crap they dispense.

Physicists outside of academia (TRW Space & Defense) have always shown interest and found some help with their applications regarding high power antenna design.

The usual criticism is I'm too religious. Go figure . . .

[Albers]

I swear to Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed and Jimmy Hoffa. They never did find him and I like to cover my bases! I tweaked the Evil King Xx with "KISS MY MANTISSA!!!" Before Fernanda could object, my dear ally Retsia chimed right in, ever the cheerful factotem, defining logarithmic mantissas. Retsia is a brilliant dancer, and his name is Piotr Todorov. He put onscreen a picture I will try to get to you, and he is the originator of the oompah-loompah hypothesis. Ready the humor cannons, Scotty! . . . . . . . . . . . . I'll be reading the above math links. . . . . . . . . . . 6/16/06 Dang, they failed to find Jimmy Hoffa's bones last week in Virginia.

[Epsilon=One]

Ready the humor cannons, Scotty! . . .Hard to laugh while I'm crying . . .

I'll be reading the above math links.Hope you find the links more fun than physics. Ask questions . . . you're good at it.

There is no physics
(quanta and all that)
sans geometry
and the number one.

[Albers]

In your Fibonacci numbers, and Natural functions: "The Natural function, Psi, Ψ, (NF) is represented by the soliton, which is one-half of a wave. A wave is, heuristically, the distance between the foci of a Conceptual Ellipse." This hurts good. My three-vertex ring is concieved of elements like this.

[Epsilon=One]

In your Fibonacci numbers, and Natural functions: "The Natural function, Psi, Ψ, (NF) is represented by the soliton, which is one-half of a wave. A wave is, heuristically, the distance between the foci of a Conceptual Ellipse." This hurts good. My three-vertex ring is concieved of elements like this.You must be truly on to something. These concepts are among the fundamentals of Nature.

As yet, I have not posted the most amazing geometrical conclusions regarding natural phenomena and QM as I have been waiting for some responses such as yours. It is difficult to explain ad hoc without comments and questions. Thanks.

Seems no one recognizes the real-world significance of Pulsoid Theory's additions to number theory and geometry . . . which (NT & G) I happen to understand as one (pun intended).

[Cerveny]

Four is a magic number :-)
there are four forces - (Short/long reach)(attractive/repulsive)
there are four dimension
there are four quarks (-:

[Epsilon=One]

Four is a magic number :-)
there are four forces - (Short/long reach)(attractive/repulsive)
there are four dimension
there are four quarks (-:Wrong on all counts.

And, the number four, if it were magic, would get its magic from the fundamental integers from which it is comprised.

[Cerveny]

Four is a magic number :-)
there are four forces - (Short/long reach)(attractive/repulsive)
there are four dimension
there are four quarks (-:

there are four basic discrete elementary properties:
(+/- electricity charge)(+/- spin value)

[Epsilon=One]

there are four basic discrete elementary properties:
(+/- electricity charge)(+/- spin value)Four is important; though, your examples are symbolic contrivances that are more illustrative of two.

Electrical charge is, physically, a pulse that is sinusoidal; thus four cycles.

There is forward spin and retro spin for both fermions’ half-spin and bosons' spin; thus four spins.

Spheroidal Resoloids (www.Resoloid.com) (somewhat analogous to quarks) are initially, physically, packed in fours in the manner of a tetrahedron (maximum stability); thus 4 to a group.

The sinusoidal, lateral waves of an “unwinding” Resoloid (www.Resoloid.com) (photon) have four cycles.

An equilateral Emergent Ellipsoid (www.EmergentEllipse.com), that heuristically describes the first stable evolution of matter, has vectors. "v," and its wave, "w," that are four times the Conceptual Unit (www.CQthus.com/PT/CU) (analogous to the Planck length).