I started aiming close at Burinskii, saying his fields exhibit quadrupole moment which mine do not. He retorted saying actually that Roy Kerr gave him similar flak !!! I only slowly became clear as to just what I may say here, that on the scale of r=a, the Kerr AM radius of E-13 meters, this is so, as we can see in the plots below. AT THIS RADIUS, my fields are still rather even around the circle !!!
“We can establish a vector field by parallel displacment of an arbitrary vector, to all points in a neighborhood in the Riemann space, if and only if the Riemann tensor of the space is identically zero. We refer to such a space as an integrable space.” Yessssssssssssss, my ABS text, Intro to Drain Plumbing. We’ll see if anyone’s awake. DOING ELECTROMAGNETISM, if we start with a statement of a scalar potential field, we take its gradient in calculus, as the field. To reverse this, we would INTEGRATE, ahah !!!!!!!!! DO YOU SEE WHAT I SAW?? The Kerr particle near-field is certainly not flat, in Riemann curvature. Again, from page 160, “The vector at a nearby point is independent of path if and only if the Riemann tensor is identically zero.” PATH DEPENDENCE, YES. This is how we get twin paradoxes, for real. We also get new rules for the divergence operator. . . . . THE GRADIENT OPERATOR is a straightforward differentiation by each variable in turn, producing a field component in that direction. If this is how your electric field is produced yes, each one could be integrated back, BY THAT VARIABLE, to the same common potential form !!! The new rules of divergence solution spaces, mean there are other possible solutions for zero-divergence fields, which cannot be traced back to a common potential form. I don’t need to care.
These guys at JETP are slow. I just politely emailed, asking for signs of LIFE. I AM HOPING THEY CAN RELISH A LITTLE BROU-HA-HA WITH BURINSKII. Don’t worry about him, he could use a little publicity. At first he may feel like he’s losing his right arm, but it is not so. His business will go on, even better.
Now 3 weeks have lapsed, and still no comment or email from JETP… hmmmmmmmm.
In Feynman Lectures, Vol. III, I do not see (yet) the pages I recall where he does quantization 1/3, for charge. This might be in his ‘little black book’ I once had from the State library: Quantum Electrodynamics… QED.
The Kerr radius for electrons, ‘a’, has Planck’s constant, divided by c, and by ‘m’, mass. Think: angular momentum is the “pail on a string”. Classical energy radius is this, times the fine structure constant. Thus the FSC is the ratio of these two dimensions. I say the actual electron energy radius is smaller by 22.5, so it is the Kerr radius, times ALPHA, times 1/22.5. If we take it down another factor of 6, it could be a muon’s worth of energy, with the same field conformation.
Schwarzschild radius ‘m’ is called ‘geometric mass’ and similarly, the product ‘am’ is geometric angular momentum.
ALBERS-KERR energy radius is about a/3,000. Richard Feynman said every physicist should write the fine structure constant on the wall and worry about it !!! I write Planck’s constant.
I was asked on a public science forum, do I understand relativity??
Well, yes, I have worked with it since 1969, as part of an experiment
team with 2 professors, on the Brookhaven beamline at 3 GEV. You
speak well, it does all make sense if we let go and admit we are
light… with attitude !!! (To a recent friend.)
IN MY BEST BROOKLYNESE, “NUMBEHS RACKET”