[[I HAVE RESULTS, CURRENT AS OF JANUARY, 2016, on an estimate of the thin dimension of vacuum hyperconductive charge.]] [[[ Later, I see that what I interpret as thickness is actually radius, and probably not relevant. ]]]

My study of electron near-fields in the Kerr metric of General Relativity begins with my own model. Ironically this is the only part which drew comment from Alexander Burinskii. We had previously shared on the (1/r)exp[-r] near-field expression with which I model a charge cloud. I go on to analzyze the Kerr metric and its implications for the near-field, defined by the classical energy radius. The geometry, because of SPIN, becomes highly oblate, and things are not as they were in the far field. Indeed, the INVERSE SQUARE LAW breaks down, and integrals of energy totals come out too small !! As if in a magic window there appears an OPEN SOLUTION SPACE TO THE DIVERGENCE OPERATOR, which is set to zero to characterize a charge-free vacuum. We are free to add corresponding components, a new radial part and a new ‘theta’ part, which if appropriately tailored, cancel each other in the sum equalling divergence.

# Electron near-field in Kerr metric (Norman Albers, 2014)

Advertisements

Alexander Burinskii offers a brilliant solution for the center core as heterotic string environ. We enjoyed some fun discussion last year. He once answered in cavalier fashion, our discussion of charge: “Yah, vacuum dipoles, string bubbles, whatever !” haaaaaaa In my field work I have come to prefer to talk of the region of field DIVERGENCE.

Burinskii calls his thin boundary layer ‘superconducting’ , but I see it as distinct from most other lab experiences with ensembles of electrons, in metallic crystal forms. Thus I offer the term ‘vacuum hyperconductivity’ to describe his physics. It is the boundary of the vacuum with the false vacuum, and he describes it as ‘very thin’.

Near the classical radius, in the Kerr geometry what was the point-like origin is now a disk, of radius ‘a’, the larger AM radius (r_e/a = FSC, fine structure constant). To say, in the Kerr coordinates, ‘at a small radius’, we are speaking of what in Cartesian space looks like a pita bread, a thin glove around this disk.In a brief exchange last autumn with a Chinese physicist referred to me by Burinskii, I learned this thickness is a crucial parameter for the string oscillations inside, and this makes sense. So I told the man, yes the thickness is twice r_e, and the large radius of the disk is 137 r_e.

LikeLike

Hi Norman..this is Jenifer smith and I miss you! What happened to your FB account?

LikeLike

FaceBook pisses me off, they are highly insulting. I am pulling a Faceout. I love and miss you, and I already someplace have your address ! FB goes in and out of ‘allowing me’ to EDIT, idiots.

LikeLike

PM me your address. I can’t find it. >>I know the problem.

LikeLike

DIVERGENCE is a sum of partial derivatives. If it were flowing water, it would be the sum, in three perpendicular directions, of rates of change of the velocity components, in their own directions. If there is no sink literally, no drain, and no source, water will have no divergence. It is not compressible.. . . The INVERSE SQUARE LAW solves the far-field because we see spherical symmetry here. This is broken in the Kerr near-field. We are still free to have ‘arbitrary constants’ on the partially differentiated terms, if they depend only on orthogonal variables. This is the magic window I found, which refuses to shut. It felt, and still feels strange, because I have had to let go and allow the mathematics to take me someplace. One Ph.D. colleague started jumping up and down, mentioning some parameter this may reflect!

LikeLike

The implications include a small region just outside the ring of radius ‘a’, where the net field reverses… … … When I say ‘small’ it depends how you look at it. A radius expressed in Kerr radial coordinates, of maybe 10 r_e, or ten times the classical radius, is quite compressed in Cartesian coords.

LikeLike

Norm, this is Dave. You don’t answer your phone or have a message option….just got back and Got your message. Tomorrow doesn’t work for me

Please call again, thanks. Hope you get this in time, please let me know

LikeLike

Awright, Dave, thanks!!!

LikeLike

Hey norm, just left you a phone message re our meeting up. I can meet with you tomorrow (Sunday) if that works for you. Not sure if I said Monday earlier, that day doesn’t work for me. Sorry for the confusion! Please call to confirm. Thanks, Dave

LikeLike

Yes…………… ’tis Sunday and I am leaving.

LikeLike