OH MY BROTHER, that is a good question. I have gone to using the covariant form, where the denominator has (r^2 + 1) . IIRC, this makes it shelf, eh? Only a coupla days ago I thought to make this move, so I shall hang out with it today and search for any implications…

If we’re looking at the covariant expression, it seems like the tangential part only dominates over the radial part when r < k. However we aren't plotting in this regime. Am I missing something on this?

We do not do physics below r=k. Our job is to prepare the stage RIGHT HERE, for Alexander Burinskii. I have not changed the TINKER BELL POINT, tho it is more manageable !!!!! ¡¡¡¡¡ This characteristic is not changed !!! Do you see it analytically?? We need not approximate here, as the x-axis outside the Kerr dimension is available space. Just set y=0… we may approach the inner radius, and clearly here is no tangential component. DUDE, behold from your perspective on the other side of the algebraic SWITCH.

OK – I will look at things with a cutoff of the permitted area being at r=k, rather than y=k as I think I heard before.

Maybe there is still some debugging to do on things if we see the field strength seems to vary more with y than with r in the inner zone. In other words a horizontally oriented red zone of strong field. I’ve yet to see a max showing up at 45 degrees.

The tangential field has k over r-squared……. it gets strong at the mid-latitudes very near the source!!! I ran a calc at say r= 10k, i don’t know, whaddaya want to know ??? haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You can literally square it, 100 k-squared, under the k on top, so you got 1 over 100k… and rising fast !!! This is equal to…. 30. If you are near 45 degrees angle in Kerr, you get 1/2 on top. Radial field has shelved.

All of a sudden a thought… maybe I am just looking at algebra in Kerr-space, and you are looking at our plotting in CARTESIAN, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Am I leaving out thoughts of angle ‘b’ in our dealings? LO I SHRED.

Yes, this is illuminating for both of us perhaps. I see your point that when r is about k then k/r^2 becomes large. I can also see that if Cartesian y=x (45 degrees Cartesian theta), then theta_k tends towards zero at small r. This then is preventing the realization of the larger E(t).

Conversely then, would we learn anything by making plots of the E-field strength in Kerr coordinates instead of Cartesian? Thus a diagonal line would represent theta Kerr of 45 degrees instead of theta Cartesian.

Sounds though you are appreciating the distinctions and interactions between Kerr and Cartesian in the comment just above.

OH MY BROTHER, that is a good question. I have gone to using the covariant form, where the denominator has (r^2 + 1) . IIRC, this makes it shelf, eh? Only a coupla days ago I thought to make this move, so I shall hang out with it today and search for any implications…

LikeLike

I suspect it’s less than you might fear.

LikeLike

If we’re looking at the covariant expression, it seems like the tangential part only dominates over the radial part when r < k. However we aren't plotting in this regime. Am I missing something on this?

LikeLike

We do not do physics below r=k. Our job is to prepare the stage RIGHT HERE, for Alexander Burinskii. I have not changed the TINKER BELL POINT, tho it is more manageable !!!!! ¡¡¡¡¡ This characteristic is not changed !!! Do you see it analytically?? We need not approximate here, as the x-axis outside the Kerr dimension is available space. Just set y=0… we may approach the inner radius, and clearly here is no tangential component. DUDE, behold from your perspective on the other side of the algebraic SWITCH.

LikeLike

OK – I will look at things with a cutoff of the permitted area being at r=k, rather than y=k as I think I heard before.

Maybe there is still some debugging to do on things if we see the field strength seems to vary more with y than with r in the inner zone. In other words a horizontally oriented red zone of strong field. I’ve yet to see a max showing up at 45 degrees.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Yes this is a small distinction, y=k is where, a little outside…

LikeLike

So an upshot of this is that I’m unable to see areas in the plots where the magnitude of E(t) dominates over E(r).

LikeLike

The tangential field has k over r-squared……. it gets strong at the mid-latitudes very near the source!!! I ran a calc at say r= 10k, i don’t know, whaddaya want to know ??? haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

LikeLike

You can literally square it, 100 k-squared, under the k on top, so you got 1 over 100k… and rising fast !!! This is equal to…. 30. If you are near 45 degrees angle in Kerr, you get 1/2 on top. Radial field has shelved.

LikeLike

All of a sudden a thought… maybe I am just looking at algebra in Kerr-space, and you are looking at our plotting in CARTESIAN, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Am I leaving out thoughts of angle ‘b’ in our dealings? LO I SHRED.

LikeLike

Yes, this is illuminating for both of us perhaps. I see your point that when r is about k then k/r^2 becomes large. I can also see that if Cartesian y=x (45 degrees Cartesian theta), then theta_k tends towards zero at small r. This then is preventing the realization of the larger E(t).

LikeLike

Conversely then, would we learn anything by making plots of the E-field strength in Kerr coordinates instead of Cartesian? Thus a diagonal line would represent theta Kerr of 45 degrees instead of theta Cartesian.

Sounds though you are appreciating the distinctions and interactions between Kerr and Cartesian in the comment just above.

LikeLike

I don’t need to confuse myself and everybody else, more.

LikeLike

Don’t think, stoooooopid. Stick with the plan, Dan.

LikeLike