 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / September 2004The Fundamental Constants
I was investigating some of the fundamental constants and found the following: Magnetic constant = hc (approximately). Characteristic impedance of vacuum = hc^2 (approximately). Electric constant = 1/hc^3 (approximately). where h = Planck's constant in eV, and c = speed of light in vacuum. If h is changed from 4.13566743*10^-15 eV to 4.191690043903*10^-15 eV, then the above equations give the exact values reported by the NIST website. How accurate is the measurement of Planck's constant? Is there any value that could boost Planck's constant to the higher value needed? Could this be some type of symmetry breaking. Why does the speed of light to the power of N produce electricity and magnetism? >I was investigating some of the fundamental constants and found the >following: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Could this be some type of symmetry breaking. Why does the speed of >light to the power of N produce electricity and magnetism? This business of trashing units and discarding them makes me vomit. Please note that your h is not in EV it is in EV seconds. Come back when you have corrected your paper. Your products, Magnetic constant and the like make no sense. Mr. Dual Space (If you have something to say, write an equation. If you have nothing to say, write an essay). > >I was investigating some of the fundamental constants and found the > >following: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > (If you have something to say, write an equation. > If you have nothing to say, write an essay). Thanks for pointing out the problem with the missing seconds unit in the value of h, but it really makes no difference. I was commenting on the numerical values produced, and since the equations give the exact numerical values reported by NIST, they must be valid. For example, Magnetic constant = 4.191690043903*10^-15 * 299.792458 = 1.256637061436*10^-6. Characteristic impedance of vacuum = 4.191690043903*10^-15 * 299.792458^2 = 3.767303134618*10^2. Electric constant = 1/(4.191690043903*10^-15 * 299.792458^3) = 8.85418781762*10^-12. I hope this clarified the situation. > Thanks for pointing out the problem with the missing seconds unit in > the value of h, but it really makes no difference. I was commenting on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I hope this clarified the situation. I can understand your shock that one number adjusted a little bit would reproduce three independent numbers to remarkable precision. The problem is that the three numbers above are not independent. In fact, calling magnetic constant "u", characteristic impedance "Z", electric constant "e" and speed of light "c", then you should be aware that, by physical definition, Z = sqrt (u/e) c = 1/sqrt (u*e) This makes the remarkable coincidence quite a bit less remarkable. Indeed, what you have found is a number X, such that X*c = u X*c^2 = Z 1/(X*c^3) = e Now, if you'll do your algebra, you'll find that all three equations point to X being X = sqrt (u^3 * e) So what you've found is not a spectacular coincidence, but only a minor one, that X happens to be a number close to, but not identical to h. Which ranks somewhere in the realm of pi being close to, but not identical to 22/7. Now remove your fingers from the calculator and stop wasting your valuable time. PD > Thanks for pointing out the problem with the missing seconds unit in > the value of h, but it really makes no difference. I was commenting on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I hope this clarified the situation. I can understand your shock that one number adjusted a little bit would reproduce three independent numbers to remarkable precision. The problem is that the three numbers above are not independent. In fact, calling magnetic constant "u", characteristic impedance "Z", electric constant "e" and speed of light "c", then you should be aware that, by physical definition, Z = sqrt (u/e) c = 1/sqrt (u*e) This makes the remarkable coincidence quite a bit less remarkable. Indeed, what you have found is a number X, such that X*c = u X*c^2 = Z 1/(X*c^3) = e Now, if you'll do your algebra, you'll find that all three equations point to X being X = sqrt (u^3 * e) So what you've found is not a spectacular coincidence, but only a minor one, that X happens to be a number close to, but not identical to h. Which ranks somewhere in the realm of pi being close to, but not identical to 22/7. Now remove your fingers from the calculator and stop wasting your valuable time. PD | I was investigating some of the fundamental constants and found the | following: | | Magnetic constant = hc (approximately). | Characteristic impedance of vacuum = hc^2 (approximately). | Electric constant = 1/hc^3 (approximately). Where exactly did you find this? Reference please? What we know is that two times the electric constant divided by the magnetic constant = c^2. So it looks like right away that there is a mistake. | where h = Planck's constant in eV, and c = speed of light in vacuum. | | If h is changed from 4.13566743*10^-15 eV to 4.191690043903*10^-15 eV, | then the above equations give the exact values reported by the NIST | website. As John mentioned, you left out the time. It is eV*s. | How accurate is the measurement of Planck's constant? Is there any | value that could boost Planck's constant to the higher value needed? | Could this be some type of symmetry breaking. Why does the speed of | light to the power of N produce electricity and magnetism? The measurement of Planck's constant is very accurate. I think you are having problems mixing systems of units. In CGS units, sqrt(hbar*c) = electric charge. In SI units, sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) = electric charge. FrediFizzx > | I was investigating some of the fundamental constants and found the > | following: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > two times the electric constant divided by the magnetic constant = c^2. So > it looks like right away that there is a mistake. Obviously you did not do the math. I found these equations by multiplying h(in eV s) and c, and noticing that the value was very close to the magnetic constant. I multiplied h(in eV s) and c^2, which was very close to the Characteristic impedance of vacuum. I then multiplied h and c^3, but the value did not match anything. I then took the reciprical of these values and noticed that 1/(hc^3) was very close to the electric constant. I then started to increase h, upto a value of 4.191690043903*10^-15, where the values obtained from these equations matched the values reported by NIST. It may also be of interest to note the following about the elementary charge e = 1/((h/2pi)* c^4)) = 1.880838252883*10^-19. if h is increased to 4.85497157*10^-15 then e = 1.602176530057E-19. > | where h = Planck's constant in eV, and c = speed of light in vacuum. > | [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > FrediFizzx I am not interested in the units, only the values. Since Planck's constant is very accurate, then I propose that there are 2 unidentified values that will increase the value of h to 4.191690043903*10^-15 and 4.85497157*10^-15. I only know very basic maths and physics and came across these values by accident and observation. I have never came across these equations before so didn't know if they were well known or not, but I was hoping someone could explain them to me. >> | I was investigating some of the fundamental constants and found the >> | following: [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >before so didn't know if they were well known or not, but I was hoping >someone could explain them to me. You are into numerology. The units are part and parcel of reality and you have discarded them. Units times their multipliers are in fact scalar products in that the intrinsic content is invariable, whether you chose EV or joules or foot-pounds. The units and multipliers are equally valuable and one without the other is meaningless. To be valid you would need to specify the units that result from the multiplication. When you stipulated h in EV and took the product hc, you were at that point discarding the EV. Then you went up and down the tables to find anything that matched, as you say, the "magnetic constant" without regard for the unit content. It is all for nought. Try again using say, foot-pounds, and if you get the same result, you have the makings of a paper (or at least something to argue about). Mr. Dual Space (If you have something to say, write an equation. If you have nothing to say, write an essay). John C. Polasek <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news: > You are into numerology. The units are part and parcel of reality and > you have discarded them. Units times their multipliers are in fact [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (If you have something to say, write an equation. > If you have nothing to say, write an essay). I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by try again in foot-pounds. Could you give me an example please. > > FrediFizzx > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > before so didn't know if they were well known or not, but I was hoping > someone could explain them to me. The (valid, and in fact crucial) point made by the previous responders is that there is as much content and physical meaning to the units of those constants as there is in the value. Without reconciling the units of the combinations you propose against the units on the other side of the equation, what you are doing is numerology, pure and simple. Which is fun, mind you, and sometimes fascinating, but hard to draw meaning from. However, you can gain some fame if you can *predict* something from it, like Bode's Law did. Just be prepared for a big letdown when the next prediction fails and kills the law, like what happened to Bode's Law. PD > > > FrediFizzx > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > PD Ok then, here is an attempt at supplying some unit for the equations I proposed, please correct me if I'm wrong. First I will assume the value 4.191690043903 * 10^-15 has the same units as Plank's constant, (eV s). The Magnetic Constant would have units of kg m^3 s^-2 as opposed to kg m s^-2 A^-2. Characteristic Impedance of Vacuum would have units of kg m^4 s^-3 as opposed to ohms. Electric Constant would have units of kg^-1 m^-5 s^4 as opposed to F m^-1. If the value 4.191690043903 * 10^-15 is a combination of Plancks constant and some other value, then maybe it could make the units the same. Would this be possible? What units would such a value need? How does the Magnetic Constant get units of kg m s^-2 A^-2? It is a combination of pi and 10^-7, neither of which has units. So how do 2 unitless numbers combine to form units of kg m s^-2 A^-2. This seems quite impossible to me from what you said previously. So, either, I'm missing some important information about how units combine, or the previous arguments about units were incorrect. I am now very confused. Could someone please clarify this, and show me how two unitless quantities turn into a quantity with many units? | > > > FrediFizzx | > > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] | unitless numbers combine to form units of kg m s^-2 A^-2. This seems | quite impossible to me from what you said previously. In SI units, the real magnetic constant is 2x10^-7 newton/A^2. This is simply the result of the definition of the ampere and Ampere's law. 2pi was arbitrarily multiplied by the magnetic constant to give us mu0 = 4pi x 10^-7 newton/A^2. This "rationalization" helps make the pi's disappear in other expressions. | So, either, I'm missing some important information about how units | combine, or the previous arguments about units were incorrect. | | I am now very confused. Could someone please clarify this, and show me | how two unitless quantities turn into a quantity with many units? http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/unit_systems/ Study the info at the above link. It should help to clarify your confusion. Now hbar enters this thru alpha = e^2/hbar*c. What do you have to do to make this into Coulomb's law? FrediFizzx > | pdraper@yahoo.com (Paul Draper) wrote in message > news:<74768d2d.0409210941.429114bd@posting.google.com>... [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > FrediFizzx The above link just confused me even more. It doesn'y really explain stuff. The quote below is taken from that page. "A dimensional analysis of the ratio ke / km, via a rearrangement of Ampère's Force Law and Coulomb's Law, shows that it has units of velocity squared or m2 s-2. This seems a bit curious since nothing in either Ampère's or Coulomb's experiments needs to move (apart from the electrons themselves)." What is curious about this relationship, and how does it affect the magnetic constant? This is what I mean by not really explaining stuff, but I probably wouldn't understand it if it did explain it. Could anyone give me an explanation in laymans terms please? | > | pdraper@yahoo.com (Paul Draper) wrote in message | > news:<74768d2d.0409210941.429114bd@posting.google.com>... [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] | | The above link just confused me even more. It doesn'y really explain stuff. It explains plenty. But it would be helpful if you knew some basic electrodynamics. | The quote below is taken from that page. | [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | magnetic constant? This is what I mean by not really explaining stuff, but | I probably wouldn't understand it if it did explain it. You need to get a physics textbook and study it if you really want to know. Ampere's law and Coulomb's law deal with magneto-statics and electro-statics. Static means nothing is moving. So why should the electric and magnetic constants produce the speed of light? This is not really so curious as it just means that *something* is in fact moving at the speed of light. And microscopically things are moving to produce what we perceive macroscopically as static. FrediFizzx > > > > FrediFizzx > > > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > I am now very confused. Could someone please clarify this, and show me > how two unitless quantities turn into a quantity with many units? You'll note that there is no single quantity that you can multiply your "close-to-h" number by to give the units of all the products you quote. This should be a sign that you're on the wrong track. As for how a number 4*pi*10^-7 could have units when 4 and pi and 10^-7 don't have any obvious units, that turns out to be using a little elbow room to make that conversion factor simple. The definition of the ampere (its size) was selected so that the constant in the expression that took two currents (amperes) separated by a distance (meters) and produced a force (newtons), had a relatively simple value. This set the "magnetic constant". You might ask, well why wasn't the electric constant set the same way in Coulomb's Law? It might well have been! But then the relationship between amperes and coulombs would not be a simple as it is in the present convention (1 ampere = 1 coulomb/sec). In other words, we could do this for a couple of the related constants, but not for all. This is not going to make much sense unless you study the E&M chapters of a physics text (both statics chapters and Maxwell's Laws) and then try to understand what the units are. It might help also to see a more advanced text, one that doesn't use SI units for E&M, because those texts usually have a detailed discussion about how the constants in the laws change in the different system of units. PD |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.