Science > Physics > Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"John Neiberger" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2005 02:28:35 PM |
| Object: |
Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
Have any of you ever seen a way to derive the value of c from the
electromagnetic force, Planck's constant, and Coulomb's constant? In
other words, starting with those three values, can you derive the value
of c?
Thanks,
John
.
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
04 Oct 2005 03:52:03 PM |
|
|
"John Neiberger" <jneiberger@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128454115.166835.22090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Have any of you ever seen a way to derive the value of c from the
| electromagnetic force, Planck's constant, and Coulomb's constant? In
| other words, starting with those three values, can you derive the
value
| of c?
Sure. It would just be the fine structure constant relationship.
alpha = e^2/(hbar*c) in cgs units (Coulomb's constant = 1)
So that,
c = e^2/(alpha*hbar)
Or in SI units,
c = e^2/(alpha*4pi*eps0*hbar) where Coulomb's constant = 1/(4pi*eps0)
Of course, c can also be derived simply from the SI electric and
magnetic constants also.
c^2 = 1/(eps0*mu0)
Plus it is true that no matter what unit system you are in, Coulomb's
constant k1 and the magnetic constant k2 always have the relationship,
k1/k2 = c^2
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Neiberger" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
04 Oct 2005 04:12:02 PM |
|
|
Excellent! Can you think of one that would involve both Coulomb's
constant and Planck's constant?
Thanks!
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
04 Oct 2005 05:02:45 PM |
|
|
"John Neiberger" <jneiberger@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128460322.571053.220940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Excellent! Can you think of one that would involve both Coulomb's
| constant and Planck's constant?
I suppose you mean *just* hbar and k1? Without the e^2/alpha where e is
electronic charge? No, I don't think you could do that. We could
define quantum "vacuum" charge as Q_vac = +,- sqrt(k1*hbar*c) then,
c = Q_vac^2/(k1*hbar)
But we still have the term Q_vac in the relationship. So when Planck's
constant is involved, we always need two other terms.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Neiberger" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
04 Oct 2005 05:13:39 PM |
|
|
Sorry, I'm just being a dork. I'm not really up on my physics and I
don't understand the difference between h and hbar. I'll look it up.
Anyway, here's why I'm asking. I ran across some math in a new theory
that I was reading that allowed one to derive c using the following
terms:
e.emax^2 = 1.400*10^-37 coulombs-squared: This is the the
electromagnetic force on the electron.
h = Planck's constant
k = Coulomb's constant
Such that,
c = (e.emax^2 * k * 16pi^2) / h
You'd have to read the theory to understand why this is constructed
this way, but I found it to be interesting. However, I wasn't sure if
it was really doing anything novel. I think it might be, but like I
said, I'm not up on my physics. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
04 Oct 2005 07:42:56 PM |
|
|
"John Neiberger" <jneiberger@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128464019.320055.269960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Sorry, I'm just being a dork. I'm not really up on my physics and I
| don't understand the difference between h and hbar. I'll look it up.
|
| Anyway, here's why I'm asking. I ran across some math in a new theory
| that I was reading that allowed one to derive c using the following
| terms:
|
| e.emax^2 = 1.400*10^-37 coulombs-squared: This is the the
| electromagnetic force on the electron.
|
| h = Planck's constant
|
| k = Coulomb's constant
|
| Such that,
|
| c = (e.emax^2 * k * 16pi^2) / h
|
| You'd have to read the theory to understand why this is constructed
| this way, but I found it to be interesting. However, I wasn't sure if
| it was really doing anything novel. I think it might be, but like I
| said, I'm not up on my physics. :)
That looks like David Thomson's stuff. There is really nothing all that
novel in it. It is the same as the fine structure constant relationship
with shuffled around terms exactly like I did with Q_vac. FYI: hbar =
h/2pi. Hbar is the reduced or rationalized Planck constant.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Neiberger" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
04 Oct 2005 08:20:39 PM |
|
|
You're correct, it is Thomson's APM that I was referring to. Are you
very familiar with it? It might seem kind of radical at first but it
does seem mathematically consistent, at least as far as I can tell. I'm
not an expert in math or physics so I'm certainly not the one to judge.
It has grabbed my interest, though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
05 Oct 2005 07:02:28 AM |
|
|
John Neiberger wrote:
You're correct, it is Thomson's APM that I was referring to. Are you
very familiar with it? It might seem kind of radical at first but it
does seem mathematically consistent, at least as far as I can tell. I'm
not an expert in math or physics so I'm certainly not the one to judge.
It has grabbed my interest, though.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
David knows enough key words to sound plausible and has checked his
math to be sure that he hasn't made an obvious multiplication error.
With some practice, you or I could sound convincing enough to walk into
an operating room as a brain surgeon and be trusted enough to start a
procedure on a patient.
That's when things would start to go wrong.
David's math is numerology, and his physics quickly generates
statements that are counter to simple observational fact.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Neiberger" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
05 Oct 2005 10:23:03 AM |
|
|
I've been hearing that and, as already mentioned, I don't have
sufficient expertise to determine this on my own.
Do you have a short explanation for why the equation I posted works?
c = (e.emax^2 * k * 16pi^2) / h
I don't understand why he expresses electromagnetic charge in
coulombs-squared, but if you do so then this equation does simplify
down to m/s and gets tantalizingly close to the known speed of light.
It does concern me that it isn't exact, though. I haven't heard an
explanation for that yet.
I guess I'm just trying to figure out if this particular equation is
valid mathematically and scientifically. It appears to be sound
mathematically but I'm not sure about the science. Irrespective of his
theory, would mainstream science think to define (or derive) c as this
particular ratio?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Neiberger" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
05 Oct 2005 10:38:24 AM |
|
|
I was in a hurry and didn't finish my message. Here's another way of
phrasing what I'm asking:
This particular equation is based on elements of his theory, e.g. his
version of electromagnetic charge, the introduction of the 16pi^2
factor, etc. The equation seems to work and I want to determine *why*
it works. Is it just a math game using ideas already known to
mainstream science or are these factors and this ratio novel to APM? If
the latter then I still want to find out why it works.
On the other hand, it doesn't exactly work. It get's extremely close to
c but it doesn't exactly match what we know the speed of light to be.
As I recall, it's off by a factor of 1.0001.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
05 Oct 2005 12:32:10 PM |
|
|
"John Neiberger" <jneiberger@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128526703.949354.310880@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| I was in a hurry and didn't finish my message. Here's another way of
| phrasing what I'm asking:
|
| This particular equation is based on elements of his theory, e.g. his
| version of electromagnetic charge, the introduction of the 16pi^2
| factor, etc. The equation seems to work and I want to determine *why*
| it works. Is it just a math game using ideas already known to
| mainstream science or are these factors and this ratio novel to APM?
If
| the latter then I still want to find out why it works.
|
| On the other hand, it doesn't exactly work. It get's extremely close
to
| c but it doesn't exactly match what we know the speed of light to be.
| As I recall, it's off by a factor of 1.0001.
No, it is actually exact. All he has done is shoved 1/alpha into his
e.emax and pulled out an 8pi from e^2/alpha. In SI units,
alpha = e^2/(4pi*eps0*hbar*c)
c = k(e^2/alpha)(2pi/h) with k = 1/(4pi*eps0) and hbar = h/2pi
Then he pulls an 8pi out of e^2/alpha to make his e.emax^2. IOW,
e.emax^2 = e^2/(alpha*8pi)
To end up with,
c = (e.emax^2 * k * 16pi^2) / h
He has never shown any real physical justification for doing this 8pi
"business" that I am aware of other than loosely relating it to the 8pi
that appears in gravity. He sent me his book and I never was able to
find any good justification in it. e^2/alpha = k*hbar*c, so we can see
that his e.emax^2 is simply k*hbar*c/8pi. Or in SI units would be
eps0*hbar*c/2. I know of no reason why this should mean anything of a
physical nature.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
06 Oct 2005 01:29:51 AM |
|
|
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3qigprFf2l7kU1@individual.net...
| "John Neiberger" <jneiberger@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:1128526703.949354.310880@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| | I was in a hurry and didn't finish my message. Here's another way of
| | phrasing what I'm asking:
| |
| | This particular equation is based on elements of his theory, e.g.
his
| | version of electromagnetic charge, the introduction of the 16pi^2
| | factor, etc. The equation seems to work and I want to determine
*why*
| | it works. Is it just a math game using ideas already known to
| | mainstream science or are these factors and this ratio novel to APM?
| If
| | the latter then I still want to find out why it works.
| |
| | On the other hand, it doesn't exactly work. It get's extremely close
| to
| | c but it doesn't exactly match what we know the speed of light to
be.
| | As I recall, it's off by a factor of 1.0001.
|
| No, it is actually exact. All he has done is shoved 1/alpha into his
| e.emax and pulled out an 8pi from e^2/alpha. In SI units,
|
| alpha = e^2/(4pi*eps0*hbar*c)
|
| c = k(e^2/alpha)(2pi/h) with k = 1/(4pi*eps0) and hbar = h/2pi
|
| Then he pulls an 8pi out of e^2/alpha to make his e.emax^2. IOW,
|
| e.emax^2 = e^2/(alpha*8pi)
|
| To end up with,
|
| c = (e.emax^2 * k * 16pi^2) / h
|
| He has never shown any real physical justification for doing this 8pi
| "business" that I am aware of other than loosely relating it to the
8pi
| that appears in gravity. He sent me his book and I never was able to
| find any good justification in it. e^2/alpha = k*hbar*c, so we can
see
| that his e.emax^2 is simply k*hbar*c/8pi. Or in SI units would be
| eps0*hbar*c/2. I know of no reason why this should mean anything of a
| physical nature.
Oops! Made a mistake. It should be e^2/alpha = hbar*c/k and e.emax^2 =
hbar*c/(k*8pi) with k = 1/(4pi*eps0).
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
05 Oct 2005 02:27:28 PM |
|
|
In article <1128538987.553037.172240@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> writes:
John Neiberger wrote:
I was in a hurry and didn't finish my message. Here's another way of
phrasing what I'm asking:
This particular equation is based on elements of his theory, e.g. his
version of electromagnetic charge, the introduction of the 16pi^2
factor, etc. The equation seems to work and I want to determine *why*
it works. Is it just a math game using ideas already known to
mainstream science or are these factors and this ratio novel to APM? If
the latter then I still want to find out why it works.
On the other hand, it doesn't exactly work. It get's extremely close to
c but it doesn't exactly match what we know the speed of light to be.
As I recall, it's off by a factor of 1.0001.
The 1.0001 is just a round-off error in quoting one of the other
numbers (possibly emax).
There is nothing really interesting here. It's been known for ages that
certain combinations of fundamental constants end up being
dimensionless, the units all canceling out. The "fine-structure
constant" is one of those, and this combination of h, c, and e shows up
frequently enough in the theory of electromagnetic interactions (QED -
quantum electrodynamics) that it is usually factored out as one
dimensionless number labeled alpha. Using a certain unit system, alpha
has a value of approximately 1/137.
Not "certain unit system" but "any unit system". Dimensionless
constants are (obviously) unit system independent.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
05 Oct 2005 02:38:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1128538987.553037.172240@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> writes:
John Neiberger wrote:
I was in a hurry and didn't finish my message. Here's another way of
phrasing what I'm asking:
This particular equation is based on elements of his theory, e.g. his
version of electromagnetic charge, the introduction of the 16pi^2
factor, etc. The equation seems to work and I want to determine *why*
it works. Is it just a math game using ideas already known to
mainstream science or are these factors and this ratio novel to APM? If
the latter then I still want to find out why it works.
On the other hand, it doesn't exactly work. It get's extremely close to
c but it doesn't exactly match what we know the speed of light to be.
As I recall, it's off by a factor of 1.0001.
The 1.0001 is just a round-off error in quoting one of the other
numbers (possibly emax).
There is nothing really interesting here. It's been known for ages that
certain combinations of fundamental constants end up being
dimensionless, the units all canceling out. The "fine-structure
constant" is one of those, and this combination of h, c, and e shows up
frequently enough in the theory of electromagnetic interactions (QED -
quantum electrodynamics) that it is usually factored out as one
dimensionless number labeled alpha. Using a certain unit system, alpha
has a value of approximately 1/137.
Not "certain unit system" but "any unit system". Dimensionless
constants are (obviously) unit system independent.
Indeed. Thanks for the clarification.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
05 Oct 2005 05:36:52 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1128538987.553037.172240@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> writes:
John Neiberger wrote:
I was in a hurry and didn't finish my message. Here's another way of
phrasing what I'm asking:
This particular equation is based on elements of his theory, e.g. his
version of electromagnetic charge, the introduction of the 16pi^2
factor, etc. The equation seems to work and I want to determine *why*
it works. Is it just a math game using ideas already known to
mainstream science or are these factors and this ratio novel to APM? If
the latter then I still want to find out why it works.
On the other hand, it doesn't exactly work. It get's extremely close to
c but it doesn't exactly match what we know the speed of light to be.
As I recall, it's off by a factor of 1.0001.
The 1.0001 is just a round-off error in quoting one of the other
numbers (possibly emax).
There is nothing really interesting here. It's been known for ages that
certain combinations of fundamental constants end up being
dimensionless, the units all canceling out. The "fine-structure
constant" is one of those, and this combination of h, c, and e shows up
frequently enough in the theory of electromagnetic interactions (QED -
quantum electrodynamics) that it is usually factored out as one
dimensionless number labeled alpha. Using a certain unit system, alpha
has a value of approximately 1/137.
Not "certain unit system" but "any unit system". Dimensionless
constants are (obviously) unit system independent.
Indeed. Thanks for the clarification.
Well Mati copied Fred who nailed the problem
in the 1st post. I'm worried about that PD
fella, maybe developing reading problems,
perhaps contagious from Mati the Monkey,
who plagurized Freds posts, what a low
down yellow yank, "quote from SHANE".
Mati, make tracks, or defend what
little self respect you have.
Ken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
05 Oct 2005 02:03:07 PM |
|
|
John Neiberger wrote:
I was in a hurry and didn't finish my message. Here's another way of
phrasing what I'm asking:
This particular equation is based on elements of his theory, e.g. his
version of electromagnetic charge, the introduction of the 16pi^2
factor, etc. The equation seems to work and I want to determine *why*
it works. Is it just a math game using ideas already known to
mainstream science or are these factors and this ratio novel to APM? If
the latter then I still want to find out why it works.
On the other hand, it doesn't exactly work. It get's extremely close to
c but it doesn't exactly match what we know the speed of light to be.
As I recall, it's off by a factor of 1.0001.
The 1.0001 is just a round-off error in quoting one of the other
numbers (possibly emax).
There is nothing really interesting here. It's been known for ages that
certain combinations of fundamental constants end up being
dimensionless, the units all canceling out. The "fine-structure
constant" is one of those, and this combination of h, c, and e shows up
frequently enough in the theory of electromagnetic interactions (QED -
quantum electrodynamics) that it is usually factored out as one
dimensionless number labeled alpha. Using a certain unit system, alpha
has a value of approximately 1/137. It turns out that alpha shows up in
a suggestive way in these calculations. In the electromagnetic
interaction that starts off in state A and ends up in state B, there
are several ways that the exchange of photons between charged particles
could happen. We calculate the rate that this interaction happens by
adding up the probabilities of each one of those possible paths between
state A and state B. (I haven't said this quite correctly, because
there is actually the possibility of one path interfering with another
path, but I've glossed over that complication.) In calculating the
probability of each possible path, a factor of alpha emerges for every
time a charged particle emits or absorbs a photon. Thus, more
complicated paths have more factors of (1/137) and this path is
therefore less likely.
The fact that this combination of h, c, and e shows up so suggestively
in QED calculations, and the fact that it is dimensionless, indicates
that this combination has a certain fundamentality about it -- hence
the important-sounding name "fine-structure constant".
Now, all David has done is to take that dimensionless combination and
done a little algebra to move the denominator in the ratio to the other
side, to come up with an equation with the same units on both sides.
(It should be apparent with a moment's thought why both sides will have
the same units.) He has taken the factor alpha in this equation and
combined it with another factor and called it something else: e-max.
Thus, what he is doing is not new, really, it's just a rearrangement.
Moreover, in doing so, he loses sight of what makes alpha so
interesting. He then goes on with what appears to be a true statement
and makes a lot of wrong conclusions that have nothing to do with the
validity of the original equation.
I hope I've made some sense here.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Derive c from Planck's Constant and Coulomb's constant? |
04 Oct 2005 10:10:01 PM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2005 14:12:02 -0700, "John Neiberger" <jneiberger@gmail.com> wrote:
Excellent! Can you think of one that would involve both Coulomb's
constant and Planck's constant?
Well ya' can get it from Planck's constant, charge, & Boltzmann's
constant,
c = gh/2kq = 2.9989E+08
Where h = Planck's Constant (6.6261E-34)
k = Boltzmann's Constant (1.3807E-23)
q = elemental charge (1.6022E-19)
g = Hyperfine constant (2.0023)
In MKSC
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
