Re: Coulomb's constant is a CGS kludge

From: FrediFizzx (fredifizzx_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/06/05 

Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 19:53:56 -0800

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8ghj21lv3lrd27orgv79nqpmu6hqv66697@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 20:22:39 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
| <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
| >news:ik0i21ph0g280kgp964j2v7hee5q80qa6n@4ax.com...
| >| On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:09:15 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
| >| <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
| >|
| >| >"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
| >| >news:6rvg21h896hkul66rgd3m4c8f2ji1lb9ov@4ax.com...
| >| >| On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 23:45:36 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
| >| >| <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
| >| >|
| >| >| >"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| >| >| >news:1109848478.784609.200150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| >| >| >| FrediFizzx wrote:
| >| >| >| > "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in
| >message
| >| >| >| > news:slrnd2bd9r.4ft.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
| >| >| >| > | John C. Polasek:
| >| snip
| >| >|
| >| >| Fred, there are no natural units. Calling c = 1 requires an
honest
| >| >| technician to divide every term in the equation by c meters per
| >| >| second. Calling c = h = etc. = 1 is downright ludicrous. The
units
| >| >| are everything, and you are accounting them as nothing. They
must be
| >| >| carried through.
| >| >
| >| >NATURE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT UNITS!

| Of course nature does. Tucker for example is trying to find a
| mass-length conversion ratio. I think you were maundering about
| something like that, but I couldn't figure it out. Even God cannot
| join length and mass.

It is so pathetically easy a second grader could do it.

Lamda_C/2pi = hbar/(m_e*c)

Set hbar = c = 1, IOW go to natural units.

Lamda_C/2pi = 1/m_e, God likes this; he told me so.

However, this is not the whole story as I presented in my expansion of
this. To make it easy for you I will first present it in CGS then go to
natural units. L_C is electron compton wavelength. w_C is electron
compton frequency.

m_e = [sqrt(hbar*c)/(8pi^2*w_C)][e/w_C][(1/alpha^{1/2})(64pi^5/L_C^3)]

Then go to natural units,

m_e = [e/(8pi^2*w_C^2][(1/alpha^{1/2})(64pi^5/L_C^3)]

In natural units, e = sqrt(alpha) so,

m_e = [1/(8pi^2*w_C^2)](64pi^5/L_C^3)

I think the above is the true expression for mass of the electron in
natural units. You can see that it simplifies to,

m_e = 2pi/L_C

But mass equal to the inverse of length is simply a simplification of
how it should be; charge^2*time^2/volume.

| >| >
| >| >| You probably cannot realize this but space cannot be accorded a
| >| >| capacitance or inductance as in your theory, for these are
lumps.
| >| >|Work it out in SI.
| >| >
| >| >Hey, if spacetime charge is +,- sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) in SI units,
| >then
| >| >it certainly can and will have the properties of capacitance and
| >| >inductance.

| Please state the expression for L and C, and their values.

Cvac = 2*lambda*eps0 and Lvac = lambda*mu0/8pi^2 in SI units.

Cvac = lambda/2pi and Lvac = lambda/(2pi*c^2) in CGS units.

Cvac = Lvac = lambda/2pi in natural units.

The "values" are dependent on lambda which for EM radiation is simply
the wavelength.

Cvac = Qvac/Vvac and we will call lambda, L.

Vvac = Qvac/2*L*eps0 and set Qvac to sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c),

Vvac = sqrt(pi*hbar*c/(eps0*L^2))

And we know that the energy of capacitance is,

Evac = Cvac*Vvac^2/2, so,

Evac = 2*L*eps0(pi*hbar*c/(eps0*L^2))/2 = 2pi*hbar*c/2L = hbar*w/2

Which is one half a photon's energy. The other half is from Lvac. So
we have come full circle and it looks like spacetime can be modeled as
if it has bound charge = +,- sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) thus supporting Cvac
and Lvac. You have got to remember that capacitance and inductance are
simply proportionality constants and can be extended to free space
instead of just describing devices such as capacitors and inductors.
For sure, using them in free space is not their normal usage. But I
cheated and found an interesting relationship.

| > Where the hell do you think vacuum polarization comes
| >from?
| >| >It has to be bound charge according to all the definitions setup
in
| >any
| >| >unit system.
| You know we agree on that one, hell or no hell.
| >| I think you are too serious about spacetime charge. Your expression
as
| >| I have pointed out previously
| >| sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c)= 11.71 electron charges, but if you
| >| include alpha under the radical you get an imporved spacetime
charge,
| >| the charge of an electron:
| >| sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c*alpha) = 1.6x10-19 coulomb
| >| I don't see how this is a property of space but even if it is, why
not
| >| put alpha into the expression. I have a spacetime charge too but
it's
| >| ep+ pairs with a solid derivation.
| >
| >1/sqrt(alpha) = 11.71 Hmmm.... I wonder why?

| Fred, you have to be suspicious of sqrt(alpha). Would taking alpha in
| as I suggested, change your theory?

Huh? John, are you blind? Using alpha like you suggest is simply the
charge of an electron.

| >The sqrt(alpha) is simply
| >the ratio of electronic charge to spacetime charge.

| So you declare.

Usually, a mathematical expression of physics will have something
physical that connects all the components.

alpha = e^2/(4pi*eps0*hbar*c)

We know what e^2 is. What the heck physically represents
(4pi*eps0*hbar*c)? The only dang thing it can be is spacetime charge
squared! If somebody can tell me what physical object it represents
other than spacetime charge, then I will gladly bail on this idea.

| >We already know
| >from empirical evidence that c is a property of spacetime. So the
big
| >question is hbar a property of spacetime? If we are to believe in
free
| >photons with energy = hbar*w then hbar also has to be a property of
|
| Agreed. h and hbar are energy time. hbar*w is energy.
|
| >spacetime. So there you have it. Put them together and you get
| >spacetime charge squared. e+e- virtual pairs are only *part* of the
| >solution. You also have hadronic pairs that come out of the
"vacuum".
| >Sqrt(hbar*c)

| So, sqrt(hbar*c) = sqrt(energy time cm/sec) = sqrt( energy cm). How
| can that be charge? You left out that dandy eps0 that can make things
| right. But then CGS charge does carry contraband eps0 in its stowage.
| (Oh dear, I'm so mixed up, this can't be Kansas anymore!)

Buy MathCad; it is cheap. ;-) It is easy to see. In CGS
charge^2/length is energy. Can you see it now?

| > is a mix of all possible "less than virtual" fermionic
| >pairs. "Less than virtual" is the other spacetime of your dual
space.
| >A modified Dirac Sea. You had better believe I am serious about
| >spacetime charge. Your derivation is no more solid than mine is. It
is
| >basically the same thing. But I don't need SI to show how it works.
| >The charge of an electron is just that.

| I know an electron is an electron, but CGS doesn't.
| When it went from q/4pieps0r^2 to q/r^2, it was no longer an electron.
| It had 4pieps0 as baggage--4pe did not go away, you have to keep it.
| But then when you bring up another electron to find the force, should
| you use the ginned up electron or the regular one? For consistency you
| have to use the ringer, and now you have one too many 4pieps0's.
| Therefore, to properly do this force thing, with a blare of trumpets
| you bring in Coulomb's Constant, i.e. multiply by 4pieps0 which really
| baptizes the ringer back into a regular electron so it can do its
| work. Your kludge-meter should peg,

You are definitely not in Kansas anymore. ;-) Why do you want to
confuse yourself over something that is so simple.

| >How can it be an "improved" spacetime charge?
|
| Just because sqrt(alpha) looks fishy.

Read Feynman's QED. e = sqrt(alpha) is the "basic" probability for an
electron and photon to interact. It is ~ 1/11.71.

| >| >| Fred, I just posted one: 50Kw broadcast station, find fields E
and
| >H
| >| >| at 10 Km in CGS. CGS strongman Bilge did not answer the
challenge.
| >| snip
| >| >"The example is of a radio station (taken from Ch. 24 of my Dual
| >Space
| >| >book):
| >| > 50 KW isotropic at
| >| >R = 10 Km
| >| >Prec = Psta/4piR^2 = 3.978e-5 W/m^2
| >| >Prec = E^2/Z
| >| >E = 0.122 V/m
| >| >Compute H:
| >| >H = E/Z = E/377 ohms = 3.249e-4amp/m
| >| >Recheck received power with Poyntings:
| >| >Prec = E*H = 3.979e-5 W/m^2"
| >| >
| >| >I was hoping you would pick something harder than this. I will
use
| >cgs
| >| >and I could even tell you the expectation value of the number of
| >photons
| >| >at the receiver if you told me what the broadcast frequency is. I
| >| >assume we are doing "free space" calcs and not bothering with the
| >air?
| >| >In cgs the impedance of free space is,
| >| >
| >| >Z = 4pi/c, exactly. Look familiar? 4pi/c = sqrt(mu0/eps0) = Z

| I can't believe you said that, about the exactly I mean. Figure it
| out.
| since 1/c = sqrt(eps0*mu0)
| you get 4pi/c = 4pi*sqrt(eps0 x mu0) NOT sqrt(mu0/eps0),
| Yes Z = sqrt(mu0/eps0) in SI but you're upside down and cockeyed
| by 4pi.
| If I've got this wrong, I apologize in advance.

You didn't do the conversion of 4pi = 1/eps0 on the right hand side.
Just in case you are having trouble with this simple algebra, I will
show you,

4pi/c = 4pi*sqrt(eps0 x mu0) = sqrt(eps0 x mu0)/eps0

4pi/c = sqrt((eps0/eps0^2) x mu0) = sqrt(mu0/eps0)

Apology accepted in advance. ;-)

| >| Now you HAVE to keep the units, so Z = 4pi/c = X seconds/meter,
not
| >| just Z. But it's not impedance. I need more than that about Z if I
am
| >| going to think intelligently about it. You can't throw away the
sec/m.
| >
| >Hey, my MathCad program sez sec/cm is impedance in CGS units. So it
| >*is* impedance.

| That's because CGS starts making up units as it goes along stemming
| from its original sin as explained above, namely sucking up the
| environment 4pieps0 into charge, so charge no longer means anything.
| It's one of the principal accomplishments in mathematics to separate
| variables when nothing else will do, and CGS has gone out of its way
| to amalgamate them.

The 4pi's do not disappear in CGS.

| >It is not our fault that you have hangups about volts,
| >ohms, etc.

| It's reality number one: a standard battery to calibrate the volt.
| They don't have anything for this statcrap.

No problem. We can use SI for that.

| >A sec/cm in CGS is a statohm. All I can say is buy a math
| >program that will automatically convert for you. MathCad is cheap.
| >
| >| >So,
| >| >
| >| >E = sqrt(50KW*4pi/(4pi*10Km^2*c)) = 4.08*10^-6 statvolt/cm = 0.122
| >V/m
| >| >
| >| >H = sqrt(50KW*4pi/(4pi*10Km^2*c))(c/4pi) = 9.74*10^3 statamp/cm =
| >3.25
| >| >amp/m
| >|
| >| But your CGS answer seems off by 10^7, taking the direct product:
| >| 4.08*10^-6 statvolt/cm x 9.74*10^3 statamp/cm = 3.974x10^-2, (CGI
| >| units not specified). The 10^-2 looks wrong:
| >| It shd be 3.974x10^-5 W/m^2 or in cm, 3.974x10^-9 W/cm^2.
| >| Is 10^-9??or 10^-2??

| Which is it?

Sigh. MathCad is cheap. I am tired of doing your work for you.

| >Sigh. MathCad is cheap.
| >
| >| 100 statvolts times how many statamps = 50 KW?
| >It is 5*10^9 statamps.
|
| OK. 100SVx5e9SA = 5e11 Statwatts(?) equal to 5e4 watts.
| So it takes 10^7 statwatts to equal 1 watt?
| I'll allow you a stat-maybe. (They're just like the regular kind).

Yep, just as I thought. You don't like it when the powers of ten don't
match up. I will give you this point if you wish. But I have MathCad
so it is no problem for me. I can it up for CGS units, plug in SI
values and get the answers automatically in CGS. Try it sometime; you
will like it. I type farad into it and it returns,

farad = 8.987552 x 10^11 cm

How about that? Simple as pie. Plus I can see that a farad is simply
~30 seconds times the speed of light.

| >Is that what this is all about? You don't like
| >it that the powers of ten don't match up. Sheeesh. Buy yourself a
good
| >math program.
| >
| >| >What is so hard about that? No physics has changed here!
| >|
| >| You've lost perspective. Impedance in sec/meter is meaningless.
| >
| >It may be meaningless to you, but not for me. What the heck is an
ohm
| >in SI?
| >
| >It is kilogram*meter^2/(sec^3*amp^2)

| Only if you are using the Buckingham pi theorem. We're beyond that
| and you know it.

????

| >Now what the heck does that mean? Sure is a lot more complicated
than
| >sec/cm. It could be simplified to,
| >
| >ohm = volt/amp but then what is a volt?

| Ask the Nat. Bureau of Standards. They keep a standard cell with known
| electrochemical potential difference. Coulombs are determined by
| electroplating. These are real and I never accept substitutes.

Good for you.

| >| How about the recent problem, "Capacitor confusion" where a
| >| capacitor has an 8mm gap, connected to a 100V battery, 2 mfd, to
find
| >| the force between plates. He gets 10N, taking the electric field
times
| >| the charge but the book says 5N. What does CGS say? .
| >
| >What is the dielectric? Free space? Air? Something else? I am
| >absolutely positive that CGS would say the same as SI. ;-)

| Vacuum. CGS believes there is only electric tension reaching from one
| pile of electrons to the other pile. Work it out.

I think you must have left something out here because I don't get even
close to 5N or 10N as the force between the plates.

| >| snip
| >| But this is getting wearying.
| >
| >You are the one that brought it up with "Coulomb's constant is a CGS
| >kludge". For the last time hopefully, UNIT SYSTEMS CAN'T CHANGE
NATURE.
| I love my electrons pure and can't stand to think of them full of
| eps0 steroids.
| >| >
| >| >I have your book so I am very familiar with the above and agree
with
| >the basic dual space concept.

| Only superficially so. You skimmed to see how it matched your charge
| theory.

No, I actually read the whole book but did not study it intensely. Most
of what you had is about gravity and I was working on the microscopic
realm.

| >All I can suggest to you is to study
| >quantum
| >| >theory and particle physics and cure your ignorance about the
| >| >microscopic worlds.

| Then I haven't presented my case very well in the book. If you look
| closely my theory finally provides real relief from the odious Big
| Bang theory.
| It is not all about electric charge. I go on about the electric charge
| ad nauseum because I use it to prove there's another space, and I
| don't let anything go without derivation ab initio. Naturally your
| attention might flag after 3 or 4 equations but that can't cover it.
| It's usually at least 5 or 6 more equations before you get to the good
| part.

I got to the good stuff but it was not what I was working on at the
time. I was mainly interested in your concept of a modified Dirac Sea
and you did not go into any detail past e+e- pairs. So you are
deficient with regards to that. But I did like how you tied it into
gravity. I may use some of that eventually after I learn more about GR.

| >| I can only deal with reality and, as attested to by experts,
quantum
| >| theory is not included, but I have showed you how space is
constructed
| >| from first principles.
| >
| >No, you actually haven't since you can't do the fine microscopic
| >details.

| Now now.

Well, it is true, isn't it? Recommended reading; Griffiths' "Intro. to
Quantum Mechanics" and "Intro. to Elementary Particles" (you'll like
this last one; it is in CGS instead of natural units ;-)) and Milonni's
"The Quantum Vacuum" (a mix of CGS and natural units) and Volovik's "The
Universe in a Helium Droplet" (same deal). Point is; you need to learn
how to convert successfully between the different unit systems if you
want to learn how to do the fine microscopic details.

FrediFizzx

Quantcast