Rigorous definition of Planck's Constant

As some of my fans
seem to be more interested in my views on physics,
than my views on the human condition,
( What is more important, black holes or the human condition? )
I offer the following for their consideration.

This article makes rigorous definitions of Planck's Constant
and the fine structure constant
and suggests that they are not in fact constants.

Consider a system composed of one electron and one proton.

1. Let M(P) = the mass of the proton.
2. Let M(E) the mass of the electron.
3. Let C = a universal distance per time constant. ( The speed of light. )
4. Two bodies interact about a common point in a common time.
The common point is the center of mass of the system
and the common time is the period of the system.
Let T(C) = the common period divided by 2 times pi = L(C) / C

where L(C) is the distance light travels during one radian of
interaction of an electron-proton system.

5. Let K = a universal distance per mass constant.
K = 1.0585382 x 10^13 meters per kilogram

( K' = 9.4469901 x 10^-14 kilograms per meter )
( Potter's Constant )

6. I assert that fine structure(E) = ( M(P) * K / L(C) ) ^1/3

then fine structure(E)^0 * L(C) = 1 / ( 2 * Rydberg Constant )
and fine structure(E)^1 * L(C) = 2 * pi * Bohr Radius
and fine structure(E)^2 * L(C) = Compton's wavelength
and fine structure(E)^3 * L(C) = 2 * pi * classical electron radius
and fine structure(E)^3 * L(C) = M(P) * K

As interactions are symmetrical about the common center of mass, we can
define a fine structure constant for the proton
and obtain the following equations:

fine structure(P) = ( M(E) * K / L(C) ) ^1/3
fine structure(P)^0 * L(C) = 1 / ( 2 * Rydberg Constant )
fine structure(P)^1 * L(C) = 2 * pi * Bohr Radius(proton)
fine structure(P)^2 * L(C) = Compton's wavelength(proton)
fine structure(P)^3 * L(C) = 2 * pi * classical radius(proton)
fine structure(P)^3 * L(C) = M(E) * K

fine structure(P)^3 * M(P) = fine structure(E)^3 * M(E)

7. Let h(E) be the Planck's Constant for an electron.

8. Let h(P) be the Planck's Constant for a proton.

Note that:

M(E) * M(P) * K^2
= fine(E)^3 * fine(P)^3 * L(C)^2
= h(E) * fine(P) * K / C
= h(P) * fine(P) * K / C

Also note that:

h(E) * K / C
= fine(P)^3 * fine(E)^2 * L(C)^2
= M(E) * K * fine(E)^2 * L(C)

and symmetrically:

h(P) * K / C
= fine(E)^3 * fine(P)^2 * L(C)^2
= M(P) * K * fine(P)^2 * L(C)

Equations showing the simplest relationships between Planck's Constant
and the Fine structure constant:

fine(P) * h(P) = M(P) * M(E) * K * C
fine(E) * h(E) = M(P) * M(E) * K * C

These two equations show the dynamics of a two-body system

The relationship between the orbital velocity of a body and the fine
structure constant is:

tangent(X) = velocity(X) / C = fine(X) * charge ratio

Comments:

1. The common period is associated with Rydberg's constant.
In other words, the distance symmetrical to both bodies
is the reciprocal of Rydberg's constant. The other distances
( Comptons wavelength, etc. ) relate to a particular body.

2. If we assume that rest masses are constants, we have to acknowledge that
the h's and fine structure constants must vary for a system to
accommodate change. The simplest system would consider the rest masses
to be constant, the distance common to the masses L(C) to be an
independent variable and all properties to be dependent variables. Note
that the distance L(C) is related to the common period of the system.

3. Schrödinger's Equation would be symmetrical to both the electron and the
proton if were based on the mass products rather than a "constant"
associated with only one of the bodies. The equation works because the
incoming and outgoing frequencies are common to both parties to an interaction,
( Provided there is no relative motion. )
but the equation does not provide a symmetrical look at the
classical system absorbing or emitting the frequencies.
Schrödinger's Equation, like Planck's Constant, is biased in favor of the electron.

4. I emphasized distances, rather than more fundamental times and angular
displacements, in order to more clearly show the relationships between
the common physical constants. If the more fundamental times and angular
displacements are used, it appears that the "first radiation constant"
is more fundamental than Planck's constant and rest mass,
and likely represents 360 degrees of angular displacement.

Have at it fans!

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rigorous definition of Plancks Constant
    ... Consider a system composed of one electron and one proton. ... Let Mthe mass of the electron. ... Two bodies interact about a common point in a common time. ... and this time please promise that you'll do physics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Re: Chez Watt Re: A.C
    ... mass here is invarient mass. ... Because that it the definition of an electron. ... A 1kg mass starts off at rest at infinite distance. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Google please assign this group a moderator
    ... wants to discuss physics issues, ... Let Mthe mass of the electron. ... Two bodies interact about a common point in a common time. ... Assume that K = a universal distance per mass constant. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Chez Watt Re: A.C
    ... mass here is invarient mass. ... Because that it the definition of an electron. ... A 1kg mass starts off at rest at infinite distance. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Plancks Constant for protons
    ... Let us consider a system composed of one electron and one proton. ... Let Mthe mass of the electron. ... Two bodies interact about a common point in a common time. ... Assume that K = a universal distance per mass constant. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading