Re: Rigorous definition of Planck's Constant

On Apr 6, 5:09 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As some of my fans
seem to be more interested in my views on physics,
than my views on the human condition,

On a physics newsgroup, that's to be expected. Your views on the human
condition would be of interest on a human condition newsgroup.

 ( 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.

Definition, please. A period is normally understood to mean an
interval of time in which a periodic motion repeats. Are you talking
about two particles interacting twice in the same way? If you are
talking about a single instant, I don't know why you would call that a
period.

   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.

Definition, please. What is a "radian of interaction"?


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

Definition, please. The electromagnetic fine structure constant is
known to be energy-scale dependent, so I'm not sure what fine
structure you're talking about.

As for the "universal distance per mass constant", it appears to be a
numerical conversion factor that you use to get from one constant to
another, but I don't see anything universal about it, other than it
gets you from one constant to another.

For example, I can invent a "universal constant" D_0 that has the
property
G = (D_0) * h * e
I can also invent another "universal constant" X_a that has the
property
c = (X_a) * (Z_0)^3 / (2 pi), where Z_0 is the impedance of empty
space.
And so on. However, doing so required no more effort than typing as I
went. And I assure you, I can come up with some rather astounding
relations involving D_0 and X_a.



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.

OK, this seems a little goofy to me, but maybe it's just me. The value
of Planck's constant is that it is common to *all* quantum
interactions and isn't particle-specific. That is also the value of G,
in that you don't need a different one for studying the moon, or
Halley's comet, or a galactic black hole, or a falling brick.


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.

Well, that makes your definitions rather useless, since they're not
constants, right?

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

Well, except Schrodinger's equation doesn't apply in the first place
because they are both fermions and so Dirac's equation applies, not
Schrodinger's.

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!

As you can see, it sorta stopped being fun when the first little bit
of the above stopped making sense. Could you please start again,
please, and this time please promise that you'll do physics.


--
Tom Potter

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

.

Relevant Pages