Prev: Animal Farm
Next: The relationship between the Gaussian Curve and Pascal's Triangle Coefficients
From: PD on 10 Mar 2010 17:06
On Mar 9, 5:14 pm, klausjen...(a)nordicnet.com (Klaus Jensen) wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 18:28:38 +0800, "Tom Potter"
>
> <xprivatn...(a)mailinator.com> wrote:
> >Hopefully the following
> >will be of some value to you.
>
> Many thanks for your thoughtful and comprhensive reply. I have saved
> it for future reference as well.
>
> Klaus Jensen

Your saving Tom's reply was a mistake. This shows the danger of
believing that comprehensiveness is an indicator of worth.
From: PD on 10 Mar 2010 17:14
On Mar 7, 11:46 pm, klausjen...(a)nordicnet.com (Klaus Jensen) wrote:
> I am doing research on the "fine-structure constant".
>
> Can anyone please explain the physical implication of the two numbers
> involved, 0.08542455, 1/137.03597 and how they might be used in a
> practical application?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Klaus Jensen

The fine structure constant (alpha) basically tells you how strong the
electromagnetic interaction is, and it's called a coupling constant.
Gravity has a coupling constant, much much smaller than this. The
strong nuclear interaction's is much bigger.

If you'd care to look up "Feynman diagrams" in wikipedia, there's
another way you can look at it. Between any initial state and a final
state, there are a number of ways the interaction can go, and in
general if you want to calculate how often the final state will be
seen if the initial state is set up, then you want to combine all
these ways. Some ways are simpler and some ways are more complicated.
These get added together just like the terms in an infinite series
(something you'll run into in Algebra II), and in fact the series is
called a "perturbative expansion". The fine structure constant appears
in each of those terms, and to higher and higher powers as you go --
(alpha) to the first power in the simplest diagram, alpha squared in
the next simplest diagrams, alpha cubed in the next more complicated
diagrams and so on.

Physically, the way I think about it is that the fine structure gives
you a measure of how often a photon is radiated or absorbed from a
lepton.

PD
From: John Polasek on 11 Mar 2010 13:45
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:49:01 +0800, "Tom Potter"
<xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote:

>
>"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:qZidnYl4BY1ilQXWnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com...
>> On 3/10/10 1:38 PM, glird wrote:
>>> On Mar 8, 1:48 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant
>>>>
>>>> The fine-structure constant is the coupling constant characterizing
>>>> the strength of the electromagnetic interaction.
>>>
>>> Here is the entire quoted segment in Wiki:
>>> "The fine-structure constant is of dimension 1 (i.e., it is simply a
>>> number) and very nearly equal to 1/137. It is the "coupling constant"
>>> or measure of the strength of the electromagnetic force that governs
>>> how electrically charged elementary particles (e.g., electron, muon)
>>> and light (photons) interact."
>>>
>>> Pleases ask them how a number, all by itself, can measure the
>>> "strength" of anything,
>>> (If I ask "How strong are you" and you reply "57.087654785", what
>>> would that mean?)
>>>
>>> glird
>>
>> The number is a ratio. Units cancel. did you ever take a physics
>> course? What's the ratio of the mass of your brain to the mass of
>> your whole body?
>
>glird is absolutely right.
>
>A number must be referenced to something physical
>to mean something physical.
>
>5 fingers, 5 toes, 5 apples, etc.
>
>For example,
>one can use numbers that indicate
>the mass of a body with respect to a brain,
>or the mass of a body with respect to a certain number of seeds,
>or the mass of a body with respect to some politically determined mass,
>
>and in order to communicate ACCURATELY,
>one HAS to indicate the reference being used.
>
>"coupling constants" are referenced to the "strong force"
>which is considered to be "one".
>
>The "dimensionless" fine structure constant
>can be viewed as radians per cycle,
>velocity / c,
>or any other set of physical properties
>it can be decomposed to.
>
>fsc = 2 * pi * Q^2 / (h * C)
>Q = h * C * Ryd
I think you forgot to take the square root.
Also what are the units for Q, in order to elevate this from
numerology to provisional physics?
John Polasek
From: John Polasek on 11 Mar 2010 14:15
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:10:25 +0800, "Tom Potter"
<xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote:

>
>"Klaus Jensen" <klausjensen(a)nordicnet.com> wrote in message
>news:4b96d610.1817312(a)news.tpg.com.au...
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 18:28:38 +0800, "Tom Potter"
>> <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> wrote:
>>

>Here are a couple of more thoughts about the fine structure constant.

>
>FSC = permeability(space) * c / ( 2 * N * k )
This is an interesting equation, if you only took the time to attach
units and analyze it more.
You might be surprised to learn, by straight multiplication, that
mu0*c = 367 ohms, the impedance of space
And by your equation, the Hall resistance is 137/2 times as high.
That's pretty hard to characterize.
>where c is the universal space per time constant,
>N is any integer, and k is the "quantized Hall resistance",
>and permeability(space) is the permeability of
>space (Mu0) which is defined as 4 * pi * 1x10^e-7.
You neglected to affix the units to (Mu0) which is henries per meter.
There is a lot of useful information to be exposed if you have
meaningful dimensions.
>
>Note that the constants 2, N, c and permeability
>in this equation are EXACTLY defined, and that the
>"quantized Hall resistance" can be measured to a
>greater accuracy than the FSC is currently expressed.
>
>Also note that as the FSC is dimensionless,
>this indicates that (permeability / ( quantized Hall resistance ))
>has the dimensions of a reciprocal velocity
>as c has the dimension of velocity.
>
>In computing ionization potentials and electronegativity,
>N = 1 represents one electron and multiple protons,
>and 1/M represents one protons and multiple electrons.
>
>In other words, atoms with multiple protons can be multiple-ionizations,
>and many electrons can hang around an isolated proton.
>
>Also, note that k ( The quantized Hall resistance ) is
>
>k = h / Q^2
>
>where h is Planck's Constant,
>and Q is the electron charge.
>
>"k" could be computed directly from the values
>of h and Q, but I suggest that it can be determined
>more precisely than it can be calculated, considering
>that h is a compound property, and more variables
>affect measurements of Q.
John Polasek
From: John Polasek on 11 Mar 2010 14:24
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:14:12 -0800 (PST), PD
<thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 7, 11:46�pm, klausjen...(a)nordicnet.com (Klaus Jensen) wrote:
>> I am doing research on the "fine-structure constant".
>>
>> Can anyone please explain the physical implication of the two numbers
>> involved, 0.08542455, 1/137.03597 and how they might be used in a
>> practical application?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Klaus Jensen
>
>The fine structure constant (alpha) basically tells you how strong the
>electromagnetic interaction is, and it's called a coupling constant.
It's called a coupling constant for the lack of any better term.
It would help if you could post an equation that solidifies this
strength criterion.
>Gravity has a coupling constant, much much smaller than this. The
>strong nuclear interaction's is much bigger.
>
>If you'd care to look up "Feynman diagrams" in wikipedia, there's
>another way you can look at it. Between any initial state and a final
>state, there are a number of ways the interaction can go, and in
>general if you want to calculate how often the final state will be
>seen if the initial state is set up, then you want to combine all
>these ways. Some ways are simpler and some ways are more complicated.
>These get added together just like the terms in an infinite series
>(something you'll run into in Algebra II), and in fact the series is
>called a "perturbative expansion". The fine structure constant appears
>in each of those terms, and to higher and higher powers as you go --
>(alpha) to the first power in the simplest diagram, alpha squared in
>the next simplest diagrams, alpha cubed in the next more complicated
>diagrams and so on.
Don't you think they latched onto it because it is has a pleasingly
small value and is quite acceptably ubiquitous, never mind that
nobody, including Feynman, has any idea what it means, but anyway,
what's the harm?
>
>Physically, the way I think about it is that the fine structure gives
>you a measure of how often a photon is radiated or absorbed from a
>lepton.
>
>PD
John Polasek
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Animal Farm
Next: The relationship between the Gaussian Curve and Pascal's Triangle Coefficients