The Planck Point and HUP
Golden Boar
hbar = h / 2pi
and the formula for the circumference of a circle is given by
C = 2.pi.r
rearranging for r gives,
r = C / 2.pi
>From this we can tell that Planck's constant(h) is the circumference of
a circle, whose radius is equal to the reduced Planck constant(hbar).
h = 2.pi.hbar
Since we know that the spin operator has 2 eigenvalues (+hbar/2 and
-hbar/2), we could define a constant,
hdot = hbar / 2
and since we now know that hbar is a length, then,
hdot = L^2.M.T^-1 / L = L.M.T^-1
which give units of momentum.
Now we can redefine h and hbar in terms of hdot, so that we get
hdot = 5.272858411822273815756962998755e-35 m.kg.s^-1
hbar = 2.hdot = 1.0545716823644547631513925997511e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
h = 4.pi.hdot = 6.6260693e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
The data below shows how hdot relates to the geometry of a circle and a
sphere.
Planck Radius of circle = 2.hdot
Planck Diameter of circle = 4.hdot
Planck Circumference of circle = 4.pi.hdot
Planck Area of circle = 4.pi.hdot^2
Planck Surface Area of sphere = 16.pi.hdot^2
Planck Volume of sphere = 32.pi.hdot^3 / 3
>From the above, you can deduce that hdot is the basic unit. It is equal
to one unit of length, and is therefore a point, and 2 of these units
will make the smallest line possible.
Some of you may notice that the value of hdot is close to the Planck
length.
In fact,
hdot = lP * 3.2624172373801309834986588086623
where,
lP = Plack length = sqrt(hbar.G / c^3) =
1.616242812662618924792936625858e-35
>From wiki,
"By the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of standard quantum mechanics,
an object whose position was accurate to the Planck length would have
an uncertainty in momentum approximately 3.2629 kg m / s."
My calculation shows that this value is approximately
3.2624172373801309834986588086623, depending on the rounding errors
from my computer.
Since hdot is the smallest unit of length, the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle no longer exists.
I think a good name for this would be the Plank Point.
Golden Boar
hdot = mv, and
m = hdot/v.
If v = c,
m = hdot/c
m = 1.7588362452474617676195720036276e-43 kg.
Just as hdot is one unit of length, this value is one unit of mass.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> The formuala for the reduced Planck constant(hbar) is given by
>
> hbar = h / 2pi
>
> and the formula for the circumference of a circle is given by
>
> C = 2.pi.r
>
> rearranging for r gives,
>
> r = C / 2.pi
>
> From this we can tell that Planck's constant(h) is the circumference of
> a circle, whose radius is equal to the reduced Planck constant(hbar).
Since hbar does not have the unit of length, you can't draw a circle
with that radius. You could only draw a circle with a radius of hbar
times a conversion factor, and the circumference would then be h times
the same conversion factor.
> h = 2.pi.hbar
>
> Since we know that the spin operator has 2 eigenvalues (+hbar/2 and
> -hbar/2), we could define a constant,
>
> hdot = hbar / 2
>
> and since we now know that hbar is a length,
But we don't know that. You are assuming this conclusion above when
you say that hbar is the radius of a circle. And this is wrong.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Golden Boar
I am assuming this conclusion from the given facts.
h = 2.pi.hbar and C = 2.pi.r, therefore,
h = C and hbar = r.
If hbar is not a raduis, then how come it can replace r in all the
equations relating to the geometry of a circle and sphere?
Do you think that the value of hdot is just a coincidence.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
That's a non sequitur.
> If hbar is not a raduis, then how come it can replace r in all the
> equations relating to the geometry of a circle and sphere?
How on earth do you get from "one can write down equations for h and
hbar which look like equations for a circle" to "hbar is a radius"?
There are *lots* of examples of similar equations in the literature.
In no case this implies anything about the equality of the quantities
involved in them!
For example:
s = 0.5 a t^2 and ds/dt = a t
E = 0.5 m v^2 and dE/dv = m v
Do you conclude from that that E=s, v=t and a=m? You don't, right?
> Do you think that the value of hdot is just a coincidence.
Err, no. It is *defined* in that way. And it is defined in that
way because one in general uses the *angular* frequency omega instead
of the normal frequency nu in physics; and these two are related by
omega = 2 pi nu.
Do you know also want to claim that frequency nu is a radius?
Bye,
Bjoern
Golden Boar
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> Golden Boar wrote:
[snip]
> > Do you think that the value of hdot is just a coincidence.
>
> Err, no. It is *defined* in that way. And it is defined in that
> way because one in general uses the *angular* frequency omega instead
> of the normal frequency nu in physics; and these two are related by
> omega = 2 pi nu.
>
> Do you know also want to claim that frequency nu is a radius?
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
Yes, frequency is a radius.
>From wiki,
"The frequency of the standard pitch tone A above middle C is nowadays
set at 440 Hz that is 440 cycles per second."
440 cycles per second.
This means that a radius attached to a center point, will make 440
revolutions around that center point every secound.
Thanks for bringing this to my attentio, as this demonstates my Point
rather nicely.
Golden Boar
point, that rotates around that central point.
Golden Boar
> But we don't know that. You are assuming this conclusion above when
> you say that hbar is the radius of a circle. And this is wrong.
>
>
> [snip]
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
If the conclusion is wrong, would I be able to explain the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle.
This principle only exists when trying to measure a distance that is
smaller than the smallest possible distance.
The smallest distance is not the Planck length, it is hdot.
hdot = hbar/2 = 3.2624172373801309834986588086623.
So now, if the position of an object with a momentum of hdot is
measured, its position can be known to an exact point.
Greg Neill
> uncertainty principle.
>
> This principle only exists when trying to measure a distance that is
> smaller than the smallest possible distance.
>
> The smallest distance is not the Planck length, it is hdot.
> hdot = hbar/2 = 3.2624172373801309834986588086623.
>
> So now, if the position of an object with a momentum of hdot is
> measured, its position can be known to an exact point.
Your unit analysis is not flawed, it's entirely missing.
The units of h are Joule-Seconds. hbar is just h/(2pi), so its units
are Joule-Seconds too. It's not a length measure, it's a measure of
action.
That you would quote physical constants like h and hbar without
their units indicates that you don't know what you're doing.
Golden Boar
Golden Boar
I did not leave out the units, they were specified in my first post.
Here they are again.
hdot = 5.272858411822273815756962998755e-35 m.kg.s^-1
hbar = 2.hdot = 1.0545716823644547631513925997511e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
h = 4.pi.hdot = 6.6260693e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
As you can see, hbar / hdot (which is equal to 2/1) has units of meters.
Golden Boar
Frequency is not a radius, but it is a length, as I will now show.
A length(l) is a string of points(hdot), therefore,
l = n.hdot
where n is a positive integer.
At each end of a length, there is a point.
One of these end points is the center point, the other is the
circumference point.
The center point is fixed in position, and the string of points rotate
around this center point.
The distance traversed by the circumference point in one complete
rotation (which is 2.pi)
is given by the equation C = 2.pi.n.hdot.
Frequency is the number of repetitions in a given amount of time.
So for a string of points, frequency is the number of revolutions that
the circumference point makes around its center point, in a given
amount of time.
Or alternatively, frequency is the distance travelled by a circuference
point in a given amount of time.
hanson
news:1117747570.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>> Golden Boar wrote:
> Frequency is not a radius, but it is a length, as I will now show.
> point makes around its center point, in a given amount of time.
> Or alternatively, frequency is the distance travelled by a
> circuference point in a given amount of time.
>
That's what I call multi-tasking at its maximum frequency....
Listen dude, are your a reincarnation of Spaceman? If so,
hang around, Professor James Driscoll-Fuch. You are fun!
ahahaha... ahahanson
Golden Boar
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> Golden Boar wrote:
> > The formuala for the reduced Planck constant(hbar) is given by
> >
> > hbar = h / 2pi
> >
> > and the formula for the circumference of a circle is given by
> >
> > C = 2.pi.r
> >
> > rearranging for r gives,
> >
> > r = C / 2.pi
> >
> > From this we can tell that Planck's constant(h) is the circumference of
> > a circle, whose radius is equal to the reduced Planck constant(hbar).
>
> Since hbar does not have the unit of length, you can't draw a circle
> with that radius. You could only draw a circle with a radius of hbar
> times a conversion factor, and the circumference would then be h times
> the same conversion factor.
>
Since, hbar / hdot = 2, and m^2.kg.s^-1 / m.kg.s^-1 = m
then,
hbar / hdot = 2 units of length
If hbar is the quantum of angular momentum then hdot is the quantum of
length.
hdot is equal to one unit of length, and is therefore a point, and 2 of
these units will make the smallest line possible, which is hbar
This shows that the quantum of length is momentum, and the quantum of
angular momentum is length.
>
> > h = 2.pi.hbar
> >
> > Since we know that the spin operator has 2 eigenvalues (+hbar/2 and
> > -hbar/2), we could define a constant,
> >
> > hdot = hbar / 2
> >
> > and since we now know that hbar is a length,
>
> But we don't know that. You are assuming this conclusion above when
> you say that hbar is the radius of a circle. And this is wrong.
Well now you do know, because I have just shown you. So now you can
make measurements without any uncertainty.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Greg Neill wrote:
>
>>>If the conclusion is wrong, would I be able to explain the Heisenberg
>>>uncertainty principle.
>>>
>>>This principle only exists when trying to measure a distance that is
>>>smaller than the smallest possible distance.
>>>
>>>The smallest distance is not the Planck length, it is hdot.
>>>hdot = hbar/2 = 3.2624172373801309834986588086623.
>>>
>>>So now, if the position of an object with a momentum of hdot is
>>>measured, its position can be known to an exact point.
>>
>>Your unit analysis is not flawed, it's entirely missing.
>>
>>The units of h are Joule-Seconds. hbar is just h/(2pi), so its units
>>are Joule-Seconds too. It's not a length measure, it's a measure of
>>action.
>>
>>That you would quote physical constants like h and hbar without
>>their units indicates that you don't know what you're doing.
>
>
> I did not leave out the units, they were specified in my first post.
> Here they are again.
>
> hdot = 5.272858411822273815756962998755e-35 m.kg.s^-1
Wrong unit, see below.
> hbar = 2.hdot = 1.0545716823644547631513925997511e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
Err, if hdot is just hbar/2, it must have the same unit.
> h = 4.pi.hdot = 6.6260693e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
>
> As you can see, hbar / hdot (which is equal to 2/1) has units of meters.
Merely because you fooled up the unit of hdot. Actually, hbar/hdot is
dimensionless.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>
>>But we don't know that. You are assuming this conclusion above when
>>you say that hbar is the radius of a circle. And this is wrong.
>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Bye,
>>Bjoern
>
>
> If the conclusion is wrong, would I be able to explain the Heisenberg
> uncertainty principle.
>
> This principle only exists when trying to measure a distance that is
> smaller than the smallest possible distance.
Wrong. Try again.
> The smallest distance is not the Planck length, it is hdot.
> hdot = hbar/2 = 3.2624172373801309834986588086623.
hdot is not a distance. Wrong units, moron.
> So now, if the position of an object with a momentum of hdot
You just said that hdot is a distance. Hence it can't be a momentum.
> is measured, its position can be known to an exact point.
Non sequitur.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Greg Neill wrote:
>
>>>If the conclusion is wrong, would I be able to explain the Heisenberg
>>>uncertainty principle.
>>>
>>>This principle only exists when trying to measure a distance that is
>>>smaller than the smallest possible distance.
>>>
>>>The smallest distance is not the Planck length, it is hdot.
>>>hdot = hbar/2 = 3.2624172373801309834986588086623.
>>>
>>>So now, if the position of an object with a momentum of hdot is
>>>measured, its position can be known to an exact point.
>>
>>Your unit analysis is not flawed, it's entirely missing.
>>
>>The units of h are Joule-Seconds. hbar is just h/(2pi), so its units
>>are Joule-Seconds too. It's not a length measure, it's a measure of
>>action.
>>
>>That you would quote physical constants like h and hbar without
>>their units indicates that you don't know what you're doing.
>
>
> I did not leave out the units, they were specified in my first post.
> Here they are again.
>
> hdot = 5.272858411822273815756962998755e-35 m.kg.s^-1
Notice that something with the unit m-kg-s^-1 can not be a length,
since lengths have the unit m.
> hbar = 2.hdot = 1.0545716823644547631513925997511e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
> h = 4.pi.hdot = 6.6260693e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
>
> As you can see, hbar / hdot (which is equal to 2/1) has units of meters.
No, we don't see that. Its unit *contains* the unit meter. But it does
not *have* the unit meter. Are you really too stupid to understand the
difference?
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>>Golden Boar wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>Do you think that the value of hdot is just a coincidence.
>>
>>Err, no. It is *defined* in that way. And it is defined in that
>>way because one in general uses the *angular* frequency omega instead
>>of the normal frequency nu in physics; and these two are related by
>>omega = 2 pi nu.
>>
>>Do you know also want to claim that frequency nu is a radius?
>>
>>
>>Bye,
>>Bjoern
>
>
> Yes, frequency is a radius.
Brain-dead idiot.
>>From wiki,
> "The frequency of the standard pitch tone A above middle C is nowadays
> set at 440 Hz that is 440 cycles per second."
>
> 440 cycles per second.
> This means that a radius attached to a center point, will make 440
> revolutions around that center point every secound.
Yes. So what? That implies in no way that frequency is a radius!
> Thanks for bringing this to my attentio, as this demonstates my Point
> rather nicely.
Thanks for bringing to my attention that you are totally disconnected
from reality and have not the faintest clue of physics.
Bye,
Bjoern
Golden Boar
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> Golden Boar wrote:
[snip]
> > Do you think that the value of hdot is just a coincidence.
>
> Err, no. It is *defined* in that way. And it is defined in that
> way because one in general uses the *angular* frequency omega instead
> of the normal frequency nu in physics; and these two are related by
> omega = 2 pi nu.
>
> Do you know also want to claim that frequency nu is a radius?
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
It is defined in that way because it has something to do with circles,
which is damn obvious since hbar is known as the quantum of angular
momentum.
Golden Boar
I already said that I confused wavelength with frequency.
Golden Boar
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
> Err, if hdot is just hbar/2, it must have the same unit.
[snip]
Wouldn't the "2" be units of length?
Golden Boar
Are you too stupid to understand that I never said that hdot has units
of length. I said hdot IS the unit of length. IS not HAS. And of course
it cannot have length, it is a point.
This is why there is no HUP. Did you read through what I posted, or did
you just stop at "hbar is the radius", because I notice you have not
mentioned anything about the HUP.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
That doesn't make the above much better.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>>Golden Boar wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>Do you think that the value of hdot is just a coincidence.
>>
>>Err, no. It is *defined* in that way. And it is defined in that
>>way because one in general uses the *angular* frequency omega instead
>>of the normal frequency nu in physics; and these two are related by
>>omega = 2 pi nu.
>>
>>Do you know also want to claim that frequency nu is a radius?
>>
>>
>>Bye,
>>Bjoern
>
>
> It is defined in that way because it has something to do with circles,
*Very* *vaguely*.
> which is damn obvious since hbar is known as the quantum of angular
> momentum.
That hbar has to do with angular momentum comes from the Heisenbergian
commutation relations, not from hbar having anything to do with a circle.
I'm quite sure you don't even know what "quantum of angular momentum"
actually means.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
"2" is a number, not a unit.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
That makes even less sense. A constant is not a unit.
> And of course it cannot have length, it is a point.
hdot is not a point, it's a number, a constant. It's not something
geometrical.
> This is why there is no HUP. Did you read through what I posted, or did
> you just stop at "hbar is the radius", because I notice you have not
> mentioned anything about the HUP.
No, I didn't read what you wrote further, since already your starting
point was plain utter nonsense.
Bye,
Bjoern
bz
"2 inches" would have units of length.
"2" has no units.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Golden Boar
Its still true never the less.
Golden Boar
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> Golden Boar wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> >
> >>Golden Boar wrote:
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>>Do you think that the value of hdot is just a coincidence.
> >>
> >>Err, no. It is *defined* in that way. And it is defined in that
> >>way because one in general uses the *angular* frequency omega instead
> >>of the normal frequency nu in physics; and these two are related by
> >>omega = 2 pi nu.
> >>
> >>Do you know also want to claim that frequency nu is a radius?
> >>
> >>
> >>Bye,
> >>Bjoern
> >
> >
> > It is defined in that way because it has something to do with circles,
>
> *Very* *vaguely*.
As vaguely as C = 2.pi.r
>
>
> > which is damn obvious since hbar is known as the quantum of angular
> > momentum.
>
> That hbar has to do with angular momentum comes from the Heisenbergian
> commutation relations, not from hbar having anything to do with a circle.
>
So before Heisenberg came along with his comutation relations, hbar had
nothing to do with angular momentum?
Thats news to me.
> I'm quite sure you don't even know what "quantum of angular momentum"
> actually means.
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
>From wiki,
"In physics, angular momentum intuitively measures how much the linear
momentum is directed around a certain point called the origin."
Since hbar is the quantum of angular momentum, it is a measurement of
how much linear momentum is directed around a point.
That point is hdot.
Golden Boar
I was thinking that hdot should have units of angular momentum, so i
concede your point.
Now, for a string of 10 points,
C = d.pi = 10.hdot.pi = 1.6565173249999999999999999999999e-33
m^2.kg.s^-1
And since a point is THE unit of length, and hdot is a point, then,
10.hdot.pi / hdot = 10.pi = 31.415926535897932384626433832795 units of
length.
This means that a string of points is stretched as it rotates around
its center point.
Golden Boar
I concede your point.
Lady Chatterly
Golden Boar <golde...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I concede your point.
Is that the only way you can write that Down in your book in great big
letters?
--
Lady Chatterly
"BTW Dali - you've just been chatting away quite happily, with not a
'person', but a 'bot' (Chatterley) HTH matey!" -- Shaun
Golden Boar
Why cant a constant be a unit?
hdot = 5.272858411822273815756962998755e-35 m.kg.s^-1 = 1 fundamental
unit of length.
Whats difficult to understand about that.
>
> > And of course it cannot have length, it is a point.
>
> hdot is not a point, it's a number, a constant. It's not something
> geometrical.
>
>
> > This is why there is no HUP. Did you read through what I posted, or did
> > you just stop at "hbar is the radius", because I notice you have not
> > mentioned anything about the HUP.
>
> No, I didn't read what you wrote further, since already your starting
> point was plain utter nonsense.
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
How would you know if you didn't read what I wrote.
And still nothing to say about the HUP.
Golden Boar
Lady Chatterly wrote:
> In article <1117822888.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
> Golden Boar <golde...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >I concede your point.
>
> Is that the only way you can write that Down in your book in great big
> letters?
>
> --
> Lady Chatterly
>
> "BTW Dali - you've just been chatting away quite happily, with not a
> 'person', utb a 'bot' (Chatterley) HTH matey!" -- Shaun
No idea what thts supposed to mean
Puppet_Sock
> The formuala for the reduced Planck constant(hbar) is given by
>
> hbar = h / 2pi
This is a convention. Because many equations involving
the constant h had factors of 1/2pi, the new constant
was invented to make writing the equations easier. These
are, physically, the same number. The physical units
are the same on both sides of the equation.
> and the formula for the circumference of a circle is given by
>
> C = 2.pi.r
Has nothing to do with it.
> From this we can tell that Planck's constant(h) is the circumference of
> a circle, whose radius is equal to the reduced Planck constant(hbar).
Nope. Neither h nor hbar is a distance.
> Since we know that the spin operator has 2 eigenvalues (+hbar/2 and
> -hbar/2), we could define a constant,
Only for a spin 1/2 particle. For other particles it can
have other values. For photons, for example, it can be
+/- 1. For the nucleus of an atom it can be lots of
other values.
> hdot = hbar / 2
You really need to study this before you post on it.
Since hdot is defined by this, it has to have the same
physical units as hbar, which has the same physical
units as h.
> and since we now know that hbar is a length, then,
We know that hbar is *not* a length.
[snip]
> Now we can redefine h and hbar in terms of hdot, so that we get
Um. No. You just defined hdot as hbar/2.
> hdot = 5.272858411822273815756962998755e-35 m.kg.s^-1
> hbar = 2.hdot = 1.0545716823644547631513925997511e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
> h = 4.pi.hdot = 6.6260693e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
Your units are wrong. Since these constants are simply related
by multiplying by real numbers, their units must be the same.
And where ever did you get all those digits? I misremember
how many digits h is measured to. The value you give for
h might have about the right number. The values for hdot
and hbar certainly have far too many digits. Did you actually
finish highschool?
> My calculation shows that this value is approximately
> 3.2624172373801309834986588086623, depending on the rounding errors
> from my computer.
Um. You really need to study this before you post on it.
Try reading a book. Say, a grade 9 science textbook would
be about right. Something that talks about significant
digits and accuracy, and maybe covers physical units.
> Since hdot is the smallest unit of length, the Heisenberg uncertainty
> principle no longer exists.
Since hdot is not a unit of length, you are in trouble.
Even if it *were* a unit of length, which it isn't, it
would not be a *smallest* unit of length. For you have
said not a thing about what keeps lengths from being
smaller than some unit of length.
I've got a ruler here. It can measure down to 1/2 mm. Does
this mean there is no such thing as distances shorter than
1/2 mm? Of course not.
> I think a good name for this would be the Plank Point.
I think a good name for this would be shash.
Socks
Golden Boar
Puppet_Sock wrote:
> Golden Boar wrote:
> > The formuala for the reduced Planck constant(hbar) is given by
> >
> > hbar = h / 2pi
>
> This is a convention. Because many equations involving
> the constant h had factors of 1/2pi, the new constant
> was invented to make writing the equations easier. These
> are, physically, the same number. The physical units
> are the same on both sides of the equation.
>
And why do these equations involve 1/2.pi (which is something happening
per revolution around a point)?
> > and the formula for the circumference of a circle is given by
> >
> > C = 2.pi.r
>
> Has nothing to do with it.
>
So, C = 2.pi.r has nothing to do with revolutions around a point?
> > From this we can tell that Planck's constant(h) is the circumference of
> > a circle, whose radius is equal to the reduced Planck constant(hbar).
>
> Nope. Neither h nor hbar is a distance.
What is distance?
>
> > Since we know that the spin operator has 2 eigenvalues (+hbar/2 and
> > -hbar/2), we could define a constant,
>
> Only for a spin 1/2 particle. For other particles it can
> have other values. For photons, for example, it can be
> +/- 1. For the nucleus of an atom it can be lots of
> other values.
>
Yes, but they are all multiples of hbar/2, and therefore multiples of
hdot.
> > hdot = hbar / 2
>
> You really need to study this before you post on it.
> Since hdot is defined by this, it has to have the same
> physical units as hbar, which has the same physical
> units as h.
Yes, this was pointed out previously, and I have accepted this.
>
> > and since we now know that hbar is a length, then,
>
> We know that hbar is *not* a length.
>
> [snip]
> > Now we can redefine h and hbar in terms of hdot, so that we get
>
> Um. No. You just defined hdot as hbar/2.
Yes. If hdot = hbar/2 then hbar = 2.hdot
This is defining hbar in terms of hdot. What's the problem here?
>
> > hdot = 5.272858411822273815756962998755e-35 m.kg.s^-1
> > hbar = 2.hdot = 1.0545716823644547631513925997511e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
> > h = 4.pi.hdot = 6.6260693e-34 m^2.kg.s^-1
>
> Your units are wrong. Since these constants are simply related
> by multiplying by real numbers, their units must be the same.
>
> And where ever did you get all those digits? I misremember
> how many digits h is measured to. The value you give for
> h might have about the right number. The values for hdot
> and hbar certainly have far too many digits. Did you actually
> finish highschool?
The value of Planck's constant was taken from NIST.
Since hbar = h/2.pi and pi has been calculated to billions of decimal
places, so in fact, thay dont have enough digits.
Is that egg on your face there?
>
> > My calculation shows that this value is approximately
> > 3.2624172373801309834986588086623, depending on the rounding errors
> > from my computer.
>
> Um. You really need to study this before you post on it.
> Try reading a book. Say, a grade 9 science textbook would
> be about right. Something that talks about significant
> digits and accuracy, and maybe covers physical units.
Maybe you should take your own advice.
>
> > Since hdot is the smallest unit of length, the Heisenberg uncertainty
> > principle no longer exists.
>
> Since hdot is not a unit of length, you are in trouble.
> Even if it *were* a unit of length, which it isn't, it
> would not be a *smallest* unit of length. For you have
> said not a thing about what keeps lengths from being
> smaller than some unit of length.
hdot would have mass, a length of 1 and a velocity (probably angular).
If it was a little solid spherical ball(a point) then the length would
be its diameter, and it would be the smallest object in the universe.
With this picture in mind, hbar would be 2 of these spheres stuck
together.
>
> I've got a ruler here. It can measure down to 1/2 mm. Does
> this mean there is no such thing as distances shorter than
> 1/2 mm? Of course not.
>
At these scales, values are quantized, the only value smaller than hdot
is 0. Re-arranging the sentence gives, nothing is smaller than hdot.
If you think this is wrong then explain why particles only have spins
which are multiples of hdot.
> > I think a good name for this would be the Plank Point.
>
> I think a good name for this would be shash.
> Socks
Silly me, it is already known as the origin, so for this special case
is should be called the Planck Origin.
PD
Golden Boar wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > The formuala for the reduced Planck constant(hbar) is given by
> > >
> > > hbar = h / 2pi
> > >
> > > and the formula for the circumference of a circle is given by
> > >
> > > C = 2.pi.r
> > >
> > > rearranging for r gives,
> > >
> > > r = C / 2.pi
> > >
> > > From this we can tell that Planck's constant(h) is the circumference of
> > > a circle, whose radius is equal to the reduced Planck constant(hbar).
> >
> > Since hbar does not have the unit of length, you can't draw a circle
> > with that radius. You could only draw a circle with a radius of hbar
> > times a conversion factor, and the circumference would then be h times
> > the same conversion factor.
> >
> >
> > > h = 2.pi.hbar
> > >
> > > Since we know that the spin operator has 2 eigenvalues (+hbar/2 and
> > > -hbar/2), we could define a constant,
> > >
> > > hdot = hbar / 2
> > >
> > > and since we now know that hbar is a length,
> >
> > But we don't know that. You are assuming this conclusion above when
> > you say that hbar is the radius of a circle. And this is wrong.
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Bye,
> > Bjoern
>
> I am assuming this conclusion from the given facts.
>
> h = 2.pi.hbar and C = 2.pi.r, therefore,
> h = C and hbar = r.
>
> If hbar is not a raduis, then how come it can replace r in all the
> equations relating to the geometry of a circle and sphere?
>
> Do you think that the value of hdot is just a coincidence.
This is a fine example of why units are so important in physics.
Numbers alone in physics are useless without the units appropriate to
those numbers. (Suppose I told you the temperature outside is 38. Is it
hot or cold out?) Just because two formulas look similar does not mean
they carry the same meaning, and it does not mean that you can
associate variables to have similar meaning just because they hold an
equivalent spot in similar formulas.
2*pi is a factor that shows up in many, many laws of physics. It does
not imply a connection between those laws.
There are Nonsense Demons lurking in physics numerology, Golden Boar.
Dicking around with numbers without keeping track of what they mean is
a waste of time.
PD
Golden Boar
PD wrote:
[snip]
>
> 2*pi is a factor that shows up in many, many laws of physics. It does
> not imply a connection between those laws.
>
[snip]
Of course it does, 2.pi is the constant of proportionality between the
circumference of a circle and its radius. The laws of physics that
involve 2.pi have a circular component, and therefore the circle is the
connection between them.
Post some physics equations involving 2.pi and I will try to show you
the circular connection.
FrediFizzx
news:1117943337.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Do a simple one. Energy of a photon.
E = hbar*w
Where hbar = h/2pi and w is omega, frequency.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Golden Boar
point(hdot) in a given amount of time, made by a radius(hbar).
This gives 2 ways to visualize a photon, as a circle, or as a spring.
The spring photon model would make more sense than the circle photon
model, as the length of the spring would be related to frequency. So
you could estimate the photon energy from the size of the spring.
In fact there would be two types of spring, the closed loop spring and
the open or straight sping. I would say that the photon would be a
closed loop spring and the electron would be an open spring.
I think this explains the relation to a circle very well.
Lets face it, nature loves circles.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>>Golden Boar wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Golden Boar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Do you think that the value of hdot is just a coincidence.
>>>>
>>>>Err, no. It is *defined* in that way. And it is defined in that
>>>>way because one in general uses the *angular* frequency omega instead
>>>>of the normal frequency nu in physics; and these two are related by
>>>>omega = 2 pi nu.
>>>>
>>>>Do you know also want to claim that frequency nu is a radius?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bye,
>>>>Bjoern
>>>
>>>
>>>It is defined in that way because it has something to do with circles,
>>
>>*Very* *vaguely*.
>
>
> As vaguely as C = 2.pi.r
No.
>>>which is damn obvious since hbar is known as the quantum of angular
>>>momentum.
>>
>>That hbar has to do with angular momentum comes from the Heisenbergian
>>commutation relations, not from hbar having anything to do with a circle.
>>
>
>
> So before Heisenberg came along with his comutation relations, hbar had
> nothing to do with angular momentum?
No, that's not what I said. Try again.
> Thats news to me.
>
>
>>I'm quite sure you don't even know what "quantum of angular momentum"
>>actually means.
>>
>>
>>Bye,
>>Bjoern
>
>
>>From wiki,
> "In physics, angular momentum intuitively measures how much the linear
> momentum is directed around a certain point called the origin."
Notice the word "intuitively". That's not a definition; that's merely
a fuzzy description.
> Since hbar is the quantum of angular momentum, it is a measurement of
> how much linear momentum is directed around a point.
Wrong.
> That point is hdot.
Utter nonsense.
BTW: you didn't tell me what "quantum of angular momentum" actually
means in your opinion. No surprise.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> The energy of a photon is the number of rotations(w) around a
> point(hdot) in a given amount of time, made by a radius(hbar).
Plain utter nonsense. An energy is not an number of rotations.
[snip more nonsense]
Bye,
Bjoern
Golden Boar
OK then clever clogs, what is energy?
If h is a circumference, which I am saying it is, then the statement
makes sense.
The energy of a photon is the number of rotations around a point in a
given amount of time. E = h.f
It even draws you an image of a photon.
Golden Boar
Well that's what it sounded like to me.
Let's have another look,
"That hbar has to do with angular momentum comes from the Heisenbergian
commutation relations..."
Yes, it still sounds that way to me.
>
>
> > Thats news to me.
> >
> >
> >>I'm quite sure you don't even know what "quantum of angular momentum"
> >>actually means.
> >>
> >>
> >>Bye,
> >>Bjoern
> >
> >
> >>From wiki,
> > "In physics, angular momentum intuitively measures how much the linear
> > momentum is directed around a certain point called the origin."
>
> Notice the word "intuitively". That's not a definition; that's merely
> a fuzzy description.
>
>
> > Since hbar is the quantum of angular momentum, it is a measurement of
> > how much linear momentum is directed around a point.
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>
> > That point is hdot.
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
> BTW: you didn't tell me what "quantum of angular momentum" actually
> means in your opinion. No surprise.
The smallest value that angular momentum can take on, which is hdot.
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern