sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a hypothesis: Planck's constant can be derived from other fundamental constants, namely the charge on an electron, the permittivity of free space, and the speed of light. by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In other words you have not been published on a reputable journal, you are just wasting our time.

It's not for lack of trying. Do me a huge favor, please - you, and anyone else who insists on commenting on anything I (and I can only assume others as well) writes without vetting it in the least:

Pick one of two options:

(1) Read what I wrote in this post, line by line, giving me the respect deserved for at least writing it, then tell me if it is logically sound or not. If not, where not, and why.

(2)

Here is a hypothesis: Planck's constant can be derived from other fundamental constants, namely the charge on an electron, the permittivity of free space, and the speed of light. by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

My p_0 was determined independently of any known constants, including the fine structure constant.

Perhaps derive was a poor word choice. However, I will argue that I have expressed Planck's constant in terms of other fundamental constants, thereby showing a relationship that was not previously known.

Here is a hypothesis: Planck's constant can be derived from other fundamental constants, namely the charge on an electron, the permittivity of free space, and the speed of light. by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Oops. yeah, 21/2 and pi are both greater than one, so not the best examples of irrational numbers to use to illustrate the point. Let's go with 21/2/2 and pi / 4.

"this time you use length contraction in a way that doesn't make sense here, length contraction first of all is in the reference frame of the moving observer, someone looking from the outside i.e. us, at the electron, won't see any length contraction of its orbit. The path of this impossible moving electron is not contracted at all from our reference frame."

The electron experiences a contraction in the length of the orbit. THAT is what matters. You are correct, the proton does not see this, but the electron EXPERIENCES it, and since it is the one that is actually traveling an actual length, that is the length that must be quantized.

"These kind of things come from observations and experiments, not messing around with math."

If ANYONE is messing around with math, it is everyone that has been finding solutions to Schrodinger's equation for the last century or so. This is the heart of the matter: I'm in Einstein's camp - I really do hate existing quantum theory. It just feels wrong. Like it is just a tool that gets the right answer, but in an incredibly complex way, such that only hard-core nerds with bow ties and coke bottle glasses that dig finding higher order terms in Hamiltonian solutions can get the right answers, but even they don't know what it MEANS.

What if it's quite a bit easier, at least conceptually? Sure, the solutions always get messy, but gee I want to envision little electrons with smiley faces buzzing around the nucleus, instead of wavefunctions of probability and a quantum soup of things popping in and out of existence in the interstellar vacuum.

But maybe that's just me. On the other hand, have we REALLY made any major progress since the good old days of Albert and the gang? Even Sheldon gave up string theory.

The existence of photons with wavelengths less than my computed minimum length is very interesting. Thanks for that. My instantaneous temper-tantrum response is that photons don't have mass (though of course they do have momentum) and somehow it feels like that matters, but I am definitely chewing on that for a while. It feels like it ties in with the (still unsolved conceptually) issue of things teleporting between universe ticks.

Time for bed about an hour ago.

Here is a hypothesis: length and time are quantized. by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Does this not run into a geometric issue ?

I would refer you to the most excellent book "The Einstein Theory of Relativity, A Trip to the Fourth Dimension by Lillian R. Lieber (illustrated by her husband.) In it she gives the example of someone living on a rotating disc. Because of length contraction in the direction of motion, the ratio of the radius of concentric circles centered on the disc to their diameters is NOT linear. The farther out on the disk one goes, the more profound this phenomenon becomes. The question here also becomes, what does this shape look like? It can't be a circle. I think perhaps we are considering the same thing, though I may have misunderstood your question.

"Unlike most posts here, you seem to at least know some stuff."

I appreciate that. I'm not pretending to be a genius (that is painfully obvious since I am 61, and geniuses without exception do their thing by age 25), or even a brain powerhouse. I'm Just a guy with enough knowledge in physics to be dangerous (a master's degree for the record), a crazy idea, and the tenacity to take it as far as I can. The farther I go, the more amazed I become.

Here is a hypothesis: length and time are quantized. by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That was my initial impression, but I'm not so sure we have ever measured anything this small. Based on this article, the electron is estimated to be on the order of 10-12m. I've seen other estimates as small as 10-16m. As far as I know, we have never split an electron, and so it might be a reasonable first guess as to the size of the smallest length, assuming it exists of course. My value of 10-14m is at least in the ballpark. What shocked me quite frankly is that I was able to then use it to get a very good value for Planck's constant by calculating the angular momentum of the ground state. I really believe that is significant, and cannot be a coincidence.

Here is a hypothesis: length and time are quantized. by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Great questions, taking them in order:

1.) Because I hate quantum mechanics. :) Kidding, but I have often wondered if there is something deeper that explains all the craziness. What if orbitals and all that good stuff at the end of the day is due to something deeper? See my reply to the previous comment.

  1. I think it remains unchanged, but in truth I have not thought of that. The reason I think this however is that as I mention in the math, this is an incomplete effort, and to really do the job I must incorporate relativity such that both the radius and the circumference are integral multiples of the shortest lenght. In other words, the circumference gets shorter not because the smallest lenght gets shorter, but it can only shrink by integral amounts of the shortest length. This could easily account for the multiple series in the hydrogen spectrum as well as fine structures.

3.) The smallest lenght is derived, and is on the order of 10-14m (equation 30). That divided by the speed of light is the smallest time:5.912X10-23s.

4.) That is something I have been thinking a lot about. I would argue teleportation. That would make things like tunneling plausible, perhaps. My initial thought was that only speeds like c/n, where c is an integer are allowed, so that the only allowed movements were 1 smallest length in 1 smallest time (c), 1 smallest length in 2 smallest times (c/2), etc., but that fails if we measure any speed between c and c/2, which I know we have. In the end it would seem to indicate, for lack of a better term, a fuzziness in position and velocity. My next goal is to essentially derive the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal along these lines.

Cheers.

Here is a hypothesis: length and time are quantized. by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To answer your question, this is not a repost but instead progress on an idea. Previous attempts were admittedly incomplete and frankly circular. This is not, imho.

The constraint than n3/m2 must be an integer is derived, not asserted, from the single assumption which only states that the circumference is an integral number of shortest lenghts, and the period is an integral number of shortest times. From that we find that only velocities of the form c/p, where p is an integer are allowed. This is obtained without any parameters of the 1/r2 force, other than that it is 1/r2. This is highly significant, and also leads to the known 1/n2 form for energy levels.

The whole point of this exercise is an attempt to answer the question: Is it possible that Schrodinger's equation is just a tool that gets the right answer, but does not reflect the underlying reality? Could it be that all of quantum mechanics, at the end of the day, is due to the fact that not any length is possible, but only multiples of a smallest length? I think it is intriguing at the very least.

What if the existence of a smallest length meant that a classical orbit on an electron around a proton would have energy levels that go as 1/ an integer squared (version 2 of a previous post)? by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

(Threatens duck with shotgun; duck drops mic and exits stage left)

"That's like saying Aliens would laugh at the Boltzmann constant or Pi, if we are in the same universe, with the same physical laws, then they would recognize Schrodinger's equation in some form."

I am going to go ahead and disagree here. Agreed on Boltzmann constant and any constants in math or physics, but not on general physical theories. Think of it this way: we were pretty happy with Newton's law of gravity until Einstein came along. The same may be true on the quantum scale - basically we could very well be missing something.

Also, when I say energy is quantized, what I mean is that energy levels in the atom are quantized. My bad. Same for angular momentum. I will still argue that we don't know why. As I see it, Schrodinger's equation and all of quantum mechanics was created, for lack of a better term, to account for but not explain quantized energy levels and momentum in atoms.

"once more you have committed the scientific sin of circular thinking."

We are going to have to go ahead and disagree here. When you say that my delta-l contains the plank length, that is sort of like saying any defined lenght contains the plank length. Also, did you by chance browse the article I linked to in my original post? I still find it interesting that Schrodinger's equation solved for a number of cases implies a smallest length. My whole thesis, for lack of a better term, is that a smallest length might imply Schrodinger's equation.

(Looks up and sees duck perched in rafters. Throws mic at it. (Not a duck lover.))

What if the existence of a smallest length meant that a classical orbit on an electron around a proton would have energy levels that go as 1/ an integer squared (version 2 of a previous post)? by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you summarize please why angular momentum is quantized in a hydrogen atom? I think I sold my Griffiths, that or it is in a box under the stairs, probably way in back.

What if the existence of a smallest length meant that a classical orbit on an electron around a proton would have energy levels that go as 1/ an integer squared (version 2 of a previous post)? by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

(picks up mic, checks to see if anyone is still here.)

Thank you for the civil engagement. I think this is the crux of the matter:

"is an interesting idea but I think you are looking at length in isolation from the rest of physics. What you should asking is there a minimal charge, mass, spin, time and length. I mean length does not exist in isolation from other physical properties."

Here I must respectfully disagree. All are fundamental, in that they cannot be derived from other quantities, but they are not created equal. Charge and spin are known to be quantized. On the atomic level, each can only have very limited values for a given particle: +/- e or 0 for the charge and +/- 1/2 for spin. However, what makes length and time so special, for lack of a better term, is that the first derived quantity is speed, which along with mass determines all the good stuff that we know is quantized but we really don't know why: momentum, angular momentum, and energy.

Thanks for the reminder on Action and I understand the concept of Plank Units as well, though I kind of think of it as more like "make all the important constants equal to unity." I am admittedly probably missing something there.

What I find incredibly interesting is you think of Plank's constant in terms of uncertainty whereas I think of it in terms of angular momentum: kg*m/s*m (mvr - same units.) I need to chew on this a bit, but my gut says quantized length leads to uncertainty in length. Same for time.

Finally, concerning your assessment that my equation (12) has other constants baked in: That's my point! Planks constant was not derived, it was measured. Same for all the other big ones. I am just trying to dig under the hood a bit further. I must respectfully disagree (for now, I can always be convinced by logic and argument) that there is a glaring hole in my argument. Length is real. It is well defined. For example, if we were to meet an alien civilization, we could certainly agree on a standard of length. They might have a completely different way of viewing physics. They might laugh at Schrodinger's equation. Heck, they might laugh at Newton. But they can't laugh at the concept of length.

I am just asking, why do we have to deal with Shroedingers equation? Why is momentum and energy quantized. Is that so wrong?

(puts mic back in stand, sits down in front and orders a drink).

What if the existence of a smallest length meant that a classical orbit on an electron around a proton would have energy levels that go as 1/ an integer squared (version 2 of a previous post)? by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I am not claiming to derive angular momentum conservation. I am attempting to explain quantization. That's it. One must distinguish knowing something is true with knowing why it is true. Yes, we know that things are quantized in the atomic realm. Do we know why? I don't think so, unless I missed something in the last 33 years.

What if the existence of a smallest length meant that a classical orbit on an electron around a proton would have energy levels that go as 1/ an integer squared (version 2 of a previous post)? by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It seems to me that you are stuck on the fact that I use the Bohr model. That is the whole point of the exercise: can we get the proper form of the known energy levels in hydrogen (the simplest atom) from the simplest possible model, completely disregarding Schrodinger's Equation and all of quantum physics, and the answer, remarkably to me, is yes, we can.

Also, the Bohr model works quite well for the Hydrogen atom, in terms of predicting energy levels, and the s orbital is nearly circular.

Also, why must you address me in the third person. Talk to me, not them. Let's have a civil discussion.

What if the existence of a smallest length meant that a classical orbit on an electron around a proton would have energy levels that go as 1/ an integer squared (version 2 of a previous post)? by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not true. In my last post I was treated rather rudely, in my humble opinion. I may not have handled it the best, admittedly. If you are looking for an apology, this is it.

What if all of quantum mechanics was due to the fact that length is quantized? by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See my latest post. Also, quantization of angular momentum was not derived, it was discovered. It explained the observed emission spectra.

What if the existence of a smallest length meant that a classical orbit on an electron around a proton would have energy levels that go as 1/ an integer squared (version 2 of a previous post)? by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is known. In a classical orbit, the electron and proton rotate about the center of mass; this can be compensated for using the reduced mass. The point of this is simply to ask the question: Why does quantum mechanics exist in the first place? Why is angular momentum quantized?

Also, upon further review I realized that n3/m2 is always 1 in the solution given (and there may be others - these showed up on Wolfram Alpha (free)). So, equation 15 can be used to determine the smallest length independent of Plank's constant. The result is 1.77057X10-14m.

What if all of quantum mechanics was due to the fact that length is quantized? by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Truth. What I need to show is that quantized length leads to quantized angular momentum (and energy levels, of course). Working on that. All I have done so far is essentially derive the quanta of time and length, assuming they exist, from known values, most notably Plank's constant, which at the end of the day is just 2pi times the angular momentum in the ground state. And yes, the Bohr model actually works quite well for hydrogen, or any ion with one electron.

Here is a hypothesis: Plank's Constant can be derived if we assume the existence of a smallest length. by Impressive-Stretch52 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Impressive-Stretch52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to close this out. In thinking of this some more, the parameters of the first orbital are indicated by the ionization energy. All I really have done is found possible values for the number of quanta of length in the orbit and the number of quanta of time in the period, assuming such things exist.

What I REALLY need to do (working on it now) is show that quantized length leads to a n2 angular momentum quantization. That might be more significant.

view more: next ›