Thursday, 9 July 2015

h c

I have been pottering around with the physics again for the last 3 or 4 years and I think its time to step up, put my head above the parapet, and finally publish a post about what I really think, this, is that post.

If you wondering why it is title hc, well it should really be

$ \hbar c$

$\hbar$ is reduced Planck's constant
$c$ is speed of light

I think this is pretty much core to the whole of physics, again, more posts on this later.

Right, lets start with some ground rules;

1) everything that I put in the post I will attempt to justify, when necessary, in later posts.
2) if I claim something that someone else has already laid claim to, I will update this post as soon as I become aware of it.
3) if I think of any other ground rules I will add them later

Ok, here we go;

1) Force is quantised.

Energy is quantised, we have Planck's equation

$ E = h \nu $ ...(1)

$\nu$ - frequency of photon.

now multiply top and bottom by $\lambda$, wavelength and use relationship $ c = \nu \lambda$ and you have

$ E = $ $\frac {hc} {\lambda} $ ... (2)

now divide each side by $\lambda$ and you have

$ \frac {E} {\lambda} = \frac {hc} {\lambda^2} =$ $ F $ ...(3)

where F is force. There are a number of different ways of deriving equation (3), but the point is that just as energy can be quantised, so can force. It also means that a photon as an intrinsic force who's value is given by (3).

2) Energy is accelerated when photons are created. I've covered this in a previous post. The upshot is that the acceleration is proportional to the frequency of the photon created, given by

$ g = \nu c $ ...(4)


$ g \lambda = c^2 $ ....(5)

note: I also covered this one here.

3) There is only one force and this is defined by

$ F = $ $ \frac {k \hbar c} {r^2} $ ... (6)

k - unitless coupling constant

Gravity, the electrostatic, weak and strong force are all different manifestations of the same force given in equation (6). Each having its own version of k. I think it goes further than this though. I think they are exactly the same force. We currently have the 4 different coupling constants, because we have failed to grasp the significance of equation (6). I think we can use this to bridge quantum mechanics and general relativity, but more on that later.

4) There are other maximums in the universe besides the speed of light. Planck units define the borders of the universe, eg

Planck Force - maximum force that can be exerted
Planck Energy density, the maximum energy that can be compressed into a given volume.
Planck length - smallest meaningful length.

5) From the proposition in (4) the following results can be inferred

a) Singularities within Black Holes do not exist.
b) black holes behave like superconductors at the event horizon
c) Space-time is quantised
d) Dark matter / dark energy do not exist

I'll go into the detail of this one later.

6) Space-time has surface tension, curvature of space time is related to this surface tension. The value of the surface tension is given by the following equation

$ k_t r^3 = \hbar c $    ...(7)

$k_t$ - surface tension of space time
$r$ - radius of curvature

and last and by no means least

7) Gravity & Coulombs constant.... Save this one for later :)

Right so that is it. I've covered or discussed a few of these in the past mostly around October 2013, when I had a month off work and messed around with some equations. This time round I'll see if I can go through them a little more methodically with some justifications.

bye for now.

Wednesday, 18 March 2015

Speed of light, squared

It's been a while since I managed to post anything, mostly because I have been going round and round in circles!

This post is actually two posts! This post is on one of the more commonly known constants in physics, the speed of light, or rather the speed of light squared. In the first part I am going to derive a couple of equations and in the second I will discuss them in a little more detail.

The most common version of $C^2$ as got to be Einstein's very famous equation,

$ E = mc^2 ... (1)$

E - energy
m - mass

probably the most famous equation in the world. There a a fair number of others, from Maxwell's equations we have

$ \frac {\delta E} {\delta t}$ $= c^2 \bigtriangledown$ x $ B  ... (2) $

E - Electric field
B - Magnetic field

from General relativity we have the Schwarzschild radius

$ 2GM = r_s c^2 ...(3) $

G - gravitational constant
M - mass
$r_s$ - Schwarszchild radius

If you have a play with the Planck Units you can derived a whole bunch, here are a couple of them

$\sqrt {F_p G} = c^2 ... (4) $

$F_p$ - Planck Force
G - gravitational constant

$\frac {v_p q_p} {m_p}$ $= c^2 ...(5) $

$v_p$ - Planck voltage
$q_p$ - Planck charge
$m_p$ - Planck mass

From equation (2) though there is another version that prompted this post, it is this

$ c^2 =$  $\frac {1} {\epsilon_0 \mu_0}$ $ ...(6) $

$\epsilon_0$ - permittivity of free space
$\mu_0$ - permeability of free space = $4\pi . 10^{-7} \ kg \ m \ q^{-2}$

So, a while back I did an introductory post on the idea of Planck units. These are values for mass, length, force, energy etc based on five constants of nature. See my earlier post for more details. The 5 constants are

c - speed of light
G - Gravitational constant
$\hbar$ - reduced Planck's constant
$4 \pi \epsilon_0$ - Coulomb's constant
$k_b$ - Boltzmann's constant

The $\epsilon_0$ in Coulomb's constant and the $\epsilon_0$ in equation 6 are the same, which got me thinking, are there similar equations for the other 3 natural constants? ie,

$c^2=$ $\frac {1} {\hbar \mu_\hbar}$ $ ...(7) $
$c^2=$ $\frac {1} {G \mu_G} $ $ ...(8) $
$c^2=$ $\frac {1} {k_b \mu_{k_b}} $ $ ... (9) $

$\mu_\hbar, \mu_G, \mu_{k_b}$ - something to be determined.

Let's start with equation (7) $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck's constant, but what is $\mu_\hbar$? is there anything that corresponds to this? Rearranging (7) and multiplying by $4\pi^2$ we get

$\frac {4\pi^2} {\mu_\hbar} $ $= 2 \pi h c^2   ...(10)$

note that the $\hbar$ is now h - Planck's constant.  In physics there is something called the first radiation constant ($c_1$) which has the value

$c_1 = 2\pi h c^2  ...(11) $

with a little substitution from (10) & (11) and some minor rejigging we have

$\mu_\hbar = $ $\frac {4 \pi^2} {c_1}$  $ = 1.055073 . 10^{17} \ s^3 \ kg^{-1} \ m^{-4}...(12)$

That's a good start, and is probably to be expected. There is a very close relationship between h and c that we will explore else where, but what about (8) and (9)? Repeating the rearranging we did for (7) we get

$\mu_G =$ $\frac {1} {G c^2}$ $ = 1.66718.10^{-7} \ kg  \ s^4  \ m^{-5} ...(13) $

$\mu_{k_b} =$ $\frac {1} {k_b c^2} $ $ = 805,889 \ K \ s^4 \ kg^{-1} \ m^{-4} ...(14)$

It looks like we have drawn a blank here. (13) and (14) do not appear to have any recognised physical significance. I shall pick this up in a later post. For now dividing  $\mu_0$ by (13) gives

$\frac {\mu_0} {\mu_G} = \frac {G} {\epsilon_0} $ $=$ $\frac {4 \pi .10^{-7}} {1.66718 .10^{-7}} $ $\approx 2.4 \pi \ m^6 \ q^{-2} \ s^{-4} ... (15) $


$\frac {G} {4 \pi \epsilon_0} $ $\approx 0.6    ...(16)$

and also

$\frac {\mu_G} {\epsilon_0} $ $=$ $\frac {\mu_0} {G}$ $\approx 6000 \pi \ kg^2 \ s^2 \ q^{-2} \ m^{-2}  ...(17)$

Finally, taking

$z_0 = \sqrt {\frac {\mu_0} {\epsilon_0}} $ 


$z_G = \sqrt {\frac {\mu_G}{G}} $ $\approx 50 $

$\frac {z_0} {z_G} $ $\approx 2.4 \pi$, as expected

So, just to summarise this post. We have shown that equation 7 is actually something already known, the first radiation constant. For (8) and (9) we do not yet have a clear understanding, but it has been shown that in the case of G, the gravitational constant and $4 \pi \epsilon_0$, the values are very similar.

More on this in the next post.

Thursday, 30 October 2014

Anomalous magnetic dipole moment

This is a very short post and it is just a couple of things I've stumbled upon in my latest Physics Journey. Check these out.

The first one is related to the title of this post. This is straight from Wiki

"The one-loop contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment—corresponding to the first and largest quantum mechanical correction—of the electron is found by calculating the vertex function .... The calculation is relatively straightforward and the one-loop result is:

$ a = \frac{\alpha}{2 \pi} \approx 0.0011614 $

where α is the fine structure constant. This result was first found by Julian Schwinger in 1948"

now, how about this
$ \frac {Z_P} {R_k} = $$\frac {\hbar} {q_p^2} / \frac {h} {e^2} = \frac {e^2} {2\pi q_p^2} = \frac{\alpha}{2 \pi}$$ \approx 0.0011614 $


$Z_P$ - Planck impedance = $\frac {\hbar} {q_p^2}$
$R_k$ - von Klitzing Constant = $\frac {h} {e^2}$
$q_p$ - Planck Charge
$e$ - charge on an electron
$\alpha$ - fine structure constant

how cool is that, they are the same! Though the calculation for this second version is considerably easier! Is there some sort of equivalence thing going on here? will do more on this later. It's also equal to the classic electron radius divided by the Compton wavelength of the electron!

The second is just a bit of minor number crunching

have a look at this. It is the rest mass of the electron multiplied by the speed of light divided by the Boltzmann constant,

$\frac {m_e c} { 2 \pi^2 k_b}$ $= 1.002 $

$m_e = 9.1093829 10^{-31} kg $
$c = 299 792 458 ms^{-1}$
$k_b$ - Boltzmann constant = $1.3806488 10^{-23} m^2 kg s^{-2} K^{-1}$

That is so close to unity it has to mean something, then again!

Note ,the units of 1.002 is $\frac {K s} {m}$ Temperature / velocity, but this is not as odd as you might think.

Anyway, that is it for now, more on both of these later

Thursday, 3 July 2014

intrinsic angular momentum

I was revisiting a couple of my earlier post, particularly one on the momentum of inertia of a photon when I got to thinking about 2 equations I derived in that post, the first equation was

$ E I = L^2$ .... (1)

Which says that energy multiplied by moment of inertia is the angular momentum squared. I also derived a second more specific version of this (originally equation 16), which shows

$ E I =\hbar^2 $   ... (2)

then it occurred to me that when a photon creates matter it has to obey the various conservation laws. A photon that converts to matter will form an electron/positron pair, rather than just a single electron. If it did form a single electron there would be conservation of charge violation and so on.

For two electrons (or an electron positron pair) though, we have

$ E = 2 m_e c^2 $ ...(3)

also the equivalent moment of inertia is

$ I = 2 I_e $ ... (4)

putting these into (2) we have

$ 4 m_e c^2 I_e = \hbar^2  $ ... (5)


$ m_e c^2 I_e  = $ $\frac {\hbar^2} {4} $   ... (6)

but from (1) we have

$ E_e I_e = L_e^2 $ for an electron, where $E_e = m_e c^2$ giving

$L_e^2 =$ $\frac {\hbar^2} {4} $  ... (7) , which becomes

$L_e =$ $\frac {\hbar} {2}$ ...(8)

The intrinsic spin of an electron! That's nice eh? There is more to this though. If equation (2) is correct then does it imply all particles have spin. This makes me think we haven't got the Higgs particle sorted yet because it can't have a zero spin version. It's also a bit of a black eye for string theory which, I've been told, likes the idea of spinless particles.

This is not a problem if a particle can have zero moment of inertia, in which case $I=0$ and $L=0$. What would that mean?

After all

$I = m \lambda^2 $ ...(9) or

$I =$ $\frac {\hbar} {\omega}$  ...(10)

so $I$ can't be zero because if m is zero then we still have a moment of inertia because of the frequency of the massless particle given by

$E = \hbar \omega$

 I'll figure what all that in the next post, hopefully!

wrote this while listening to this.

Sunday, 27 October 2013

Planck charge

I have recently done a couple of posts based on Planck units and this is another in the series. This one though is a little different. This is about charge.

When we thing about a Planck mass or Planck length there are a number of different things to compare them against. Take the Planck mass, we can take the ratio of the Planck mass to the mass of the electron, or the proton, or the neutron. Each of these will give a different value. Similarly if we take the ratio of the Planck length with the radius of an electron, or a proton or a neutron, again different values.

When we consider the charge however this is not the case, the charge on the electron is the same magnitude as that of the proton, only different in sign, positive or negative. So the ratio of Planck charge to the elementary charge will be the same, in fact it turns out that

$ \frac {e^2} {q_p^2} $ $ = \alpha  $    ....(1)

e - elementary charge
qp - Planck charge
$\alpha$ - fine structure constant

I did a post on the fine structure constant a while back, where I quote Richard Feynman describing it as a magic number, a true mystery. I like mysteries. So here it is, the ratio of the elementary charge and the Planck charge.

Aside : The number that Feynman describes is actually that given by

$ \frac {e} {q_p} $  $= \sqrt \alpha  = 0.08542455 $    ...(2)

What baffles me a little though is that the Planck charge does not appear to make sense. The Planck charge is 11.70623 times the charge of the electron, the elementary charge.

Apart from quarks that have a charge of 1/3, charges are integer multiples of the elementary charge. At least that is the way it appears at the moment. Quarks do not appear to exist in isolation so you do not get fractional charges.

In other words, it should not be possible to create a charge in isolation of 11.70623 e. So we can never actually create a particle with the charge equal to the Planck charge.

In which case the question remains, what exactly is the Planck charge?

The equation defining the Planck charge is 

$ q_p = $ $ \sqrt {4 \pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c}$ ... (3)

$\hbar$ - Reduced Planck constant - $1.0545717   10^{-34}  J.s$
$4 \pi \epsilon_0$ - inverse of Coulomb's constant - $1.11265   10^{-10} $
$\epsilon_0$ - permittivity of free space - $8.85418782   10^{-12}  m^{-3} kg^{-1} s^4 A^2$
c - speed of light - 299792458 $m s^{-1}$

which seems straight forward enough. Yes, it might look a little odd, but no more so than the other Planck units. Yet, unless it is some Fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) value, it is not real. In which case how can it give us the result in (2)? which is real and can be measured exceptionally accurately.

I can only think that it must be a valid value, does this imply it IS a FQHE value? or that there is another phenomena that has not been discovered yet that will allow a non-integer value of the elementary charge?

Let's say the value of the Planck charge could exist because of the FQHE. Does this give us any insights into why (1) is true?

The Fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE)

the FQHE is a quantum mechanical version of the Hall effect and it is observed in 2 dimensional systems at really low temperatures in strong magnetic fields. This was discovered in the 1980s. I will post on this later. There is a value called the Hall conductance that is given by

$\sigma =$  $ \frac {I_{channel}} {V_{Hall}} = \nu \frac {e^2} {h}$ ....(4)

$\nu$ is called the "filling factor" and provides the fractional value (1/3, 2/5, 2/3 , 12/5 ....)

So is there a Planck version of this?

 $\sigma_p =$  $ \nu \frac {e^2} {h} = \nu_p \frac {q_p^2} {h}$ ...(5)


$\nu$ $\frac {e^2} {h}$ $= \nu_p$  $\frac{q_p^2} {h}$  ...(6)

which becomes

$\alpha = $ $\frac {e^2} {q_p^2} = \frac {\nu_p} {\nu} $    ...(7)

Returning to the Planck charge, does the above imply that the Planck charge may only be valid in situations where FQHE is valid? to consider it anywhere else, while mathematically meaningful, would actually be physically invalid.

Alternatively, is there another theory of physics where fractional charges can exists in other situations besides the FQHE?

Using the Fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) it is possible to get fractional elementary charge. If we think that this may explain the problem of the Planck charge not having a integral charge, we can try the following

take $\alpha$ = 137.035999074 (44)

so $\sqrt {\alpha}$ as 11.7062376

The fraction 35/3 = 11.666666666

11.70623 / 11.666666 = 1.003391, which is pretty close. I do not think it is close enough though.

what about 199/17 = 11.70588235,

11.7062376 / 11.70588235 = 1.0000303, closer, can we do better? Yes. Try writing a simple number cruncher, you find hundreds of examples with closer agreement.

Using equation (7) as a starting point we could try this

$\frac {a}{b} e = \frac {c}{d} q_p$     ....(8)

a,b,c and d are integers. Try a=261, b=25, c=404, d= 453, you have integer values that give the number

11.70623762, squared this is 137.035999215

11.7062376/11.70623762 $\approx$ 1 or

137.035999074/137.035999215 = 0.99999999897

given the degree of error in $\alpha$ this value is pretty close to 1!

What does it mean though? Say the value of a,b, c and d are correct, so

$\frac {261}{25} e = \frac {404}{453} q_p$     ....(9)


$\frac {261}{404} e = \frac {25}{453} q_p$     ....(9)

why these value? why not others? These are as much of a mystery as 137.03599....

To see if I can get any further with this idea I shall be taking a look at the Hall Effect and the Quantum Hall Effect in more detail in a future post.

Thursday, 24 October 2013

Observations on the fine structure constant - Part 1

A while back I did an introductory post on the fine structure constant. More recently I did a post on what was not the fine structure constant. In this post I am going to take another look at this delightful mystery. This is probably going to end up 2 or even 3 posts by the looks of things. Let's get on.

The fine structure is described on wikipedia, it has a number of physical interpretations, for example, the square of the ratio of the elementary charge to the Planck charge. Despite this interpretation and the others listed on the wiki page we still don't know what it is all about. You would think that 8 different descriptions we would be able to figure out what it is. This is not the case. We just can't figure it.

What is apparent to me though is that once we do understand this number we will have a far greater understanding of the universe we inhabit. The fact that it pops up so often in so many places. This thing is a big deal and anyone who managers to explain it will really have made a major break through in physics.

I have been looking at the Planck units in recent months and have found out some great stuff, but once again I have drawn a total blank when it comes to the fine structure constant. Above we mentioned that it can be represented by

$\alpha = $ $ \frac {e^2} {q_p^2}$    ... (1)

$\alpha$ - fine structure constant
e - elementary charge
$q_p$ - Planck charge

This is an amazing result, after all the Planck charge is given by

$q_p = \sqrt {4 \pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c}$    ...(2)

$hbar$ - Reduced Planck constant
$1 / 4 \pi \epsilon_0$ - Coulomb's constant
c - speed of light

Why do we get the result in (1), why isn't it 1? $\pi$ - 3.141592653? natural log - 2.718281828? the golden ratio - 1.61803398875? or even 42?

It isn't any of these, it's $7.297352569   10^{-3}  \approx 1 / 137.03599917$

137.03599917! - seriously what is that? Some strange solution to a Kepler triangle, some bizarre integral? Even the root looks no better

$\sqrt {7.297352569   10^{-3}} = 0.085424543 \approx 1 / 11.7062376$

Well what do we know?

1) The mass of an electron divided by the Planck mass does not seem to have any obvious relationship to the fine structure constant. This is also true for the classic radius of an electron and the Planck length.

2) It is dimensionless. So it is not energy or momentum, acceleration, velocity, charge or temperature, it is a number.

3) It is a ratio. In equation (1) above it is the ratio of two charge values. Whenever it is a ratio the two values have to be of the same type, eg charge, time, mass, momentum, energy etc so that the dimensions cancel.

That said, it could be the ratio of a potential energy and a kinetic energy, both are energy. It could also be the ratio of energy density and pressure, both of these have the same dimensions.

4) It isn't 1, that may sound obvious but think about it for a minute. The Planck charge and the elementary charge are remarkably close, they are pretty much within an order of magnitude.

5) You cannot actually get the Planck charge. The Planck charge is NOT an integer number of the elementary charge. Given our current understanding of charge, you cannot get isolated charges that are not integer values of the elementary charge. Therefore, it is not possible to isolate an amount of charge that is equal to the Planck charge.

May need to rethink this for Fractional Quantum Hall Effect.

Planck charge

Lets take a look at equation (2), the definition of the Planck charge. if contains 4 parts,

$\pi$ - 3.141592653 - if it contains $\pi$ then it may have something to do with circles and waves
$\epsilon_0    -     8.854178817    10^{-12} F.m^{-1}$
$\hbar    -    1.05457172     10^{-34}  Js$
$c - 299 792 458    m  s^{-1}$

It does NOT contain anything relating to Gravity and big G. If we divide by the Planck mass it becomes

$\frac {q_p} {m_p} = \sqrt {4 \pi \epsilon_0 G}$    ...(3)

The charge to mass ratio does NOT contain $\hbar$ or c. It does contain big G. $\epsilon_0$ is present in both equations.

The Planck charge ratio, just like the Coulomb to Gravity ratio

$\frac {F_c} {F_g} = \frac {e^2} {m^2}  \frac {1} {4 \pi \epsilon_0 G}  $   ...(4)

which is just

$\frac {F_c} {F_g} = \frac {e^2} {m^2}  \frac {m_p^2} {q_p^2}  = \frac {\alpha} {\alpha_G}$   ...(5)


$\alpha_G = $ $\frac {m^2} {m_p^2}$     ....(6) 

Alternatively if we replace the elementary charge with the Planck charge we get

$F_c = $  $ \frac {q_p^2} {4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2} $    ... (7)

which becomes

$F_c = $ $\frac {4 \pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c} {4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2} = \frac {\hbar c} {r^2}$ ...(8) 

In equation (8) we have a form of Coulomb's law that does not involve charge! What does that mean?

Ok, I think I'll leave this post here. Will continue shortly.

I wrote this while listening to this.

Monday, 21 October 2013

Planck equations

In a number of recent posts I have been taking a look at Planck units and have found a number of equations that have real life equivalents. By this I mean that there are a number of equations that you can derive purely from Planck units that also have recognizable every day version, for example

$E_p = m_p c^2$    ...(1)

$E_P$ - energy
$m_p$ - Planck mass
c - speed of light

this is the well known

$E = m c^2$    ...(2)

yet (2) could have been derived from the Planck units without any knowledge of relativity and mass energy equivalence. This is not the only case, here are a few more

Planck equation General equation
$F_p = m_p g_p$ $ F = m a$
$V_p = T_p k_b / q_p$ $V = T k_b / e$
$T_p k_b = m_p c^2$  $T k_b = m c^2$
$E_p = \hbar \omega_p$ $E = \hbar \omega$
$Z_p = \hbar / q_p^2$ $R_k = \hbar / e^2$

The question must arise as to whether it is possible to derive other Planck equations that do not currently have an every day equivalent? If so, should these equations already exist but it is just a case that we have not found them yet? For example,

Planck equation General equation
$g_p l_p = c^2$ $ g \lambda = c^2$
$E_p c = \hbar g_p$ $E c = \hbar g$
$g_p l_p^2 = m_pG $ $g l_p^2 = m G$
$g_p = m_p c^3 / \hbar $  $g = m c^3 / \hbar$
$F_p = \hbar g_p^2 / c^3$ $F = \hbar g^2 / c^3$
$E_p I_p = \hbar^2$ $E I = \hbar^2$

There are a fair number of these and I have mentioned some of them in previous posts with possible interpretations of what they may be. No doubt I'll cover some of the others in future posts.

Great. Well yes, potentially it is, because we may have a bunch of answers looking for questions which will then tell us what the answer really means. A bit like "42"!

Let's take those listed here;

$ g \lambda = c^2$    ...(1)

does this imply that there is an acceleration associated with a wavelength of a photon just in the same way

$E = h \nu$    ...(2)

links energy with frequency, but if that is the case then does

$E = $ $ \frac {\hbar g} {c} $   ...(3)

imply that there is a relationship between energy and acceleration. The acceleration of what? Photons? I discuss this one in a previous post in more detail.

What about 

$g  =$  $ \frac {m G} {l_p^2}$   ...(3) 

Does this give us insight into Newton's law of gravitation? It throws up at least one surprise for me that I cover here.


$E I = \hbar^2$    ...(4)

where $I$ has the same units as moment of inertia. Is it the moment of inertia of a photon?  Again, I cover this elsewhere

I genuinely don't know if these are of value or if my interpretations have any validity, but I can't believe that they are not completely without worth. The equations above must mean something, it is really just a question of determining exactly what that is. I shall continue to post on these and give my view on what they may mean. 

Even though this approach yields some interesting results in the form of "new" equations, it does not give us any insight into why the fundamental constants are what they are. Take charge for example, we have

$ \alpha =$  $\frac {e^2} {q_p^2}$   ...(5)

$\alpha$ - fine structure constant
$e$ - charge on the electron
$q_p$ - Planck charge

$q_p = $ $\sqrt {4 \pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c}$    ...(6)

$\hbar$ - reduced Planck Constant
$ 1/ 4 \pi \epsilon_0$ - Coulomb constant

This shows us a relationship between the Planck charge and the charge on an electron, which turns out to be the fine structure constant, but it does not give us the reason why.

There are a number of equations that link mass, length and charge, so if an explanation for one of them can be found then the rest will fall into place. Though that is far easier to say than do.

The Planck units give us a number of Planck equations that may be giving us some new insights that we have not previously seen, but they do not appear to be giving out any clues as to why the electron has the charge, mass and radius it does have. Or is it just that I am missing something?

I shall continue to ponder.

I wrote this while listening to this.

There was an error in this gadget

more like this

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...