Hbar=e^2/e0c

infamous · June 9, 2005

Nkt, same reminder to you as to uncle al.

Thank you sanctus, there is really no need to crawl up someones backside just to exercize proof of ones intelligence. If there are those that find a lack of knowledge offensive, maybe their approach should be one of patience and tutorship. Isn't that what Hypography is all about, learning and sharing knowledge. If there are those that seem to already know everything there is to know, why do they waist their time intimidating others at this forum.

Maybe they should waist their time elsewhere.

Qfwfq · June 10, 2005

Please don't increase the problems Infamous.

If there are those that find a lack of knowledge offensive, maybe their approach should be one of patience and tutorship.

This wasn't the point of what Sanctus said. He referred to UA using an offensive term for another poster, this certainly isn't the best method of tutorship.

Isn't that what Hypography is all about, learning and sharing knowledge.

Exactly. Hypography is not all about being offensive.

If there are those that seem to already know everything there is to know, why do they waist their time intimidating others at this forum.

Sanctus neither seems to already know everything there is to know, neither is he intimidating others. He is a moderator of this forum and is attempting to maintain a civil and friendly atmosphere. You don't appear to be helping him.

Garry Denke · June 10, 2005

Are you saying that h-bar is not equal to h/2pi, if you are, I must disagree.
Let e= 1.60217733E-20 emu,times 2.99792458E+10 (cm X sec.^-1)=(4.8032068E-10 esu)
Solve: e^2/h-bar*c = fine structure constant

Let us investigate infamous equation e^2/hbar *c = a

According to NIST recommended SI values:

e = 1.60217653 x 10^-19 A-s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?e|search_for=elecmag_in!

hbar = 1.05457168 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?hbar|search_for=universal_in!

c = 299792458 m/s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=universal_in!

a = 7.297352568 x 10^-3

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?alph|search_for=atomnuc!

Solve: e^2/hbar *c = ?

[(1.60217653 x 10^-19 A-s)^2]/(1.05457168 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s)(299792458 m/s) = ?

(2.566969633 x 10^-38 A^2-s^2)/(3.161526361 x 10^-26 kg-m^3/s^2) = ?

8.119399746 x 10^-13 A^2-s^4/kg-m^3

Compare: NIST / infamous

8.119399746 x 10^-13 A^2-s^4/kg-m^3 (NIST e^2/hbar *c)

7.297352568 x 10^-3 (infamous e^2/hbar *c)

The e^2/e0c = hbar is smaller than the h/(2 pi) = hbar.

Why is there an hbar discrepancy?

Are you saying that e^2 does not equal (4.8032068E-10)^2, if you are, I must disagree.
For: e^2/(a * c) = h-bar
For: 2.307079556E-19/(7.29735308E-3 * 2.99792458E+10) = (1.05457266E-27)

Let us investigate infamous equation e^2/(a *c) = hbar

According to NIST recommended SI values:

e = 1.60217653 x 10^-19 A-s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?e|search_for=elecmag_in!

a = 7.297352568 x 10^-3

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?alph|search_for=atomnuc!

c = 299792458 m/s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=universal_in!

hbar = 1.05457168 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?hbar|search_for=universal_in!

Solve: e^2/(a *c) = ?

[(1.60217653 x 10^-19 A-s)^2]/(7.297352568 x 10^-3)(299792458 m/s) = ?

(2.566969633 x 10^-38 A^2-s^2)/(2.187691263 x 10^6 m/s) = ?

1.173369239 A^2-s^3/m

Compare: NIST / infamous

1.173369239 A^2-s^3/m (NIST e^2/a *c)

1.05457168 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s (infamous e^2/a *c)

The e^2/e0c = hbar is a derivation, h/(2 pi) is a theory.

Which of them is the accurate hbar?

nkt · June 10, 2005

Let us investigate infamous equation e^2/hbar *c = a
< snip>
Compare: NIST / infamous
1.173369239 A^2-s^3/m (NIST e^2/a *c)
1.05457168 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s (infamous e^2/a *c)

The e^2/e0c = hbar is a derivation, h/(2 pi) is a theory.
Which of them is the accurate hbar?

Right, you are starting to make (perhaps) a little more sense now. See what a difference adding just a few lines of plain English can make?

Ok, your arguement seems to be that if you compare one way of finding hbar with another way (which in fact is the definition) you get slightly, but significantly, different answers, yes?

infamous · June 10, 2005

Please don't increase the problems Infamous.
This wasn't the point of what Sanctus said. He referred to UA using an offensive term for another poster, this certainly isn't the best method of tutorship.

Exactly. Hypography is not all about being offensive.

Sanctus neither seems to already know everything there is to know, neither is he intimidating others. He is a moderator of this forum and is attempting to maintain a civil and friendly atmosphere. You don't appear to be helping him.

If you will read my post more closely you will understand that I was not addressing my critism toward Sanctus. In fact, my first comment is: "Thank you Sanctus". I believe you completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make. My critism was in fact directed toward Uncle and nkt. If you will read back thru the posts, you'll notice that although Uncle, nkt, and I agree in principal, I disagree with the choice of words used by both of them to critisize GarryDenke.

Garry Denke · June 10, 2005

Planck defined Planck's constant h and then, in the early QM days, it proved useful to define hbar simply to save a bit of ink here and there. Even more ink can be saved by choosing units in which hbar = 1. Why do you say that Planck invented hbar?

NIST said Planck constant, h, is a measured quantity, but hbar is not.

According to NIST measured quantity h

Planck constant: h = 6.6260693 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h|search_for=universal_in!

According to NIST theoretical quantity h/(2 pi)

Planck constant/(2 pi): hbar = 1.05457168 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?hbar|search_for=universal_in!

Accurate Measurement of the Planck Constant

Edwin R. Williams, Richard L. Steiner, David B. Newell, and Paul T. Olsen

Physical Review Letters 81 (12) 2404-2407 (1998)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1998PhRvL..81.2404W&db_key=PHY

Planck constant, h, is a measured quantity, but hbar is not. In my 1975 ASU Physics 111-113 notebooks of hbar=e^2/e0c it says Planck invented h/(2 pi). In my 1976 ASU Physics 112-114 notebooks of hbar=e^2/e0c it says h/(2 pi) was first written in 1899. Do you Qfwfq know who first wrote hbar=h/(2 pi) and the year? I forgot to publish the source in 1977. My physics professor did not remember the source.

http://phyastweb.la.asu.edu/directory/facinfo_em.asp?LstName=Voss&FrstName=Howard

Why do you call the reduced Planck constant "Planck's error"? Why does hbar=e^2/e0c mean that it's in error?

Because the reduced Planck constant hbar=e^2/e0c is a derivation from the NIST measured physical constants, the same which disproved the theoretical hbar=h/(2 pi) in 1977 at ASU where hbar=e^2/e0c was first published. Perhaps it was a QM mathematician, not a QM physicist, who first invented the hbar=h/(2 pi) theory. Do you Qfwfq know (or does anyone else know) who first published hbar=h/(2 pi)?

NIST derivation quantity e^2/e0c

e = 1.60217653 x 10^-19 A-s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?e|search_for=elecmag_in!

e0 = 8.854187817... x 10^-12 A^2-s^4/kg-m^3

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?ep0|search_for=universal_in!

c = 299792458 m/s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=universal_in!

Solve: e^2/e0c = ?

[(1.60217653 x 10^-19 A-s)^2]/(8.854187817... x 10^-12 A^2-s^4/kg-m^3)(299792458 m/s) = ?

(2.566969633 x 10^-38 A^2-s^2)/(2.654418729... x 10^-3 A^2-s^3/kg-m^2) = ?

9.670552746 x 10^-36 kg-m^2/s

NIST theoretical quantity h/(2 pi)

h = 6.6260693 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h|search_for=universal_in!

(2 pi) = 6.283185307

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Category?view=html&Universal.x=65&Universal.y=8

Solve: h/(2 pi)

(6.6260693 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s)/(6.283185307)

1.05457168 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s

Compare: hbar derivation / hbar theoretical

9.670552746 x 10^-36 kg-m^2/s (hbar derivation)

1.05457168 x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s (hbar theoretical)

Thanks for helping Qfwfq

Garry Denke

infamous · June 11, 2005

NIST said Planck constant, h, is a measured quantity, but hbar is not.

I think your confusing your units Garry: If you use the electrostatic unit measured in cgs, e = 4.8032068E+10

e^2/h-bar*c = a

all in cgs units:

e^2/a*c=h-bar

(4.8032068E+10^2)/(2.99792458E+10*7.29735308E-3) = 1.05457266E-27

Take a look at this link, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Charge.html

Garry Denke · June 11, 2005

I think your confusing your units Garry: If you use the electrostatic unit measured in cgs, e = 4.8032068E+10
e^2/h-bar*c = a
all in cgs units:
e^2/a*c=h-bar
(4.8032068E+10^2)/(2.99792458E+10*7.29735308E-3) = 1.05457266E-27
Take a look at this link, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Charge.html

Interesting outdated link infamous, but "current" SI definitions are:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html

Notice they are titled "current".

Best wishes,

Garry

Erasmus00 · June 11, 2005

Interesting outdated link infamous, but "current" SI definitions are:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html
Notice they are titled "current".
Best wishes,
Garry

Many scientists who work in EM don't use the SI units, as cgs is often more convenient and makes the factors of c nice and explicit. Just because something is standard doesn't mean other values are worthless, or outdated. Theorists tend to use units where hbar=c=1, because it makes things a bit easier to handle.

What infamous is trying to tell you is that what you are calling "Planck's error" is in fact your error, one of units. You are however, willfully ignoring him.

-Will

Garry Denke · June 11, 2005

So you're saying this is wrong ...

hbar=e^2u0c

reduced Planck constant: hbar = 9.6705527(59) x 10^-36 kg-m^2-sr/s

elementary charge: e = 1.6021765(31) x 10^-19 A-s

magnetic constant: u0 = 1.256637061... x 10^-6 kg-m-sr/A^2-s^2

speed of light in vacuum: c = 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s

h=e^2u0c km

Planck constant: h = 6.6260693(11) x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s

elementary charge: e = 1.6021765(31) x 10^-19 A-s

magnetic constant: u0 = 1.256637061... x 10^-6 kg-m-sr/A^2-s^2

speed of light in vacuum: c = 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s

relative permeability: km = 6.8517999(54) x 10^1 /sr

because this is wrong ...

hbar=e^2/e0c

reduced Planck constant: hbar = 9.6705527(59) x 10^-36 kg-m^2-sr/s

elementary charge: e = 1.6021765(31) x 10^-19 A-s

electric constant: e0 = 8.854187817... x 10^-12 A^2-s^4/kg-m^3-sr

speed of light in vacuum: c = 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s

h=e^2/e0c ke

Planck constant: h = 6.6260693(11) x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s

elementary charge: e = 1.6021765(31) x 10^-19 A-s

electric constant: e0 = 8.854187817... x 10^-12 A^2-s^4/kg-m^3-sr

speed of light in vacuum: c = 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s

dielectric constant: ke = 1.4594705(10) x 10^-2 sr

in your cgs system.

Right?

infamous · June 12, 2005

Many scientists who work in EM don't use the SI units, as cgs is often more convenient and makes the factors of c nice and explicit. Just because something is standard doesn't mean other values are worthless, or outdated. Theorists tend to use units where hbar=c=1, because it makes things a bit easier to handle.
What infamous is trying to tell you is that what you are calling "Planck's error" is in fact your error, one of units. You are however, willfully ignoring him.
-Will

Thank you Erasmus00; I've tried but I don't think Garry understands that for an equation to be balanced, it must be constructed within unital constraints. I give up.

nkt · June 12, 2005

Thank you Erasmus00; I've tried but I don't think Garry understands that for an equation to be balanced, it must be constructed within unital constraints. I give up.

Either he is not paying attention, as you have said, or it must be as Uncle Al said. The only other option is that he is doing this deliberately. which I said.

Also, please note that I didn't actually call him anything but obstructive and/or unclear.

Now, since he has posted reams of junk science, but put not even one line into explaining it, I think that it is going to be confusing for most people who look at the OP and see the slightly changed constants. They will probably not realise that they are wrong, and may rely on them for something. And that is Bad.

infamous · June 12, 2005

Either he is not paying attention, as you have said, or it must be as Uncle Al said. The only other option is that he is doing this deliberately. which I said.

Also, please note that I didn't actually call him anything but obstructive and/or unclear.

.

Point noted.

Garry Denke · June 12, 2005

hbar=e^2u0c = ?

NIST recommended values:

e = 1.60217653 x 10^-19 A-s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?e|search_for=elecmag_in!

u0 = 12.566370614... x 10^-7 kg-m/A^2-s^2

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mu0|search_for=universal_in!

c = 299792458 m/s

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=universal_in!

Solve: hbar=e^2u0c = ?

hbar=[(1.60217653 x 10^-19 A-s)^2](12.566370614... x 10^-7 kg-m/A^2-s^2)(299792458 m/s) = ?

hbar=(2.566969633 x 10^-38 A^2-s^2)(376.7303133 kg-m^2/A^2-s^3) = ?

hbar=(9.670552741 x 10^-36 kg-m^2/s)

Compare: e^2u0c ; e^2/e0c

hbar=(9.670552741 x 10^-36 kg-m^2/s) e^2u0c

hbar=(9.670552746 x 10^-36 kg-m^2/s) e^2/e0c

Does your cgs system disprove the SI system used by NIST?

Is there any progress on who authored hbar=h/(2 pi) first?

Thanks for helping everyone,

Garry Denke

infamous · June 12, 2005

Does your cgs system disprove the SI system used by NIST?
Is there any progress on who authored hbar=h/(2 pi) first?

Thanks for helping everyone,

Garry Denke

The answer to your first question is no. However;

SI units: length = meters

mass = kilograms

time = sec.

cgs units: length = centimeters

mass = grams

time = sec.

When dealing with electrostatic measure, centimeter gram seconds are preferred.

And when calculating one must either stay in one or the other, no mixing and matching.

Oranges times oranges equals multiple oranges, oranges times apples doesn't make any sense.

I don't have an answer to you second question but if you come across the answer somewhere, post it at this forum. I would like to know the answer myself.

infamous · June 13, 2005

Here is another link for you Garry, may help explain some things. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/s/st/statcoulomb.htm

Garry Denke · June 13, 2005

When dealing with electrostatic measure, centimeter gram seconds are preferred. And when calculating one must either stay in one or the other, no mixing and matching. Oranges times oranges equals multiple oranges, oranges times apples doesn't make any sense.

Fair enough, infamous, let us never mix the International System of Units (SI SYSTEM) oranges with cgs apples again. That way, those of us dealing with ALL measures, meter-kilogram-second-ampere-kelvin-mole-candela-steradian-radian will always be calculating oranges.

An e-mail I received said hbar=h/(2 pi) was first written by Dirac,

hence h/(2 pi) reduced Planck constant named "Dirac's constant".

This seems reasonable with what Qfwfq said earlier...

"...Planck defined Planck's constant h and then, in the early QM days, it

proved useful to define hbar simply to save a bit of ink here and there."

But then again "Planck" is written in my 1975 notebook.

Garry Denke

Sign In

Hbar=e^2/e0c

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

nkt

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation