CONTROVERSIAL: The limit extent of electric charge’s field.

[Kramer]

 

CONTROVERSIAL: The limit extent of electric charge’s field.

Theorists say that the field of electric charge is extended in infinity. Doesn’t this statement contradict the other statement about fix quanta of minimal energy?

Let suppose we have two unity electric charge divided by a distance:
D = [ ( C*1) / (2*pi/α) ) + Δ] here Δ is a space segment “plus”

Let suppose we have static situation.
The potential energy of two particles will be:
E = e^2 / ( 4*pi*ε0 * D) < 6.626068777*10^-34 J or < h * 1
I suppose that in the point of space where the potential energy becomes less than unity quanta, electric field cease to exist.
May any specialist will be kind to explain why the layman's reasoning is wrong ?
And by the way: Who is “owner” of each other? Is it field property of particle or is it particle property of field?

[swansont]

One error is that h has units of J-sec, which is angular momentum.

 

Your comparison of the energy and the value of h is artificial. There is no requirement that the energy exceed this value. A photon (having an energy of hv) can have a frequency below 1 Hz, thus you can trivially have photons with 6.62 x10^-34 J.

 

Nothing controversial here. Just run-of-the-mill wrong.

[Kramer]

 

Sure for specialist everything is clear, but the layman need a slowly explanation to understand own ignorance.
So please be patient, about my reasoning.
I have three simple question:
1 -- Is it any difference between “time” and “frequency”?
Time is measured with “seconds”. Frequency is measured with “1/sec. or Hz”.
The “seconds” measure an amount of time”. The “f in Hz” (or “1/sec” ) measure a number of intervals of “time”.
2 -- Is time quantised when we speak about energy or not? Or
Is equal E = h / t with E = h * f ?
3 – What is the meaning of minimum portion of energy?

 

.

[Kramer]

Knock! Knock! Is anybody home? Is the lost traveler for the answers! Please!

[swansont]

Sure for specialist everything is clear, but the layman need a slowly explanation to understand own ignorance.

So please be patient, about my reasoning.

I have three simple question:

1 -- Is it any difference between “time” and “frequency”?

Time is measured with “seconds”. Frequency is measured with “1/sec. or Hz”.

The “seconds” measure an amount of time”. The “f in Hz” (or “1/sec” ) measure a number of intervals of “time”.

2 -- Is time quantised when we speak about energy or not? Or

Is equal E = h / t with E = h * f ?

3 – What is the meaning of minimum portion of energy?[/size]

 

.[/size] [/size]

It's a tad disingenuous to make a claim and tag it as being controversial, and then plead ignorance. If you are a layman who admittedly doesn't understand something, you have no business proclaiming what you did. Just ask the question.

 

 

 

Time and frequency are inverses of each other. There are circumstances where there is a time interval, but frequency would be inappropriate to use; the latter implies a periodic system.

 

Time is not, as far as we know, quantized. That could possibly mean that the quantization is so small we haven't yet noticed it, but as such, there is no way of testing the hypothesis.

 

"Minimum portion of energy" is something that probably requires context to explain.

[Kramer]

Swansont

.[/size] [/size]
---- joul = h / дt(sec.) = h * f (Hz)

It's a tad disingenuous to make a claim and tag it as being controversial, and then plead ignorance. If you are a layman who admittedly doesn't understand something, you have no business proclaiming what you did. Just ask the question.

----- It is not at all disingenuous if I am trapped in a controversial situation, during my meditations, and I ask for a qualified friend to give me a hand.
I don’t make a claim, I propound the situation where I am get stuck in mud (my lay man’s ignorance) with good intention to make clear about the difficulties of my problem. And I hope that moderator will give me a qualified help that disperse my doubts about what I “tag” --- a controversy.

Time and frequency are inverses of each other. There are circumstances where there is a time interval, but frequency would be inappropriate to use; the latter implies a periodic
system.
------ Here are my doubt and my debate.
An “interval of time” and frequency are inverse to each other.
This “interval of time” is called period. And is a portion of an other interval of time of 1 second, which is the conventional unity of time.. The frequency is number of periods in conventional unity of time : f = 1(sec) / 1 period(sec) in 1Hz But ….. What on earth? It comes that frequency is a rate, and the physic’s unity Hz = sec/sec. An other dilemma…..? And tell me that this is so simple . Now, in what wrong -- reasoning I am stumbled again?

Time is not, as far as we know, quantized. That could possibly mean that the quantization is so small we haven't yet noticed it, but as such, there is no way of testing the hypothesis.
------The quantization of energy has any meaning only in correspondence with interval of time or with frequency, I think. What confused me is the assertion that frequency can be les than 1Hz. or period more than 1sec. For example: A moderator asserts that We can have energy E = h / 10^8 = h*10^-8. If this assertion is true then quantization of energy is totally meaning less, I think.
So the unity of time (equal with unity of frequency) = 1second = 1Hz is absolute for the minimum possible portion of energy: E = h / 1 sec = h * 1 Hz. I think.
And this I name “ the bottom land mark of reality”, in the span of frequency.
My thread about which we are debating, is presented because my above implicit assertion is in controversy with an unlimited field of electric charge.
I hope that you will be kind to give a thoroughly reviu of this mess.

[swansont]

My point is that if it's a question, it's not a controversy. Even of it's your idea, it's not a controversy. You are, admittedly, a layman. It's a matter of not having a larger exposure to the science. (That you are asserting things without this knowledge is the real problem)

 

The length of the second is a completely arbitrary choice, and not dependent on any fundamental physics. There is no physical reason why a period cannot be longer than a second, and indeed, any pendulum longer than a quarter of a meter has a period longer than a second, and there's no restriction on you building a really long antenna and driving it at a frequency lower than 1 Hz. We could have chosen a different unit, and express h is terms of Joule-minutes. It has absolutely no impact here.

[Kramer]

My point is that if it's a question, it's not a controversy. Even of it's your idea, it's not a controversy. You are, admittedly, a layman. It's a matter of not having a larger exposure to the science. (That you are asserting things without this knowledge is the real problem)

 

The length of the second is a completely arbitrary choice, and not dependent on any fundamental physics. There is no physical reason why a period cannot be longer than a second, and indeed, any pendulum longer than a quarter of a meter has a period longer than a second, and there's no restriction on you building a really long antenna and driving it at a frequency lower than 1 Hz. We could have chosen a different unit, and express h is terms of Joule-minutes. It has absolutely no impact here.

==== Thanks Swansont for your replay and for your patience for debating with me, a lay man stubborn and with scarce knowledge. I understand that this is boring and irritating especially with my lame language, and I appreciate your polite answers.
Now about my thread:
1 – Even there exists ultra low frequency in nature ( 0.3 Hz) , I still don’t believe that exist a photon with energy les than h*1Hz. I didn’t find any example in Viki.
Giving an example will hush me.
2 – I didn’t say that do not exist period longer than 1 sec. There is “period” of earth toward it’s axis with about “86400 sec”.
My thread was about “potential energy” of field by an electric “unity” charge in

a distance from unity charge more than about 3.481818762 * 10 ^ 5 m . This energy is less than h * 1Hz.
1 Hz = (3. 4818187262* (2*pi* alpha) ) / C .
My conclusion was: As the energy of a photon from electric charge is less than “ h * 1” then farther electric field of unity charge stop to exist.
You say no, no must it be.
3 – I am sure that change of unity of time with another unity of ”time”, will asks absolutely change of all characters that posses time.
4-The word was not about unity of time , it was about time itself.
--------------
If you consider end of debate you can close this thread.

[swansont]

To paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, the great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not. IOW, your belief is immaterial to whether something is true or not. You have to come up with something better — a physical reason why it should not be true. The quantum of EM radiation is the photon, with an energy of hv. It's not h all by itself — that's the quantum of angular momentum. h is not a limiting factor on energy.

[Kramer]

 

Swansont

To paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, the great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not. IOW, your belief is immaterial to whether something is true or not. You have to come up with something better — a physical reason why it should not be true. The quantum of EM radiation is the photon, with an energy of hv. It's not h all by itself — that's the quantum of angular momentum. h is not a limiting factor on energy.

----- About ”true – the great thing of science” -- I think it is in fact thematic of every “debate” between physicist--humans. Who think , in himself, that “he has discovered the “true” true?” Errare est humanum ( an aforism-- stolen by me, as you like latin)

Now about “h”, about “the less portion of energy”, about the quantum of angular momentum , about “h / (2*pi)”, about the “frequency”, about Constant “α” what is the truth?

1 – I believe that “less portion of energy possible to exist” is E = h * 1sec. You say no. Well, you tell me what is less “portion” (quanta) of energy in nature. ( may be you think is E = h / (2 * pi / α ) ?) . Ha. Or you think that doesn’t exist any “less portion of energy? Please --- an answer without any equivokal. Hush me.
2 – I believe that h*1sec. was the real concept of quanta by Plank.

I think this differs from Dirac’s concept. Dirac “discovered” that it is portion of energy in movement, not particle as it was supposed by classics. Well.
But why he strip perimeter of circular movement by it’s 2*pi and stick them to “h” ? , what change in reality?
Frequency was f = C / (2 * pi * R) now it becomes f = C / R .
But energy is the equal : E = h * ( C / (2*pi*R) = (h /(2*pi)) * (C/R).
There reappears another component in frequency. It is “constant of tine structure” “α”.
What is the physical / geometrical meaning of this constant?
I speculate that constant “α” has to do with spherical movement of mater (some say energy, some say particle) and it reflected in spectra of photons waves.
The frequency must be f = C / ((2 * pi / α) * R) . in this case we will have:
E = (e^2 / ( 4*pi*ε0 *R) = m * C^2 = h * (C / ( ( 2 * pi / α ) * R) = …..
-----------
About: (That you are asserting things without this knowledge is the real problem) – you are absolute right.

[swansont]

You aren't right until proven wrong. Quite the opposite. Also, the rules of Speculations confirm that the burden of proof is on you, not me. You are required to present evidence of your assertions.

 

The fine structure constant gives the relative coupling of the EM interaction. It's dimensionless, so it has nothing to do with rotation, per se.

[Kramer]

Swanson

The fine structure constant gives the relative coupling of the EM interaction. It's dimensionless, so it has nothing to do with rotation, per se.

I ---- A question out of curiosity: What means a faded display of titles of threads and the signs: sphere or star?
II ---- It is my speculative hypothesis that frequency of a stabile particle is :

f = C / ( ( 2 * pi / alpha ) * R).
In this case: 1 / alpha is the number of circles (2*pi) that unique sub particle ( or Photon after an other hypothesis) moving in spherical movement fulfill 1Hz of official frequency fo = C / R.
From here comes wrong idea that velocity C retarded or decelerated moving in mass particles.
So alpha is a number for all kind of radiuses.

[swansont]

Swanson

The fine structure constant gives the relative coupling of the EM interaction. It's dimensionless, so it has nothing to do with rotation, per se.

I ---- A question out of curiosity: What means a faded display of titles of threads and the signs: sphere or star?

I don't understand the question.

 

 

II ---- It is my speculative hypothesis that frequency of a stabile particle is :

f = C / ( ( 2 * pi / alpha ) * R).

In this case: 1 / alpha is the number of circles (2*pi) that unique sub particle ( or Photon after an other hypothesis) moving in spherical movement fulfill 1Hz of official frequency fo = C / R.

From here comes wrong idea that velocity C retarded or decelerated moving in mass particles.

So alpha is a number for all kind of radiuses. [/size]

How do you test this hypothesis? How does this manifest itself in atomic structure and interactions?

[imatfaal]

 

Swanson

The fine structure constant gives the relative coupling of the EM interaction. It's dimensionless, so it has nothing to do with rotation, per se.

I ---- A question out of curiosity: What means a faded display of titles of threads and the signs: sphere or star?

 

 

Bold/Normal - means unread posts/no unread posts.

Dot - click to go to first unread post

Star - same as Dot but also indicates you have contributed to a thread