Jump to content

Tor Fredrik

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Tor Fredrik

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    thermodynamic, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics

Recent Profile Visitors

1107 profile views
  1. When the coil has turned 90 degrees it reaches equilibrium and deaccelerates to 0 velocity. Lets assume hypotetically that all this energy is released as one photon. Now I will try to introduce radiation pressure: So we hypotetically want the electron that has been deaccelerated to 0 velocity (I will ignore the current direction) to obtain the same kinetic energy and velocity. We want it to absorb a photon to do so. If we look at one half cycle of an EM wave that would be half of the energy of one photon if all of the energy of the photon is contained in one cycle. The EM wave exert radiation pressure as described above. It is also said that E=pc where p is radiation pressure density and E is energy density. Over a half cycle of an EM wave the avearge cycle can be obtained the following way: In order to calculate the amplitude of the EM wave I try the following: First I calculate the kinetic energy from the 90 degrees turn of the circular coil Then I try to find the amplitude of the EM wave and uses the theory for the radiation pressure above along with E=pc: Is this a wrong usage of the radiation pressure?
  2. First I will add some theory Then I will try to derive rydberg energy formula from a kinetic perspective The numbers above is correct for the rydberg formula. Is it possible to derive plancks constant, bohr radius or velocity for electron in n=1 for hydrogen atom with this? This is how far I get equating centripetal force and coulomb attraction:
  3. In the theory aove they calculate the perturbation of an E-field. Since there is kinetic energy involved I thought perhaps that the energy also could be emitted as an EM-wave. The issue is that they dont adress the mass of the moving part of the infinte sheet. If that mass was known one could use kinetic energy as well. Then I have for equalities: Is it possible to isolate them for h without having f or B as a variable?
  4. Well with my calculations there would be a formula for finding frequency f without using E=hf? But I needed clarifications since the solutions to maxwell dont directly tell me how to quantify its energy.
  5. well what if we just stopped an electron with kinetic energy and then equated this as the energy of the EM-wave released?
  6. the theory above from physics stack exchane made me puzzle a little One set of possible solutions to maxwell equations are It is known that deacceleration of an electron creates EM-waves. If you have a constant acceleration of an electron from a B field and stops the electron then all kinetic energy should be given out as an EM-wave so that Anyone have anything to add of an experiment that could determine the frequency this way?
  7. In the example 5.11 above I don't understand how they revert to the natural coordinates while going from (5.68) to (5.69). In (5.68) the direction is along the y-axis. In (5.69) it follows the angle that goes round the sphere. But this angle is normal to y when it is at the y axis and parallell to the y axis while it is at the x-axis. How is it possible to revert between the y-axis in (5.68) and the angular axis in (5.69)?
  8. I did stumble upon a thing about gauss law I guess this could explain that the sum of div of E inside the whole electron is as noted in gauss law But as for deriving without using gauss law? I think this problem in Griffiths might help I guess I just would have to read the answer properly
  9. But in the orange part in my first post in this thread they use that thet get a value for the volume integral at origo and that it is 0 everywhere else. Yes luckily I did find my table. I see now that the requirement in the proof for gauss divergence theorem was that the volume must be continuous. So they are not mentioning F. So is it possible to prove that F does not have to be continous from the fundamental theorem of calculus? For example this note might pull one in the right direction?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.