gre

The Schumann resonance is a very beautiful phenom, and I like the fact that you are learning stuff like this and sharing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonance

 

You are right that the cycle-type wavelength is key to figuring out standing wave modes.

 

In this case it is the earth's circumference (at the ionosphere level).

[/Quote]

 

This seems strange to me .. maybe I am still missing something. If the 7.83 Hz Schumann resonance is related to the Earth's circumference at the ionosphere level. Wouldn't the fundamental (mode) frequency be closer to 7 Hz?

 

Since, the Schumann_wavelength (cycle-type) = c / 7.83 = 3.828e7 meters

 

And the earth's radius is 6.372797e6 m and the ionosphere is about 300,000 m..

 

Wouldn't the standing wavelength be: 2*pi*(6.37e6 + 300,000) with a frequency of:

f = (c / (6.37e6 + 300,000)) = 7.15 hz.

Thanks Martin. I am definitely having a hard time "shifting mental gears".

Here is something else I'm wondering about (might be the same situation), maybe you can help me.

The Schumann frequency of the earth is about 7.5 Hz. The wavelength of a 7.5hz electromagnetic wave is about 4e7 m , which is the circumference of the Earth. Why is this? This makes wavelength seem more fundamental.

7.5 Hz * 4e7 m = 3e8 (m/s)

The wavelength I came up might be considered a Planck scale de Broglie wavelength. (h / (planck_mass * c)) = 1.01552129e-34 m

Tell me if this makes any sense.

The Planck angular frequency is:

planck_angular_frequency = 1.85487e43 (1/s)

The non-angular Planck frequency would then be:

planck_frequency = (1.85487e43 (1/s) / (2*pi)) = 2.952104e42 Hz

Which makes sense with (E=h*f): planck_frequency * h = planck_energy

Wouldn't the Planck wavelength then be:

planck_wavelength = (c / (planck_frequency)) = 1.01552129e-34 m (?)

Then If you divide this "wavelength" by (2*pi) you get the Planck Length:

planck_wavelength / (2*pi) = Planck_Length

Wouldn't this imply that the Planck Volume is spherical, and Planck length is a radius?

What is the shape of the Planck volume? According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units ... The Planck volume is just Planck_Length^3 . Does this imply the Planck volume is cubical?

light propagates through space assuming that the source of the light has not diminshed and also through an atternating wave pattern

 

light alternates between a vertical and horizantal wave pattern

 

both push each other outwards into space

 

its been a long time that I found out about this , so I'm sure somebody will correct me on this , on the details

You are describing the electromagnetic sine wave.

Here is a snip from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation#Properties)

"Electromagnetic waves can be imagined as a self-propagating transverse oscillating wave of electric and magnetic fields. This diagram shows a plane linearly polarized wave propagating from right to left. The electric field is in a vertical plane, the magnetic field in a horizontal plane."

I'm not sure if I believe the "self-propagating" part. Is this accurate?

This description is also missing the spin aspect of a photon .. Which I'm not sure even has a physical/ real world representation.

What is the problem with having 'absolute frames' exactly?

 

first define " vacuum "

 

and see if this makes sense towards what you have written above

I believe vacuum and space can be considered the same thing.

They can also be considered a dielectric medium with certain properties which regulate the speed of light.

What I'm wondering now is: How does light travel (or propagate) through this "medium"? I remember reading somewhere that virtual particles interact to propagate light through space, but I can't remember the details.

Yes, [math]4\pi[/math] can mean such an integration has taken place. But does it have a physical significance? It may just mean you defined something as a surface element and then integrated over the whole surface. You have arbitrarily-defined terms, and you can put the constants anywhere. What would happen if we redefined the Coulomb (assuming for the moment that it was the SI base unit) to be [math]2\sqrt{\pi}[/math] larger? The [math]4\pi[/math] in the SI version of Coulomb's law goes away, but nothing physical has changed. Some other units may end up having to be redefined as a result, but since they are arbitrary, why does it matter?

4 pi just looks like a conversion factor going from a spherical surface area of a field, to cubical surface area.

Since coulombs constant is:

1 / (4*pi * (Pt^2 * Qp^2 / Pm * Pl^3 * 4 * pi)

After the 4pi(s) cancel out. Wouldn't you then be working with a cubic surface area or volume?

Well.. What does the "4 pi" represent in Coulomb's force equation??

While playing with Planck constants I noticed the following:

The electric constant can be figured from: ((Tp^2 * Qp^2) / (Mp * Lp^3)) * (1/(4*pi))

Where,

Tp = Planck Time , Qp = Planck Charge, Mp = Planck Mass, Lp = Planck Length

And the magnetic constant can be determined with:

((Mp * Lp) / (Qp^2)) * (4*pi)

Anyone know why the "4 pi" pops up like this?

Without time space can't exist, and vice versa.

So without time ... space couldn't exist, and matter/anti-matter couldn't exist either. So I doubt you can say time is an illusion. Why do you suggest this?

Maybe you could say time can't exist without matter (?).. Which leads to the possibility that time is a field-like property of matter.

What is the difference between space and the zero-point field? Could the two be the same thing?

You could consider space-time a media though since it can have properties such as electric permittivity and permeability. True vacuum doesn't contain matter, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist I don't think.

What is vacuum aka space supposed to be made of? Since vacuum has properties such as impedance, permiability and permittivity, is it considered a media?

Thanks Atheist.

I came up with 7.35 eV this time for ground state hydrogen.

Merged post follows:

How would you solve for "T" in that equation?

Thanks, I tried that but the result looked wrong.. Maybe I was doing the math wrong. How could you solve for W in the above equation?

No data, I'm just looking for the equation to figure it out. I just have: J = A*T^2 * e^(-W/kT)

where, J=current density, A=Richardson's contant,T=temp in kelvins, W=work function.

Edit: I meant A= Richardson's constant

Merged post follows:

I've read the the thermionic work function is usually right around 1/2 the elements ionization energy.. But, I'm still looking for an equation and a definite answer ... Can anyone help?

Merged post follows:

What is required for hydrogen to even have free electrons? I guess at a certain temperature and pressure ti becomes a metal in theory .. But what temperature and pressure this theorized to be?

How can you calculate the thermionic work function of hydrogen?

Thanks in advance.

Looks to me as if the results are VERY variable...

 

 

The colours will depend on the CRT used. The shapes will depend on the magnet, it's shape, orientation, distance from the screen etc... There are ALOT of variables.

I'm mostly wondering about the general shape of the field/electrons, not so much the colors. Apparently the TV crt produces a different pattern than a monitor crt (if the video above is using a regular 2-pole magnet) ..

Here's a video by MIT's physics department. This was done with a older TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbzBTdU7iRU&feature=related

Another question:

Would the temperature of the magnet also affect the pattern shown on the screen? For example, if the magnet was cooled to (near) absolute 0, would the pattern still be the same?

Thanks,

Greg

There are, but I've put single neodymium magnetic up to a TV/crt screen and the same pattern will appear. And if there is just "static" on the screen, the same pattern will as well (with slight color variations).

Well say the magnet is just a regular dipole (.5" cube) and its strength is 7000 Gauss (on the magnet's surface), and the screen is flat. The regular pattern on the screen is say just "static".

What variables are needed?

What is the solution to the CRT / magnet pattern shown?

Anyone?