Jump to content

Planck's Electric Charge ---- Factual One.


Recommended Posts

 

Kuthber

"I am not sure I understand your rebut

There may be a reason for that.

The reason might be related to my earlier post.

------ Now Kuthber, are you taking the role of advocate for Andy 0816? Well a very clever step to dodge a honest response for my last post on you. Do you have an own argument against my post? If not, please leave me alone.

swansont

It's equivalent because you keep insisting that qp should be equal to e, and they are not equal, like 1 ≠ 2.

qp is a constant, not a variable. Since it's defined in terms of fundamental constants, it must be a constant.
------ Again and again! The excellent idea of her Planck was that all kind of energies , expressed from all laws of physic have the same value, If they are expressed with FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS OF NATURE. And now we know that Fundamental Constant of nature are: “e”, “h”, “G”, “C”, “Cbolc.”, ……
“Qpl” is not a FUNDAMENTAL constant, that to have the right to represent Coulomb law, one of the most important laws of Physic, in the ensemble of Planck energies.

The gist of this thread is in the dilemmas:

1--- To discard the excellent Planck’s idea about the EQUIVALENCE, by means of Fundamentals, OF ALL KIND OF ENERGIES IN PLANCK AREA?
2--- To give “Qpl” unmerited status of FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANT?
3---To review the relation between two Fundamental constants “e” and “h” in a new, maybe speculative, view point expressed by me, during this debate:

Can any specialist opponent tell me why Planck, represents frequency:

f = C / (2 * pi * R) ? that is like: “h” moving in circles? That is in plane.
Why in circles? Or better: why in plane. When the common idea is that particles are spherical.
Here I speculate, that Planck, “missed” the idea that “ h “ move in circles (not in plan) but in spherical space!
With this idea I corrects the inequation in equation :
e^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε * R ) = h * C / ( (2 * pi / α ) * R) !!!
Swanson! You know my leitmotif presented in all past my threads: spherical trajectories, unique particle, etc. This thread is an argument about my leitmotif.
Now shoot

What do you mean that "all kind of energies are equivalent"? That does not mean that all values of energy are equal.
----- In Planck area they must be. It is clear that this was intention of Planck.

ajb

So you cobble together the fundamental constants you have into an expression that has the units of length squared. It is the interpretation of what this means and where it enters physics that you have questions about?
------ I am not “cobbler author”. Her Planck is. I only dared to interpret, with my layman’s limited knowledge, some discrepancy in his “panorama about equivalence of energies”. As you know in formulas of energies is a simple “length = R

Well, at one level it is nothing more than a possibily useful unit of area. The interepretation is that it gives us an area scale at which the effects of quantum gravity cannot be ignored.
------ In Planck area I think, gravity, not only can’t be ignored, but, together with electric charge, are the first protagonists in physic’s nature of particles….. And, maybe, not only in Planck area.

One place that the Planck area does explicitly enter physics is in the Bekenstein–Hawking formula, which related the entropy of a black hole to its surface area.
------ Sorry! I have no idea about Bekenstein – Hawking formula. In my narrow mind, I think that Planck is too big to enter in somebody other’s physic’s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

e constant was measured in oil drop experiment in 1909 and published to public in 1913. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment   Planck units were developed in 1899.   Max Planck sim

HUGE CONTROVERSY: PLANCK’S ELECTRIC CHARGE ---- FACTUAL ONE. ( Lay-man’s motto: Trouble the waters for clarification. ) Comparing the Planck’s constants derived with base “h” (historicall

The question is why? To what end?   The energies you are comparing aren't supposed to be equal, as far as I can tell. Which means it will not be at all surprising that they are not equal.   The p

------ Again and again! The excellent idea of her Planck was that all kind of energies , expressed from all laws of physic have the same value, If they are expressed with FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS OF NATURE.

I don't know where you got this idea, but it's wrong, and I also doubt that it resembles anything Planck proposed..

 

 

And now we know that Fundamental Constant of nature are: “e”, “h”, “G”, “C”, “Cbolc.”, ……

“Qpl” is not a FUNDAMENTAL constant, that to have the right to represent Coulomb law, one of the most important laws of Physic, in the ensemble of Planck energies.

Nobody has claimed it is a fundamental constant. Just that it's a constant.

 

The gist of this thread is in the dilemmas:

1--- To discard the excellent Planck’s idea about the EQUIVALENCE, by means of Fundamentals, OF ALL KIND OF ENERGIES IN PLANCK AREA?

2--- To give “Qpl” unmerited status of FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANT?

Neither of which is true.

 

Swanson! You know my leitmotif presented in all past my threads: spherical trajectories, unique particle, etc. This thread is an argument about my leitmotif.

Now shoot

New BS based on old BS. Understood.

 

What do you mean that "all kind of energies are equivalent"? That does not mean that all values of energy are equal.

----- In Planck area they must be. It is clear that this was intention of Planck.

You'll have to back this up with some evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Swansont

I don't know where you got this idea, but it's wrong, and I also doubt that it resembles anything Planck proposed.

----It’s not wrong if you analyses Planck constants, and asks yourself where they are derived from.

Nobody has claimed it is a fundamental constant. Just that it's a constant.
----- For that I say that it has not place in the formula that equalize Planck energy, with Coulomb energy, from where it’s derived.

 

Neither of which is true.
------ Maybe the third it’s true? Ha?
I wonder, why you did not rebutted the idea of different kind of frequencies:
1--- linear, 2 ----double vertical linear or circular. 3 ---- three vertical linear or two vertical circular or spherical?.
I thought they are the gist of this thread, linked direct with relation of “Qpl” and “e”

New BS based on old BS. Understood.
------ If you intend with BS = baseless, it would be better telling openly.

You'll have to back this up with some evidence.

What kind of evidence? :

1- Planck energy = Newton energy

h*C / (2*pi*Lpl) = G*Mpl^2 / Lpl results in Mpl = ( h-bar*C / G)^0.5

2 –Planck energy = Coulomb energy

h*C / (2*pi*Lpl) = Qpl^2 / (4*pi*ε *Lpl) results in Qpl = ( h-bar*C*4*pi*ε)^0.5

3 – Planck energy = Einstein energy = Newton’s

h*C / (2*pi*Lpl) = Mpl * C^2 = Mpl* ( Mpl*G /Lpl) results in C^2 = (Mpl*G/Lpl)

and Lpl = (h-bar*C / Mpl C^2) = ((h-bar*C) / (( h,bar *C / G) ^0.5 *C^2) ) =

= results Lpl = (h-bar*G / C^3) ^0.5

4 ---Planck energy = Boltszmann energy = Einstein energy.

h*C / (2*pi*Lpl) = Tem.Pl *Kbolts. = Mpl * C^2 results


Tem.Pl = (( h-bar*C^5 ) / (G*kb^2))^0.5
--------------------------------------------------------
If you want Planck constant extrapolated on “e” and sqrt G -------next

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once more unto the breach...

 

 

In physics, Planck units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants listed below, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.

 

the gravitational constant, G,

the reduced Planck constant, ħ,

the speed of light in a vacuum, c,

the Coulomb constant, (4πε0)−1 (sometimes ke or k), and

the Boltzmann constant, kB (sometimes k).

 

 

So from this we see that these units were made up wholesale for a specific reason.

 

 

1Q = e72b7e167f60ba883f3dcf1d84bbe605.png

 

If Planck Charge(Q) did not have this property it would not be Planck Charge. It must equal 1.875 x 10-18 coulombs or it would not be Planck Charge. Electric charge does not equal this, thus, it is not Planck Charge.

 

This allows us to say something like 5Q instead of 5 times that entire mess up there. It is purely for convenience. In no way does it somehow dethrone Electric charge.

 

 

This came off stronger than I typically care to write, but I really see no other way of getting through. Please for your own sake take it to heart and consider your stance.

Edited by Endy0816
Link to post
Share on other sites

Swansont

I don't know where you got this idea, but it's wrong, and I also doubt that it resembles anything Planck proposed.

----It’s not wrong if you analyses Planck constants, and asks yourself where they are derived from.

Endy0816 has addressed this, so yes, it is wrong. The five basic planck units are derived from five equations, which is what you need to do to find the values of five unknowns.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Base_units

 

 

Nobody has claimed it is a fundamental constant. Just that it's a constant.

----- For that I say that it has not place in the formula that equalize Planck energy, with Coulomb energy, from where it’s derived.

But the formula doesn't equalize the Planck energy with anything else. The fundamental charge was not used, being unknown at the time. It was also not set equal to the mass-energy value, since that equation was also not known at the time. You're just making that up.

 

(BTW, "Coulomb energy" is an equation, not a constant. If you put in different values, you get different answers.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not “cobbler author”. Her Planck is. I only dared to interpret, with my layman’s limited knowledge, some discrepancy in his “panorama about equivalence of energies”.

What equivalence of energies?

 

One could use the Planck energy instead of say Joules as a unit of energy, or one can use electron volts or kilowatt hours or whatever units seem natural for the physics at hand.

 

 

In Planck area I think, gravity, not only can’t be ignored, but, together with electric charge, are the first protagonists in physic’s nature of particles….. And, maybe, not only in Planck area.

So the usual interpretation is that it gives an area scale at which we cannot ignore the quantum effects of gravity on whatever physics we have there. If we are nowhere near the Planck scale then we can assume that any quantum effects of gravity are very small and can be ignored.

 

[i have no idea about Bekenstein – Hawking formula. In my narrow mind, I think that Planck is too big to enter in somebody other’s physic’s.

Well you are free to simply google the Bekenstein–Hawking formula.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Andy0816

Once more unto the breach..
----- Welcome!

So from this we see that these units were made up wholesale for a specific reason.

------What reason?

1Q = qp = ( h-bar * C * 4 * pi * ε0 )^0.5

------Which is derived by:
qp^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * lp ) = ( h-bar * C / ( 2 * pi * lp -------- without doubt

If Planck Charge(Q) did not have this property it would not be Planck Charge. It must

equal 1.875 x 10-18 coulombs or it would not be Planck Charge. Electric charge does not equal this, thus, it is not Planck Charge.

----- Sorry but it seems to me a confused sentence.

Is it Planck charge -- an “electric” charge ?.

Or is a summa of electric unity charges?
Bluntly: is it “e” ( the unity of electric charge ) a constant of nature ? If not---- is it dethronet by which person, from this honored status as a constant of nature? And for what reason?

This allows us to say something like 5Q instead of 5 times that entire mess up there. It is purely for convenience. In no way does it somehow dethrone Electric charge.

 

This came off stronger than I typically care to write, but I really see no other way of getting through. Please for your own sake take it to heart and consider your stance.
----- Thanks for good intentions, and for care about my “own sake”. That you not share my opinion expressed in this thread -it’s OK for me. I don’t change my “stance” until I find I am dead wrong. And I don’t like conformity, without strong conviction.

Swansont

Endy0816 has addressed this, so yes, it is wrong. The five basic planck units are derived from five equations, which is what you need to do to find the values of five unknowns.

----- I answered to the post of Andy0816.
Those five equations are nothing else but equalization of five kinds of amounts of energies. And, indeed, compared toward Planck’s energy.

But the formula doesn't equalize the Planck energy with anything else. The fundamental charge was not used, being unknown at the time. It was also not set equal to the mass-
value, since that equation was also not known at the time. You're just making that up.

----- May be I am wrong but Coulomb law was known by Planck. And law with out equation seems to me strange. So I am not just making that up.
(BTW, "Coulomb energy" is an equation, not a constant. If you put in different values, you get different answers.)
----In Planck area all kind of energies are defined in the “ terms of the base of Planck units, and indirect are Planck constants.

ajb

What equivalence of energies?

One could use the Planck energy instead of say Joules as a unit of energy, or one can use electron volts or kilowatt hours or whatever units seem natural for the physics at hand.

------ The same amounts , in what ever unity measure you use, of the each Planck derived energies.

So the usual interpretation is that it gives an area scale at which we cannot ignore the quantum effects of gravity on whatever physics we have there. If we are nowhere near the Planck scale then we can assume that any quantum effects of gravity are very small and can be ignored.

------This is another topic. Modern physic insists that Planck energy = h*f --- is the base of reality. I speculate that protagonist in real physic is not h*f , but is a “unique sub-particle” with outstanding quality of “electric CHARGE “e”’ and square root of gravity “sqrt G “. Planck energy is only a means for measuring the interactions of “unique sub particles” which take up stance in Planck area.
Debating about Planck electric constant, about equation from where it derived in comparison with Planck photon energy and it’s supposed frequency, I intended to demonstrate that (maybe) must be another reality---- again instead of:

qp^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * lp ) = ( h-bar * C / ( 2 * pi * lp we my have

e^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * REj ) = ( h * C / ( ( 2 * pi / α) * R Ej ) = h * fsph.
here C / ( ( 2 * pi / α) * R Ej ) is a spherical frequency.

Well you are free to simply google the Bekenstein–Hawking formula.

------ I will try about your suggestion, even I am not interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

----- Sorry but it seems to me a confused sentence.

Is it Planck charge -- an “electric” charge ?.

 

It is electric charge, but not the electron charge. (BTW, you are to thank for the confusion on this, because of the terminology you used in your first post.)

 

The planck charge is not the charge on an electron. Which is probably at least the tenth time you have been told this.

 

Or is a summa of electric unity charges?

Bluntly: is it “e” ( the unity of electric charge ) a constant of nature ? If not---- is it dethronet by which person, from this honored status as a constant of nature? And for what reason?

 

e is the fundamental charge. When the Planck units were derived, nobody had any confirmation that charge was quantized and there was such a thing as a fundamental charge.

 

It is important to note that "constant of nature" and "fundamental constant" are not the same thing. For example, the mass of a proton is a constant of nature, even though the proton is not a fundamental particle. It seems you are using the two terms to mean the same thing, and they aren't.

 

Swansont

Endy0816 has addressed this, so yes, it is wrong. The five basic planck units are derived from five equations, which is what you need to do to find the values of five unknowns.

----- I answered to the post of Andy0816.

Those five equations are nothing else but equalization of five kinds of amounts of energies. And, indeed, compared toward Planck’s energy.

 

No, if you look at the link, only two equations for energy are involved. There is an equation for distance, d=vt. There is an equation for electrostatic force and for gravitational force; and there is an equation for the planck energy being hbar/t, and also equal to kBT.

 

There is no Coulomb energy, no mass energy, and nowhere does the electron charge appear.

 

But the formula doesn't equalize the Planck energy with anything else. The fundamental charge was not used, being unknown at the time. It was also not set equal to the mass-

value, since that equation was also not known at the time. You're just making that up.

----- May be I am wrong but Coulomb law was known by Planck. And law with out equation seems to me strange. So I am not just making that up.

 

I made no claim about Coulomb's law. I said, as above, that e was not used and neither was mc^2 You are wrong to claim that these belong in the analysis.

 

(BTW, "Coulomb energy" is an equation, not a constant. If you put in different values, you get different answers.)

----In Planck area all kind of energies are defined in the “ terms of the base of Planck units, and indirect are Planck constants.

 

No, this is false and a fabrication on your part. You can't arbitrarily choose an energy and say it's a planck energy. There are only five equations involved in finding the base units, and there is a unique solution for the planck energy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Foot

 

The Foot is a unit of measurement.

 

1 Q

 

The Planck Charge is a unit of measurement.

 

 

In physics, Planck units are physical units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants listed below, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.

 

the gravitational constant, G,

the reduced Planck constant, ħ,

the speed of light in a vacuum, c,

the Coulomb constant, (4πε0)−1 (sometimes ke or k), and

the Boltzmann constant, kB (sometimes k).

 

 

Bit redundant but to be clear that bolded part is the reason that Planck charge was invented.

 

It is less arbitrary than a unit based upon a human appendage, but it is still arbitrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Foot

 

The Foot is a unit of measurement.

 

1 Q

 

The Planck Charge is a unit of measurement.

 

 

 

Bit redundant but to be clear that bolded part is the reason that Planck charge was invented.

 

It is less arbitrary than a unit based upon a human appendage, but it is still arbitrary.

 

 

And, to the point I made earlier, 1 foot is not a fundamental unit, but it is still a constant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Swansont

It is electric charge, but not the electron charge. (BTW, you are to thank for the confusion on this, because of the terminology you used in your first post.)
------ That electric CHARGE “e” exists in ELECTRON PARTICLE, this doesn’t mean

they are the same entity. It exists in many other particles too. Where is confusion?

The planck charge is not the charge on an electron. Which is probably at least the tenth time you have been told this.
------Today every body know the unity of ELECTRIC charge ( of whatever particle that has electric charge) is “e” (not because you have repeated it tenth time), but knew Planck in that time? As he didn’t know (seems to me), he derived Qpl, by equalization of two kind of energies ( Coulomb’s and his own) . The same as he made with Newton’s and his own, when derived Mpl.

e is the fundamental charge. When the Planck units were derived, nobody had any confirmation that charge was quantized and there was such a thing as a fundamental charge.

-----That right.

It is important to note that "constant of nature" and "fundamental constant" are not the same thing. For example, the mass of a proton is a constant of nature, even though the proton is not a fundamental particle. It seems you are using the two terms to mean the same thing, and they aren't.
------ I doubt about it. I think, Einshtein asserted, that mass depends by relative velocity.

As particles have spatial dimension, and spatial dimensions depends from relative velocity, I don’t understand why modern physic states that particles have R = 0 , and M = constant.

No, if you look at the link, only two equations for energy are involved. There is an equation for distance, d=vt. There is an equation for electrostatic force and for gravitational force; and there is an equation for the planck energy being hbar/t, and also equal to kBT.
------ That makes sense. Instead of formulas of energy, Planc had used formulas of force. But I don’t understand what is formula of Planck force to be linked with Newton’s or Coulomb’s forces.”

 

There is no Coulomb energy, no mass energy, and nowhere does the electron charge appear.

I made no claim about Coulomb's law. I said, as above, that e was not used and neither was mc^2 You are wrong to claim that these belong in the analysis.

No, this is false and a fabrication on your part. You can't arbitrarily choose an energy and say it's a planck energy. There are only five equations involved in finding the base units, and there is a unique solution for the planck energy.
------ False --- no. Fabricated ----no. Arbitrary chosen Planck energy ---no.
I make an analysis about Planck’s constants, and wondered how Planck may have deduced them, from fundamental constants, including “e” (It is not important, for the gist of thread, knew Planck or not) .

I thought that Planck constants have to do with physic’s laws of force and physic’s energies that derive from them.
As “h”, results in all Planck constants, has to do with energy, I concluded that he made comparison between his named energy, with each energy, named by other authors.
I made numerical calculation solving each pair of equations, and was convinced that they fit exact, except Coulomb energy with fundamental constant ”e”.
I think this is a controversy.
1- Because Planck charge constant was false value, used only to equalize energy equations.
2- On the other hand if we use “legitimate fundamental constant ”e”, for Coulomb energy, this energy has different value in comparison with Planck energy.

3 – I made a speculation about the change of concept of frequency, suggesting that constant of fine structure to be included in frequency, in so called spherical frequencies.
That is all about this prolonged thread.
I convinced that in Planck area, all kind of energies have the same value (amount).

I convinced that concept about frequency must be changed, including in it constant of fine structure together with idea of spherical structures.
I think, that is not productive to continue this thread further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the equation [math]e = \sqrt{\alpha} q_{P}[/math], where [math]e[/math] is the electron charge,[math]q_{P}[/math] is the Planck charge and [math]\alpha[/math] is the fine structure constant help? In fact, I have not actually given any units here I don't really need to.

 

The two are not equal but there is a simple linear relation. You should not try to force them to be equal as the charge of an electron is not the Planck charge, it is defined as the fundamental charge.

 

I think this thread is now at a conclusion. The two are not equal and we can all now go about your daily lives.

Edited by ajb
Link to post
Share on other sites

Swansont

It is electric charge, but not the electron charge. (BTW, you are to thank for the confusion on this, because of the terminology you used in your first post.)

------ That electric CHARGE “e” exists in ELECTRON PARTICLE, this doesn’t mean

they are the same entity. It exists in many other particles too. Where is confusion?

The planck charge is not the charge on an electron. Which is probably at least the tenth time you have been told this.

------Today every body know the unity of ELECTRIC charge ( of whatever particle that has electric charge) is “e” (not because you have repeated it tenth time), but knew Planck in that time? As he didn’t know (seems to me), he derived Qpl, by equalization of two kind of energies ( Coulomb’s and his own) . The same as he made with Newton’s and his own, when derived Mpl.

e is the fundamental charge. When the Planck units were derived, nobody had any confirmation that charge was quantized and there was such a thing as a fundamental charge.

-----That right.

So what was the point of all this? You seem to acknowledge that the planck charge is not the electron charge.

 

 

It is important to note that "constant of nature" and "fundamental constant" are not the same thing. For example, the mass of a proton is a constant of nature, even though the proton is not a fundamental particle. It seems you are using the two terms to mean the same thing, and they aren't.

------ I doubt about it. I think, Einshtein asserted, that mass depends by relative velocity.

Well, no, that's not true (Einstein never asserted this), but more importantly what you refer to is the property of being invariant, i.e. the same in any reference frame (I alluded to this earlier). Constant merely means it has the same value in a single reference frame. Lengths are not invariant, even though we can establish a meter as a constant. Time is not invariant, even though we establish the constant of one second being 9,192,631,770 oscillations in Cs-133.

 

As particles have spatial dimension, and spatial dimensions depends from relative velocity, I don’t understand why modern physic states that particles have R = 0 , and M = constant.

No, if you look at the link, only two equations for energy are involved. There is an equation for distance, d=vt. There is an equation for electrostatic force and for gravitational force; and there is an equation for the planck energy being hbar/t, and also equal to kBT.

------ That makes sense. Instead of formulas of energy, Planc had used formulas of force. But I don’t understand what is formula of Planck force to be linked with Newton’s or Coulomb’s forces.”

The "Planck force" is whatever the electrostatic force is when the charges have the value of the planck charge and the separation is the planck length. Or the gravitational force with the planck mass and planck length. That's how the values are defined.

 

------ False --- no. Fabricated ----no. Arbitrary chosen Planck energy ---no.

I make an analysis about Planck’s constants, and wondered how Planck may have deduced them, from fundamental constants, including “e” (It is not important, for the gist of thread, knew Planck or not) .

I thought that Planck constants have to do with physic’s laws of force and physic’s energies that derive from them.

As “h”, results in all Planck constants, has to do with energy, I concluded that he made comparison between his named energy, with each energy, named by other authors.

I made numerical calculation solving each pair of equations, and was convinced that they fit exact, except Coulomb energy with fundamental constant ”e”.

Well, you were wrong about the last part.

 

I think this is a controversy.

No, it was just that you were wrong

 

1- Because Planck charge constant was false value, used only to equalize energy equations.

It's a value. Nothing "false" (or "true") about it. It simply is what it is.

 

2- On the other hand if we use “legitimate fundamental constant ”e”, for Coulomb energy, this energy has different value in comparison with Planck energy.

And why should this be a surprise? If you use a different value if charge, you get a different value for energy. The energy depends on the value of the charge. You only get the planck energy if you use the planck charge. If you use a different value for charge (or length), you are not solving for the planck energy.

 

 

I convinced that in Planck area, all kind of energies have the same value (amount).

You are wrong. The math bears this out. The planck energy is clearly defined. There's no legitimate reason to think some arbitrary value is also going to result in the planck energy.

 

I think, that is not productive to continue this thread further.

If you are going to stubbornly cling to an idea despite it being shown to be clearly false, then I agree it is not productive to discuss it further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.