Jump to content

Von Klitzing’s constant and Ohm’s rule


Recommended Posts

 

Controversy: Von Klitzing’s constant vs. Ohm’s rule.
It was a surprise for me that consulting Codata found Von Klitzing constant.
I had calculated electric current, electric voltage, electric resistance based only in classic radius of particles. This was for my hypothesis.
Von Klitzing constant is the same as resistance of electric voltage / toward current (amperage) of electric
charges, in alleged circular trajectories on electron particle, proton particle and three imaginary particles.
I thought : this is a good supportive argument -- I am in right track with my hypothesis about structure of elementary particles.
It is a good argument about hypothesis that an elementary particle posses all kind of energies in the same amount.
It is a good argument that precise radius of a particle, is real.
It is a good argument that classic physic is not dead.
But? …. Why on earth resistance does not depends by radius?
May be Von Klitzing had find why his constant, “is constant”, has find what is physics meaning of a resistance that does not respect Ohm’s rule.
Now i am in blind end. I tried to consult Vikipedia about this problem. Didn’t find any answer.
So I post here my problem. May be expert won’t send me with: go fishing.
Happy New year!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to stop calling things controversial simply because you don't know the answer.

 

 

The von Klitzing constant is related to the Quantum Hall effect

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

 

There is no conflict between this and Ohm's law. The conductance is quantized, but conductance and resistance are inverses of each other so the form of Ohm's law is preserved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Swansont say:
You really need to stop calling things controversial simply because you don't know the answer.

-------- Sorry that I use in my posts a term with allergic effect. But I think you don’t negate that the secrets of natures reveals themselves, for humans, in form of controversies.
For scientists, when a controversy is solved, the secret is no more secret, only but for lay-mans.
I am one of them (a lay-man) but i have bad mania that when I am not satisfied to insist and dig dipper.
As I recall now The complex resistance in Ohm’s law is:
Z = sqrt((RL – Rc)^2 + R^2 ) = U / I
I see that all kind of resistance have own post and they are not inverse.
I am interested and curious to know which of them is Von Klitzing resistance. Sure not R.
I will bring here my simple calculation for my alleged structured electron and proton:

Electron : Radius : 2.817940286*10^-15 m.
I = 19.79633259 …………..A.
U =510998,9258……………V.
Z = 25812,81507 Ohm.
f =1.23559006*10^20 ….Hz.

Proton : Radius : 1.534698246*10^-18 m.
I = 36349.0832…………… A.
U = 936271820.6…………….V.
Z = 25812,81507 Ohm
f =2.268731`829*10^23 Hz.
For this I am interested to know.Please help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall now The complex resistance in Ohm’s law is:

Z = sqrt((RL – Rc)^2 + R^2 ) = U / I

I see that all kind of resistance have own post and they are not inverse.

I am interested and curious to know which of them is Von Klitzing resistance. Sure not R.

Non-sequitur. The von Klitzing resistance (conductance) is a constant, that manifests itself in the quantum Hall effect. The complex resistance is a general formula for determining the impedance with a resistive, capacitive and inductive circuit, for classical circuits.

 

If you learned the basics before you dig deeper it would probably help a lot.

 

I will bring here my simple calculation for my alleged structured electron and proton:

It's nonsense, and you already have a thread on your WAGs about particle structure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

wansont
Non-sequitur. The von Klitzing resistance (conductance) is a constant, that manifests itself in the quantum Hall effect. The complex resistance is a general formula for determining the impedance with a resistive, capacitive and inductive circuit, for classical circuits.

If you learned the basics before you dig deeper it would probably help a lot.

Kramer, on 01 Jan 2014 - 1:55 PM, said:

I will bring here my simple calculation for my alleged structured electron and proton:


It's nonsense, and you already have a thread on your WAGs about particle structure.

------ Thanks for “encouragement” with your ”non sequitur” and “non sense”.
Both your sentences I am ready to accept because a lay-man knows his place in dispute with scientist. But I would like an elaboration from you about my flaws in both issues:
1—Why classical resistances (or the inverse of it– conductance) have different physic’s meaning “on sequitur” with Quantum? I am sure that you work with capacitors, inductances, resistors (even though, this kind is not desirable), in your application of “quantum projects”.
I think, that an artificial division of quantum from his mother (classic), is strange. May be is normal to dispute in this case about the questions :
Who posses this property (conductance) : space, wave or solid matter (particles)?
Why in quantum it is constant, why in classic it may change.?
That’s what I wanted to know in my O.P.
II--- What part is nonsense in my lay-man’s mode calculation? Admit for while that electric charge is an entity on it’s own ( not an electron particle), that move in circles with C velocity, in a radius that is linked with Compton wave.
Here you have two results that can not be disregarded: Voltage and ……and a strange coincidence?…. the Von Klitzing conductance (resistance).
Are they cooked? Didn’t they cause a kind of curiosity?
----- About learning the basic. Alas ! The last few giga bite I hope to have in disposition, I want to spend ….. inciting dispute in “controversies”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1—Why classical resistances (or the inverse of it– conductance) have different physic’s meaning “on sequitur” with Quantum? I am sure that you work with capacitors, inductances, resistors (even though, this kind is not desirable), in your application of “quantum projects”.

I think, that an artificial division of quantum from his mother (classic), is strange. May be is normal to dispute in this case about the questions :

Who posses this property (conductance) : space, wave or solid matter (particles)?

Why in quantum it is constant, why in classic it may change.?

That’s what I wanted to know in my O.P.

 

Then go read up on the Quantum Hall Effect. You get quantum effects when you put the electrons into a situation where they have quantized energy values.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Swanson
Then go read up on the Quantum Hall Effect. You get quantum effects when you put the electrons into a situation where they have quantized energy values.

____ That is “ go fishing “.
I see in Hall effect only classical effect: The intertwined of two kind of magnetic fields, one from outside --- the other from the flow of current.
In one side of flow the magnetic field will be stronger, in the opposite weaker. This will push electrons of the material, conductor of the current, in the side perpendicular with direction of flow, where field is stronger.
If material (conductor) is an allow that has trapped, in its atoms some-how, the positrons, the so called “hole”, they will pushed in opposite direction.
Sure this is a mess explanation from the lay-man.
But my questions continue to have not an explanation from specialists:
It is the “Von Klitzing constant resistance”, property of conductor? property of electrons?
property of space?.
Why is it constant?
That’s what I wanted to listen.
About the part II ( above ) that you ignored at all as “ nonsense “ the Von Klitzing constant revealed as a property of structure of electron. I think this is much more important than how it ‘s revealed in Hall effect.
By the way --- two other constants may be taken from the domain of Quantum, in my classical interpretation of electron: “Josefson constant” and “flux constant”.
Anyway—thanks that have patience to debate with a lay-man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Swanson

Then go read up on the Quantum Hall Effect. You get quantum effects when you put the electrons into a situation where they have quantized energy values.

____ That is “ go fishing “.

I see in Hall effect only classical effect: The intertwined of two kind of magnetic fields, one from outside --- the other from the flow of current.

In one side of flow the magnetic field will be stronger, in the opposite weaker. This will push electrons of the material, conductor of the current, in the side perpendicular with direction of flow, where field is stronger.

If material (conductor) is an allow that has trapped, in its atoms some-how, the positrons, the so called “hole”, they will pushed in opposite direction.

Sure this is a mess explanation from the lay-man.

In the classical Hall effect, the conductance does not take on quantized values. It's still the Hall effect, though, so you should expect the overall effect to look the same.

 

But my questions continue to have not an explanation from specialists:

It is the “Von Klitzing constant resistance”, property of conductor? property of electrons?

property of space?.

Why is it constant?

That’s what I wanted to listen.

If you read up on the effect, you have a chance of figuring out these answers.

 

About the part II ( above ) that you ignored at all as “ nonsense “ the Von Klitzing constant revealed as a property of structure of electron. I think this is much more important than how it ‘s revealed in Hall effect.

By the way --- two other constants may be taken from the domain of Quantum, in my classical interpretation of electron: “Josefson constant” and “flux constant”.

Anyway—thanks that have patience to debate with a lay-man.[/size]

IOW you don't understand the physics, but have a proposal in terms of your own model. But this is a separate topic from a discussion of the mainstream physics of the QHE, and as I said, you already have a thread for your pet theory of particle properties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Swansont
In the classical Hall effect, the conductance does not take on quantized values. It's still the Hall effect, though, so you should expect the overall effect to look the same
If you read up on the effect, you have a chance of figuring out these answers.

------I tried to find any source material, that explain Von Klitsing constant. I didn’t find any, except some historical and experimental information.
If you know one that has more specific explanation, especially (lay-man desired) with numerical examples, with units on it, please make me know.
I think that Von Klitzing constant is not limited in only Hall effect. It revealed itself after scientist scrutinized Hall effect. And (who know?) may be is one of the most important constants in particles physic, which links classic with quantum.
So the topic is Von Klitzen constant. Not Hall effect.

OW you don't understand the physics, but have a proposal in terms of your own model. But this is a separate topic from a discussion of the mainstream physics of the QHE, and as I said, you already have a thread for your pet theory of particle properties.

------- I am not offended by your sarcasm, simply I don’t care about opinions.
I don’t understand the nature, kind, application of this constant. But as it holds as unit “Ohm” I consider it resistance, which is under the rule U / I.
It “casually” appears in my classic mode calculation of characters of particles, and attires my interest because it is a quantum constant.
I have the right to question myself, and who may be interested in speculation forum, why this unknown term in my room?
Using infallible method in scrutiny of units, I found that in my specific case I am in right track:
Ue / Ie = h / e^2 = Rk
So are: Flux = Ee / Ie = Ue / fe = h / e = 4,13566728*10^-15 V/s
and Kj = 2*e / h = 2^fe / Ue
If you think this is coincidence I don’t think so.
--------------
I haven’t any intention to open a debate about Standart model. Who am I?
I think that what divide Quantum from Classic is: E = h / dt instead of E = h*fx
In my “ so called” model frequency is one property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a constant because it is derived from constants. Planck's Constant and Elementary charge respectively.

 

Planck's Constant = 6.62606957×10−34 J·s

Elementary Charge = 1.602176565×10−19 C

 

Von Klitzing's Constant = Planck's Constant / (Elementary Charge)2

 

= 25812.807557 J·s/C2 = 25812.807557 Ohms

 

You can divide the two yourself and have proof of this. If you want how it relates to the real world you'll need to look at the already mentioned Quantum Hall effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

------I tried to find any source material, that explain Von Klitsing constant. I didn’t find any, except some historical and experimental information.

If you know one that has more specific explanation, especially (lay-man desired) with numerical examples, with units on it, please make me know.

I think that Von Klitzing constant is not limited in only Hall effect. It revealed itself after scientist scrutinized Hall effect. And (who know?) may be is one of the most important constants in particles physic, which links classic with quantum.

So the topic is Von Klitzen constant. Not Hall effect.

 

 

So let me get this straight: you can't find any information on the von Klitzing constant*, and yet you are able to conclude that it applies in situations other than the quantum Hall effect.

 

*despite the fact that I provided a wikipedia link, which includes references, and a Google search yields almost 50,000 hits.

 

Fine, then: go and find experimental results that show quantized conductivity that is not related to the quantum Hall effect. Until you do, though, you can't claim the constant has applicability elsewhere.

 

I can't fathom the logic that allows one to conclude that particle physics links quantum physics with classical physics, making them interchangeable. The quantum Hall effect, as the name implies, is a quantum effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy 0816
It's a constant because it is derived from constants. Planck's Constant and Elementary charge respectively.

Planck's Constant = 6.62606957×10−34 J·s

Elementary Charge = 1.602176565×10−19 C

Von Klitzing's Constant = Planck's Constant / (Elementary Charge)2

= 25812.807557 J·s/C2 = 25812.807557 Ohms

You can divide the two yourself and have proof of this. If you want how it relates to the real world you'll need to look at the already mentioned Quantum Hall effect.|

------- All you say is exact.
What I say is that Von Klitsing constant fits in Electric elementary particles, as i suppose they have structure:

RK = h / e^2 = Ue / Ie = ( e / ( 4 * pi * ε0* Re) ) / ( e * fe ) =

(e / ( 4 * pi * ε0 *Re) ) / ( e * ( C / ( (2 * pi / α) * Re) ) ) =

(2 * pi) / (α *
4 * p i * ε0 *C) = 1 / (2 * α )* ( ε0 * C ) =

μ0 * C / 2 * α
--------------------------------------

 

 

So let me get this straight: you can't find any information on the von Klitzing constant*, and yet you are able to conclude that it applies in situations other than the quantum Hall effect.
Yes . I am, even though my reasoning not satisfied opponents.

Swansont

*despite the fact that I provided a wikipedia link, which includes references, and a Google search yields almost 50,000 hits.

-----Thanks for the help. I am not ungrateful, even though I hopped for something more concrete.

 

Fine, then: go and find experimental results that show quantized conductivity that is not related to the quantum Hall effect. Until you do, though, you can't claim the constant has applicability elsewhere.

------- May be Hall effect is the experimental fact you ask with insist. Up on what is applied “ quantum effect” if not up on the electrons?
May be this is some kind of “dielectric hysteresis”? that caused RK = constant, based on the alleged fact that electrons resistance is constant too.

I can't fathom the logic that allows one to conclude that particle physics links quantum physics with classical physics, making them interchangeable. The quantum Hall effect, as the name implies, is a quantum effect.
-------My lay-man logic is based in:
1 The particle has an over-all energy.
2 The energy is conserved.
3 The energy may tranformed from one kind in another.
4 In exact the same amount.
5 The quantum energy, is one of them that has its specifics, as the others have own.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am puzzled by the statement in entry #8..."in the classical hall effect the conductance does not take on quantized values"... If it has a value, by default is it not technically a quantized value?.....isn't every value in the universe under the quantum rubric? thanks, edd

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am puzzled by the statement in entry #8..."in the classical hall effect the conductance does not take on quantized values"... If it has a value, by default is it not technically a quantized value?.....isn't every value in the universe under the quantum rubric? thanks, edd

 

The possible values are continuous, depending on the material, the length and area of the conductor. There's a whole bunch of classical physics that does not require quantum theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

( The layman say the opposite:
What you call Quantum, is nothing else but classic physics of super high frequencies, where the resistance is always a composition of capacitive, inductive and active.
Now we have a resistance, Von Klitsing resistance :

Rk = μ0 * C / 2 * α = 25812.80762 ohm. = RL
this is equal R
K = 1 / (2 * α )* ( ε0 * C ) = 25812.80762 ohm = RC
In my electron’s hypothesis R =
Ue / e * fe = 25812.80762 ohm
( I think, “ fe” is motivated. This is not something fudged. It is equal ---- fe = Ee / h. )
What troubles me, is the huge amount of potential energy:
P = U^2 / R = 10115904.73 V*A
P = I^2 * R = 10115904.73 V*A
P = U * I * R = 10115904.73 V*A
I think that this huge “potential” energy is linked with gravity of hypothetic sub-particles.
And with this , I think, is linked the “ Quantum momentary energy h / dt “

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even though nobody want to dispute about this thread I will continue for awhile.
The huge potential energy, results if we use unities Volt, Amper, Herc, ( instead of electron volt), that is, when treat electron as a dynamic, continuous interaction and movement inside him, of electric charges.

So: P = U^2 / Rk = 10115904, 73 V.A. = (Mpl.*sqrtα* C^2) / 16.51989 V.A. = Hpl. / τe
Here “Hpl”. Is upper constant energy of Plank mass equal 167113697,2 J.
(For us, reveals only a tine part of this energy:
Ee = (U^2 / Rk) / fe = 8.18710195*10 ^-14 J. = me * C^2 = e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*re) =
= h* (C*α / 2*pi*re) etc.
In the formula, “τe” is interval of time that corresponds gravity velocity inside electron.
”Rk” – Von Klitzing constant.

τe = ((2*pi /α) * re) / Vge = 16.51989 sec.
Here Vge (gravity velocity) inside electron structure.

Vge = sqrt ( G * me / re ) m/sec.= 1.46872039*10^-13 sec.
------------------------------------
In the closure of this thread I give “my” conclusions:
Von Klitzing resistance (Rk) is a Plank area constant that may be used as capacitive, inductive, or active. And in this thread I gave a short explanation for the link of Rk with my hypothesis that all particles are structured by sub-particles, the so called -- tiny black holes.

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.