Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Iwonderaboutthings

Is Coulumb's Law, Symmetrical????

Recommended Posts

Question about Coulumb's Law, in relation to electrical engineering:








Coulomb’s law gives an expression to evaluate the electric force in

newtons (N) exerted on a one point charge by the other:



Forces are experienced by Q1 and Q2, due to the presence of Q2 and Q1,

respectively. They are equal in magnitude and opposite of each other in direction.



coulaw.gif




Now, I ask:


Where did the inverses of Q2 and Q1 " pop up"??



Are these the anti of Q2 and Q1?


Have these ever been seen?







What I am thinking is this:



Supersymetry, Superposition and Quantum Gravity, Quantum Electro Dynamics???



If what I am intuitively " thinking" there appears to be a "reflection map or a displacement map going on here maybe even a manifold due to the limits in the vector units involved...I'M NOT SURE!


BUT! I may just be thinking out of the context " of regular" electrical engineering I think. However I assume that the phenomena of " forces" IE " magnetic waves" somewhere down the line would get acknowledged in electrical engineering study but I have not really seen too much of it so far...



In relation to electrical engineering pertaining to: "charge distributions"



IE: coupled with , point charges , surface charge distributions ,volume charge distributions,



Should a student think of this distribution as the distribution law in algebra???



If so, how??



We have the famous x^2 = -1 to deal with...



Is this the reasoning of imaginary units????



if so would't this "not agree" with Coulomb's law??




Like I said: I may just be thinking out of the context " of regular" electrical engineering I think, but it is always best to ask then assume..



On the notion of only surface charge distributions ,volume charge distributions coupled with dimensional analysis again would this make Coulomb's law one half missing??



Or does this only apply to surface charge distributions ,volume charge distributions pertaining to y=x^2?



In either case they seem to describe " empty space with or without a medium.



When I read force per unit charge as time dependent on some " rate" I am seeing that DC, and AC current flow appear to be " the same application" no matter how math nor geometry describe them due to " the domain in time not space."




Is this wrong?
Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did the inverses of Q2 and Q1 " pop up"??
Are these the anti of Q2 and Q1?
Have these ever been seen?

 

Q in Coulombs [C] is charge. It's kinda like quantity of particles. 1 C = 6.24*10^18 electrons.

 

If you have single electron, charge Q will be -1.602*10^-19 C.

If you have single proton, charge Q will be +1.602*10^-19 C.

 

Electrons and electrons repel.

Protons and protons repel.

Electrons and protons attract.

 

So, if you have Q1=-1 C and Q2=-1 C, after multiplication negative by negative, we will receive positive value.

F=k*-1 C * -1 C / r^2 = k*1*1/r^2

 

If Q1=+1 C and Q2=+1 C

F=k*1*1/r^2

effect will be the same.

 

You can see how it works using electroscope.

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

z072.jpg

"leafs" are free to move.

The higher quantity of electrons will gather on them, the further leafs will be from each other.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where did the inverses of Q2 and Q1 " pop up"??
Are these the anti of Q2 and Q1?

What do you mean by "inverses of Q2 and Q1"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't really understand what you're asking, but if you derive Coulomb's interaction in spherical, polar co-ordinates, you find that it depends solely on the separation R and not on the two angles. This implies that the interaction is spherically ( or is the proper term, rotationally ) symmetric.

 

But if you were familiar with Noether's theorem, or global symmetries/conservation laws you would already expect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Q in Coulombs [C] is charge. It's kinda like quantity of particles. 1 C = 6.24*10^18 electrons.

 

If you have single electron, charge Q will be -1.602*10^-19 C.

If you have single proton, charge Q will be +1.602*10^-19 C.

 

Electrons and electrons repel.

Protons and protons repel.

Electrons and protons attract.

 

So, if you have Q1=-1 C and Q2=-1 C, after multiplication negative by negative, we will receive positive value.

F=k*-1 C * -1 C / r^2 = k*1*1/r^2

 

If Q1=+1 C and Q2=+1 C

F=k*1*1/r^2

effect will be the same.

 

You can see how it works using electroscope.

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

z072.jpg

"leafs" are free to move.

The higher quantity of electrons will gather on them, the further leafs will be from each other.

 

 

 

 

Q in Coulombs [C] is charge. It's kinda like quantity of particles. 1 C = 6.24*10^18 electrons.

 

If you have single electron, charge Q will be -1.602*10^-19 C.

If you have single proton, charge Q will be +1.602*10^-19 C.

 

Electrons and electrons repel.

Protons and protons repel.

Electrons and protons attract.

 

So, if you have Q1=-1 C and Q2=-1 C, after multiplication negative by negative, we will receive positive value.

F=k*-1 C * -1 C / r^2 = k*1*1/r^2

 

If Q1=+1 C and Q2=+1 C

F=k*1*1/r^2

effect will be the same.

 

You can see how it works using electroscope.

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

z072.jpg

"leafs" are free to move.

The higher quantity of electrons will gather on them, the further leafs will be from each other.

 

 

WAIT! are you saying the electron and proton share the same charge???

I've read this before and could have just forgot...

I just want to make this clear.

 

I don't mean to get deep here, what about strong nuclear forces then???

 

If this is correct then I am right...

 

 

 

 

 

I typed the following earlier....

 

 

 

 

It's kinda like quantity of particles???

 

When you say charge, do you mean this:

 

A charge consist of "ALL KNOWN" constituents of an Atom???

atom.jpg

 

 

 

Does this entire atom flow with electrical current in conductors?

 

 

You say:

 

after multiplication negative by negative, we will receive positive value.

 

 

However, isn't there something missing here " a dimensionless quantity that pertains to zero empty space in order to do this??

You just don't multiply numbers together and some how " lace them with the forces of nature, or can you???

 

can you show me a numerical value of this negative times a negative = a positive value??

 

Or a link would work to...

 

 

Either I am not getting it, or this " equation" is not completed..

B is the flux density?? Where on earth did an inverse square law of flux come in??? Flux is a measure of particles as they grow in magnitude right??

 

lorfor.gif

 

 

 

 

On another note, can my confusion be simply on the magnetic constant, being a man made chosen value??

 

 

Copied and pasted from Wikipedia:

 

 

The overall history of the unit of electric current, and of the related question of how to define a set of equations for describing electromagnetic phenomena, is very complicated. Briefly, the basic reason why μ0 has the value it does is as follows.

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

Don't really understand what you're asking, but if you derive Coulomb's interaction in spherical, polar co-ordinates, you find that it depends solely on the separation R and not on the two angles. This implies that the interaction is spherically ( or is the proper term, rotationally ) symmetric.

 

But if you were familiar with Noether's theorem, or global symmetries/conservation laws you would already expect that.

Yes, interaction is spherically which imposes issues on distance because r^2, not to mention that Coulomb's Law look very much familiar with the Gravitational Force of Celestial Bodies, Am I the only one noticing this???

 

 

What I would really looooooooooooove to know, or even see is the actual stream or " What Ever It Is" that is refereed to "Current"

What do you mean by "inverses of Q2 and Q1"?

From what I gather a charge has both - and + "I am going to say " qualities" because I still don't know what charge is.

 

 

However, the inversions of these comes from the math and geometry that describes these..

Oddly numbers are virtually used for many similar forms of creations...

 

 

I feel frustrated at this point because its been years and I still do not " understand the deductive logic of " current, distance, and velocity.

 

It appears that each of them:

 

velocity, distance " r^2" and current "ALL HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.....

From what I gather everything is practically empty space as per Quantum Theory or is it Quantum Atom Theory, you see with all the Theories, its hard to see them all as one meaning regarding the same thing, and that is nature...

 

 

It just " reads that way."

OHHHHHHHHH MY!

 

LOL! I totally forget about the electron and proton having - and + charge, now that darn r^2 makes sense, all of a sudden things are becoming much more clearer...But still a little confused on electrical engineering technicals. ;)

 

 

I keep thinking that " freed electrons" out of their orbits can exist ""outside"" of the domain of the Atom??? yes? no???

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this entire atom flow with electrical current in conductors?

 

No. Just electron.

Aluminum atom has 49218 times more mass than electron.

Copper atom has 117667 times more mass than electron.

Gold atom has 359109 times more mass than electron.

When electron flows through conductor it sometimes hits atom, losing a bit of its kinetic energy, and heating atom, which is receiving electron's kinetic energy.

The less this happens (lower resistance), the better conductor.

 

If we have atom which lacks electron (ion+), and atom which has more electrons (ion-), the one that has more can give electron to the one which lack it.

In batteries that have 1400 mAh on negative electrode we have 5000 Coulombs = 5000*6.24*10^18 = 3.12*10^22 electrons, and on positive electrode there are positive ions in the same quantity, which lacks electrons.

After closing circuit electrons flow from negative electrode to positive electrode. Positive ions are attracting electrons.

Each electron will have kinetic energy that corresponds to voltage difference.

f.e. if voltage is 1 V, single electron will have 1 eV kinetic energy (electron volt unit).

 

if voltage is 3.5 V, electron will have 3.5 eV kinetic energy.

 

E=h*c/wavelength

so

wavelength = h*c/E = 4.135667*10^-15 * 299792458 / 3.5 = 354 nm

 

UV LED have voltage drop 3.2-3.5 V (a bit is probably lost). So they emit photons with energies 3.2-3.5 eV, which correspond to wavelengths 387 nm .. 354 nm. Photon in ultraviolet spectrum.

 

WAIT! are you saying the electron and proton share the same charge???

 

Where did you get such conclusions?

I said

"If you have single electron, charge Q will be -1.602*10^-19 C.

If you have single proton, charge Q will be +1.602*10^-19 C."

 

One has positive, other negative.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..are you saying the electron and proton share the same charge???

They are both electrically charged, if that is what you are asking. They have one of the only two kinds of electric harge possible, negative and positive.

 

 

A charge consist of "ALL KNOWN" constituents of an Atom???

All the charged constituents of an atom, i.e. the protons and the electrons contribute to the overal electric charge of the atom. Uusally this is zero, unless there are some electrons missing or gained and we have an ion.

 

 

Does this entire atom flow with electrical current in conductors?

No, only cetian electrons that are free to move contribute the current. However you can also have holes and ions contributing to a current in general. A current is just a flow of charge carriers.

 

 

Flux is a measure of particles as they grow in magnitude right??

Loosley, flux is the flow of some physical property through some surface.

 

 

 

 

Yes, interaction is spherically which imposes issues on distance because r^2, not to mention that Coulomb's Law look very much familiar with the Gravitational Force of Celestial Bodies, Am I the only one noticing this???

No, that has been noticed a long time ago. The informal reason they look similar is that electrostatics is to electrodynamics what Newtonian gravity is to general relativity.

 

 

 

From what I gather a charge has both - and + "I am going to say " qualities" because I still don't know what charge is.

There is a good question hidden in this.

 

From one prespective an electrical charge is just the property a body needs to interact with the electromagnetic field. Without it a particle would just not feel electromagnetic forces. It is also the property of a body that allows it to act as a source or a sink of the electromagnetic field.

 

On the other hand, we can view electric charge in terms of Noether's theorem. That is it is the conserved charge related to the U(1) gauge symmetry of the electromagnetic Lagrangian.

 

Why charge is quantised is another story, and one I don't think we properly understand.

 

 

I keep thinking that " freed electrons" out of their orbits can exist ""outside"" of the domain of the Atom??? yes? no???

Yes, electrons extists that are not bound to atoms or collections of atoms. Look up a cathode ray tube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, electrons extists that are not bound to atoms or collections of atoms. Look up a cathode ray tube.

 

And we can see traces leaved by them in Cloud Chamber. Long thin traces are from beta particles (electron or positron). Short thick traces are from alpha particles. The more kinetic energy has particle, the longer trace.

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No. Just electron.

Aluminum atom has 49218 times more mass than electron.

Copper atom has 117667 times more mass than electron.

Gold atom has 359109 times more mass than electron.

When electron flows through conductor it sometimes hits atom, losing a bit of its kinetic energy, and heating atom, which is receiving electron's kinetic energy.

The less this happens (lower resistance), the better conductor.

 

If we have atom which lacks electron (ion+), and atom which has more electrons (ion-), the one that has more can give electron to the one which lack it.

In batteries that have 1400 mAh on negative electrode we have 5000 Coulombs = 5000*6.24*10^18 = 3.12*10^22 electrons, and on positive electrode there are positive ions in the same quantity, which lacks electrons.

After closing circuit electrons flow from negative electrode to positive electrode. Positive ions are attracting electrons.

Each electron will have kinetic energy that corresponds to voltage difference.

f.e. if voltage is 1 V, single electron will have 1 eV kinetic energy (electron volt unit).

 

if voltage is 3.5 V, electron will have 3.5 eV kinetic energy.

 

E=h*c/wavelength

so

wavelength = h*c/E = 4.135667*10^-15 * 299792458 / 3.5 = 354 nm

 

UV LED have voltage drop 3.2-3.5 V (a bit is probably lost). So they emit photons with energies 3.2-3.5 eV, which correspond to wavelengths 387 nm .. 354 nm. Photon in ultraviolet spectrum.

 

 

Where did you get such conclusions?

I said

"If you have single electron, charge Q will be -1.602*10^-19 C.

If you have single proton, charge Q will be +1.602*10^-19 C."

 

One has positive, other negative

Thanks Sensei

 

But before we proceed question:

 

IF LIGHT WAS NOT " WHITE" WHAT WOULD THIS MEAN IN REGARDS TO " PHYSICS AND THIS ENTIRE THREAD???

 

Yes, I am asking if the kind of light you " Shine" in a prism was not white, then what would this mean??

 

Yes, I know it sounds crazy ;)

 

 

I see the h constant???

 

Are you talking about quantized energy here??

 

Then the electron uses quantized energy for electrical flow???

 

This complicates things for me?

 

This means that typical electrical engineering uses quantification?

 

I just want to make sure because when I see photon energy I think of " photons" mass-less and the whole particle wave analogy...

 

 

Are we now talking about particle waves as electrical flow?

 

 

 

 

 

Now since the electron is the only source that carries the charge per say,

how is it controlled then?

 

 

Hence: particle waves??

 

Meaning that somewhere down the line I know the electron must have some random un-precise behavior..

It cant just line up correctly and do what it is designed to do,, right???

 

This is where I start mixing the Wave Function, then things get all messy...

 

 

I would only assume that the medium would be used to control electron behavior then?

 

They are both electrically charged, if that is what you are asking. They have one of the only two kinds of electric harge possible, negative and positive.

 

 

 

All the charged constituents of an atom, i.e. the protons and the electrons contribute to the overal electric charge of the atom. Uusally this is zero, unless there are some electrons missing or gained and we have an ion.

 

 

 

No, only cetian electrons that are free to move contribute the current. However you can also have holes and ions contributing to a current in general. A current is just a flow of charge carriers.

 

 

 

Loosley, flux is the flow of some physical property through some surface.

 

 

 

 

 

No, that has been noticed a long time ago. The informal reason they look similar is that electrostatics is to electrodynamics what Newtonian gravity is to general relativity.

 

 

 

 

There is a good question hidden in this.

 

From one prespective an electrical charge is just the property a body needs to interact with the electromagnetic field. Without it a particle would just not feel electromagnetic forces. It is also the property of a body that allows it to act as a source or a sink of the electromagnetic field.

 

On the other hand, we can view electric charge in terms of Noether's theorem. That is it is the conserved charge related to the U(1) gauge symmetry of the electromagnetic Lagrangian.

 

Why charge is quantised is another story, and one I don't think we properly understand.

 

 

 

Yes, electrons extists that are not bound to atoms or collections of atoms. Look up a cathode ray tube.

So then ajb I will be very straight forward when I assume this:

 

Due to singularities rather the speed of light as a barrier per say, that:

 

All known objects that consist of matter, " remains " physically static" they do not move at all, and what we perceive as " flow" and or current is merely an invisible magnetic wave that transfers both energy and transmitted information much like a hyper dimensional reality IE, insulator in where " some" "resistant" electrons have a position value rather continuum out of this singularity domain of existence IE, electron magnetic information. I am talking about quantification here...

 

Sine this is the case.... I BELIEVE WHITE LIGHT IS INFACT-------------------> BLACK!

This then is a Dark Energy Issue, and Black Hole issue...

 

This then means:

 

All known constants are stationary and much work like portals for "paralleled" regions of this " dark empty space here."

 

Because of this, A theory that predicts " things" is merely a point of view...

The logic is based on " time and evolution" rather circles that loop and processes versus expand and grow like phi ratio..not pi ratio, who ever thought of such a thing..

 

Its been stated that the Planck length resembles phi ratio.

 

 

1.616*10e-33 = 1.616e-32

 

Phi in Atomic Structure

http://www.sacred-geometry.es/en/content/phi-atomic-structure

 

 

 

 

I just could not drive the basics into my head it did not make any sense "what so ever" :blink:

 

I am almost feeling relieved for once!

 

In regards of the electron magnetic forces information and " what we perceive as " reality" this would be logic to think.

 

 

 

In other words here, what we are calculating is basically the exponential locations that pertain to algebraic expressions of nature, but unfortunately we derive zero all the time " because these constants" don't move like I am mentioning here..

 

 

 

 

 

Tiss the definition of zero.. it then is off like the light in your room..

 

 

 

Personally I find science a big mess because of QM and General Science Inquiries...

 

Ohhhh dear :embarass:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And we can see traces leaved by them in Cloud Chamber. Long thin traces are from beta particles (electron or positron). Short thick traces are from alpha particles. The more kinetic energy has particle, the longer trace.

 

we can see traces, but doesn't this base the experiment on the evolution of time???

 

is this time dependent??

 

is their a substance like example " water" used that traces the electron's motion?

 

Even if its air its still a substance, but my intuition tells me empty space classical vacuums make it worse!

 

and if you may please, what speed are they moving at?

 

One thing that bothers me on the whole of physics is that they use the same elements to test the same elements.

 

Meaning time is used, distance is used and matter is used, and yet they are all made of the same single atom that basically is the blue print of all known "things."

 

 

Would this make the electron special???

 

I THINK SO!

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All known objects that consist of matter, " remains " physically static" they do not move at all, and what we perceive as " flow" and or current is merely an invisible magnetic wave that transfers both energy and transmitted information much like a hyper dimensional reality IE, insulator in where " some" "resistant" electrons have a position value rather continuum out of this singularity domain of existence IE, electron magnetic information. I am talking about quantification here...

I do not know what you are talking about here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we can see traces, but doesn't this base the experiment on the evolution of time???

 

is this time dependent??

Yes. Half-life of unstable particle is time. And the main parameter to calculate quantity of particles that decayed is also time.

 

More info and equation about radioactive decay you will find in this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83245-a-question-on-radioactive-decay/?p=806204

 

You can load it to OpenOffice SpreadSheet and play with parameters to see effects.

 

is their a substance like example " water" used that traces the electron's motion?

Cloud chamber is using vapor of Isopropyl alcohol + air.

 

In Bubble Chamber there is used liquid Hydrogen IIRC.

 

Even if its air its still a substance, but my intuition tells me empty space classical vacuums make it worse!

 

Vacuum wouldn't work. Highly energetic particles need medium which will take their energy and slow them down.

If we will put medium such as aluminum plate between unstable isotope, we will see that our shield disallowed or reduced quantity of traces behind it.

 

and if you may please, what speed are they moving at?

That depends. You have to check what isotope they used for particular experiment and calculate decay energy.

You can learn how to calculate decay energy in this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83451-radioactive-decay-and-information-split-from-what-is-real-in-physics/?p=808149

 

In decay which emits neutrino (f.e. beta decay-, beta decay+), kinetic energy of beta particle is not constant. If beta particle takes decay energy with itself, neutrino takes less, and vice versa.

It's mentioned in Beta Decay article, so simply read it

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

 

 

One thing that bothers me on the whole of physics is that they use the same elements to test the same elements.

 

Meaning time is used, distance is used and matter is used, and yet they are all made of the same single atom that basically is the blue print of all known "things."

Atom of one isotope changes to atom of other isotope. Very easy to see it (cloud chamber that costs $20), and relatively easy to check (produce pure isotope then leave it for a while (or couple years), and then separate isotopes in it to see changes).

 

Would this make the electron special???

 

I THINK SO!

Electron can annihilate with positron producing two or more gamma photons..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know what you are talking about here.

Isn't the speed of light constant?? IE it is everywhere at all times?

 

Doesn't QM theorize electrons as " not moving" and that waves travel through empty space??

 

If time does not exist in this dimension but it is used in physics, then something is wrong because derivatives are always = 0

 

Unless my perception is incorrect about the notion of zero, then I would assume the later that I mentioned as something that I consider...

 

CAN ANYONE ELSE COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT MEANING THAT DESCRIBES WAVE PHENOMENA??

Yes. Half-life of unstable particle is time. And the main parameter to calculate quantity of particles that decayed is also time.

 

More info and equation about radioactive decay you will find in this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83245-a-question-on-radioactive-decay/?p=806204

 

You can load it to OpenOffice SpreadSheet and play with parameters to see effects.

 

Cloud chamber is using vapor of Isopropyl alcohol + air.

 

In Bubble Chamber there is used liquid Hydrogen IIRC.

 

 

Vacuum wouldn't work. Highly energetic particles need medium which will take their energy and slow them down.

If we will put medium such as aluminum plate between unstable isotope, we will see that our shield disallowed or reduced quantity of traces behind it.

 

That depends. You have to check what isotope they used for particular experiment and calculate decay energy.

You can learn how to calculate decay energy in this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83451-radioactive-decay-and-information-split-from-what-is-real-in-physics/?p=808149

 

In decay which emits neutrino (f.e. beta decay-, beta decay+), kinetic energy of beta particle is not constant. If beta particle takes decay energy with itself, neutrino takes less, and vice versa.

It's mentioned in Beta Decay article, so simply read it

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

 

 

Atom of one isotope changes to atom of other isotope. Very easy to see it (cloud chamber that costs $20), and relatively easy to check (produce pure isotope then leave it for a while (or couple years), and then separate isotopes in it to see changes).

 

Electron can annihilate with positron producing two or more gamma photons..

thanks Sensei I got all the information and the links...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the speed of light constant?? IE it is everywhere at all times?

 

The speed of light is constant. That means it is the same everywhere and at all times - and, more importantly, for all observers regardless of their state of motion.

 

(Your phrase "it is everywhere at all times" doesn't really make sense)

 

 

Doesn't QM theorize electrons as " not moving"

 

Not as far as I know. Electrons flow along wires. Electrons move through old-fashioned CRTs.

 

 

and that waves travel through empty space??

 

Electromagnetic waves travel through empty space (not sure what that has to do with "stationary electrons", though). Other waves, e.g. sound, need a medium.

 

 

If time does not exist in this dimension but it is used in physics, then something is wrong because derivatives are always = 0

 

Time does exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The speed of light is constant. That means it is the same everywhere and at all times - and, more importantly, for all observers regardless of their state of motion.

 

(Your phrase "it is everywhere at all times" doesn't really make sense)

 

 

Not as far as I know. Electrons flow along wires. Electrons move through old-fashioned CRTs.

 

 

Electromagnetic waves travel through empty space (not sure what that has to do with "stationary electrons", though). Other waves, e.g. sound, need a medium.

 

 

Time does exist.

 

You say:

 

constant. That means it is the same everywhere and at all times - and, more importantly, for all observers regardless of their state of motion.

 

 

 

Does your statement also include other fundamental constants such as h, G, g, and others?

 

 

 

 

I was reading this on Wikipedia and somehow, am a believer about what constants " are. "

 

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

 

It is known that the Universe would be very different, if these constants took values significantly different from those we observe. For example, a few percent change in the value of the fine structure constant would be enough to eliminate stars like our Sun. This has prompted attempts at anthropic explanations of the values of some of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants.
Whereas the physical quantity indicated by any physical constant does not depend on the unit system used to express the quantity, the numerical values of dimensional physical constants do depend on the unit used. Therefore, these numerical values (such as 299,792,458 for the constant speed of light c expressed in units of meters per second) are not values that a theory of physics can be expected to predict.
Because their units cancel, ratios of like-dimensioned physical constants do not depend on unit systems in this way, so they are pure dimensionless numbers whose values a future theory of physics could conceivably hope to predict.
AFTER I READ THIS, NOW I AM VERY CONFUSED :wacko:
For example:
Coulomb's constant is given by 1/ 4*3.14*[electric constant]*[e relative permittivity of the material in which the charges are immersed, and is dimensionless]
What defines 1, why 1????
1 is a factor of everything yes????
The fine structure constant is another good example here:
The fine structure constant has no dimension, is a combination of the electron charge, e, the speed of light, c, and Planck's constant, h.
(currently measured at about 1/137.035999) = 1/137.035999 = 0.00729735257376
THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE HERE....
I thought h was the quantum of action = 1
I thought c was = 1
This is not fair! :blink:
Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I can see where your getting confused, the problem I can see is your having difficulty defining physical constants,dimensionless numbers, Nondimensionalisation, fundamental physical constants and normalized constants (ie normalized to equal 1).

 

-physical constant
A physical constant is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time. It can be contrasted with a mathematical constant, which is a fixed numerical value, but does not directly involve any physical measurement.

-dimensionless number A number representing a physical property, such as a drag coefficient or a measure of stress, that has no scale of physical units (as of time, mass, or distance).

-Dimensionless quantity In dimensional analysis, a dimensionless quantity or quantity of dimension one is a quantity without an associated physical dimension. It is thus a "pure" number, and as such always has a dimension of 1.

-Nondimensionalization is the partial or full removal of units from an equation involving physical quantities by a suitable substitution of variables. This technique can simplify and parametrize problems where measured units are involved. It is closely related to dimensional analysis. ...

-fundamental physical constants In physics, a dimensionless physical constant is a universal physical constant that is dimensionless – having no unit attached, so its numerical value is the same under all possible systems of units. The best known example is the fine structure constant α, with the approximate value 1/137.036.

-In probability theory, a normalizing constant is a constant by which an everywhere non-negative function must be multiplied so the area under its graph is 1, e.g., to make it a probability density function or a probability mass function

 

there is no real easy way to explain these, the types of constants used depends on the mathematical method used to analyze a process. lets just say that differential geometry uses various methodologies to simplify highly complex calculations that would otherwise be highly difficult. Normalization of c=1, h=1 etc is a prime example. normalizing units is another.

 

The problem with understanding these takes some getting used to however these are essentially mathematical methodologies and definitions, although somewhat advanced. Differential geometry and calculus is used extensively in any form of physics, I would recommend picking up a couple of textbooks covering each.

You will find in most articles C=1, H=1 etc are usually normalized to equal one. the units we assign are meaningless as it is the ratio of influence from a process to that normalized number that is important. After all why work with such a difficult number as the speed of light or planch constant as per units an exact figures when we can assign a value of one to them, then express the ratio of influence of an influence in a mathematical expression?

 

in all honesty though a couple of good textbooks on statistics, differential geometry and calculus is always handy

 

a prime example is all the possible methods of describing gravity.... You would be amazed at the various coordinate systems that can be used. To express this point here is a a good compilation of various methods

 

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau 928 pages long

 

then you have the various methods of describing "fields" this includes the electromagnetic etc

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields 885 pages

 

science is all about modelling a process via whatever mathematics best describes the process, any method we can use to simplify those calculations is a bonus

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does your statement also include other fundamental constants such as h, G, g, and others?

 

Most fundamental constants are, as far as we know, the same everywhere and at all times. (Note that g is not a fundamental constant, it is just a function of the size of the Earth.)

 

Coulomb's constant is given by 1/ 4*3.14*[electric constant]*[e relative permittivity of the material in which the charges are immersed, and is dimensionless]

 

 

What defines 1, why 1?

 

Not sure why you are focussing on 1 here; it is just there because it works out that Coulomb's constant is inversely proportional to [latex]\displaystyle {4 \pi \epsilon_0}[/latex]. There are other representations that don't include 1; for example: [latex]\displaystyle \frac{c^2 u_0^2}{4 \pi}[/latex].

 

A more interesting question might be: why does Pi turn up in so many of these equations?

 

(currently measured at about 1/137.035999) = 1/137.035999 = 0.00729735257376

 

I think the only reason that this value is often shown as 1/137.03... is because it was once thought to be exactly 1/137.

 

I thought h was the quantum of action = 1

 

I thought c was = 1

 

They are. But only if you use Planck units. In the usual units we use (kilograms, meters, seconds, etc) then they are not equal to one.

 

And note that it is the "reduced Planck constant" ([latex]\hbar[/latex]) that equals 1 in Planck units; h = [latex]2 \pi[/latex] (there it is again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Most fundamental constants are, as far as we know, the same everywhere and at all times. (Note that g is not a fundamental constant, it is just a function of the size of the Earth.)

 

 

Not sure why you are focussing on 1 here; it is just there because it works out that Coulomb's constant is inversely proportional to [latex]\displaystyle {4 \pi \epsilon_0}[/latex]. There are other representations that don't include 1; for example: [latex]\displaystyle \frac{c^2 u_0^2}{4 \pi}[/latex].

 

A more interesting question might be: why does Pi turn up in so many of these equations?

 

 

I think the only reason that this value is often shown as 1/137.03... is because it was once thought to be exactly 1/137.

 

 

They are. But only if you use Planck units. In the usual units we use (kilograms, meters, seconds, etc) then they are not equal to one.

 

And note that it is the "reduced Planck constant" ([latex]\hbar[/latex]) that equals 1 in Planck units; h = [latex]2 \pi[/latex] (there it is again).

 

Yes pi ratio is doing some interesting things here..

 

 

Can you show me values for example:

 

q1 and q2 and a distance r between them?

 

I would love to calculate this " with my own methods" and return the results here again, for them to be analyzed, I think I am onto something ;)

Please specify what the values pertain to IE, point charges, light photons etc, so I can reference them..

 

329dhc-UeC-EeaENmW6Ztg_m.jpg

 

 

This is what I have for k

 

 

Coulomb's constant Ke = 8.987551787*10e9 = 89875517870 C N*m^2*C-2
I am assuming you multiply by this number?
89875517870
BUT WHERE IS THE TENTHS PLACE??????????
Anyway, I am confused on Coulomb's per second here "C"
6.24*10e18 = C = 6.24*10e18 = 62400000000000000000 C charges per second ????
It is not quite clear to me, books assume we "Just Know"
What I think is this:
Per second a whole bunch of q particles in the numbers of:

62400000000000000000 move in 1 second..

 

 

What I don't see is:

 

 

How these are balanced as negative and positive or positive or negative or however that goes:

 

I assume these particles in the numbers of 62400000000000000000 is really 1/2 their initial value?????

It makes sense if r^2 in relation to Columbus law, as division is the same as multiplication??

 

 

Its best to ask then assume, I don't like mistakes it is really a waste of time and energy.

 

 

 

Yes I have seen pi ratio extensively used in many formulas, Quantum Atom Theory also.

I am sure it is not surprising that when you square pi ratio it is close to the value of 9.8/s due to constant acceleration.

 

 

To add, plank " length" the value is very close to phi ratio, and to make matters more " cumbersome" QED

Feyaman never did share his complex numbers to the general public...

 

You can read about it here..

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

 

Its worth investing time in "mathematical relationships."

yeah I can see where your getting confused, the problem I can see is your having difficulty defining physical constants,dimensionless numbers, Nondimensionalisation, fundamental physical constants and normalized constants (ie normalized to equal 1).

 

-physical constant

A physical constant is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time. It can be contrasted with a mathematical constant, which is a fixed numerical value, but does not directly involve any physical measurement.

-dimensionless number A number representing a physical property, such as a drag coefficient or a measure of stress, that has no scale of physical units (as of time, mass, or distance).

-Dimensionless quantity In dimensional analysis, a dimensionless quantity or quantity of dimension one is a quantity without an associated physical dimension. It is thus a "pure" number, and as such always has a dimension of 1.

-Nondimensionalization is the partial or full removal of units from an equation involving physical quantities by a suitable substitution of variables. This technique can simplify and parametrize problems where measured units are involved. It is closely related to dimensional analysis. ...

-fundamental physical constants In physics, a dimensionless physical constant is a universal physical constant that is dimensionless – having no unit attached, so its numerical value is the same under all possible systems of units. The best known example is the fine structure constant α, with the approximate value 1/137.036.

-In probability theory, a normalizing constant is a constant by which an everywhere non-negative function must be multiplied so the area under its graph is 1, e.g., to make it a probability density function or a probability mass function

 

there is no real easy way to explain these, the types of constants used depends on the mathematical method used to analyze a process. lets just say that differential geometry uses various methodologies to simplify highly complex calculations that would otherwise be highly difficult. Normalization of c=1, h=1 etc is a prime example. normalizing units is another.

 

The problem with understanding these takes some getting used to however these are essentially mathematical methodologies and definitions, although somewhat advanced. Differential geometry and calculus is used extensively in any form of physics, I would recommend picking up a couple of textbooks covering each.

You will find in most articles C=1, H=1 etc are usually normalized to equal one. the units we assign are meaningless as it is the ratio of influence from a process to that normalized number that is important. After all why work with such a difficult number as the speed of light or planch constant as per units an exact figures when we can assign a value of one to them, then express the ratio of influence of an influence in a mathematical expression?

 

in all honesty though a couple of good textbooks on statistics, differential geometry and calculus is always handy

 

a prime example is all the possible methods of describing gravity.... You would be amazed at the various coordinate systems that can be used. To express this point here is a a good compilation of various methods

 

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau 928 pages long

 

then you have the various methods of describing "fields" this includes the electromagnetic etc

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields 885 pages

 

science is all about modelling a process via whatever mathematics best describes the process, any method we can use to simplify those calculations is a bonus

Great links, thanks.

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coulombs per second is the Ampere unit

 

1 A = 1 C/s = ~6.24*10e18 electrons/second

 

if you want some numbers to play with you can do:

 

Force = (k x 5C x 7C) / 3 meters2

 

8.987551787*10e9 is correct for k. Decimal point is at the end, generally any more precision isn't required.

Edited by Endy0816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're mixing everything..

6.24*10e18 = C = 6.24*10e18 = 62400000000000000000 C charges per second ????

 

Electron has charge -1.602*10^-19 C (Coulombs)

 

It's elementary charge

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

 

If we have 6.24*10^18 electrons, we have:

 

Q=-1.602*10^-19 C * 6.24*10^18 = -1 C (1 Coulomb charge)

 

I=Q/t

 

Current in Amperes is Charge divided by time.

 

For t=1 second

I=1 C/1s=1 A

 

If ampere meter is connected to circuit and is showing 1 A, you know that it's 6.24*10^18 electrons flowing through wire per 1 second.

 

Battery that has 1400 mAh (typical NiMH AA for digital camera) has 1.4 * 3600 = 5040 C. So it's 5040 * 6.24*10^18 = 3.14496*10^22 electrons total.

Knowing how many electrons has battery, and knowing how many electrons is used per second, you can calculate time battery will be working in seconds.

With I=1 A, such battery will be working for 5040 seconds.

With I=0.5 A, such battery will be working for 10080 seconds.

etc. etc.

 

How charge -+1.602*10^-19 C has been calculated? In oil drop experiment.

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

 

I would love to calculate this " with my own methods" and return the results here again, for them to be analyzed, I think I am onto something ;)

 

Coulomb's Law is for stationary charges that gathered on body like previously mentioned by me electroscope leafs.

It costs 20-30 usd. On ebay there is a few. Anybody can build it in a few minutes using jar and aluminum foil.

Buy it or build it, and you will see how it works in practice and about what we're talking.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're mixing everything..

 

 

Electron has charge -1.602*10^-19 C (Coulombs)

 

It's elementary charge

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

 

If we have 6.24*10^18 electrons, we have:

 

Q=-1.602*10^-19 C * 6.24*10^18 = -1 C (1 Coulomb charge)

 

I=Q/t

 

Current in Amperes is Charge divided by time.

 

For t=1 second

I=1 C/1s=1 A

 

If ampere meter is connected to circuit and is showing 1 A, you know that it's 6.24*10^18 electrons flowing through wire per 1 second.

 

Battery that has 1400 mAh (typical NiMH AA for digital camera) has 1.4 * 3600 = 5040 C. So it's 5040 * 6.24*10^18 = 3.14496*10^22 electrons total.

Knowing how many electrons has battery, and knowing how many electrons is used per second, you can calculate time battery will be working in seconds.

With I=1 A, such battery will be working for 5040 seconds.

With I=0.5 A, such battery will be working for 10080 seconds.

etc. etc.

 

How charge -+1.602*10^-19 C has been calculated? In oil drop experiment.

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

 

 

Coulomb's Law is for stationary charges that gathered on body like previously mentioned by me electroscope leafs.

It costs 20-30 usd. On ebay there is a few. Anybody can build it in a few minutes using jar and aluminum foil.

Buy it or build it, and you will see how it works in practice and about what we're talking

Sensei this makes much more sense thanks!

 

but one question here:

 

When a number has exponents example like 9.7879*10^-13 * (11.7)

 

Do you do it like this:

 

9.7879*10e^-13=0.00022123878

 

0.00022123878*11.7=0.00258849372

 

 

Or like this:

 

9.7879*10e^-13*11.7=0.00258849374

 

72-74= 2

 

 

The reason I am asking is because " Calculators" at least some have precession errors..

Coulombs per second is the Ampere unit

 

1 A = 1 C/s = ~6.24*10e18 electrons/second

 

if you want some numbers to play with you can do:

 

Force = (k x 5C x 7C) / 3 meters2

 

8.987551787*10e9 is correct for k. Decimal point is at the end, generally any more precision isn't required.

 

 

I assume 3 terms in the brackets ?

 

 

(k x 5C x 7C) " then you divide all this by r^2

 

 

 

Well here is what I got so far:

 

C= 62400000000000000000 C charges per second
5*62400000000000000000 = 312000000000000000000 C
7*62400000000000000000 = 436800000000000000000 C
312000000000000000000*436800000000000000000 = 1.362816e+41 C
Ke 89875517870*1.362816e+41 C = 1.22483793761522e+52
1.22483793761522e+52 / r^2 13950.0429661 = 8.78017322664668e+47
I don't feel dumb asking, although I sense I should be feeling this way, it is just best to ask, I think I will do this for some time till I get more familiar with "the structure of equations"
Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9.7879*10e^-13*11.7=0.00258849374

 

 

 

??

 

If you have number f.e.

 

1000

 

you can write it also using scientific notation

 

1e+3 or 1e3 (+ is default)

 

 

Other example:

 

1.23e-2 = 0.0123 = 1.23*10^-2

 

After exponent symbol you don't/shouldn't have power ^ symbol.

 

Read this

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

 

In many physical equations f.e. radioactive decay with mean-life instead of half-life there is used e mathematical constant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28mathematical_constant%29

Don't confuse these two things!

When I have to quickly enter very small number to calculator often I am dividing by large positive number, f.e. I want to enter 1.602e-19.

I am entering 1.602, hitting divide, and entering 1e19, and calculator is showing 1.602e-19.

 

You can also enter 1.602, press EXP, then +/-, then 19, and calculator will show 1.602e-19.

 

But much easier is doing calculations in f.e. OpenOffice SpreadSheet or Excel.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

??

 

If you have number f.e.

 

1000

 

you can write it also using scientific notation

 

1e+3 or 1e3 (+ is default)

 

 

Other example:

 

1.23e-2 = 0.0123 = 1.23*10^-2

 

After exponent symbol you don't/shouldn't have power ^ symbol.

 

Read this

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

 

In many physical equations f.e. radioactive decay with mean-life instead of half-life there is used e mathematical constant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28mathematical_constant%29

Don't confuse these two things!

When I have to quickly enter very small number to calculator often I am dividing by large positive number, f.e. I want to enter 1.602e-19.

I am entering 1.602, hitting divide, and entering 1e19, and calculator is showing 1.602e-19.

 

You can also enter 1.602, press EXP, then +/-, then 19, and calculator will show 1.602e-19.

 

But much easier is doing calculations in f.e. OpenOffice SpreadSheet or Excel.

Aaaaaaayyyyyyyysee ;)

 

ITS ABOUT TIME SOMEONE TOLD ME THIS, THANKS! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here is what I got so far:

 

 

C= 62400000000000000000 C charges per second

No,no,no...

In Coulombs Law you don't have flowing charged particles (so you can't say "charges per second"). They are stationary. Motionless.

At least during verification of law we're not using moving charges.

When Coulomb created his theory, batteries didn't exist yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles-Augustin_de_Coulomb

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

 

Distance between leafs in electroscope device is changing the more it's "charged".

Leafs are further each other the more electrons gathered on them.

Distance between leafs = r in equation.

 

Q symbol is used to denote charge not C. C is unit.

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

 

Are you reading the all articles that are posted here?

 

"charges per second" has sense in electrical circuits, when electrons from one side (negative - electrode) of battery flows to other side (positive + electrode).

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No,no,no...

In Coulombs Law you don't have flowing charged particles (so you can't say "charges per second"). They are stationary. Motionless.

At least during verification of law we're not using moving charges.

When Coulomb created his theory, batteries didn't exist yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles-Augustin_de_Coulomb

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

 

Distance between leafs in electroscope device is changing the more it's "charged".

Leafs are further each other the more electrons gathered on them.

Distance between leafs = r in equation.

 

Q symbol is used to denote charge not C. C is unit.

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

 

Are you reading the all articles that are posted here?

 

"charges per second" has sense in electrical circuits, when electrons from one side (negative - electrode) of battery flows to other side (positive + electrode).

Yes I am reading all the articles but not in their entirety, I only read the entire articles on the weekdays I assure you..I am in the USA it is Saturday Night Now...

 

 

 

 

You say:
In Coulombs Law you don't have flowing charged particles (so you can't say "charges per second"). They are stationary. Motionless.
One of your links states this, and it frustrates me, because now I get ever more confused:
Aside from the properties described in articles about electromagnetism, charge is a relativistic invariant. This means that any particle that has charge Q, no matter how fast it goes, always has charge Q. This property has been experimentally verified by showing that the charge of one helium nucleus (two protons and two neutrons bound together in a nucleus and moving around at high speeds) is the same as two deuterium nuclei (one proton and one neutron bound together, but moving much more slowly than they would if they were in a helium nucleus).

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

 

 

 

Can you please show me an entire numerical example then??

 

Where did I mess up??

 

It is hard to visualize something that is invisible here, "force" is invisible right?

I know it moves things but that is based on observations I assume.

 

 

I don't really want to say much about stationary particles and QM waves, because every time I do, someone gives me a negative vote, then I look bad to everyone..

 

 

 

But! I am very well aware of how static nature is ;)

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best is to see it on your own eyes.

If you will place magnet/electromagnet in Cloud Chamber and send beam of particles, or from radioactive decay, you will see how they behave in magnetic field based on their charge, mass, and momentum.

Building your own Cloud Chamber costs $20. Just find steady source of dry ice in your area.

 

img_full_47092.gif

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.