Compton Wavelength

[bperet]

While trying to work out some complex expressions for the electron, I noticed that there appear to be TWO natural units of space: first, is Larson's of approximately 45 nanometers which seems to address inter-atomic relationships outside the unit boundary, and the second deals with quantum distances and is on the order of the Compton wavelength, about 2.53 picometers, the difference between the two being approximately 18779:1.

Thanks to Dave's Fine Structure constant research, I noticed this relationship:

λ_C = U_s α²

Where:

λ_C = Compton wavelength

U_s = Larson's Unit Space (~45 nanometers)

α = Fine Structure Constant

Any thoughts on the physical significance of this equation?

[bperet]

bperet wrote:

λ_C = U_s α²Any thoughts on the physical significance of this equation?

A disturbing thought occurs... using unit space in the equation gives the Compton wavelength for the ELECTRON (rotating unit of space), which makes sense, since the electron is ONE rotating unit of space... however, that also infers that Larson's "unit space" is NOT the baseline reference of the spacing of absolute locations of the progression of the natural reference system!

Electrons, being "space", would distort the "unit space" measure, making it larger than it should be by the amount of space contributed by the presence of the spatial, electron rotation. It may, in fact, be the bulk of that measurement.

One can then conclude from the relations indicated in the equations that the RS is based on "electron units", not "natural units"! This may explain the necessity for an "inter-regional ratio."

[davelook]

bperet wrote:

While trying to work out some complex expressions for the electron, I noticed that there appear to be TWO natural units of space: first, is Larson's of approximately 45 nanometers which seems to address inter-atomic relationships outside the unit boundary, and the second deals with quantum distances and is on the order of the Compton wavelength, about 2.53 picometers, the difference between the two being approximately 18779:1.

Thanks to Dave's Fine Structure constant research, I noticed this relationship:

λ_C = U_s α²

Where:

λ_C = Compton wavelength

U_s = Larson's Unit Space (~45 nanometers)

α = Fine Structure Constant

Any thoughts on the physical significance of this equation?

Larson Space X a= Bohr circumference

Larson Space X a²= Comptom circumference

Larson Space X a³= Classical electron circumference (which is still used to calculate Thomson scattering. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_scattering

[davelook]

In this paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0609131v1 there is a very interesting derivation of alpha. Using e^2/4pi = 137.03599..., and solving for e, you get .a number which is very close to the solution to 1/x-x=3, or equivalently: x^2+3x-1=0. (x=.30277563773)

Look what you get when 1/x-x=1 and 1/x-x=2. When you graph the function f(x)=(1/x)-x, it is mostly linear until you get less than about 8.

So maybe "=3" has to do with the number of dimensions?

[RMohan]

even more interesting if you rewrite e^2/4pi as (e/2)^2pi.

Then it has the same "linear times square term" form as 1/2mv^2,

where one part relates to mass ("pi") and one part to motion squared (e/2).

Just a very idle thought........

davelook (email removed) wrote:

Quote:

In this paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0609131v1 there is a very interesting derivation of alpha. Using e^2/4pi = 137.03599..., and solving for e, you get .a number which is very close to the solution to 1/x-x=3, or equivalently: x^2+3x-1=0. (x=.30277563773)

Look what you get when 1/x-x=1 and 1/x-x=2. When you graph the function f(x)=x/1-x, it is mostly linear until you get less than about 8.

So maybe "=3" has to do with the number of dimensions?

[davelook]

Ok, I think I finally know WHAT the fine structure constant is: the wavelength/amplitude ratio of the Rydberg fundamental vibration.

Any wave requires 3 pieces of information: Speed of propagation, wavelength/frequency, and AMPLITUDE. Larson space is the distance between nodes, but contains ZERO info about the spacial extent (displacement, or charge) of the deviation from equilibrium. I think this is why charge has units of space (displacement)

Freq/wavelength has to be the only variable, (otherwise E=hf wouldn't work in all cases) and the Amplitude remains constant (e).

[bperet]

davelook wrote:

Ok, I think I finally know WHAT the fine structure constant is: the wavelength/amplitude ratio of the Rydberg fundamental vibration.

So wavelength (space) to amplitude (space) would make it a unitless constant. Interesting idea.

davelook wrote:

I think this is why charge has units of space (displacement)

Are you talking about Larson's displacement from unit speed, or displacement current?

Charge has units of energy, t/s.

davelook wrote:

Freq/wavelength has to be the only variable, (otherwise E=hf wouldn't work in all cases) and the Amplitude remains constant (e).

The speed of propagation and phase would also remain constant, since both photons and uncharged electrons are being carried by the progression of the natural reference system.

[davelook]

bperet wrote:

davelook wrote:

I think this is why charge has units of space (displacement)

Are you talking about Larson's displacement from unit speed, or displacement current?

Charge has units of energy, t/s.

What I mean by displacement is exactly the same thing as meant in the equation for energy stored in a spring, E=1/2kx², which corresponds the energy in a capacitor, E=1/2Q²/C. (Spring constant "k" is Force/space t/s³, and Capacitance is s³/t, which is why you have to take the reciprocal of it in the second equation.

Hey, I've gotta hit the hay now, but check these out http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/26/ ... icle1.html and http://aps.arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2596

Light seems to be a single pulse, not a frequency!