Is My Derivation of the Planck Time and Charge Relationships Correct?

  • Thread starter ManyNames
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Derivation
In summary, the equations in the homework statement lead to the following:1. The gravitational constant, G, is quantized to be equal to the square root of the mass-energy of a particle.2. The equation of mass-energy, \frac{\beta}{hf}, can be applied to both sides of the equation to yield h^2c^2.3. The wavelength of a particle's mass-energy is quantized to be equal to the square of its mass-energy.4. The equation of motion for a particle, \frac{\delta}{dt}, can be rearranged to yield c \hbar = M(G+1).5. The charge of
  • #1
ManyNames
136
0

Homework Statement



Just need to know if i have derived this correctly.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution




Taken the dimensions of the square of the mass-energy formula, and applying the equation to both sides (even though approximated) the equation of which in this case is also squared, which yields Strictly using Natural Units, is then state:



Now by simple derivation, divide both sides by the wavelength , so that



which gives numerically:



since and also because reduces to .

And finally, using the same equations, instead of dividing the derivation by the wavelength, i divided it by , and the result was in this expression:



Cheers in advance!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What have you derived? And from what?
 
  • #3
CompuChip said:
What have you derived? And from what?

equation 1 in the OP requires to know that



and to know we are using the sqaured value of in the generalized form .

Knowing this, then equation 1 is simply the plugging in of these values. The rest of the commands of the derivation after this to equation 3, the equation yields , simply a relation to sqaured value of and it's wavelength .

The final derivation took a different course. Using equation 1 again, the division of gives:

[tex]\sqrt{\hbar^2 c^2(\frac{E}{2\pi})[/tex]

(knowing that )

which became an expression which leads to an equivalance between the kinetic energy



If the equation was now squared on both sides, i came to the derivational expression of:

 
Last edited:
  • #4
ManyNames said:
equation 1 in the OP requires to know that



and to know we are using the sqaured value of in the generalized form .

Knowing this, then equation 1 is simply the plugging in of these values. The rest of the commands of the derivation after this to equation 3, the equation yields , simply a relation to sqaured value of and it's wavelength .

The final derivation took a different course. Using equation 1 again, the division of gives:

[tex]\sqrt{\hbar^2 c^2(\frac{E}{2\pi})[/tex]

(knowing that )

which became an expression which leads to an equivalance between the kinetic energy



If the equation was now squared on both sides, i came to the derivational expression of:


I would also like approval of the following derivation, where i have derived the Planck time and found relationships between the derivations to solve for the quantization of Planck charge:

I define to begin with, the gravitational constant:



By rearrangement we can have:

(1)

This is obviously quite a large value, if not quantized. Equation (1) can be rearranged also:



We are simply returning the to the right hand side, but expressed in brackets that will distribute it. Therergo, we have:



Now multiply to both sides:



so that

If is true, then it is the same as . Therefore, the following must also be true:



because .

Knowing that then now take away from both sides and rearrange:



Now divide both sides by the quantization of , and you have



Which is exactly the Planck Time.

Now moving on to charge relationships, Knowing the previous work, one can derive this set of relationships:



Where is Plancks Charge, we see that the square root of is the precise value of the quantization of the charge. Since the fine structure constant is so much larger than the gravitational constant, , where here denotes the gravitational coupling constant, it seems interesting to note that:



which would be a relation to the charge again, and this leads to my final set of relations:



Does this all seem right?

(I had to edit for the expression of the Planck time. I certainly didn't know in latex the expression P_t lead to... is it the number for silver... anyway, redited)
 
  • #5
No takers?
 
  • #6
ManyNames said:
I would also like approval of the following derivation, where i have derived the Planck time and found relationships between the derivations to solve for the quantization of Planck charge:

I define to begin with, the gravitational constant:



By rearrangement we can have:

(1)

This is obviously quite a large value, if not quantized. Equation (1) can be rearranged also:



We are simply returning the to the right hand side, but expressed in brackets that will distribute it. Therergo, we have:



Now multiply to both sides:



so that

If is true, then it is the same as . Therefore, the following must also be true:



because .

Knowing that then now take away from both sides and rearrange:



Now divide both sides by the quantization of , and you have



Which is exactly the Planck Time.

Now moving on to charge relationships, Knowing the previous work, one can derive this set of relationships:



Where is Plancks Charge, we see that the square root of is the precise value of the quantization of the charge. Since the fine structure constant is so much larger than the gravitational constant, , where here denotes the gravitational coupling constant, it seems interesting to note that:



which would be a relation to the charge again, and this leads to my final set of relations:



Does this all seem right?

(I had to edit for the expression of the Planck time. I certainly didn't know in latex the expression P_t lead to... is it the number for silver... anyway, redited)

I bolded this part becuse I've realized I've made some mistakes. So it's totallly invalid now. But the Planck charge derivation seems correct.
 
Back
Top