0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I think you stated the answer to your question. h bar is h divided by 2 PI. 2 PI is the amount of radians it takes to make a circle. So h bar injects the circle into the argument. Since the circle is usually in the argument, it is just a short cut.

It gets more interesting when you try and determine why it is that the circle is usually in the argument. Could it be that most stuff is made of little circles? []

How can the visual mass/ matter in Universe be created from unseen ( circle particles) - ‘ virtual stuff ‘ ?========= .

How can the visual mass/ matter in Universe be created from unseen ( circle particles) - ‘ virtual stuff ‘ ?

I suspect that the Planck action h derives from two properties of space. These are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. These limit the amplitude of the electric and magnetic components of photons. The electric and magnetic amplitude limit of empty space is a constant. If it were variable it would be part of Planck's equation. We include only the rate of change of the field in the equation, E = hv. If the amplitude of v were allowed to vary, that amplitude would be in the equation.

Particles today are considered theoretically as being zero-dimensional and pointlike.

There is one scientific problem with this notion - and that is that circles havea geometric property. Particles today are considered theoretically as being zero-dimensional and pointlike.

Questions .1.What is the border of the minimum amplitude ?2.We have formula: E=h*fh is corpuscular,f is frequency (wave length , amplitude ) These two qualities unit in one formula.How to explain the unity of this strange DUALISM ?======S.

Quote from: Mr. ScientistThere is one scientific problem with this notion - and that is that circles havea geometric property. Particles today are considered theoretically as being zero-dimensional and pointlike.The reason particles are considered so is that no substance smaller than their electromagnetic radius has ever been detected. So it is merely a bad assumption to say that since we can't detect the particles they must be smaller than the detection limits of our devices.The electromagnetic radius is detectable; the point is not; we can just as easily assume that nothing exists that is less than the electromagnetic radius. []