![]() So in that one frame, or in any frame we will still measure Mu naught and get the same results.īut c is all about light speed being universal, not frame dependant. Of course "observer and the observed phenomenon are all in the same frame of reference" but what is happening in the one frame of reference is NOT what Relativity is all about is it? You appear to be making this up, in a forlorn attempt to pick holes in relativity, without understanding what μ₀ is. ![]() Nothing in physics says that μ₀ is frame-dependent. Everything is in the same lab, including the observer, and the phenomena observed in the making of the measurements do not involve relativistic effects. There is no "relative motion between frames" when you measure μ₀, or Sommerfeld's constant (the fine structure constant), α. So long as observer and the observed phenomenon are all in the same frame of reference, you don't need to concern yourself at all with the issue of reference frames. But now that one of the two "constants" IS frame dependent, its only valid in that frame of measurement, the the end result must be that the speed of light cannot be frame independent. Mu * Epsilon = seconds 2Īnd the units end up as Meters per second. But if measured from another frame, then the relative motion between frames must be included, thus its necessary to calculate it as v + 0r minus the other frame velocity. In the frame where its measured, it may always be a constant. If its measured, then then is an opportunity to get another measurement. It makes little sense saying it is frame-dependent, as it is measured via a pair of parallel wires in the same frame as the observer, or alternatively derived from measuring the fine structure constant (via quantum phenomena, again measured in the same frame as the observer) and applying defined values of the electron charge and Planck’s constant. ![]() The distinction is that it is now treated as measured rather than defined. The magnetic constant is still regarded as, er, a constant. So you can not call on Maxwell to support Einstein's Special Relativity claims. It is now a measured value, and as all measurements are relative their own frame of reference, and its possible to now get different values of Mu Naught even in that one frame, then its now not possible to claim that Maxwell's equations prove that light speed is constant, or that it is has the same value in all frames of reference. It requires that both Epsilon zero and mu naught are constants for light speed to be a constant.īut from 2019, Mu Naught is no longer considered to be a constant. If you take the logs of the two numbers in the table, 15 becomes 1.18, while 10,000 becomes 4.Mu naught and epsilon zero can be used to calculate the sped of light, which is a universal constant. To get around this, you may also come across diagrams in which the vertical axis is plotted as log 10(molar absorptivity). It will be a tiny little peak compared to the one at 180 nm. However, if you look at the figures above and the scales that are going to be involved, you aren't really going to be able to spot the absorption at 290 nm. (Although, in fact, the 180 nm absorption peak is outside the range of most spectrometers.) You may come across diagrams of absorption spectra plotting absorptivity on the vertical axis rather than absorbance. The ethanal obviously absorbs much more strongly at 180 nm than it does at 290 nm. \(\pi\) bonding to \(\pi\) anti-bonding orbital Lone pair to \(\pi\) anti-bonding orbital
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |