**Lester Zick** (*lesterzick@earthlink.net*)

*Wed, 05 May 1999 11:24:11 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 278] Re: [time 276] [Fwd: Fisher information]"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 276] [Fwd: Fisher information]"

If it seems strange to think in terms of energy quanta, it seems doubly

odd to consider the prospect of quantized angular momentum, as is

suggested by Planck's constant. (By the way, in the first posting on

this topic, Planck's discovery should have been described as arising

from his attempt to correlate the distribution of frequencies in

blackbody radiation as a function of temperature.) Angular momentum is

equal to a=mvr, or the product of some mass, its velocity, and the

distance between paths. And even if we allow the possibility of

quantized mass, there is nothing to suggest that v or r may quantized in

mechanical terms.

What, then, are to make of the whole concept? The correct interpretation

of quantum phenomena can only be approached from another direction.

First we must consider exactly what it is that is being quantized and

how and with what results. If we ignore the mechanical implausibility of

quantized angular momentum in general, what we find is that energy

arises from changes in angular momentum and that Planck's constant

simply represents the gradient on which this must occur.

Thus we are not technically dealing with quantum angular momentum at

all, rather a quantum gradient on which changes in angular momentum must

occur. In actuality, therefore, it is changes to angular momentum rather

than angular momentum in absolute terms which is quantized. And it is

the rate of such changes which are described by Planck's constant.

Now let us look at the mechanical rationale for this. A body with mass

and ordinary linear or longitudinal velocity has constant angular

momentum with respect to all points in space. Not necessarily the same

angular momentum, just some constant angular momentum with respect to

each point. This is because the product a=mvr remains constant with

respect to every point in space since the area swept in a unit of time

with respect to each point remains the same however far apart they may

be or become provided m, v, and r remain unchanged. This situation of

motion in a straight line at constant velocity I call constant angular

momentum in universal terms and the system has zero energy in angular

terms because there is no change in angular momentum.

However, if v changes direction then angular momentum also changes even

if the absolute magnitude of v does not. Thus the system acquires energy

resulting from the rate of change in angular momentum. And it is this

change which can only occur on a gradient defined by Planck's constant.

In the absence of change, there is no energy in angular terms, and in

the presence of change it is the rate of change, in effect the

frequency, which is quantized.

Thus in dealing with quantum phenomena in the context of particle

properties such as mass, energy, angular momentum, and uncertainty in

location, it is critical to understand that the underlying mechanical

property described by Planck's relation is not angular momentum in

general terms at all: it is changes in angular momentum. Therefore, we

must regard rotational motion in the context of particle and atomic

structure to reflect the gradient of change permitted according to

Planck's constant.

And if we correctly define a particle's frequency in terms of changes in

angular momentum, we can determine that particle mass and energy are

directly related to Planck's constant as well as its size and even the

origin of Planck's constant itself as a multiple of more fundamental

constants.

Regards - Lester

**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 278] Re: [time 276] [Fwd: Fisher information]"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 276] [Fwd: Fisher information]"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:10:30 JST
*