I Chunks of action smaller than Planck's constant

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the force exerted by static electric charges and the concept of quantization of action, particularly in relation to Planck's constant. The equation presented shows that the force, distance, and fine structure constant can yield changes in action smaller than Planck's constant, suggesting a potential for measuring these minute changes. Questions arise regarding the validity of quantization in units of Planck's constant and whether the quantities involved can be considered conjugate in a phase space context. A contributor highlights that the notion of quantized action stems from older quantum theory, emphasizing that action can be continuous and is not exclusively a quantum phenomenon. The conversation ultimately questions the implications of these findings for both classical and quantum physics.
gerald V
Messages
66
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
The force law for electric charges allows to observe actions smaller than Plancks constant
The force two static electric charges exert on each other fulfills (velocity of light set unity)
\begin{equation}
F r^2 = N_1 N_2 \alpha \hbar \;,
\end{equation}
where ##F## is the force, ##r## is the mutual distance, ##\alpha## is the dimensionless fine structure constant, ##\hbar## is Planck's (reduced) constant and ##N_1 , N_2## are whole numbers, respectively. Both sides of the equation have the dimension of ##action##.

If one holds one of the ##N## at the value unity and lets the other jump by plus/minus unity, the absolute value of the l.h.s.\ changes by an amount of ##\alpha \hbar \approx \frac {\hbar}{137}##.
This means by measuring the change of force at any given distance one can immediately observe a jump of action significantly smaller than Planck's constant.

So what about the quantization of action in units of ##\hbar##? Where is it valid and where is it not?
Is there any phase space physics behind the above? In particular, do ##Fr## (has dimension of ##momentum##) and ##r## span something like phase space? Are these conjugate quantities?
If not, why is there quantization (in smaller chunks, though)?

Thank you very much in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gerald V said:
So what about the quantization of action in units of ##\hbar##? Where is it valid and where is it not?
Is there any phase space physics behind the above? In particular, do ##Fr## (has dimension of ##momentum##) and ##r## span something like phase space? Are these conjugate quantities?
If not, why is there quantization (in smaller chunks, though)?
The notion that action is quantized is an artifact of the "old" quantum theory from before 1925. This is discussed by @A. Neumaier (a frequent contributor to Physics Forums) in his first answer here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...-sense-if-any-is-action-a-physical-observable, from which I quote:
"The action of a system along a fixed dynamically-allowed path depends on an assumed initial time and final time, and it goes to zero as these times approach each other - this holds even when it is an operator. Hence its eigenvalues are continuous in time and must go to zero when the time interval tends to zero. This is incompatible with a spectrum consisting of integral or half integral multiples of ℏ."
 
gerald V said:
The force two static electric charges exert on each other fulfills (velocity of light set unity)
\begin{equation}
F r^2 = N_1 N_2 \alpha \hbar \;,
\end{equation}
where ##F## is the force, ##r## is the mutual distance, ##\alpha## is the dimensionless fine structure constant, ##\hbar## is Planck's (reduced) constant and ##N_1 , N_2## are whole numbers, respectively. Both sides of the equation have the dimension of ##action##.
What does this equation have to do with quantum mechanics? It happens to have ##\hbar## in it because of how you chose to define your units, but that doesn't make it a quantum equation. Action is not an inherently quantum quantity; classical physics can be formulated in terms of action too. Your equation is a simple example of such a formulation.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...