Prove e(charge of proton)=1.6E-19 | Mev.fm

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chikou24i
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coulomb
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the claim that the charge of the proton, denoted as e, is equal to 1.6E-19 Mev.fm. Participants explore the validity of this claim, the appropriate units for expressing the charge, and the context of electromagnetic interactions in various unit systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that the charge of the proton is 1.6E-19 Mev.fm, questioning how to prove this.
  • Another participant challenges the claim, stating that the correct value is 1.6 × 10^{-19} C, indicating a potential misunderstanding of unit conversions.
  • A participant discusses the fine structure constant, α, and its relation to the charge of the proton, emphasizing the use of dimensionless quantities in high-energy physics.
  • There is mention of the use of rationalized Gaussian units and natural units in modern physics, suggesting that these frameworks simplify the relationships between physical quantities.
  • One participant notes that the equality involving the fine structure constant holds at a specific energy scale, hinting at the complexity of the topic.
  • Another participant points out that the running of the electromagnetic coupling constant leads to different values at different energy scales.
  • There is a concern expressed about whether the discussion is helping the original poster (OP), with some participants questioning the clarity of the OP's question.
  • The OP expresses gratitude for the responses received, indicating a desire for clarification and correction of their understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus regarding the original claim about the charge of the proton. There are competing views on the appropriate units and the validity of the conversion presented by the OP.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of unit conversions in physics, particularly in the context of high-energy physics and the use of different unit systems. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the OP's initial claim and the source of their information.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in the nuances of electromagnetic interactions, unit conversions in physics, and the application of the fine structure constant in various contexts may find this discussion informative.

chikou24i
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
How to prove that e(the charge of proton)=1.6E-19 Mev.fm
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is obviously wrong, where did you find this conversion?
It's 1.6 \times 10^{-19} ~C
 
In SI units you have
$$\alpha=\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c} \simeq 1/137,$$
which is dimensionless. This is the Sommerfeld fine structure constant describing, in natural units, the interaction strength of charged particles due to their electromagnetic interaction (##e\simeq 1.6 \cdot 10^{-19} \mathrm{C}## is the charge of a proton, ##\hbar## is Planck's modified constant, and ##c## the speed of light, ##\epsilon_0## is an artifact of the "ugly" SI units, which are made for practical purposes rather than to expose the beauties of a consistent relativistic formulation of classical and quantum electrodynamics).

In modern high-energy physics, rationalized Gaussian (also called Heaviside-Lorentz) units are used, which brings the full symmetry of space and time and the correct relativistic dimensions of the electromagnetic field forward (electric and magnetic field components having the same unit). In addition, theoreticans have a hard time with their math anyway, and thus reduce the effort further by choosing "natural units", measuring angular momenta, actions, etc. in units of ##\hbar##. Thus effectively they set ##\hbar=1##. Then, as space and time are very much more symmetric in relativistic than in Newtonian physics, it nearly doesn't make sense to measure them in different units. This is the more true since also in the SI units the speed of light is just a conversion factor with a once-and-for all fixed value. So you can as well set ##c=1## and measure velocities in units of ##c##. This implies that energies and momenta have the same unit, usually using MeV or GeV, which is convenient when working in high-energy physics as at the LHC. Also lengths and times have the same unit. Here a convenient scale is fermi (or femtometer, which is ##10^{-15} \;\mathrm{m}##).

To convert back to usual units, one simply has to do some dimensional analysis of the quantity in question and use the relation ##\hbar c \simeq 0.197 \;\text{MeV} \; \text{fm}##.

Then you need to remember just one more thing: Cross sections are usually given in milli-barns. Then you just have to remember that ##10 \; \mathrm{mb} = 1 \; \mathrm{fm}^2=10^{-30} \; \mathrm{mb}##.
 
vanhees71 said:
In SI units you have
\alpha=\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c} \simeq 1/137,​
which is dimensionless.

Just to point out something (which I always disliked as an undergrad), the last equality is true at a given energy scale.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
It's valid at low energy scales. The running of the em. coupling leads to ##\alpha(\Lambda=m_{Z}) \simeq 1/128##.
 
Do you two think this is helping the OP?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Do you two think this is helping the OP?

How are you supposed to help someone who asks a false question and then doesn't reply back ? - where did he find this "conversion". I don't have the charisma of a psychic..
 
I indeed hope, it helps to tell the matters as they are.
 
First of all I'm sorry for the late of replying, Vanhees71 Thank you for the answer you really helped me and ChrisVer I asked a question for you to help me or to correct me if I was wrong, and thank you for you too for the notice.
 
  • #10
chikou24i said:
ChrisVer I asked a question for you to help me or to correct me if I was wrong,

Sorry then, the way your question was written, you made me believe you had seen this conversion somewhere (and asked for a "proof"), and that's why I asked for the source ("where did you find it?").
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chikou24i

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
11K