B Vacuum permittivty with alternative Standard-Unit for meters

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter GoodQuestion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Si unit Vacuum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the implications of redefining the meter to 1.1 meters on the value of vacuum permittivity (ε0). The initial calculation suggests that ε0 would increase by a factor of 1.1, but this raises questions about the consistency of units, particularly for Farads and Amperes, which are also dependent on the meter definition. Participants note that while ε0 can be adjusted accordingly, other constants like Planck's constant (ħ) may also require reevaluation due to their dependence on length. Ultimately, the consensus is that while the calculated version of ε0 is correct under the new definition, maintaining clarity in unit adjustments is crucial. This leads to a deeper consideration of how fundamental constants interact with changes in measurement standards.
GoodQuestion
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Value of Permettivity when 1m would be 1,10m
I was wondering: what would be the value of Vacuum Permettivity in the case 1 meter (say 1m") would be defined as the distance we nowadays see as 1,10 meters.

At first this looks easy: ##\varepsilon0 = 8.8541878128 \cdot 10{^{12}}## F / m with normal meters
so ##\varepsilon0" = \varepsilon0 \cdot 1.1##
##\varepsilon0" = 9.739660659408 \cdot 10{^{12}}## F / m" with converted meters.

However, when I look at Farads, this is defined as $$\frac{s^4 \cdot A^2}{m^2 \cdot kg}$$ so Farads should be converted too.

And Amperes are defined as:
"The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to ##2 \cdot 10^{−7}## Newtons per metre of length."

which also involves meters, and Newtons, which are defined as $$\frac{kg \cdot m}{s^2}$$

this all makes it too tough for me.

So, in short, my question is: is the calculated version of E0" correct?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
GoodQuestion said:
And Amperes are defined as:
"The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2⋅10−7 Newtons per metre of length."
That is the old definition. The modern definition is: "The ampere, symbol A, is the SI unit of electric current. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the elementary charge e to be ##1.602176634×10^{−19}## when expressed in the unit C, which is equal to A s, where the second is defined in terms of ##∆ν_{Cs}##."

see: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9-EN.pdf

GoodQuestion said:
I was wondering: what would be the value of Vacuum Permettivity in the case 1 meter (say 1m") would be defined as the distance we nowadays see as 1,10 meters.
Under the current definitions of the SI the meter is defined as: "The metre, symbol m, is the SI unit of length. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum c to be 299792458 when expressed in the unit m/s, where the second is defined in terms of ##∆ν_{Cs}##."

So, if 1 METRE = 1.1 metre then c = 299792458 metre/second = 272538598 METRE/second

Then, since in the current SI we have $$\epsilon_0=\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \alpha \hbar c}$$ Thus, keeping all other SI defining constants the same and keeping physics the same, we simply have a reduction in the numerical value of c by a factor of 1.1 and thus an increase in the numerical value of ##\epsilon_0## by a factor of 1.1

GoodQuestion said:
So, in short, my question is: is the calculated version of E0" correct?
Yes, but you shouldn't write it in units of F/m since you have changed the units.
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't ##\hbar## change also, because there's a meter in there as well?

Assuming the value of KG en second stays the same, shouldn't this lead to ##\varepsilon0##" becomes ##\varepsilon0 \cdot 1,1{^3}## ?
 
GoodQuestion said:
Shouldn't ##\hbar## change also, because there's a meter in there as well?
It is not necessary, but you certainly could do that if you wish.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Thread 'A scenario of non-uniform circular motion'
(All the needed diagrams are posted below) My friend came up with the following scenario. Imagine a fixed point and a perfectly rigid rod of a certain length extending radially outwards from this fixed point(it is attached to the fixed point). To the free end of the fixed rod, an object is present and it is capable of changing it's speed(by thruster say or any convenient method. And ignore any resistance). It starts with a certain speed but say it's speed continuously increases as it goes...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Back
Top