why is the fine-structure constant equal to 1/137?
441532
"The fine-structure constant or Sommerfeld fine-structure constant, usually denoted alpha, is the fundamental physical constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. \n\nIt was originally introduced into physics in 1916 by Arnold Sommerfeld, as a measure of the relativistic deviations in atomic spectral lines from the predictions of the Bohr model.\n\nThe fine-structure constant is a dimensionless quantity, and its numerical value is independent of the system of units used."
710178
λ = h/m*v\n\nwhere h the Planck's constant, m the mass of the proton and v its velocity
130040
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28mathematical_constant%29\nfor the significance of e and how it is used, use this link
1186727
It is a failing of the current theories of physics that the values of the key fundamental constants - of which c is one - cannot be derived but have to be measured and inserted into the equations. In other words, no-one knows what determines the speed of light.\n\nIt is true that the permittivity and permeability of free space are related to the speed of light, but the relationship is the other way around - they are what they are because the speed of light is what it is.\n\nThere have been two sources of thoughts that the speed of light may vary over time. One is theoretical, because it may help the sums work better when describing the early universe (i.e. moment after the big bang).\n\nThe other is experimental, and is controversial as it has not been independently confirmed (see link). This involves looking at light from galaxies so far away the light took billions of years to reach us - ie we are looking back to the early universe. But the measurements show a change in the fine structure constant, and not c directly, so there could be other sources of the discrepancies if the measurements are correct.
422440
the wavelength is half...\n\nvavelength and frequency are inversely proportional
496307
Tf = 9/5 Tc + 32\n\nor \n\nTf = (1.8)Tc + 32
478761
100,000,000,000,001 or one could give it to you in scientifi notation with a rounding error 10.0 E13
40125
(this is a confusing problem because resonance structures are supposed to show how electrons configure themselves to satisfy its most stable structure--the question didn't really do a good job of representing this idea, most likely that the teacher rather have you do a challenging problem than having to learn how to do a problem)\n1) The formal charge on N=N=O appears to be N=-1, N=+1, and O=0. \n2) The formal charge on N(triple bond)N-0 is N=0, N=+1, and O=-1. \n3) The formal charge on N-N(trible bond)O is N=-2, N=+1, and O=+1\nFirst of all, Nitrogen likes to make 3 bonds with another element and Oxygen only likes to make 2 bonds with another element.\nIt also appears obvious that the higher the formal charge, the less stable the compound is. Therefore, the 3rd structure appears least frequently.\nAs a conclustion, it is plausible to say that the overall resonance structure of N-N bonding is 112 picometer since N(triple bond)N = 110 picometer and that most of the compound likes to remain in a N(triple bond)N structure, yet some also retain N=N or even N-N structure. The average averages to a number very close to 112pm.\nSimilarly, Oxygen only likes to form 2 bonds. Therefore, the N-O bond lenght comes down to 119 since it is the average of the more stable N=O with the less stable N-O.\n\nHope that helps,\nUltimeaciax
910482
I do not know since I haven't read the book. But I have come across a web page that explains the numbers as such:\n\nThe first number is Ν (nu), and it is huge. It measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them.\n\nAnother number is Ε (epsilon), whose value is 0.007. This defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together and how all the atoms on earth were made.\n\nThe cosmic number Ω (omega) measures the amount of material in our universe. \n\nThe next number is the cosmological constant, Λ (lambda), which measures the cosmic repulsion. Our existence requires that Λ should not have been too large.\n\nHow tightly stars and galaxies are held together can be expressed as a ratio between the force of gravity and the amount of energy needed to disperse them. This ratio is the fifth number, Q (Q, of course).\n\nThe sixth number is the number of spatial dimensions in our world, Δ (delta).\n\nHope this helps.
1157531
H0: mu = 10 inches\nHA: mu < 10 inches\n\nThe null always has the equal sign in it.  The alternative has what you wish to show is true.
501994
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electronic/posfe.html#c3\n\nThe link above may be of some help. Input the values you want or need.
685705
According to NIST, the g-factor of the electron is: \n\nelectron g factor\n\n \n \n Value  -2.002 319 304 3737 \n \n Standard uncertainty   0.000 000 000 0082 \n \n  Relative standard uncertainty   4.1 x 10-12 \n \n Concise form  -2.002 319 304 3737(82) \n\nand NIST gives the magnetic moment of the electron as:\n\nelectron magnetic moment\n\n \n \n Value  -928.476 362 x 10-26 J T-1 \n \n Standard uncertainty     0.000 037 x 10-26 J T-1 \n \n  Relative standard uncertainty   4.0 x 10-8 \n \n Concise form  -928.476 362(37) x 10-26 J T-1 \n\nThe quantum dimensions equation for electron magnetic moment in single charge dimensions is:\n\n\n\nelectron gyromagnetic ratio\n\n \n \n Value  1.760 859 794 x 1011 s-1 T-1 \n \n Standard uncertainty  0.000 000 071 x 1011 s-1 T-1 \n \n  Relative standard uncertainty   4.0 x 10-8 \n \n Concise form  1.760 859 794(71) x 1011 s-1 T-1 \n\nAccording to NIST the electron gyromagnetic moment is given as a positive value by taking the absolute value of electron magnetic moment, which was made negative by the negative g-factor for the electron.  The negative value for the gfactor is supposedly based on the negative charge of the electron.  But then what logic would make the neutron g-factor negative?  Can the electron and neutron g-factors be negative from different causes?  That doesn't seem likely.  As seen below, there is no mathematical reason for the electron gfactor to be negative, but there is a possible reason for the neutron gfactor to be negative.\n\nWhile researching the physics of time,  I found that Phi and phi are related to time.  Phi is the Golden Ratio.  It turns out that the electron g-factor is due to the stretching of spacetime as the electron spins at the speed of light.  Mathematically, the electron g-factor is:\n\n\n\nand the proton g-factor is:\n\n\n\nGiving the symbol F for Phi and f for phi, a possible solution for the neutron gfactor is:\n\n\n\nIn the previous equations, notice how the electron g-factor is dependent upon electron magnetic moment, and electron magnetic moment is dependent on the electron g-factor.  Modern science has not yet found the true cause of the g-factor.   \n\nAlso, as described on the magnetic moment page, NIST appears to have messed up on the value of the neutron magnetic moment and neutron g-factor as well.\n\nWe welcome Making Waves for incorporating the information above in their theory, even if it is not presented within the APM paradigm.
882008
it's mass time the speed of light squared.  It's really not that much from one atom.  I posted the answer a few months ago, did you check to see if this was already asked?\n\n\nwe see that for heavy nuclides (mass about 240u), the mean biding energy per nucleon is about 7.6MeV. For middle-mass nuclides (mass about 120), it is about 8.5 MeV. This difference in total binding energy between a single large nucleus and two fragments (assumed to be equal) into which it may be split is then close to 200MeV. This is a relatively large amount of released energy per fission event. When a chain reaction occurs, many atoms and nuclei are involved so lots of energy is released.\nhttp://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_9.htm
456651
It is a principle that can be either experimentaly shown or derived from quantum mechanical equations (shrodinger, dirac...) \nIt states that if you try to measure the value of a particles position and momentum you will always have an uncertanity of (&#92;hbar)/2 where &#92;hbar is basicly a h that is crossed like a "t".  It is planks constat divide by 2 (&#92;pi)\nso its around 10^(-34) Js\n\nthe principle it self says &#92;sigma_x &#92;sigma_p >= &#92;hbar /2\nwhere &#92;sigma_x is the standard deviation of x\n\nso if you take a bunch of identical systems and measure a particals possition and momentum you will not get exactly repeating results.  \n\n\nAlso notice that if you prepare the system such that the possition is exactly known the momentum can be any thing and vice versa.  \n\nBut that is the simple explination
898375
I know the answer is in my basic physics book.  I would have to look it up.  You should too.
241348
try:\n\n  \nFaraday constant  over Electron charge = Avogadro's number\n\n96,487 / 1.6022*10-19 = 6.022*10^23
933000
I'm vaguely guessing here but it has something to do with the law of conservation in thermodynamics. Matter (or atoms) cannot be created or destroyed hence the number of atoms on the left hand side must equal the no. of atoms on the right hand side of the equation. Hope that helps!