This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stoney units article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The five constants said to be normalized by Stoney are the same five constants that Planck units normalize. So that would mean that Stoney units are the same as Planck units, and I don't think that is the case. In that list of 5 is Planck's constant, ħ or h-bar, and there is where I believe the error is. Stoney units normalize the elementary charge e, not ħ.
This article should be made to be consistent with the Natural units article, specifically the section on Stoney units.
Also, why not just title this article Stoney units? 74.104.160.199 ( talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating article. Absolutely fascinating. Please, please, please expand on the statement 'The above fundamental constants define naturally the following relationship between mass and electric charge'.
Lemmiwinks2 (
talk) 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You know, these copy-paste operations are so boring. 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 06:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This value is presented in graphene too. 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 06:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
According to the article Fine structure constant, α is the velocity of the electron in the ground state of the Bohr atom (edit:divided by c). So what the heck does that make αG? Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 16:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the formula for calculating magnetic moment in stoney scale units? Is it the same as for calculating angular momentum with charge replacing mass? Is the factor of 2 still there? Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 06:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
So, the Stoney scale magneton will be:
where effective mass for atomic-like structure. However, that is supposition only. 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 08:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Stoney scale units → Stoney units — The term "Stoney scale units" is not often used. "Stoney units" is much more common. A more correct and more modern name would be "Stoney system of units". This term, however, is not commonly used neither. Kehrli ( talk) 09:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Google [1] [2] gets far more hits for Stoney scale units. What's the basis for the claim that "Stoney units" is much more common? Andrewa ( talk) 02:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Here is a bit of good news - Rbj's IP has now been hardblocked, so he won't be back again (at least for a time). You should make hay while the sun shines. On the other hand, I think there might be at least one other banned user still active at articles like Planck units and Natural units. Sorry I can't do more to help you out - it's no longer my territory. Good luck! McZeus ( talk) 00:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Based upon what looks to me to be a clear consensus, I have gone ahead and completed the move.-- SPhilbrick T 15:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
By "derived," I mean the units of length, time, energy, mass, etc. that can be calculated based on the initial physical constants. Really, all this article does at the moment is compare Stoney units with Planck units, and I think that Mr. Stoney deserves a bit more credit than that. After all, he was the first to come up with a system of natural units. If no one wants to go through the trouble of actually calculating/snooping around for the Stoney units, they can just use this handy table from the Wikipedia article on Natural units:
Quantity | Expression | Metric Value |
---|---|---|
Length (L) | 1.38068×10−36 m | |
Mass (M) | 1.85921×10−9 kg | |
Time (T) | 4.60544×10−45 s | |
Electric charge (Q) | 1.60218×10−19 C | |
Temperature (Θ) | 1.21028×1031 K |
Is there any reason why that chart →
shouldn't be in the article?
Curious George 334905 ( talk) 01:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Already there. 83.30.30.92 ( talk) 19:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
For a brief period of time I have edited the main page adding a short section reporting a new finding regarding the nature of the Stoney Mass
But I have released soon after that this may be seen as a conflict of interest issue because the finding I was reporting comes from a peer reviewed published article, of which I am the author. So I have withdrawn the update and found that my proposal may be put for review here.
The finding is very important for anybody interested in the subject of the page. The real meaning of the Stoney is revealed and there is no way it can do back because of the simple algebraic reasoning, which short version is in the proposed new section below.
If you do not want me to be the editor, please review and do this your own way
Proposed change
|
---|
The theory of H. Weyl, adopting the Stoney length [1] [2] [3] to serve as representative of gravitational unit of charge has come close to the explanation of its physical significance. No clear interpretation of the Stoney mass existed until a 2003 publication [14] providing the explanation of its physical meaning. According to this explanation, the Stoney mass does not represent any physical mass, but has a one-to-one correspondence with the electron charge. The rationale of this rather unusual claim, is the effect of the deliberate choice in establishing SI base units of mass (kg) and the electric charge derived unit (coulomb: C = As), which are inherently incommensurable in SI, as well as in CGS units. The commensurability of physical quantities may depend on the definition of base units in a given system. The experimental “Rationalized Metric System (RMS) developed in [14] eliminates the SI mass and charge units (kg and As, respectively), which both become derived units with dimensions of [m3 s-2]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×1021, that is the square root of the electric to gravitational force ratio for the electron. The conversion of the Stoney mass from SI to RMS is as follows: With the electron charge e in SI, the conversion expression to the RMS charge unit is: , and for the SI mass m to the RMS mass units : . Converting the Stoney mass to RMS units yields:
This is the exact representation of the electron charge in the RMS units, not combined with other fundamental constants as it is the case in the Stoney mass SI representation, hence the Stoney mass does not represent any real mass quantity which is an artifact of units of measure in SI. Reference: [14] Wutke, A. (23 November 2023). "From Newton to universal Planck natural units – disentangling the constants of nature". J. Phys. Commun. 7 (11). |
AndrewWutke ( talk) 16:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.According to their website, the Journal of Physics Communications is peer-reviewed. I've gone ahead and implemented the text, however, I'm concerned about the journal's relatively low impact factor, so I'm eager to hear what other editors think about this.
First of all I want to thank Headbomb, Quondum, Ldm1954 and XOR'easter for their near-instantaneous replies and feedback, it's so much appreciated. I think from this discussion that it's clear that the information should not have been added by me, so my thanks to XOR'easter for reverting it. It's rare that I get an edit request in the realm of physics, which is definitely out of my league, so I really appreciate the feedback, and to Primefac for helping to steer the conversation where it needed to go. Many thanks! Regards, Spintendo 09:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The footnote style wandered all over the place, so I standardized it on {{ citation}} templates. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stoney units article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The five constants said to be normalized by Stoney are the same five constants that Planck units normalize. So that would mean that Stoney units are the same as Planck units, and I don't think that is the case. In that list of 5 is Planck's constant, ħ or h-bar, and there is where I believe the error is. Stoney units normalize the elementary charge e, not ħ.
This article should be made to be consistent with the Natural units article, specifically the section on Stoney units.
Also, why not just title this article Stoney units? 74.104.160.199 ( talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating article. Absolutely fascinating. Please, please, please expand on the statement 'The above fundamental constants define naturally the following relationship between mass and electric charge'.
Lemmiwinks2 (
talk) 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You know, these copy-paste operations are so boring. 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 06:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This value is presented in graphene too. 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 06:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
According to the article Fine structure constant, α is the velocity of the electron in the ground state of the Bohr atom (edit:divided by c). So what the heck does that make αG? Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 16:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the formula for calculating magnetic moment in stoney scale units? Is it the same as for calculating angular momentum with charge replacing mass? Is the factor of 2 still there? Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 06:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
So, the Stoney scale magneton will be:
where effective mass for atomic-like structure. However, that is supposition only. 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 08:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Stoney scale units → Stoney units — The term "Stoney scale units" is not often used. "Stoney units" is much more common. A more correct and more modern name would be "Stoney system of units". This term, however, is not commonly used neither. Kehrli ( talk) 09:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Google [1] [2] gets far more hits for Stoney scale units. What's the basis for the claim that "Stoney units" is much more common? Andrewa ( talk) 02:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Here is a bit of good news - Rbj's IP has now been hardblocked, so he won't be back again (at least for a time). You should make hay while the sun shines. On the other hand, I think there might be at least one other banned user still active at articles like Planck units and Natural units. Sorry I can't do more to help you out - it's no longer my territory. Good luck! McZeus ( talk) 00:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Based upon what looks to me to be a clear consensus, I have gone ahead and completed the move.-- SPhilbrick T 15:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
By "derived," I mean the units of length, time, energy, mass, etc. that can be calculated based on the initial physical constants. Really, all this article does at the moment is compare Stoney units with Planck units, and I think that Mr. Stoney deserves a bit more credit than that. After all, he was the first to come up with a system of natural units. If no one wants to go through the trouble of actually calculating/snooping around for the Stoney units, they can just use this handy table from the Wikipedia article on Natural units:
Quantity | Expression | Metric Value |
---|---|---|
Length (L) | 1.38068×10−36 m | |
Mass (M) | 1.85921×10−9 kg | |
Time (T) | 4.60544×10−45 s | |
Electric charge (Q) | 1.60218×10−19 C | |
Temperature (Θ) | 1.21028×1031 K |
Is there any reason why that chart →
shouldn't be in the article?
Curious George 334905 ( talk) 01:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Already there. 83.30.30.92 ( talk) 19:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
For a brief period of time I have edited the main page adding a short section reporting a new finding regarding the nature of the Stoney Mass
But I have released soon after that this may be seen as a conflict of interest issue because the finding I was reporting comes from a peer reviewed published article, of which I am the author. So I have withdrawn the update and found that my proposal may be put for review here.
The finding is very important for anybody interested in the subject of the page. The real meaning of the Stoney is revealed and there is no way it can do back because of the simple algebraic reasoning, which short version is in the proposed new section below.
If you do not want me to be the editor, please review and do this your own way
Proposed change
|
---|
The theory of H. Weyl, adopting the Stoney length [1] [2] [3] to serve as representative of gravitational unit of charge has come close to the explanation of its physical significance. No clear interpretation of the Stoney mass existed until a 2003 publication [14] providing the explanation of its physical meaning. According to this explanation, the Stoney mass does not represent any physical mass, but has a one-to-one correspondence with the electron charge. The rationale of this rather unusual claim, is the effect of the deliberate choice in establishing SI base units of mass (kg) and the electric charge derived unit (coulomb: C = As), which are inherently incommensurable in SI, as well as in CGS units. The commensurability of physical quantities may depend on the definition of base units in a given system. The experimental “Rationalized Metric System (RMS) developed in [14] eliminates the SI mass and charge units (kg and As, respectively), which both become derived units with dimensions of [m3 s-2]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×1021, that is the square root of the electric to gravitational force ratio for the electron. The conversion of the Stoney mass from SI to RMS is as follows: With the electron charge e in SI, the conversion expression to the RMS charge unit is: , and for the SI mass m to the RMS mass units : . Converting the Stoney mass to RMS units yields:
This is the exact representation of the electron charge in the RMS units, not combined with other fundamental constants as it is the case in the Stoney mass SI representation, hence the Stoney mass does not represent any real mass quantity which is an artifact of units of measure in SI. Reference: [14] Wutke, A. (23 November 2023). "From Newton to universal Planck natural units – disentangling the constants of nature". J. Phys. Commun. 7 (11). |
AndrewWutke ( talk) 16:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.According to their website, the Journal of Physics Communications is peer-reviewed. I've gone ahead and implemented the text, however, I'm concerned about the journal's relatively low impact factor, so I'm eager to hear what other editors think about this.
First of all I want to thank Headbomb, Quondum, Ldm1954 and XOR'easter for their near-instantaneous replies and feedback, it's so much appreciated. I think from this discussion that it's clear that the information should not have been added by me, so my thanks to XOR'easter for reverting it. It's rare that I get an edit request in the realm of physics, which is definitely out of my league, so I really appreciate the feedback, and to Primefac for helping to steer the conversation where it needed to go. Many thanks! Regards, Spintendo 09:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The footnote style wandered all over the place, so I standardized it on {{ citation}} templates. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)