A fundamental question about research

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MacRudi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fundamental Research
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of natural units (c=h=g=1) in research, particularly in physics. Participants explore their preferences for unit systems, the implications for understanding physical concepts, and the contexts in which they choose to adopt or avoid these units.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested, Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that using natural units simplifies calculations and is common practice in research.
  • One participant argues against using natural units, stating that maintaining traditional units aids in understanding physical concepts and is more beneficial for their work.
  • Another participant mentions that they always use c=1, sometimes use hbar=1, but never use g=1, indicating a selective approach to adopting natural units based on context.
  • A different participant expresses a preference for traditional units due to challenges in comparing results across different fields when using natural units.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the use of natural units; multiple competing views remain regarding their utility and applicability in different research contexts.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on specific research areas and the varying complexity of theoretical work, which may influence the choice of unit systems.

Are you using c=h=g=1?

  • yes, I do

    Votes: 3 42.9%

  • No, I don't

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Total voters
    7
MacRudi
Messages
98
Reaction score
12
When you are in research behind your desk, are you using c=h=g=1?
I think this is common now. Everyone is doing it.
Is there anyone, who is not doing it?
And if, why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't do it because keeping units in my calculations makes them easier for me to understand on a physical level (I either use MKS-SI units, or work on concepts independent of choice of units (as in quantum information theory)).
But then, the theory work I do is simple enough that there isn't enough savings to be worth it.
If I want to avoid hbar, I consider frequency and wavenumber instead of energy and momentum.
 
##c=1## always (GeV is energy, mass and momentum), ##\hbar=1## sometimes (decay widths for short-living particles in MeV), ##g=1## never (doesn't help in experimental particle physics).
 
Currently, I don't but I will once I move to my next lab, where I will most likely work with the atomic units (in which ##\hbar=1##). Honestly, I don't like those inventions on unit since it makes comparison with the other result reported in papers in a different field of research indirect, and requires a calculator.
 
thanks for your answers
 

Similar threads

Undergrad A question about the origin of Coulomb's law and point charge divergence
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Programs Help with my plan to get into research about bound states
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Graduate What would it mean if symmetries in physics would not be fundamental?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Is There a Six-Preon Theory with Specific Charge and Color Assignments?
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
10K
Sources for Physics Research Paper on Rotational Blade Motion on Helicopter
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Undergrad Dimensionless and dimensioned fundamental constants
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Graduate Standard Model and number of fundamental forces
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Programs Take a 5th year to do more research?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Extended Essay Research question help (first year IB student)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Admissions Do I have a good shot at CalTech/MIT's graduate program for physics?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K