A Correcting units from this physics paper?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter halcyon_zomboid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Units
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a units discrepancy in a 1973 physics paper by Hora regarding the production of antihydrogen. The poster identifies that the left-hand side of the equation for the number of pairs produced, N_p, is dimensionless, which conflicts with the derived units. They suggest that Equation (25) is missing a factor of E_v, needing correction to include E_v^2 for proper dimensional analysis. Additionally, they note that Equation (28) yields dimensions of length^-2 instead of the expected length^2. The poster seeks assistance in resolving these unit inconsistencies.
halcyon_zomboid
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I cannot make units work in this 1973 paper by Hora and need a trustworthy answer.
Hi all,

I've struggled to resolve a units issue in this 1973 paper by Hora:
https://www.academia.edu/23774741/E...tihydrogen_by_lasers_of_very_high_intensities
From the paper:

"
The number N_p of pairs produced in a plasma volume V during a time \tau and a density n_e of electrons is
N_p=\frac{e^8n_e^2}{\pi\hbar^2m_0^2c^5}V\tau\ln^3\frac{\epsilon_{kin}}{m_0c^2}.
"

However, the units do not seem to work out as the LHS is dimensionless.

For what it's worth, I found that Equation (25) is missing one factor of E_v:
\gamma=\frac{e^2\hbar}{\omega m_0^3c^3}E_v\quad(\mathrm{Incorrect})\quad\Rightarrow\quad\gamma=\frac{e^2\hbar}{\omega m_0^3c^3}E_v^2\quad(\mathrm{Correct})

However, I can't tell what factors are missing in this expression. Even in units where k=1/(4\pi\epsilon_0)=1, I end up with dimensions of \mathrm{length}^{-3} where I'm expecting dimensionless units.

FWIW, going back to Equation (28):

\sigma=\frac{e^8}{\pi\hbar^2m_0^2c^6}\ln^3\frac{\epsilon_\mathrm{kin}}{m_0c^2}

I get dimensions of \mathrm{length}^{-2}, not \mathrm{length}^2.

It looks like this is very close to working... please, can someone help me "debug" the units here?

Thanks in advance,
HZ
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To fllow you what physical dimension e has in your estimation ?
 
Quick question that I haven't been able to find the answer to. Greenhouse gasses both warm and cool the atmosphere by slowing heat loss to space. But what would happen without GHGs? I read that the earth would be colder (though still relatively warm), but why? Without GHGs the atmosphere would still be a similar mass and still warmed by conduction from the surface, yet without a means to radiate that heat to space. Why wouldn't the atmosphere accumulate heat over time, becoming warmer? How...