Finding Planck time in terms of [G], [h], and [c]

AI Thread Summary
To find Planck time in terms of gravitational constant [G], Planck's constant [h], and the speed of light [c], the goal is to determine exponents a, b, and g such that [T] = [G]^a [h]^b [c]^g. The user calculated a = 1/2, b = 1/2, and g = -5/2, but their resulting value for Planck time was incorrect. The error stemmed from using [h] instead of the reduced Planck constant [ħ]. Correcting this mistake is essential to accurately compute Planck time.
zeion
Messages
455
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Find a set of 3 exponents a, b, g such that the quantity [G]^a [h]^b [c]^g has dimensions of time. In other words:
[T] = [G]^a [h]^b [c]^g
(hint: you should get 3 algebraic equations in the 3 unknowns a, b, g which are not that hard to solve. Now determine the socalled
Planck time from tPlanck = G^a h^b c^g. [3 Points].

Homework Equations



G = 6.67266 x 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
h = 6.62606896x10^-34 kg m^2 s^-1
c = 299,792,458 m s^-1

The Attempt at a Solution



I solved a = 1/2, b = 1/2, g = -5/2, which cancel out the dimensions other than [T],
and then I tried to calculate the value for Placnk time:

(6.67266 x 10^-11)^(1/2) (6.62606896x10^-34)^(1/2) (299,792,458)^(-5/2)
= 1.3512189 x10^-43

Which is not what it should be.. where did I make a mistake..?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You used h rather than \hbar.
 
How did you find out those exact values of the exponents?
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
203
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
2K
Back
Top