Help to convert units of a simple formula

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around converting units in a formula involving the constant H and variable k, with H valued at 10^3 in natural units. Participants confirm that H can be expressed in natural units while keeping k in Hz, but there is confusion about the implications of these conversions. The relationship between GeV and Hz is clarified, indicating that GeV is approximately 10^24 Hz, not 10^-11. The conversation highlights the need for clarity on which natural unit system is being referenced, as multiple systems exist. Ultimately, the participants seek to ensure accurate unit conversions in the context of particle and atomic physics.
Safinaz
Messages
255
Reaction score
8
Homework Statement
Consider the following formula
Relevant Equations
## p = k^2/ H^2 ##, where k is a variable of units Hz and H is a constant ## H= 10^{14} ## GeV
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units,

According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##,
## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units.

So is this conversion correct?

Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Safinaz said:
Homework Statement: Consider the following formula
Relevant Equations: ## p = k^2/ H^2 ##, where k is a variable of units Hz and H is a constant
I do not see what those have to do with the rest of your question.
Safinaz said:
## H= 10^{14} ## GeV
Safinaz said:
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units,
Don’t those imply GeV=##10^{-11}## in natural units?
Safinaz said:
That link lists six different systems. Which one are you using?

Safinaz said:
## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##,
So it’s particle and atomic physics, right?
Safinaz said:
and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##,
So not ##10^{-11}##?
 
So is there some elegant way to do this or am I just supposed to follow my nose and sub the Taylor expansions for terms in the two boost matrices under the assumption ##v,w\ll 1##, then do three ugly matrix multiplications and get some horrifying kludge for ##R## and show that the product of ##R## and its transpose is the identity matrix with det(R)=1? Without loss of generality I made ##\mathbf{v}## point along the x-axis and since ##\mathbf{v}\cdot\mathbf{w} = 0## I set ##w_1 = 0## to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
930
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K