Help to convert units of a simple formula

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}##?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...

Similar threads

Back
Top