Understanding Natural Units in Physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter arman.k.blog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Natural Units
arman.k.blog
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
So I have been going through a book on physics-based mathematics. I have seen the author using natural units (h = c = 1) in formulae. Why is this done? Most importantly, doesn't it mess up the true calculation? For example, take e = mc^2. If I set c = 1, it becomes e = m. So if I am given a mass and have been told to calculate the energy, it's the same as the given mass! How is this all consistent? I don't get the concept. I would be glad if someone would explain it in a simple manner. Thanks in advance!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Its not that confusing.We're just saying that,our length scale is somehow that light travels one unit of it in one unit of our time. Or alternatively our time scale is somehow that light travels one unit of our length scale in that time and then say we don't care what are those time and length scales!Its the same about h.
And about the formula E=m. Energy is not the same as mass here! Let's say the unit of time and length scales we chose are a and b.Then we have E(kg a/b)=m(kg) c^2(a/b) its just we have c=1 in the unit a/b! and of course our unit of energy here becomes different from joule.We may also alter the unit of mass to an arbitrary one which again changes our unit of energy.
 
there's a wikipedia page on the topic.

that and the page on Planck units, maybe that can help.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top