Who is Boltzmann, Coulomb, and Avogadro?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Garry Denke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Boltzmann Coulomb
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the contributions of key physicists: Ludwig Boltzmann, Charles Coulomb, and Amadeo Avogadro, alongside the foundational constants and units proposed by Max Planck and Albert Einstein. It highlights Planck's and Einstein's respective universal base unit values, including intensity, time, length, substance, mass, current, and temperature. The conversation briefly touches on Boltzmann's tragic end and the perceived unfair treatment he received from contemporaries, particularly regarding his theories on irreversibility. Participants express frustration with the depth of understanding of physics in historical contexts, questioning the ignorance of past physicists. The thread ultimately emphasizes the significance of these scientists in the development of modern physics.
Garry Denke
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
According to Max Planck :

Planck's seven (7) primary universal base unit values
1) Planck intensity : (bar-hG/c^5)^1/2/sr = 7.8672231(80) x 10^-46 cd
2) Planck time : (bar-hG/c^5)^1/2 = 5.3904639(43) x 10^-44 s
3) Planck length : (bar-hG/c^3)^1/2 = 1.6160204(35) x 10^-35 m
4) Planck substance : (bar-hc/G)^1/2/M = 6.6245916(02) x 10^-28 kmol
5) Planck mass : (bar-hc/G)^1/2 = 2.1767500(08) x 10^-8 kg
6) Planck current : e/(bar-hG/c^5)^1/2 = 2.9722423(67) x 10^24 A
7) Planck temperature : (bar-hc^5/G)^1/2/k = 1.4169882(01) x 10^32 K

According to Albert Einstein :

Einstein's seven (7) primary universal base unit values
1) Einstein intensity : (hG/c^5)^1/2/sr = 1.9720204(06) x 10^-45 cd
2) Einstein time : (hG/c^5)^1/2 = 1.3511889(33) x 10^-43 s
3) Einstein length : (hG/c^3)^1/2 = 4.0507625(15) x 10^-35 m
4) Einstein substance : (hc/G)^1/2/M = 1.6605388(62) x 10^-27 kmol
5) Einstein mass : (hc/G)^1/2 = 5.4563031(18) x 10^-8 kg
6) Einstein current : e/(hG/c^5)^1/2 = 1.1857531(48) x 10^24 A
7) Einstein temperature : (hc^5/G)^1/2/k = 3.5518626(92) x 10^32 K

According to Planck & Einstein :

Planck & Einstein's two (2) primary universal base angles
1) Einstein relative permeability : steradian = 6.8517999(55) x 10^1 sr
2) Planck inverse fine-structure : radian = 1.3703599(91) x 10^2 rad

According to Einstein & Planck :

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/

Planck h/2pi : bar-h = 1.0545716(84) x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s
Planck constant : h = 6.6260693(11) x 10^-34 kg-m^2/s
Boltzmann constant : k = 1.3806504(11) x 10^-23 kg-m^2/s^2-K
Coulomb elementary charge : e = 1.6021765(31) x 10^-19 A-s
Newton constant : G = 6.6723635(22) x 10^-11 m^3/kg-s^2
Einstein relative permeability : steradian = 6.8517999(55) x 10^1 sr
Einstein speed of light in vacuum : c = 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s
Avogadro molar mass : M = 3.2858629(47) x 10^19 kg/kmol

Question #1 : Who is Ludwig Boltzmann?
Question #2 : Who is Charles Coulomb?
Question #3 : Who is Amadeo Avogadro?

Thanks for helping,

Garry Denke
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Garry Denke said:

Question #1 : Who is Ludwig Boltzmann?
Question #2 : Who is Charles Coulomb?
Question #3 : Who is Amadeo Avogadro?

i guess there's Google or wikipedia. everything else you typed looks like garbage to me.

r b-j
 
rbj said:
i guess there's Google or wikipedia. everything else you typed looks like garbage to me.
Thanks for helping rbj. It's sad Boltzmann killed himself.
Is it true physicists are as ignorant as they were then?

Garry Denke
 
They were awfully unfair to the great Ludwig Boltzmann.It wasn't Poincaré's fault.Poincaré's result was purely math,even though it demolished Boltzmann's conceptions about irreversibility.

Daniel.
 
Garry Denke said:
Is it true physicists are as ignorant as they were then?
What kind of moronic question is this??
I would hardly call any of the leading physicist in the 19th century ignorant
And they certainly knew and understood a lot more physics than you have evidenced that you do.
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...

Similar threads

Back
Top