Talk:Stoney units

uh, there's a problem.

The five constants said to be normalized by Stoney are the same five constants that Planck units normalize. So that would mean that Stoney units are the same as Planck units, and I don't think that is the case. In that list of 5 is Planck's constant, ħ or h-bar, and there is where I believe the error is. Stoney units normalize the elementary charge e, not ħ.

This article should be made to be consistent with the Natural units article, specifically the section on Stoney units.

Also, why not just title this article Stoney units? 74.104.160.199 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Plesure for yours interest to the subject. I take more account to the physical scale of matter then to the normalization procedure.195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Normalization procedure" is a very delicate problem. Note that I add Table for Planck units which differs from the units presented in Planck units by normalization only... It is often leads to the "holy wars" between different scools.195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems that was a mistake. I also agree that "Stoney units" would be the better title. JIMp _talk·cont 19:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is dedicated more to scales then to units.195.47.212.108 (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

relationship between mass and electric charge

Fascinating article. Absolutely fascinating. Please, please, please expand on the statement 'The above fundamental constants define naturally the following relationship between mass and electric charge'.
$m_{S}=e{\sqrt {\frac {\epsilon _{E}}{\epsilon _{G}}}}=e{\sqrt {\frac {\mu _{E}}{\mu _{G}}}}=e{\sqrt {\frac {\rho _{E0}}{\rho _{G0}}}}\$ Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is true, exept

$m_{S}=e{\sqrt {\frac {\epsilon _{G}}{\epsilon _{E}}}}\$ You know, these copy-paste operations are so boring.195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

On your user page, there are the Bohr scale velosity... The true value should be:

$v_{B}=\omega _{B}\cdot a_{B}={\frac {\hbar }{2m_{0}a_{B}}}={\frac {\alpha c}{2}}.\$

This value is presented in graphene too.195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

☺ Thank you. BTW, in the planck scale some of the fundamental constants become dimensionless. The article doesnt specifically say whether any do in the Stoney scale so I assume that they do not. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The "normalization procedure" couldn't remove any physical DIMENSION. Therefore, even when the light velocity is equal to "1", the dimension (m/s) remained.195.47.212.108 (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

gravitational fine structure constant

According to the article Fine structure constant, α is the velocity of the electron in the ground state of the Bohr atom (edit:divided by c). So what the heck does that make α_G? Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Due to Zommerfeld the dimensionless parameter got name the"fine structure constant (FSC)"... However this parameter defines the INTERACTION only. So, we have the "strong FSC" at the Planck scale, the "electromagnetic FSC" at the Stoney scale and the "gravitational FSC" at the "Natural scale". Note that we should to differ the SCALEs and LEVELs of matter (will be considered later). The only constant remained is the "weak FSC". In due time I define this value. Considering that FSCs are dimensionless, they couldn't be any dimension parameter such as velocity. However in some cases velocity could be proportional to the FSC.195.47.212.108 (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Its just that I cant see any possible connection between the strength of the electric interaction and the angular momentum of particle or the velocity of the electron in a Bohr atom divided by c. Moreover, the formula for the electric interation is e^2/4πϵr^2. the only connection between all these that i can imagine is that they would be involved in determining the Bohr radius. I plugged in the Bohr radius but all I got was an identity. very confused. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You see, the s.c. "Bohr radius" (energy, frequency, etc.) is the SCALING parameter only, defined by Shrodinger equation. So, any classical interpretation leads to nowere.195.47.212.108 (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

magnetic moment

What is the formula for calculating magnetic moment in stoney scale units? Is it the same as for calculating angular momentum with charge replacing mass? Is the factor of 2 still there? Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a delicate problem... I'l see during weekend.195.47.212.108 (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

At the Stoney level there are no particle like "proton". Therefore, atomic-like structure will be like positronium with "effective mass" two times lesser then Stoney mass.

So, the Stoney scale magneton will be:

$\mu _{SB}={\frac {e\hbar }{2m_{Spos}}}={\frac {e\hbar }{m_{S}}},\$

where $m_{Spos}={\frac {m_{S}m_{S}}{m_{S}+m_{S}}}$ effective mass for atomic-like structure. However, that is supposition only.195.47.212.108 (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Stoney scale units → Stoney units — The term "Stoney scale units" is not often used. "Stoney units" is much more common. A more correct and more modern name would be "Stoney system of units". This term, however, is not commonly used neither. Kehrli (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Google [1] [2] gets far more hits for Stoney scale units. What's the basis for the claim that "Stoney units" is much more common? Andrewa (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The google results for "stoney scale units" seem polluted by wikipedia as you go through the list...even with your clever "-wikipedia" search term. Google books OTOH has 18 hits for "stoney units" and just 2 for "stoney scale units", both of which are wikipedia-related. Therefore I agree with Kehrli, it should be moved. :-) --Steve (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the links to your Google books searches, and any other evidence you have. Agree that the Google searches are polluted, but I get 3600 ghits versus 540, and the Wikipedia hits don't explain a ratio of more than 6:1. The claim that The term "Stoney scale units" is not often used. "Stoney units" is much more common is still in serious trouble IMO. Andrewa (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

google book search for "stoney scale units" -- 2 hits, both are republished wikipedia articles. google book search for "stoney units" has ~10 legitimate reliable-source results.

If you're not sure how wikipedia hits can explain a ratio of 6:1, try looking at the actual results here. How many can you find independent of wikipedia? Zero? One? I couldn't find even one out of the first 30 results. I did find lots of spam. Spam can very easily account for many thousands of results in a search like that.

I would go further than Kehrli: We should never mention the phrase "Stoney scale units" in the entire article, just "Stoney units". Unless you can find any reliable source that uses the phrase "Stoney scale units". I can't find any. On the other hand, we do have several reliable sources for the term "Stoney units" (those google books search results). :-) --Steve (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Steve and would like to add that the term "scale" in this context is old-school. Modern metrology uses "units" and "sytstem of units" instead of "scales". You don't hear of the "kg-scale" or the "meter-scale". I just checked in the VIM (International vocabulary of metrology — Basic and general concepts and associated terms). Scale is only used for traditional units like the "Richter scale". Wikipedia should represent "state of the art" and not what is most common on Google. It is an encyclopedia, not a history book. Therefore, even if "Stoney scale units" were more frequent than "Stoney units" (which it isn't) we should use "Stoney units" because it aligns better with VIM. VIM sets the gold standard. Kehrli (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Preserving the word 'scale' is consistent with the notion that Stoney units have historical significance but quite frankly it's six of one and half a dozen of the other and I don't think it really matters what you name it. Let's try to be sincere - the stoney units already receive some coverage in the article on George Johnstone Stoney and in the article on Natural units. This article was established by an editor whose views are not mainstream and it has since been eviscerated by editors who regard the topic as something of an embarrassment to be got rid of somehow. For example there are two papers that used to have external links (one is a preprint, the other is an Apeiron paper) and those links have not been preserved - they're not mainstream. The founding author constructed elaborate tables of quantities expressed in Stoney units and those have all been removed - they're not mainstream. The sincere thing to do now is to delete the entire article as irrelevant to mainstream physics. So what's stopping you? McZeus (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• The same author who created Stoney scale units also created Plank scale units. The latter was renamed to Plank units a long time ago. Therefore renaming to Stoney units would be more consitent.
• I agree that all those articles could be deleted because they are in effect already part of natural units. Unfortunately natural units is maintained by authors that also have non-mainstream views and important details are wrong. In some way Stoney scale units is now a better article than the Stoney section in natural units.
• I get 10 Google hits for "Stoney scale units" and 76 hits for "Stoney units"
• Scale should be in the plural. Stoney suggested several units and thereby several scales.
• "Stoney scale units" is a pleonasm
• Tradition: Stoney himself in his original paper was talking about units.

Kehrli (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, articles like Planck units and Natural units are a problem. They are often edited by banned users who come back cunningly disguized with number plates for false moustaches. The banned user, User:Rbj, is still busy editing them and he has also been editing this one. He is based in Masachussetts/Vermont and some recent contributions by him are listed here and here and here and here and here (a small sample). Why admins ban somebody and then fail to police the ban I don't know. Contributors like that are one reason I no longer bother editing science articles. The guy who created this article however was a well-meaning editor who, as far as I know, never ventured into edit wars. A bit of tactful advice and help might have been a better approach than taking a meat axe to his work. But let's face it - natural units such as Stoney units are relevant only to theoretical physics and that is now so removed from experimental physics that it has become almost a religion and heretics deserve to get the chop - don't they? On the other hand, banned users thrive like roses. Strange world we live in. McZeus (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

McZeus,

• I remember User:Rbj and I just looked up a [[3]] I had with him 4 years ago. I am glad to hear that he got banned.
• Reading this discussion from 4 years ago made me realize that I am on the verge to having the same discussion again with two other clowns about the Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit).
• I agree that the original article was "corrected" too fast. It seemed very interesting.

Kehrli (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)