| Revision as of 09:24, 30 July 2014 editKleuske (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,460 edits →Planck Energy: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:24, 30 July 2014 edit undoKleuske (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,460 editsm →Planck EnergyNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| == Planck Energy == | == Planck Energy == | ||
| There wasn't a source for the fraction of the ]: 3×10<sup>20</sup>/1.22×10<sup>28</sup>=2.46×10<sup>8</sup>. Both Plank Energy and the energy of the particle in question |
There wasn't a source for the fraction of the ]: 3×10<sup>20</sup>/1.22×10<sup>28</sup>=2.46×10<sup>8</sup>. Both Plank Energy and the energy of the particle in question are well sourced. Expressing that as a fraction is a ]. I haven't reverted since a) i'm not that sure how meaningful such a fraction is and b) WP:CALC seems to refer to original research. Any opinions? ] (]) 09:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:24, 30 July 2014
Wait a minute
It is slower by 1.5 fm/s, but would only be behind 0.15 fm after a full year? There is a problem here. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- 0.15 fs, not 0.15 fm. The bigger problem is the "year-long" race. A year in what frame of reference? Certainly not relative to the particle -- the particle would observe light traveling at the speed of light. I guess it is relative to a staionary observer. -- Schapel (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The detected kinetic energy was relative to the Detector; or, in other words, the Particle's velocity, v, was relative to the Detector's frame of reference. Suppose the Year Long Race commences as the Photon and the Oh-My-God-Particle whizz past the Detector. On the passage of one year, as reckoned from within the Detector's frame, the Photon and the OMGP will have receded to two different distances from the Detector. Of course it doesn't have to be relative to the Detector. It can be any frame of reference relative to which the OMGP has its characteristic velocity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
So does that mean that if this particle hit you, it would be like getting hit by a baseball going 60mph? You'd like stagger or fall over for no apparent reason? If not, why not? Would you spontaneously human combust? lol :) This particle is the Oh-My-Devil particle. Dkelly1966 (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Planck Energy
There wasn't a source for the fraction of the Planck energy: 3×10/1.22×10=2.46×10. Both Plank Energy and the energy of the particle in question are well sourced. Expressing that as a fraction is a routine calculation. I haven't reverted since a) i'm not that sure how meaningful such a fraction is and b) WP:CALC seems to refer to original research. Any opinions? Kleuske (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)