Talk:Order of magnitude/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've made a template for orders of magnitude; if I'm mistaken and one already exists, I'd love a pointer to it. -- JohnOwens 08:05 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Nice work! It's been ages since I've done any work on these entries and I'm glad they haven't been forgotten. --mav

I'm noticing that, admittedly, a lot of the examples I'm using for energy are really just an amount of power over an arbitrary period of time. So register your objections here, if any, or a power column gets added in a couple of days. -- JohnOwens 23:41 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Is there any reason to include entries below 1_E-19_m? It serves no purpose other than adding confusion, as fas as I can see. When/if science enters this realm, the table can always be extended. -- Egil 07:38 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Well Planck's length is at 1 E-35 m... I don't see how it would be confusing to fill the gap between that and measurable lengths. --mav
Sure, but what are you going to fill it with? Other than just '10n' over and over again. -- John Owens
Agreed. The entire point of the sub-articles for various orders of magnitude is that you can compare things of the same magnitude. 15 empty articles between 10-19 and 10-35 does not serve any purpose... -- Egil 08:28 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

It suddenly struck me: For very high masses and energy levels, it would make a lot of sense to make articles covering thousands instead of tens, wouldn't it? I've done it for high temperatures, and it seems to make sense. -- Egil 06:56 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

I would thus suggest making articles for thousands for other extremes too. Also, just like years are used for long durations and light years for long distances, I would suggest using kWh for energy levels above 106 J. That would make it easier for people to relate to and understand these energy levels. -- Egil 07:43 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)
I'm having second thoughts about this one; it's reasonable up to a point, but then in the even higher energy levels, you're looking at number usually associated only with astronomical phenomena, which would usually be given in joules. Perhaps use the various Wh between 1 E6 J/1 Wh and 1 E22 J/1 E7 TWh points, and joules both above and below that? I'd also be willing to see both listed within that range; I think there's enough width to spare in the table that it wouldn't crowd it too much.
Also, I think I'd rather see 1 Wh than 0.001 kWh. Just looks neater, and Wh is hardly unheard of. -- John Owens 18:42, 2003 Oct 25 (UTC)
Agreed. Watt-second is in common use, but not Wh. Egil

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE

STOP adding arbritary prefixes to SI units. PLEASE only use prefixes that are in common, scientific, use. Constructions like Zettaseconds and Megameter are just that, constructions. They are not commonly understood, add only confusion, and additionally makes what is supposed to be an encyclopedia look like a product of some juvenile word game. -- Egil 13:15 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

On the other hand, just a decade ago, you could have said much the same about the prefix "giga", and nowadays it's very commonly used, although almost entirely in the area of computer storage (I sometimes see it used with Watts, too). -- John Owens 22:51 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, giga and tera has been in common use for watt, watt hours and electron volts for as long as I can remember.
But the important issue is: The encyclopedia should reflect the current state of affairs, not seek to introduce new and unknown terms. For an influential encyclopedia there might be an aspect of a sort of Heisenberg uncertainty principle, obviously. -- Egil


Are you aware of the following entry Magnitude comparison? Can you find a better title (my proposal is too long: Order of magnitude comparisons of distance)? -- looxix 23:14 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Order of magnitude - length maybe? Just move Magnitude comparison to whatever title you want. -- Tarquin 09:07 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)
Is the Order of magnitude - length really required? It seems like duplicated information and effort to me. -- Egil 14:33 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
Agreed, all the different dimensions have their links up in the top section. I'll take that one out, but I think it might be nicer to have them in a list format instead; I'll see if that can be worked in nicely while I'm at it. -- John Owens 15:25 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
Oops - Order of magnitude - length is actually a different page than Orders of magnitude (length). :p Now I'm not so sure what to do about that link. -- John Owens 15:28 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Order of magnitude for frequency

I frankly don't see the need for these, because they are merely expressing the same property as time. I suggest all (now open) magnitude of Hz be redirected to the relevant times. As I test I've redirected 1 E6 Hz to 1 E-7 s (not -6, because of the decade greater or equal convention). -- Egil 14:49 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

While you're at it, why don't you get rid of area and volume, since they're physically the same as length?
I'm not serious, by the way. The point is that T ≠ T-1. It's perfectly reasonable to have periodic phenomena listed on one page and one-shot phenomena listed on another. Not only is the phrase "shortwave radiation has a cycle time of 0.1μs (10MHz)" horribly counterintuitive and at odds with the terminology of the general public, it's dimensionally dubious. -- Tim Starling 07:36 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
I'm not really with you on the area and length. The reciprocal of frequency is wavvelength, and they are often treated similarily (even on the scale of your radio). For me it made sense to make the Hz links point somewhere, and I still think it is nice to combine them. Perhaps a short introductory sentence that explains the connection would help? -- Egil 06:13 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
Area is the same as length in that you could say on 1 E3 m:
  • a square with sides 1.4km has the same area as Monaco
Converting from Hz to s requires a little bit of rhetoric and some dimensional manipulation, just like m2 → m.
When I wrote my comment, I thought you were actually merging pre-existing Hz pages with s pages. I'm content now, but I'd be happier if someone would write Hz pages. I'm not going to do it myself because I think trivia lists are a waste of time. Please ignore my backseat driving :)
I don't think an introductory sentence explaining the connection is necessary. -- Tim Starling 10:23 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I think the "energy" are put together into the same row as "mass" based on the formula "E=mc2", right? It is however that 1 kg times square of light speed = 1 * 3 E 6 * 3 E 6 = 9 E 18 J, but it was put into the position of 1 E 17.

Also, 1000 kWh = 1000 * 1000 * 3600 = 3.6 E 9 J, but it was put into the position of 1 E 12.

-- Tomchiukc 07:15, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/d/Talk%7EOrder_of_magnitude_Archive_2_0198.html"