Talk:Coupling constant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid importance within physics. |
|
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|
Contents |
[edit] Running Coupling Error
Shouldn't the statement of uncertainty in E times uncertainty in t be greater or equal to hbar DIVIDED by 2? 128.171.31.11 (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Symbol
"coupling constant, usually denoted g"
I think it is α ?
- As mentioned in the article, α is proportional to g². Since QED interactions involving fermions-in and fermions-out involve two factors of the coupling constant, they go in orders of α; however, the coupling constant is g. -- Xerxes 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is QCD?
The acronym should be expanded. It kinda pops up in the text.
[edit] Hierarchy of coupling constants
In the second paragraph, it's said that the gravitational coupling is more important than the magnetic coupling in a large lump of magnetized iron. This statement is misleading. Firstly, a "coupling constant" couples at least two things. So one has to say what this piece of metal is being coupled to. For instance, if we couple it to the Earth then the statement is correct; gravity is more important. But if we couple it to an unmagnetized piece of metal of approximately the same size then the magnetization will be more important.
It might be better to illustrate this with something more fundamental. Consider the forces between two electrons: they are attracted gravitationally but this is overcome by their electric charges. This is because the charge-to-mass ratio is large. On the other hand, the Earth and the Moon interact purely gravitationally since they both have very small charge-to-mass ratios.
Then one can go onto the more technical discussion. Joshua Davis 23:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
