Timeline for Is the Boltzmann constant really that important?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2016 at 13:59 | comment | added | Greg Petersen | Oh my! Yes that is an embarrassing typo. Thanks for pointing it out! I've corrected it. | |
| Aug 8, 2016 at 13:58 | history | edited | Greg Petersen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Aug 6, 2016 at 12:35 | comment | added | juanrga | Besides other issues in your answer, the Boltzmann constant is written as $k_\mathrm{B}$ not as $K_b$ and your expression $E = K_b/T$ is not even dimensionally correct, the correct expression is $E = k_\mathrm{B}T$. Funny to see that no one of the five upvoters mentioned this glaring mistake. | |
| Feb 5, 2016 at 22:29 | history | edited | Greg Petersen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2082 characters in body
|
| Jan 22, 2016 at 4:02 | comment | added | pfnuesel | As far as I understand, it's about how much can we change the universal constants and life would still be possible in the Universe. Impossible to answer, of course, since we don't know at what strange places life might be possible. But when changing the gravitational constant, either no galaxies/stars would form or stars would burn up too quickly so at least life as we know it would become impossible. Not sure if same holds for the Boltzmann constant. | |
| Jan 22, 2016 at 3:44 | comment | added | Greg Petersen | I guess it depends on what you mean by "The universe as we know it". Can't you make your same argument about the gravitational constant? | |
| Jan 22, 2016 at 3:30 | comment | added | pfnuesel | Which would mean we would live on Mercury or Neptune, rather than on Earth? It's not really answering the question, though I don't think it can be answered easily. | |
| Jan 22, 2016 at 3:07 | history | answered | Greg Petersen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |