Timeline for Why are these equations valid despite seemingly inconsistent units?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan 22, 2016 at 16:34 | comment | added | user4437416 | Though Salpeter was a perspicacious physicist, both of us graduate students cannot make sense of this. It's quite frustrating, for I want to try to incorporate the paper's electrical and thermal conductivities, if only I could make sense of these limiting conventions. | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 16:31 | history | rollback | David Z |
Rollback to Revision 1
|
|
Jan 22, 2016 at 16:31 | comment | added | David Z | Oh, right, I wasn't paying attention. Nah, I can't make any sense of that one. | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 15:31 | comment | added | user4437416 | Thank you. But doing so would leave a number in units of esu (electrostatic units), which I understand to be equivalent to charge or statC which can be expressed alternatively as $cm^{3/2}g^{1/2}s^{-1}$. But apparently the electrical conductivity in cgs units can be given by 1/s or s^-1. How does this fit into our understanding? | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 14:09 | comment | added | David Z | I've edited accordingly. | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 14:09 | history | edited | David Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
add a note about equation 10
|
Jan 22, 2016 at 12:50 | comment | added | user4437416 | Ok. We can treat the density to be a pure number if we want to calculate. but what of equation 10? But how does this fit into making sense of equation 10? | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 5:50 | history | answered | David Z | CC BY-SA 3.0 |