Talk:Planck angular frequency
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Darryl from Mars in topic Which angular?
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Which angular? edit
If it's an angular frequency, it should probably mention somewhere whether it's radians per Planck time, or rotations/revolutions/cycles per Planck time. I suspect it's probably the former, but not certainly enough to edit. --John Owens | (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I am confused as well. If this is the inverse of a period (of time), then wouldn't it be a frequency as opposed to an angular frequency? Jpkotta 21:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you follow the link for angular frequency, you will see that this term is used for radians per unit of time, so it's the former. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.162.66.19 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
But then, shouldn't it be 2π/tP? By logic, 1/tP would be the Planck frequency, measured in Hz, while 2π/tP would be the Planck angular frequency (or angular speed), measured in rad/s. --Army1987 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Planck units are basically a bit of fun with dimensional analysis; since radians have no more dimension than the number '1' does, angular frequency is just as legitimately represented by inverse time as any other frequency measurement would be. In this case, with h-bar, an omega falls out, rather than a nu.Darryl from Mars (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)