Talk:Stoney units

uh, there's a problem.
The five constants said to be normalized by Stoney are the same five constants that Planck units normalize. So that would mean that Stoney units are the same as Planck units, and I don't think that is the case. In that list of 5 is Planck's constant, ħ or h-bar, and there is where I believe the error is. Stoney units normalize the elementary charge e, not ħ.

This article should be made to be consistent with the Natural units article, specifically the section on Stoney units.

Also, why not just title this article Stoney units? 74.104.160.199 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Plesure for yours interest to the subject. I take more account to the physical scale of matter then to the normalization procedure.195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Normalization procedure" is a very delicate problem. Note that I add Table for Planck units which differs from the units presented in Planck units by normalization only... It is often leads to the "holy wars" between different scools.195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems that was a mistake. I also agree that "Stoney units" would be the better title. J IM ptalk·cont 19:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is dedicated more to scales then to units.195.47.212.108 (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

relationship between mass and electric charge
Fascinating article. Absolutely fascinating. Please, please, please expand on the statement 'The above fundamental constants define naturally the following relationship between mass and electric charge'. $$m_S = e\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon_E}{\epsilon_G}} = e\sqrt{\frac{\mu_E}{\mu_G}} = e\sqrt{\frac{\rho_{E0}}{\rho_{G0}}} \ $$ Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes this is true, exept

$$m_S = e\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon_G}{\epsilon_E}} \ $$  You know, these copy-paste operations are so boring.195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On your user page, there are the Bohr scale velosity... The true value should be:
 * $$v_B = \omega_B\cdot a_B = \frac{\hbar}{2m_0a_B} = \frac{\alpha c}{2}. \ $$

This value is presented in graphene too.195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ☺ Thank you. BTW, in the planck scale some of the fundamental constants become dimensionless. The article doesnt specifically say whether any do in the Stoney scale so I assume that they do not. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The "normalization procedure" couldn't remove any physical DIMENSION. Therefore, even when the light velocity is equal to "1", the dimension (m/s) remained.195.47.212.108 (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

gravitational fine structure constant
According to the article Fine structure constant, α is the velocity of the electron in the ground state of the Bohr atom (edit:divided by c). So what the heck does that make αG? Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to Zommerfeld the dimensionless parameter got name the"fine structure constant (FSC)"... However this parameter defines the INTERACTION only. So, we have the "strong FSC" at the Planck scale, the "electromagnetic FSC" at the Stoney scale and the "gravitational FSC" at the "Natural scale". Note that we should to differ the SCALEs and LEVELs of matter (will be considered later). The only constant remained is the "weak FSC". In due time I define this value. Considering that FSCs are dimensionless, they couldn't be any dimension parameter such as velocity. However in some cases velocity could be proportional to the FSC.195.47.212.108 (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its just that I cant see any possible connection between the strength of the electric interaction and the angular momentum of particle or the velocity of the electron in a Bohr atom divided by c. Moreover, the formula for the electric interation is e^2/4πϵr^2. the only connection between all these that i can imagine is that they would be involved in determining the Bohr radius. I plugged in the Bohr radius but all I got was an identity. very confused. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You see, the s.c. "Bohr radius" (energy, frequency, etc.) is the SCALING parameter only, defined by Shrodinger equation. So, any classical interpretation leads to nowere.195.47.212.108 (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

magnetic moment
What is the formula for calculating magnetic moment in stoney scale units? Is it the same as for calculating angular momentum with charge replacing mass? Is the factor of 2 still there? Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a delicate problem... I'l see during weekend.195.47.212.108 (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At the Stoney level there are no particle like "proton". Therefore, atomic-like structure will be like positronium with "effective mass" two times lesser then Stoney mass.

So, the Stoney scale magneton will be:
 * $$\mu_{SB} = \frac{e\hbar}{2m_{Spos}} = \frac{e\hbar}{m_S}, \ $$

where $$m_{Spos} = \frac{m_Sm_S}{m_S + m_S} $$ effective mass for atomic-like structure. However, that is supposition only.195.47.212.108 (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Stoney scale units → Stoney units — The term "Stoney scale units" is not often used. "Stoney units" is much more common. A more correct and more modern name would be "Stoney system of units". This term, however, is not commonly used neither. Kehrli (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Google  gets far more hits for Stoney scale units. What's the basis for the claim that "Stoney units" is much more common? Andrewa (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The google results for "stoney scale units" seem polluted by wikipedia as you go through the list...even with your clever "-wikipedia" search term. Google books OTOH has 18 hits for "stoney units" and just 2 for "stoney scale units", both of which are wikipedia-related. Therefore I agree with Kehrli, it should be moved. :-) --Steve (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide the links to your Google books searches, and any other evidence you have. Agree that the Google searches are polluted, but I get 3600 ghits versus 540, and the Wikipedia hits don't explain a ratio of more than 6:1. The claim that The term "Stoney scale units" is not often used. "Stoney units" is much more common is still in serious trouble IMO. Andrewa (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * google book search for "stoney scale units" -- 2 hits, both are republished wikipedia articles. google book search for "stoney units" has ~10 legitimate reliable-source results.


 * If you're not sure how wikipedia hits can explain a ratio of 6:1, try looking at the actual results here. How many can you find independent of wikipedia? Zero? One? I couldn't find even one out of the first 30 results. I did find lots of spam. Spam can very easily account for many thousands of results in a search like that.


 * I would go further than Kehrli: We should never mention the phrase "Stoney scale units" in the entire article, just "Stoney units". Unless you can find any reliable source that uses the phrase "Stoney scale units". I can't find any. On the other hand, we do have several reliable sources for the term "Stoney units" (those google books search results). :-) --Steve (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Steve and would like to add that the term "scale" in this context is old-school. Modern metrology uses "units" and "sytstem of units" instead of "scales". You don't hear of the "kg-scale" or the "meter-scale". I just checked in the VIM (International vocabulary of metrology — Basic and general concepts and associated terms). Scale is only used for traditional units like the "Richter scale". Wikipedia should represent "state of the art" and not what is most common on Google. It is an encyclopedia, not a history book. Therefore, even if "Stoney scale units" were more frequent than "Stoney units" (which it isn't) we should use "Stoney units" because it aligns better with VIM. VIM sets the gold standard. Kehrli (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Preserving the word 'scale' is consistent with the notion that Stoney units have historical significance but quite frankly it's six of one and half a dozen of the other and I don't think it really matters what you name it. Let's try to be sincere - the stoney units already receive some coverage in the article on George Johnstone Stoney and in the article on Natural units. This article was established by an editor whose views are not mainstream and it has since been eviscerated by editors who regard the topic as something of an embarrassment to be got rid of somehow. For example there are two papers that used to have external links (one is a preprint, the other is an Apeiron paper) and those links have not been preserved - they're not mainstream. The founding author constructed elaborate tables of quantities expressed in Stoney units and those have all been removed - they're not mainstream. The sincere thing to do now is to delete the entire article as irrelevant to mainstream physics. So what's stopping you? McZeus (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The same author who created Stoney scale units also created Plank scale units. The latter was renamed to Plank units a long time ago. Therefore renaming to Stoney units would be more consitent.
 * I agree that all those articles could be deleted because they are in effect already part of natural units. Unfortunately natural units is maintained by authors that also have non-mainstream views and important details are wrong. In some way Stoney scale units is now a better article than the Stoney section in natural units.
 * I get 10 Google hits for "Stoney scale units" and 76 hits for "Stoney units"
 * Scale should be in the plural. Stoney suggested several units and thereby several scales.
 * "Stoney scale units" is a pleonasm
 * Tradition: Stoney himself in his original paper was talking about units.
 * Kehrli (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, articles like Planck units and Natural units are a problem. They are often edited by banned users who come back cunningly disguized with number plates for false moustaches. The banned user, User:Rbj, is still busy editing them and he has also been editing this one. He is based in Masachussetts/Vermont and some recent contributions by him are listed here and here and here and here and here (a small sample). Why admins ban somebody and then fail to police the ban I don't know. Contributors like that are one reason I no longer bother editing science articles. The guy who created this article however was a well-meaning editor who, as far as I know, never ventured into edit wars. A bit of tactful advice and help might have been a better approach than taking a meat axe to his work. But let's face it - natural units such as Stoney units are relevant only to theoretical physics and that is now so removed from experimental physics that it has become almost a religion and heretics deserve to get the chop - don't they? On the other hand, banned users thrive like roses. Strange world we live in. McZeus (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * McZeus,
 * I remember User:Rbj and I just looked up a discussion I had with him 4 years ago. I am glad to hear that he got banned.
 * Reading this discussion from 4 years ago made me realize that I am on the verge to having the same discussion again with two other clowns about the Kendrick mass and Kendrick (unit).
 * I agree that the original article was "corrected" too fast. It seemed very interesting.
 * Kehrli (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a bit of good news - Rbj's IP has now been hardblocked, so he won't be back again (at least for a time). You should make hay while the sun shines. On the other hand, I think there might be at least one other banned user still active at articles like Planck units and Natural units. Sorry I can't do more to help you out - it's no longer my territory. Good luck! McZeus (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Back to the original move proposal, support, per arguments given, and no mention of "Stoney scale units" on Google scholar.--Kotniski (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Based upon what looks to me to be a clear consensus, I have gone ahead and completed the move.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Where are the "derived" Stoney units?
By "derived," I mean the units of length, time, energy, mass, etc. that can be calculated based on the initial physical constants. Really, all this article does at the moment is compare Stoney units with Planck units, and I think that Mr. Stoney deserves a bit more credit than that. After all, he was the first to come up with a system of natural units. If no one wants to go through the trouble of actually calculating/snooping around for the Stoney units, they can just use this handy table from the Wikipedia article on Natural units:

Chart
Is there any reason why that chart →

shouldn't be in the article?

Curious George 334905 (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Already there. 83.30.30.92 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Physical meaning of the Stoney Mass - Potential conflict of interest
For a brief period of time I have edited the main page adding a short section reporting a new finding regarding the nature of the Stoney Mass

But I have released soon after that this may be seen as a conflict of interest issue because the finding I was reporting comes from a peer reviewed published article, of which I am the author. So I have withdrawn the update and found that my proposal may be put for review here.

The finding is very important for anybody interested in the subject of the page. The real meaning of the Stoney is revealed and there is no way it can do back because of the simple algebraic reasoning, which short version is in the proposed new section below.

If you do not want me to be the editor, please review and do this your own way

The theory of H. Weyl, adopting the Stoney length   to serve as representative of gravitational unit of charge has come close to the explanation of its physical significance. No clear interpretation of the Stoney mass existed until a 2003 publication [14] providing the explanation of its physical meaning. According to this explanation, the Stoney mass does not represent any physical mass, but has a one-to-one correspondence with the electron charge. The rationale of this rather unusual claim, is the effect of the deliberate choice in establishing SI base units of mass (kg) and the electric charge derived unit (coulomb: C = As), which are inherently incommensurable in SI, as well as in CGS units. The commensurability of physical quantities may depend on the definition of base units in a given system. The experimental “Rationalized Metric System (RMS) developed in [14] eliminates the SI mass and charge units (kg and As, respectively), which both become derived units with dimensions of [m3 s-2]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×1021, that is the square root of the electric to gravitational force ratio for the electron. The conversion of the Stoney mass from SI to RMS is as follows:

With the electron charge e in SI, the conversion expression to the RMS charge unit is:

$${\bar{e}}= {e}\sqrt{\frac{4 \pi G}{\epsilon_0}}$$,

and for the SI mass m to the RMS mass units :

$$ {\bar{m}} = 4\pi{Gm} $$.

Converting the Stoney mass to RMS units yields:

$${4}\pi{Gm}_{S}={e}\sqrt{\frac{4 \pi G}{\epsilon_0}}\text{ ≡ }\bar{e}\text{.}$$

This is the exact representation of the electron charge in the RMS units, not combined with other fundamental constants as it is the case in the Stoney mass SI representation, hence the Stoney mass does not represent any real mass quantity which is an artifact of units of measure in SI.

Reference:

[14] Wutke, A. (23 November 2023). "From Newton to universal Planck natural units – disentangling the constants of nature". J. Phys. Commun. 7 (11).

AndrewWutke (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm moving this to the Wikiproject Physics talk page to see if there is a neutral subject expert who can review. Spintendo  04:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I have undone the "move" as this is the proper location. I have also added an edit COI tag (but anyone is free to remove or disable it if they feel the WT:PHYS cross-post is more useful). Primefac (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. According to their website, the Journal of Physics Communications is peer-reviewed. I've gone ahead and implemented the text, however, I'm concerned about the journal's relatively low impact factor, so I'm eager to hear what other editors think about this.
 * Regards, Spintendo  11:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is an IOP Publishing journal, not a predatory organization so I would not be concerned about the impact factor. The content is outside my expertise so I can't say more. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This paper seems to have dubious merit, is new and is a primary source, and I suspect that Journal of Physics Communications is at the don't-bother-with-this end of the IOP journals ( would be far more reliable for commenting on specific journal quality). The paper acknowledges Espen Gaader Haug, who who has published many papers in this area and is heavily cited – almost exclusively by himself.  The style of this paper is very similar to those of Haug's.
 * On the content: All that seems to be said is that, in the Newtonian limit, there is a mass that corresponds the charge of the electron in terms of the force experienced between a pair of them. So does this even merit a mention?  —Quondum 16:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Writing an entire section based entirely upon the paper that is, at this moment, literally the most recent they have published is the opposite of what we should be doing. WP:UNDUE, WP:PRIMARY, etc. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Journal of Physics Communications: it seems too obscure to have developed a definitive reputation for being bad (like, e.g., NeuroQuantology) or for just not having a filter (like Entropy or Scientific Reports). It does seem to have published grand claims backed at best by dimensional analysis, moderately boastful talk about having quantized gravity (that seems to have been ignored by everyone except its authors), a head-scratcher of a claim to have solved the cosmological constant problem , etc. Oh, and they've also published Espen Gaarder Haug claiming that all physicists everywhere are wrong about gravity , as well as a desperate attempt to assert that black holes do not exist . All in all, it looks like a journal that is seldom anyone's first choice of publication venue. That would account for its contents being mostly too unremarkable to stand out, with the occasional ... offbeat exception.  Even if we set aside all the indications that the peer review over there might not be very good, it's still the case that passing peer review is a low bar &mdash; even at a good journal, you might only need to convince two or three people! &mdash; and that by itself isn't enough to ensure inclusion in an encyclopedia. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Communications journals tend to be by nature fairly permissive on what they accept because they intend to foster debate and rebuttals, i.e. generate feedback about ideas. Said feedback can be author communication via email, or other replies in the journal. They can publish a letter / article under the banner of 'this could be interesting to some and some of you may want to pay attention' without endorsing that everything in the article / author's main point is valid.
 * I personally found the article a generally interesting read, but being utterly unable to wrap my head around cgs/gaussian units, can't comment on the validity of anything related to that topic.
 * Anyway, clearing peer review just means you get to be part of the conversation amongst serious scientists, not that what you put forward is true and unquestionable. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, what we need to see is external endorsement beyond clearing peer-review. If that hasn't happened, then WP:UNDUE applies. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And since it was published less than a week ago, WP:UNDUE definitely applies. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all I want to thank Headbomb, Quondum, Ldm1954 and XOR&#39;easter for their near-instantaneous replies and feedback, it's so much appreciated. I think from this discussion that it's clear that the information should not have been added by me, so my thanks to XOR&#39;easter for reverting it. It's rare that I get an edit request in the realm of physics, which is definitely out of my league, so I really appreciate the feedback, and to Primefac for helping to steer the conversation where it needed to go. Many thanks! Regards, Spintendo  09:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear Wikipedia Editors. As the author proposing this addition, I would like to offer my concluding thoughts on this matter. I comprehend and respect the rationale behind your decision to delete my edit, and appreciate the consistent application of the scientific method on a micro scale to resolve the problem. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to address some unfounded claims.
 * One such claim is that this short communication and its source lack merit without any evidence to support it. It is crucial to recognize that a unit conversion equation between two systems of units establishes a one-to-one correspondence between the physical quantity representative symbols by definition. For instance, when converting the electron mass from SI to another system, the same mass quantity is retained in the other system with a unique accented symbol employed to prevent confusion. The same applies to the electric or electron charge in this particular case. It is incorrect to interpret the result of conversion of the Stoney mass, as a mass of the same magnitude as the electron charge in compatible units, as suggested by the editor. Similarly, it would be incorrect to interpret the converted electron mass as a very small charge, because it has the same units.The original Stoney mass was defined by an ad hoc combination of constants and its conversion to electron charge was determined using conversion rules (to my surprise). The symbols possess a fixed physical meaning prior to conversion process, and algebraic operations using conversion expressions cannot change their physical meaning. There are no other ways to interpret that. Out-of-merit allegations include discrediting the author for the truthful disclosure of Prof. Haug's publications while referring to carefully verified facts supporting the reasoning. In particular, the crucial possibility of measuring Planck units and any mass in RMS units, without reference to the gravitational constant. Additionally you take an acknowledgement of Mr Haugh contribution against me. Finally, the defaming allegation of writing in the style of Prof. Haug is serious and incredible, as the core of my paper was written before I became aware of Prof. Haug. I hope that you have solid forensic text analysis evidence to support your claim. This is my final statement and no discussion will continue with my participation. Let the scientific method take its course
 * . AndrewWutke (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * , you deserve credit for being transparent and upfront, and I have treated you quite roughly, especially given that you have not done much editing of Wikipedia. Don't be affronted, though: the way things happen here is probably fairly different from what you'd expect.
 * Of us, only you seem to think that debating unit systems will help to understand the "physical meaning" of a specific quantity of mass. Anyhow, that argument is effectively closed here, since this talk page is for communicating about the article content.  —Quondum 18:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Citation style
The footnote style wandered all over the place, so I standardized it on citation templates. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks – I'd started that in a gap of self-diversion. Though I was largely mechanically adding the template, not properly checking the citation, so probably with many errors.  I tend to think using this family of templates is useful to ensure a "house style".  —Quondum 17:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If it weren't for self-diversion, what would ever get done around here? :-) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)