Talk:Planck angular frequency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating 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.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Physics because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Physics}} template, removing {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Which angular?

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/t_P? By logic, 1/t_P would be the Planck frequency, measured in Hz, while 2π/t_P would be the Planck angular frequency (or angular speed), measured in rad/s. --Army1987 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)