4 ms·

511 keV and 938 MeV would have been much clearer than a distinction via comma/point like in 510,998 -> . <- 950 eV and 938,272 -> , <- 088 eV.

gus_massa 5y ago
I agree that the coma/point distinction is confusing. Also, I'd like to cut all the numbers in the same digit, but the next digit of the proton is too dubious. What about this version: > [an upper bound of 0.9 eV] For comparison, the mass of an electron is approximately 510998.9 eV and the mass of a proton is 938272088.0 eV.
- cecilpl2 5y ago
  I would just round to the nearest eV and keep the commas. > the mass of an electron is approximately 510,999 eV and the mass of a proton is 938,272,088 eV. This reads best to me.
panda-giddiness 5y ago
I know we're just bikeshedding now, but neutrino: 0. 8 eV/c^2 electron: 510 000. 0 eV/c^2 proton: 940 000 000. 0 eV/c^2 (Note: neutrino mass is given as the upper limit.)
- _Microft 5y ago
  The first value has one, the others two significant figures in this example. The decimal point is also giving a false sense of certainty when used like this. You can find more about significant figures at Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
  - panda-giddiness 5y ago
    Yes, I know about significant figures. In fact, I considered adding a note about sig figs before deciding it was too minor of a nitpick to elaborate on. Elsewhere in this thread, people have already listed these masses to much greater precision than almost anyone needs (including me, a practicing physicist); obviously people can infer I'm rounding from context. Of course, if you were to present the masses this way without context, you should add a note about rounding.
parineum 5y ago
I find that significantly less clear. In fact, I find it so unintuitive that I didn't even notice the units changed and thought you'd made a mistake in magnitude before I finished your sentence and I went back. Comparisons should always be done in like units.

gus_massa 5y ago

I agree that the coma/point distinction is confusing. Also, I'd like to cut all the numbers in the same digit, but the next digit of the proton is too dubious. What about this version: > [an upper bound of 0.9 eV] For comparison, the mass of an electron is approximately 510998.9 eV and the mass of a proton is 938272088.0 eV.

cecilpl2 5y ago
I would just round to the nearest eV and keep the commas. > the mass of an electron is approximately 510,999 eV and the mass of a proton is 938,272,088 eV. This reads best to me.

panda-giddiness 5y ago

I know we're just bikeshedding now, but neutrino: 0. 8 eV/c^2 electron: 510 000. 0 eV/c^2 proton: 940 000 000. 0 eV/c^2 (Note: neutrino mass is given as the upper limit.)

_Microft 5y ago
The first value has one, the others two significant figures in this example. The decimal point is also giving a false sense of certainty when used like this. You can find more about significant figures at Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures
- panda-giddiness 5y ago
  Yes, I know about significant figures. In fact, I considered adding a note about sig figs before deciding it was too minor of a nitpick to elaborate on. Elsewhere in this thread, people have already listed these masses to much greater precision than almost anyone needs (including me, a practicing physicist); obviously people can infer I'm rounding from context. Of course, if you were to present the masses this way without context, you should add a note about rounding.

parineum 5y ago

I find that significantly less clear. In fact, I find it so unintuitive that I didn't even notice the units changed and thought you'd made a mistake in magnitude before I finished your sentence and I went back. Comparisons should always be done in like units.