I suppose I could point out that the letter "e" has many more
"universal" meanings that just denoting electric charge, such the base
of the natural logarithm, the identity element in set theory, or even a
musical note. But, today I found that "e" can also stand for "eristic",
a new word I learned while reading the following web page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war
-James Holton
MAD Scientist
Ian Tickle wrote:
>> Yes, I think this is exactly the point. 'Electrons' gives the whole
>> thing a consistent meaning.
>>
>
> The big problem with statements like 'f = 10e' or 'rho = 1.5e/Å^3' is of course that they are dimensionally invalid, and I'm surprised that people are not doing such simple checks! For example I think we've all agreed that 'f' is defined as the ratio of two amplitudes and is therefore dimensionless, whereas 'e' is universally defined as the electronic charge, which in SI units has the value 1.602176487×10^−19 coulombs, but obviously has the dimensions of electric charge (time*electric current in terms of the base SI dimensions). So we have a real apples & oranges situation!
>
> You could of course get around this by redefining 'f' as I suggested previously, as the free point equivalent charge, but to avoid confusion we should call it something else, so let's say:
>
> Notation
> ========
> f: "atomic scattering factor", defined as the ratio of scattered amplitude for an atom to that for a free electron (dimensionless).
> g: "atomic scattering free point equivalent charge", defined as the free point charge which scatters with the same amplitude as the atom (dimensions of electric charge).
>
> Now we can validly write 'g = 10e' since we have dimensions of charge on both sides.
>
> This again highlights the importance of 1) rigorously defining all quantities in use, and 2) that the definition and the dimensions are linked: you cannot arbitrarily change the dimensions of some quantity without also changing its definition, or vice versa; and in particular you can't mix the definition of 'f' with the units of 'g', which is what seems to be happening here!
>
> This logical inconsistency can only be resolved by recognising that 'f' is a pure number so removing the 'e' unit. The same argument obviously applies to anything derived from 'f' such as the structure factor and the electron density.
>
> Cheers
>
> -- Ian
>
>
> Disclaimer
> This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient you must not review, use, disclose, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance upon it. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Astex Therapeutics Ltd by emailing [log in to unmask] and destroy all copies of the message and any attached documents.
> Astex Therapeutics Ltd monitors, controls and protects all its messaging traffic in compliance with its corporate email policy. The Company accepts no liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the Astex Therapeutics domain. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of Astex Therapeutics Ltd. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of computer viruses. Astex Therapeutics Ltd accepts no liability for damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. E-mail is susceptible to data corruption, interception, unauthorized amendment, and tampering, Astex Therapeutics Ltd only send and receive e-mails on the basis that the Company is not liable for any such alteration or any consequences thereof.
> Astex Therapeutics Ltd., Registered in England at 436 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge CB4 0QA under number 3751674
>
>
|