Talk:Planck angular frequency

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you follow the link for

unsigned comment was added by 200.162.66.19 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]