PlanetsAreCOOL999
PlanetsAreCOOL999
1 / 4
14th August
30th August
No Description provided.

Comments

  • PlanetsAreCOOL999
    PlanetsAreCOOL999
    26th September
    I DONT WANNA DO ANGSTROMS
  • rooger
    rooger
    31st August
    ohhh yeah wait somethin is wrong, i am getting 1.6e-23 from a simpler method
  • rooger
    rooger
    31st August
    once again check if i got that horribly wrong
  • rooger
    rooger
    31st August
    in picometres, it would be 1.700000000000000036e-23, or 0.00000000000000000000001700000000000000036 pm
  • rooger
    rooger
    31st August
    i put some numbers in a calculator, and whilst this may be extremely wrong, Planck length is around 1.7e-25 Angstroms or 0.00000000000000000000000017 Angstroms, check that ongod bro do not take my word for it
  • OrthogonalCaster
    OrthogonalCaster
    30th August
    Smallest things in the universe: this save's score
  • rooger
    rooger
    18th August
    hopefully that covers it, however if i have made an error then correct it
  • rooger
    rooger
    18th August
    On the wikipedia page for Planck units, it states "The Planck length is about 10^-20 times the diametre of a proton."
  • rooger
    rooger
    18th August
    Protons and neutrons are somewhat confusing, with the charge radius wikipedia page describing a proton as having a radius of roughly one femtometre, whilst the neutron never has the radius described as far as my skimming is concerned (from looking further again, a proton is 1.7x10^-5 Angstroms)
  • rooger
    rooger
    18th August
    As for an atom of hydrogen, I cannot find anything on it, probably because at these scales the size of something, especially an electron cloud, can't be well defined (from looking further, on the wikipedia page Angstrom, the width of a hydrogen atom is about 1.1 Angstroms)