h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hawking also said that he was told that every equation in his book would halve the number of his readers, so he used only one equation. I'd recommend you the same.

So you don't want to re-write your article? A pity, and it means that there is a lot to do:

1. Structure your article. This should be the very first thing to do. Use headers and subheaders, use GuideML if possible but not necessarily.

2. Delete all equations but one or two.

3. Try to write for someone who was taught physics at school but not more.

I disagree with point 2 Cef. Why is it necessary to delete all equations but one or two? I would orient myself on the Quantum Mechanics Entry...

As soon as the equations are explained and made 'edible' for laypeople, I see no problem.



H.

Equations have an intimidating effect on many people. Probably we (in this thread) don't have these feelings, for us equations are quite straightforward. But therefore they should be minimised. In the case of the UP, I think you could write an article with no equation at all, but otherwise $\Delta p \Delta x \le h$ should be enough. All other formulae can be gently avoided by beautiful words.

But I didn't mean point 2 as a law, only as a rule of thumb. The current entry has way to many equations for my taste. If someone is really interested in the exact dependencies, they won't look for it at h2g2. I could like the article with more than one equation, too.

er, I'm a non-scientist, and I can see where Cefpret is coming from.

equally, I wouldn't 'not read' just coz there was more than one equation.

But currently, the entry seems totally unapproachable, to me.

And specifically, I have not idea what it is on about!

just trying to convey the uninformed reader's view.

Some minor quibble:

-- Delete the 'At this present time in history ...'. It makes the impression that in the future we may find a way to overcome the UP. But it's a limit nature has, not our technology.

-- As Astrônomo has already pointed out: 'For large particles [...] the *relative* uncertainty is very small.' And the correct speed of light, or delete it simply.

-- Delete the explanation of mass. It isn't very accurate anyway, and it may be confusing.

-- Delete the explanation of powers of ten.

-- You call *two* equations 'DeBroglie's formula' but only the second one is it.

-- The last sentence can't be understood with your article.

Major quibble:
===========

-- You explain almost all of your terms. You should reduce that greatly. In particular it destroys the line in your argumentation.

-- Please write a simple and succinct version of the UP at the beginning of your entry, and *then* unfold your explanation. Actually the UP is a little bit buried in the middle of the entry.

Thanks for spotting the error with the DeBroglie formula Cefpret!

E = hf is "Planck's" equation for the quantized energy.

Yes, Professor Hawking appears to be a financial genius as well as a genius with theoretical physics!

His more recent book "The Universe in a Nutshell" has all of the "basic" equations though

actually, it is a non-sequitar. In the text you use the equation

E = h*v

which is not strictly relevant to the equation you're talking about, which is

c = lambda*v


dave