deriving fundamental constants [Archive]

alistair

Jun29-04, 05:37 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>An ultimate theory of physics would be one in which fundamental\nconstants like\nplanck\'s constant and the gravitational constant could all be\npredicted without any experimental data being used to deduce the value\nof the constants.But,in principle,can such a theory exist?\nConstants tend to be composed of units of length, time, speed etc.\nUnits are not independent of one another: a metre can be defined as\nthe length of a certain piece of metal that has a particular\ncross-sectional area, density and temperature at a particular\npressure.These variables amount to a set of criteria that are fixed by\na process of measurement - by gathering experimental data.It is\ntherefore difficult to see how a fundamental constant could be be\npredicted independently of experimental data.\nCan anyone think of a way of bypassing experimental data, that would\nallow a fundamental constant to be predicted ?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>An ultimate theory of physics would be one in which fundamental
constants like
planck's constant and the gravitational constant could all be
predicted without any experimental data being used to deduce the value
of the constants.But,in principle,can such a theory exist?
Constants tend to be composed of units of length, time, speed etc.
Units are not independent of one another: a metre can be defined as
the length of a certain piece of metal that has a particular
cross-sectional area, density and temperature at a particular
pressure.These variables amount to a set of criteria that are fixed by
a process of measurement - by gathering experimental data.It is
therefore difficult to see how a fundamental constant could be be
predicted independently of experimental data.
Can anyone think of a way of bypassing experimental data, that would
allow a fundamental constant to be predicted ?

Jerzy Karczmarczuk

Jun30-04, 10:05 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>alistair wrote:\n> An ultimate theory of physics would be one in which fundamental\n> constants like\n> planck\'s constant and the gravitational constant could all be\n> predicted without any experimental data being used to deduce the value\n> of the constants.But,in principle,can such a theory exist?\n\n\n> Can anyone think of a way of bypassing experimental data, that would\n> allow a fundamental constant to be predicted ?\n\nSure.\nI\'ll skip the details, here you are the results.\n\nh = 1.\nc = 1\nThe rest is considered a homework.\n\nPlease, don\'t think I am just cynical. But it is fairly obvious that our\nPHYSICAL UNITS are defined in a way which depends on the universal constants.\nOf cours 1/137 is another story...\n\n\nJerzy Karczmarczuk\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>alistair wrote:
> An ultimate theory of physics would be one in which fundamental
> constants like
> planck's constant and the gravitational constant could all be
> predicted without any experimental data being used to deduce the value
> of the constants.But,in principle,can such a theory exist?

> Can anyone think of a way of bypassing experimental data, that would
> allow a fundamental constant to be predicted ?

Sure.
I'll skip the details, here you are the results.

h = 1.
c = 1
The rest is considered a homework.

Please, don't think I am just cynical. But it is fairly obvious that our
PHYSICAL UNITS are defined in a way which depends on the universal constants.
Of cours 1/137 is another story...

Jerzy Karczmarczuk

J. J. Lodder

Jul2-04, 04:31 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nJerzy Karczmarczuk <karczma@info.unicaen.fr> wrote:\n\n> alistair wrote:\n> > An ultimate theory of physics would be one in which fundamental\n> > constants like\n> > planck\'s constant and the gravitational constant could all be\n> > predicted without any experimental data being used to deduce the value\n> > of the constants.But,in principle,can such a theory exist?\n>\n>\n> > Can anyone think of a way of bypassing experimental data, that would\n> > allow a fundamental constant to be predicted ?\n>\n> Sure.\n> I\'ll skip the details, here you are the results.\n>\n> h = 1.\n> c = 1\n> The rest is considered a homework.\n>\n> Please, don\'t think I am just cynical. But it is fairly obvious that our\n> PHYSICAL UNITS are defined in a way which depends on the universal constants.\n> Of cours 1/137 is another story...\n\nBut that story is somewhat more complicated\nthan you would think at first sight.\nYou can choose units in which alpha equals 1.\nIn fact, that is what Planck did, originally.\n\nAnd we -can- pick a quarrel about G being 1 or something else.\n\nJan\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Jerzy Karczmarczuk <karczma@info.unicaen.fr> wrote:

> alistair wrote:
> > An ultimate theory of physics would be one in which fundamental
> > constants like
> > planck's constant and the gravitational constant could all be
> > predicted without any experimental data being used to deduce the value
> > of the constants.But,in principle,can such a theory exist?
>
>
> > Can anyone think of a way of bypassing experimental data, that would
> > allow a fundamental constant to be predicted ?
>
> Sure.
> I'll skip the details, here you are the results.
>
> h = 1.
> c = 1
> The rest is considered a homework.
>
> Please, don't think I am just cynical. But it is fairly obvious that our
> PHYSICAL UNITS are defined in a way which depends on the universal constants.
> Of cours 1/137 is another story...

But that story is somewhat more complicated
than you would think at first sight.
You can choose units in which \alpha equals 1.
In fact, that is what Planck did, originally.

And we -can- pick a quarrel about G being 1 or something else.

Jan

Thomas Dent

Jul2-04, 05:01 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nJerzy Karczmarczuk <karczma@info.unicaen.fr> wrote in message\n\n> > alistair wrote:\n> > An ultimate theory of physics would be one in which fundamental\n> > constants like\n> > planck\'s constant and the gravitational constant could all be\n> > predicted without any experimental data being used to deduce the value\n> > of the constants.But,in principle,can such a theory exist?\n>\n>\n> > Can anyone think of a way of bypassing experimental data, that would\n> > allow a fundamental constant to be predicted ?\n>\n> h = 1.\n> c = 1\n> The rest is considered a homework.\n>\n> Please, don\'t think I am just cynical. But it is fairly obvious that our\n> PHYSICAL UNITS are defined in a way which depends on the universal constants.\n> Of cours 1/137 is another story...\n>\n>\n> Jerzy Karczmarczuk\n\n\nYou missed G = 1/8pi (reduced Planck units).\n\nSeriously though folks, as I said in my other post, all meaningful\nmeasurements in physics are dimensionless ratios. And there are an\nawful lot of them out there - for example the ratio of the mass of a\ngalaxy to that of a star, or the mass of a star to that of an atom, or\nthe mass of an atom to that of an electron.\n\nNow get predictin\'!\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Jerzy Karczmarczuk <karczma@info.unicaen.fr> wrote in message

> > alistair wrote:
> > An ultimate theory of physics would be one in which fundamental
> > constants like
> > planck's constant and the gravitational constant could all be
> > predicted without any experimental data being used to deduce the value
> > of the constants.But,in principle,can such a theory exist?
>
>
> > Can anyone think of a way of bypassing experimental data, that would
> > allow a fundamental constant to be predicted ?
>
> h = 1.
> c = 1
> The rest is considered a homework.
>
> Please, don't think I am just cynical. But it is fairly obvious that our
> PHYSICAL UNITS are defined in a way which depends on the universal constants.
> Of cours 1/137 is another story...
>
>
> Jerzy Karczmarczuk

You missed G = 1/8pi (reduced Planck units).

Seriously though folks, as I said in my other post, all meaningful
measurements in physics are dimensionless ratios. And there are an
awful lot of them out there - for example the ratio of the mass of a
galaxy to that of a star, or the mass of a star to that of an atom, or
the mass of an atom to that of an electron.

Now get predictin'!

robert bristow-johnson

Jul4-04, 07:39 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nIn article 1gg8nvd.1rs3mqs10g71dlN@de-ster.xs4all.nl, J. J. Lodder at\nnospam@de-ster.demon.nl wrote on 07/02/2004 05:31:\n\n>\n> Jerzy Karczmarczuk <karczma@info.unicaen.fr> wrote:\n>\n>> alistair wrote:\n>>> An ultimate theory of physics would be one in which fundamental\n>>> constants like\n>>> planck\'s constant and the gravitational constant could all be\n>>> predicted without any experimental data being used to deduce the value\n>>> of the constants.But,in principle,can such a theory exist?\n>>\n>>\n>>> Can anyone think of a way of bypassing experimental data, that would\n>>> allow a fundamental constant to be predicted ?\n>>\n>> Sure.\n>> I\'ll skip the details, here you are the results.\n>>\n>> h = 1.\n\nwhy not h = 2*pi? (so that hbar = 1.)\n\n>> c = 1\n>> The rest is considered a homework.\n\nhow about G?\n\n>>\n>> Please, don\'t think I am just cynical. But it is fairly obvious that our\n>> PHYSICAL UNITS are defined in a way which depends on the universal constants.\n>> Of cours 1/137 is another story...\n>\n> But that story is somewhat more complicated\n> than you would think at first sight.\n> You can choose units in which alpha equals 1.\n\nwould that be a dimensionless 1, JJ? if so, what would those units be?\n\n> In fact, that is what Planck did, originally.\n>\n> And we -can- pick a quarrel about G being 1 or something else.\n\ni don\'t wanna pick a quarrel. only because i don\'t wanna get slapped down\nfor the Nth time on this n.g. it\'s just that this sounds like the same\nthink as saying F=(Q*q)/r^2 *and* that epsilon0=1. like you can have your\ncake and eat it too.\n\nr b-j\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article 1gg8nvd.1rs3mqs10g71dlN@de-ster.xs4all.nl, J. J. Lodder at
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl wrote on 07/02/2004 05:31:

>
> Jerzy Karczmarczuk <karczma@info.unicaen.fr> wrote:
>
>> alistair wrote:
>>> An ultimate theory of physics would be one in which fundamental
>>> constants like
>>> planck's constant and the gravitational constant could all be
>>> predicted without any experimental data being used to deduce the value
>>> of the constants.But,in principle,can such a theory exist?
>>
>>
>>> Can anyone think of a way of bypassing experimental data, that would
>>> allow a fundamental constant to be predicted ?
>>
>> Sure.
>> I'll skip the details, here you are the results.
>>
>> h = 1.

why not h = 2*\pi? (so that \hbar = 1.)

>> c = 1
>> The rest is considered a homework.

how about G?

>>
>> Please, don't think I am just cynical. But it is fairly obvious that our
>> PHYSICAL UNITS are defined in a way which depends on the universal constants.
>> Of cours 1/137 is another story...
>
> But that story is somewhat more complicated
> than you would think at first sight.
> You can choose units in which \alpha equals 1.

would that be a dimensionless 1, JJ? if so, what would those units be?

> In fact, that is what Planck did, originally.
>
> And we -can- pick a quarrel about G being 1 or something else.

i don't wanna pick a quarrel. only because i don't wanna get slapped down
for the Nth time on this n.g. it's just that this sounds like the same
think as saying F=(Q*q)/r^2 *and* that epsilon0=1. like you can have your
cake and eat it too.

r b-j

robert bristow-johnson

Jul6-04, 01:38 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nIn article 1gg8nvd.1rs3mqs10g71dlN@de-ster.xs4all.nl, J. J. Lodder at\nnospam@de-ster.demon.nl wrote on 07/02/2004 05:31:\n\n>\n> Jerzy Karczmarczuk <karczma@info.unicaen.fr> wrote:\n>\n>> alistair wrote:\n>>> An ultimate theory of physics would be one in which fundamental\n>>> constants like\n>>> planck\'s constant and the gravitational constant could all be\n>>> predicted without any experimental data being used to deduce the value\n>>> of the constants.But,in principle,can such a theory exist?\n>>\n>>\n>>> Can anyone think of a way of bypassing experimental data, that would\n>>> allow a fundamental constant to be predicted ?\n>>\n>> Sure.\n>> I\'ll skip the details, here you are the results.\n>>\n>> h = 1.\n\nwhy not h = 2*pi? (so that hbar = 1.)\n\n>> c = 1\n>> The rest is considered a homework.\n\nhow about G?\n\n>>\n>> Please, don\'t think I am just cynical. But it is fairly obvious that our\n>> PHYSICAL UNITS are defined in a way which depends on the universal constants.\n>> Of cours 1/137 is another story...\n>\n> But that story is somewhat more complicated\n> than you would think at first sight.\n> You can choose units in which alpha equals 1.\n\nwould that be a dimensionless 1, JJ? if so, what would those units be?\n\n> In fact, that is what Planck did, originally.\n>\n> And we -can- pick a quarrel about G being 1 or something else.\n\ni don\'t wanna pick a quarrel. only because i don\'t wanna get slapped down\nfor the Nth time on this n.g. it\'s just that this sounds like the same\nthink as saying F=(Q*q)/r^2 *and* that epsilon0=1. like you can have your\ncake and eat it too.\n\nr b-j\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article 1gg8nvd.1rs3mqs10g71dlN@de-ster.xs4all.nl, J. J. Lodder at
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl wrote on 07/02/2004 05:31:

>
> Jerzy Karczmarczuk <karczma@info.unicaen.fr> wrote:
>
>> alistair wrote:
>>> An ultimate theory of physics would be one in which fundamental
>>> constants like
>>> planck's constant and the gravitational constant could all be
>>> predicted without any experimental data being used to deduce the value
>>> of the constants.But,in principle,can such a theory exist?
>>
>>
>>> Can anyone think of a way of bypassing experimental data, that would
>>> allow a fundamental constant to be predicted ?
>>
>> Sure.
>> I'll skip the details, here you are the results.
>>
>> h = 1.

why not h = 2*\pi? (so that \hbar = 1.)

>> c = 1
>> The rest is considered a homework.

how about G?

>>
>> Please, don't think I am just cynical. But it is fairly obvious that our
>> PHYSICAL UNITS are defined in a way which depends on the universal constants.
>> Of cours 1/137 is another story...
>
> But that story is somewhat more complicated
> than you would think at first sight.
> You can choose units in which \alpha equals 1.

would that be a dimensionless 1, JJ? if so, what would those units be?

> In fact, that is what Planck did, originally.
>
> And we -can- pick a quarrel about G being 1 or something else.

i don't wanna pick a quarrel. only because i don't wanna get slapped down
for the Nth time on this n.g. it's just that this sounds like the same
think as saying F=(Q*q)/r^2 *and* that epsilon0=1. like you can have your
cake and eat it too.

r b-j