Are Units Truly Fundamental in Physics According to Duff's Theory?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter exponent137
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

In his theory, Michael Duff asserts that elementary units do not exist in a fundamental sense. He argues that dimensionful physical constants, such as the speed of light (c), gravitational constant (G), reduced Planck constant (\hbar), permittivity of free space (\epsilon_0), and Boltzmann constant (k_B), are not intrinsic properties of nature but rather expressions dependent on the units chosen. Duff emphasizes that using Planck units eliminates these constants, highlighting that only dimensionless parameters, like the fine-structure constant (\alpha) and the mass ratio of protons to electrons (m_p/m_e), retain physical significance.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of fundamental physics concepts, including physical constants.
  • Familiarity with dimensional analysis and unit systems.
  • Knowledge of Planck units and their significance in theoretical physics.
  • Basic grasp of dimensionless parameters in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of using Planck units in theoretical physics.
  • Explore the significance of dimensionless parameters in quantum field theory.
  • Study Michael Duff's other works on the foundations of physics.
  • Investigate the relationship between units and physical constants in various physical theories.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in theoretical physics, and students interested in the foundational aspects of physical laws and the role of units in scientific measurements.

exponent137
Messages
563
Reaction score
35
In article
http://iopscience.iop.org/1126-6708/2002/03/023
Duff claims that elementary units physically does not exist. It is easy to imagine that a kilogram, a meter and a second are all expressed in one unit, for instance second. But it is not easy to imagine, how to calculate without use of any unit?
Are here any examples?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
here's another link to the same paper:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0110060

and this is another paper from Duff about essentially the same issue.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093

Duff is not saying anything about units, per se. what he is saying is that dimensionful physical constants are not fundamental but, ultimately, expressions of the units we choose to express these constants with. and that Nature doesn't give a rat's a$$ what units humans (or whatever other intelligent being) decides to use for units.

Duff is saying that it is operationally meaningless in physics to talk of variation of dimensionful parameters such as [itex]c[/itex] or [itex]G[/itex] or [itex]\hbar[/itex] or [itex]\epsilon_0[/itex] or [itex]k_B[/itex] (all these physical constants go away when Planck units are used) but it is meaningful to detect a variation in dimensionless parameters such as [itex]\alpha[/itex] or [itex]m_p/m_e[/itex].
 

Similar threads

Graduate Looking Under the Hood of Feynman Diagrams
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate Can Cosmic Inflation and String Theory change fundamental laws?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Graduate Are entangled particle outcomes determined by the unit circle?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Graduate What would it mean if symmetries in physics would not be fundamental?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate States in usual QM/QFT and in the algebraic approach
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Explaining the Hubble tension with fundamental physics
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Graduate Equivalence Classes in Physics: Tutorial Papers & Relationship to Units
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Trying To Conceptualize Two Dimensions Of Time
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Graduate Multiverse theory with impossible universes?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate MOND Theory Primer: Stacy McGaugh's Research Program Explored
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K