Building a measurement system based on C

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of developing a measurement system based on universal constants, particularly the speed of light (C). Participants explore the implications of using such constants instead of traditional arbitrary units like meters or feet, considering both theoretical and practical aspects of measurement systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose the idea of a measurement system where C=1 unit, suggesting that this could simplify measurements and make them more reflective of universal constants.
  • Others mention that natural units, where c = 1, are commonly used in fields like relativity and particle physics.
  • A participant notes that while the meter is now defined in terms of the speed of light, the choice of a unit of length remains arbitrary, and alternatives like the Bohr radius or Planck distance could be considered.
  • There is a contention regarding whether the speed of light alone can define a measurement system, with some arguing that both length and time units are necessary for a complete definition.
  • One participant emphasizes that the definition of time based on the cesium atom is also arbitrary and suggests that a more natural system might rely on fundamental constants.
  • Another participant suggests looking into Planck units and other fundamental physical constants for further understanding.
  • A final suggestion includes measuring time in nanoseconds and length in feet, with a specified error tolerance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and implications of using universal constants for measurement systems. There is no consensus on whether the speed of light alone is sufficient to define a complete measurement system, and multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in current measurement definitions and the arbitrary nature of certain units. The reliance on specific constants like the cesium atom for time measurement is also questioned, indicating a broader debate on the foundations of measurement systems.

jnorman
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
I always try to assume that pretty much anything I think of has been thought of before, so I am relatively sure that this is also not a new question.

we base our current measurement systems on arbitrary lengths such as the meter or foot, etc. there are certain applications where we use actual physical constants, but in general, all our measurements, since they are based on arbitrary items like the meter, are very awkward numbers with lots of decimal points - hard to remember and not reflective of the real constants of the universe.

so, my question - has someone considered, or actually developed a system of measurement that is based on a true universal constant such as the speed of light - ie, where C=1 unit, or something similar? where can I read about this topic?

thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jnorman said:
so, my question - has someone considered, or actually developed a system of measurement that is based on a true universal constant such as the speed of light - ie, where C=1 unit, or something similar? where can I read about this topic?
It's very common to use units where c = 1 in relativity and particle physics. See: Natural units
 
jnorman said:
I always try to assume that pretty much anything I think of has been thought of before, so I am relatively sure that this is also not a new question.

we base our current measurement systems on arbitrary lengths such as the meter or foot, etc. there are certain applications where we use actual physical constants, but in general, all our measurements, since they are based on arbitrary items like the meter, are very awkward numbers with lots of decimal points - hard to remember and not reflective of the real constants of the universe.

so, my question - has someone considered, or actually developed a system of measurement that is based on a true universal constant such as the speed of light - ie, where C=1 unit, or something similar? where can I read about this topic?

thanks.
The meter used to be defined as a physical length but now it is defined as how far light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second, so yes, your idea has already been thought of and implemented.
 
gentlemen - thanks for your responses - the wiki article on natural units was quite helpful.
 
jnorman said:
I always try to assume that pretty much anything I think of has been thought of before, so I am relatively sure that this is also not a new question.

we base our current measurement systems on arbitrary lengths such as the meter or foot, etc. there are certain applications where we use actual physical constants, but in general, all our measurements, since they are based on arbitrary items like the meter, are very awkward numbers with lots of decimal points - hard to remember and not reflective of the real constants of the universe.

so, my question - has someone considered, or actually developed a system of measurement that is based on a true universal constant such as the speed of light - ie, where C=1 unit, or something similar? where can I read about this topic?

thanks.

The speed of light isn't sufficient to have a system of measurements, because you still need to choose a unit of length, and that's kind of arbitrary. You could base the unit of length on something physical, such as the Bohr radius of a hydrogen atom, or the Planck distance.
 
stevendaryl said:
The speed of light isn't sufficient to have a system of measurements, because you still need to choose a unit of length, and that's kind of arbitrary. You could base the unit of length on something physical, such as the Bohr radius of a hydrogen atom, or the Planck distance.

HUH ? The speed of light DEFINES the unit of length (did you not read the previous responses?). What is needed in addition to it is the unit of TIME to complete the definition and we have a well-defined unit of time, called the second, which is based on the cesium atom.
 
phinds said:
HUH ? The speed of light DEFINES the unit of length (did you not read the previous responses?). What is needed in addition to it is the unit of TIME to complete the definition and we have a well-defined unit of time, called the second, which is based on the cesium atom.

Well, using the speed of light as a conversion factor, you can either have a unit of length L, and get a unit of time T by letting T = L/c, or you can have a unit of time T, and get a unit of length by letting L = cT. In either case, you need another unit.
 
phinds said:
HUH ? The speed of light DEFINES the unit of length (did you not read the previous responses?). What is needed in addition to it is the unit of TIME to complete the definition and we have a well-defined unit of time, called the second, which is based on the cesium atom.

phinds, the speed of light only defines a unit speed. to define a unit length from c you need a unit time or to define a unit time from c you need a unit length.

the unit time based solely on the cesium atom could be (among other candidates) a period of time that is 1/9192631770th second. the 9192631770 is solely anthropometric, not a definition from nature at all. and the choice of the cesium atom might seem to be a bit more arbitrary than the choice of c, G, or \hbar. but for us humans, at this stage in our development, a clock based on 133Cs makes for a much more stable and reproducible and accurate clock than one based on G. so what is practical for humans at present is not what is ultimately a natural system of units.

i might recommend to the OP to look up Planck units and fundamental physical constants in wikipedia also. and maybe check out the Baez and two Duff articles cited. there is an older version of the Natural units article that spoke more fundamentally about building various systems of units based solely on natural and universal quantities.
 
Let time be measured in nanoseconds and length be measured in feet. Error should be less than 3%.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
11K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
8K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K