How Would Changing the Definition of a Meter Impact Our Scientific Calculations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vikram Khanna
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
Vikram Khanna
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Consider the definition of 1m. It is the distance traveled by light in 1 / 299,792,458 seconds (lets call this X). Fair enough a definition.

Now let's assume, for an instant, that somewhere in our past, while scales were being developed, man erroneously decided that instead of the distance traveled by light in X seconds, 1 meter will be the distance traveled by light in X/2 seconds. Thus, 1 meter would actually be 2 meters, for all practical purposes to be used today.

Ideally this isn’t a problem. Some intelligent mathematician would discover our folly and just divide all distances by 2. Not a major problem. Every scale of distance would half and the result would be EXACTLY half of the older one. No milestones replaced. Only New ones added.

Except in one case.

What about pi ? There is no end to pi. So how would we half it? That means every calculation used by our erstwhile method of calculating distance that involved pi would give a different result when halved. Then what about the area of a circle that we had calculated using the old definition of 1 meter. What about all the polynomial equations?

Now what if the error in calculating 1 meter was the distance traveled by light in X/1.3 seconds. Or X divided by a square root. or any other number on the number scale.

Have all our calculations based on our definition of 1 meter been wrong? Has it been a confirmation bias, since we decided that 1 meter = 1 meter? What about the sizes of planets calculated based on their distance from the Earth. Or their wavelength? or the Red Shift? Does this apply to all our other scales as well? Mass? Force? Gravity? Magnetism?
Isn't Mathematics supposed to be universal? Then how can one definition of a meter on Earth lead to different results when compared to any other definition.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Vikram Khanna said:
What about pi ?
The ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle is unitless.

Vikram Khanna said:
man erroneously decided that
Why would it be erroneous? The point of developing a system of units is not to find some 'true' meaning of a meter or whatnot, but to give everybody the same set of units to use. As long as you and I use the same definition of a meter, we're good.

Vikram Khanna said:
instead of the distance traveled by light in X seconds, 1 meter will be the distance traveled by light in X/2 seconds. Thus, 1 meter would actually be 2 meters
Actually, that would be 0.5 meters ;) (edit: oh, sorry, you meant the other way around :) )
 
Vikram Khanna said:
Now let's assume, for an instant, that somewhere in our past, while scales were being developed, man erroneously decided that instead of the distance traveled by light in X seconds, 1 meter will be the distance traveled by light in X/2 seconds. Thus, 1 meter would actually be 2 meters, for all practical purposes to be used today.
That assumption is wrong.

Vikram Khanna said:
Have all our calculations based on our definition of 1 meter been wrong?
No, they're not wrong. To say so goes against mainstream science, so such discussion cannot take place at PhysicsForums.

Thread closed.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top