B Is Human Height Ever Exactly Pi Feet?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter batmelon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory
batmelon
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Are we ever π feet tall?
Are we ever π feet tall? If so, does that mean that every exact measurement is irrational? If we are not, is there a base unit of the universe?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The result of any actual measurement will always be a rational number, since we can't make measurements to infinite precision.

Whether this means reality itself has a fundamental "base unit" of length (such as the Planck length) rather than being an actual continuum is a question we have no way of really answering at this point. The best we can do is to say that so far, all of our scientific models treat reality as a continuum and those models make accurate predictions. In other words, we have no evidence for the existence of any "base unit".
 
PeterDonis said:
The result of any actual measurement will always be a rational number, since we can't make measurements to infinite precision.

Whether this means reality itself has a fundamental "base unit" of length (such as the Planck length) rather than being an actual continuum is a question we have no way of really answering at this point. The best we can do is to say that so far, all of our scientific models treat reality as a continuum and those models make accurate predictions. In other words, we have no evidence for the existence of any "base unit".
Does this mean that the most commonly believed theory of the smallest length is that Planck length is not truly the basic unit? There is no base unit is the most popular belief?
 
batmelon said:
Does this mean that the most commonly believed theory of the smallest length is that Planck length is not truly the basic unit?

There is no "most commonly believed theory of the smallest length", except in the sense that, as I said, all of our current scientific theories treat spacetime as a continuum, and make accurate predictions.

batmelon said:
There is no base unit is the most popular belief?

It's not a "belief", it's a feature of our current scientific theories that make accurate predictions.
 
Thank you!
 
batmelon said:
Summary: Are we ever π feet tall?
No. Pi is a very specific value and infinitely beyond our ability to measure anything as vague as human height so precisely.

This is just basically restating what Peter said,
The result of any actual measurement will always be a rational number, since we can't make measurements to infinite precision.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top