I Planck's Impedance: Exploring the Mystery of a Fictional Measurement System

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexB23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Impedance
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a fictional measurement system defined by unique base units, including Berkel, Dist'al, Hef'al, and Muncie. Notably, the derived unit of resistance in this system equals 29.9792458 Ohms, which matches Planck's impedance. Participants explore whether this coincidence is a result of intentional design or mere numerical happenstance, particularly considering the definitions of time and distance in the system. The relationship between the speed of light and the defined units raises questions about the underlying connections in this fictional framework. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of creating a coherent measurement system and the significance of unit definitions.
AlexB23
Messages
117
Reaction score
147
TL;DR Summary
Hello guys, and am new here. A week ago I was working on a fictional measurement system, and the Planck's impedance came out of it after some dimensional analysis.
The measurements system is defined by the following base units:

1 Berkel = 0.8590488 seconds (1,220,197,850 oscillations of the hydrogen atom in a hyperfine state)

1 Dist'al = 0.2575363 meters
(Speed of light multiplied by 1×10⁻⁹ Berkels)

1 Hef'al = 17.08109 kg
(Mass of 1 cubic dist'al of water at 4°C)

1 Muncie = 0.2441514114 Amp
(Amount of force per dist'al of two infinite wires separated by one dist'al is equal to 2×10⁻⁹ force units when the current is 1 Muncie)

Somehow, the derived unit of resistance in this fictional measurement system is equal to 29.9792458 Ohms, when doing the dimensional analysis, which is the same value as Planck's impedance. Why is that?
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF.

You can define a unit system any way you want. The trick is getting anyone to use it. Is there a question here?
 
Ibix said:
You can define a unit system any way you want. The trick is getting anyone to use it. Is there a question here?
I had to edit the question and post my measurement base units, but it is now there.
 
AlexB23 said:
I had to edit the question and post my measurement base units, but it is now there.
Just a numerical coincidence unless you picked the units to coincide in some way.
 
PeroK said:
Just a numerical coincidence unless you picked the units to coincide in some way.
I didn't pick the time unit to coincide in that way. The time unit is equal to 1/100,000th the length of a day on a fictional planet. The day length is 85,904.88 seconds, or 100,000 Berkels in this measurement system. Could it be the fact that the dist'al is defined as the distance light travels in 10⁻⁹ Berkels? Or that the Muncie is defined as being the current that generates 2×10⁻⁹ force units/dist'al between two wires separated by a dist'al?

Also, I have noticed that the Planck's impedance expressed in SI units is 29.97 Ohms, which is coincidentally, and exactly 1/10 million times the value of the speed of light in m/s without the units attached.
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top