Measurements

[David Reich]

This has been troubling me for a while, particularly since the answer seems to change every time I learn something new about science.

What would the ideal measurement system be?  For science, that is, not for practical use.  I would be inclined to think something along the lines of

distance: planck length
time: planck time
mass: AMU

in a base - 3 system (because that's the closest integer to e)

most other units follow from those - speed, density, concentration, etc. 

What do you think?

[Andrew Towle]

Man, this is changing from a philosophy group to a math group. Let's not do this ok? please!

--
Andy T.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Well, I don't know much about these kinds of things, so why would a base 3 system be ideal?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Base 3 is kinda uneven. Being uneven, it's very hard to interpret it as a decimal. The metric system is pretty cool for me.

Cheers

[Paul Gully]

first, andrew- there is practically no difference between philosophy and math, at its simplest. both are just methods of theorizing

anyway, this is physics.

plain old base e, not base three, first of all. you can have non-whole bases (kinda like fractal dimensions) although they would get weird with irrational numbers...

also, i dont think i agree with the planck stuff. sure, its an enigmatic unit, but hardly ideal. it measures 'smallest', but that ends up having little relevance to physics besides in the measurement problem. it would have to be a unit based on light, i would think- with C you could establish a unit of time if you found a unit of distance (or vise versa) that applied universally. i would have to do some research. (and i will do some after homework...)

also, thuy this isnt about what is easiest to interpret, just about what will give nicer answers on a physical scale. when you have numbers like the speed of light that are huge in terms of our measurement systems, no answers are 'easy'. this is just a method of 'idealizing' it.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Yes, but idealism is all in the mind and changes from person to person. I believe that the metric system is ideal but others can think differently, such as you.

Cheers

[Paul Gully]

but no, thats not the point! its about getting numbers which can be represented in a simple format, which the decimal system doesn't provide under most circumstances. (also, its not just about the base, but the unit, the decimal base system probably would work well enough in these circumstances with the right unit, but it would be cumbersome)

[David Reich]

I had been thinking about the same thing about time/distance and light, and eventually defaulted to plank because it was the most obvious absolute I could think of.  I honestly don't know much about what planck stuff actually is, but I thought it's work as a starting point. 

As to why i didn't use base e, the problem is that I was planning on this being a usable system - maybe only used by scientists, but still usable.  If you want to go to the theoretical extreme, though, go ahead. 

Thuy, you're perfectly entitled to your own idea of ideal, this is just speculation

Andrew/other unmathy people, feel free to ignore this topic then.  I want everyone to be able to discuss different things here, go ahead and make a topic you like if you want, I'll try to contribute.

I tried to make this topic, btw, as a way of discussing something without getting into religion - so please no measuring in terms of the length of God.

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Paul Gully <nano...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Scientific Notation isn't that bad, is it?

Cheers?

[David Reich]

Oh, about the base e system, this: http://www.burtonmackenzie.com/2007/12/whats-most-optimal-numeric-base.html

[Paul Gully]

just looked into plank, my pre-conceived notions of it proved to be dead wrong. Planck's Constant is about the size of quanta (what i was mentioning with the measurement problem) but the plank units are based on that, the gravitational constant, the speed of light (electro-magnetic constant?), and two other units based on electro-statics and thermodynamics (so basically strong an weak forces)

they are actually pretty cool- i like planck much more now, having looked into it. its entirely non-anthropocentric (that is the correct phrase for ananthropic, which is a bulshytt term), so i like it very much. 

[Paul Gully]

(also, there are five basic plank units: length, mass, time, charge, and temperature. all other units can be derived in their entirety from these, so no need to use AMU's)

[David Reich]

Really?  I do need to research this a bit.  Sounds interesting.  Unfortunately, I'm far too lazy right now.  Will later

[Michael Oppenheimer]

I will read up on these things and contribute! But now I'm going to bed. *Poof*

[Andrew Towle]

haha

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Michael Oppenheimer <doomw...@gmail.com> wrote:

I will read up on these things and contribute! But now I'm going to bed. *Poof*

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

what do you laugh at? -aru

[Andrew Towle]

michaels *Poof* thing

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

heh. Well, I should poof, too -aru *Poof*



-aru

[Andrew Towle]

You amuse me, young one.

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:

heh. Well, I should poof, too -aru *Poof*



-aru

--
Andy T.

[David Reich]

Right, I've looked at the planck stuff, and it looks good.  A lot better than I expected, tbh.  Don't really know how we can improve on it.  Paul, any ideas?

[Paul Gully]

im not sure you could..

(also, the whole thing with the base-system is irrelevant, i see. an E base system would be able to represent the most numbers with the least characters, but there is no reason we need that. 3 may work, however base ten is probably fine)

also, note that this is only for science- plank units make equations dealing with really basic stuff really really simple. think like maxwell and relativity. at that scale of science, there is no reason to ever make measurements like these unless you are trying to derive some law.