[HN Gopher] The Revised SI of physical units (2019), Max Planck ...
___________________________________________________________________
The Revised SI of physical units (2019), Max Planck (1900), and
'Planck scale'
Author : mike_ivanov
Score : 33 points
Date : 2024-11-29 21:57 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (osf.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (osf.io)
| FilosofumRex wrote:
| One more nail in the proverbial death coffin of String Theories -
| the M version in particular. The Inflationary Theory always was
| considered a hack at best and now its foundational assumptions
| are shaken to the core.
|
| Undergraduate engineering students are drilled extensively on
| units and unit conversion exercise for a good reason; ie their
| designs must work in the real world. Confusing mass, energy,
| length and time, no matter how fancy of a mathematical theory
| prescribes it, is a disaster waiting to happen.
| Tor3 wrote:
| I can't really see how you go from what the paper said to your
| conclusion about String Theory. A lot can be said about the
| latter, but I don't see how that paper changes anything about
| that in particular.
|
| As for the paper itself.. I wasn't particularly impressed. A
| lot of it was about discussing nuances on how to interpret
| "Bedeutung" in English, and honestly, it's not that important.
| Or should I say "significant", which is what the paper claims
| is an incorrect translation in this case. Well, I know what
| "Bedeutung" means, and though I can agree that in this case
| "meaning" would be a more correct translation than
| "significant" (or "significance"), but really - that by itself
| doesn't change anything about how "planck units" should or
| would be used, and what for.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| How is this related to the failure of String Theories and
| what's the connection to Inflationary Theory?
|
| As I understand it, the choice of which units/scales are simply
| a matter of convenience and whilst measuring length in terms of
| Planck lengths may be appealing scientifically, it's unlikely
| to gain much usage outside of scientific circles due to the
| non-human scale numbers used. Of course we could adapt to using
| e.g. 1.0e35 Planck lengths instead of approx 1.62m but why
| bother.
| FilosofumRex wrote:
| The point of article is not just to debate English
| translation of Planck's original paper, but to also point out
| that there is nothing "fundamental" about Planck's scales in
| any known experimental physics - ie Planck's length isn't the
| dimension of one pixel of universal reality, or movement.
|
| In all String Theories "the characteristic length scale of
| strings is assumed to be on the order of the Planck length,
| or 10-35 meters, the scale at which the effects of quantum
| gravity are believed to become significant."
|
| In Inflationary cosmology, the unit of expansion is Planck's
| time scale, and is needed to justify existence of negative
| gravitational pull (repulsive force).
|
| If as the author argues, Planck scales are merely "defining"
| renormalization constants and don't represent anything
| physically "fundamental" in experimental physics, then both
| of these theories lose their foundational connection to
| reality, even theoretically speaking, let alone any
| experimental evidence.
| MarkusQ wrote:
| Not even wrong.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-30 23:01 UTC)