Talk:Natural units

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Euclidean natural units

Someone created an article that said:

“

In Euclidean geometry, natural units are derived using the mathematical parameters of an isosceles right triangle and the basic mathematics used to describe the characteristics of waves. The three base units of the natural units are a length, a time unit and a numeric value for the speed of light. The Euclidean units can be derived by either using the length of a known physical science constant or using a mathematical constant, 2π when used in its angular frequency form. The mathematical process mutally defines all the base units in relationship to each other.

”

Should this content be merged into this page or is it original research? I am not familiar with the subject. I am redirecting "Euclidean natural units" to this page either way. — Reinyday, 16:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• The material entered is original research, thus there should be no google reference to it.

then should it even be WP? r b-j 05:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

... It is a set of natural units but the method of derivation is different from any other method of developing a metrology system. Just as Planck units has its "named page", Euclidean Natural Units (ENU) should remain a "named page"...

i haven't heard of it before. where does it come from (besides your own research)? also, what physical constants is normalized or set to a specific number (and if the latter, what are those specific numbers and what is the rationale for using them).

... I am having difficulty with MathML thus have been unable to enter the mathematical process to illustrate how the ENU are derived. ...

we use LaTeX here. check it out.

... Mathematically it is simple, but trying to explain how it works without the equation sets is difficult.

• Once the page has been properly wikified and peer-wikied, it should be identified in the "Natural units" page.

perhaps, but you haven't said a thing about these and they're source. be prepared for an WP:AfD if it looks like original research.

• The essence of the material has been disseminated through a privately published book, a number of forums, and in one on-line publication, but not using the ENU name. One recent attempt to get it published, titled, "Defining The Basic Constants: A Mathematical Method", highlighted its advantages over System International (SI) units, and this apparently stepped on some sacred cow.
• A current rendition of the material, titled, "Euclidean Natural Units", is a five page paper that notes the differences in how ENU and SI base units are defined and the precision of the ENU base units, and it lets the reader decide whether they are or are not significantly better than SI units.
• I actually identified the basis of the mathematical process some five years ago, but I didn't fully understand all of its implications back then. I still suspect there is an elegant mathematical algorithm that will pull it all together, ala Euler. Currere 04:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

what are the physical constants that are normalized with this ENU system? can that be clearly and quickly stated here? r b-j 05:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes, but I was not aware that original material could not be presented on WIKI.

no original research on this particular wiki.

... The units normalized by the ENU system are the time unit (its duration), the length unit (it is actually a real physical science constant), and the speed of light which uses the two aforementioned values for its units of measure, and it can be calculated to near unlimited precision (try multiplying 2Pi by the square root of 2). However, I am not the originator of the concept, I identified it from the following dimension set: 47.71345cm at an angle of 26.25400 degrees. You can recreate the basic algorithm using those dimensions. The precision is limited because the dimension is expressed in SI units. The base algorithm is when the angle is 45 degrees. Whenever I told people where I found the dimension set they refused to believe it, so I quit trying years ago. Currere 17:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

i'm skeptical. you need to say (other than the speed of light ) specifically what gets set to what in these units (and if it is 1 or 4π or similar, a rationale why). and you need to cite where this comes from to avoid transgressing WP:NOR. r b-j 02:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• The basic form is that depicted in special right triangles, and the equation form c=a(csc(α)), which is the trigonometric expression for the Pythagorean solution. When a wavelength and a frequency angular frequency are substititued for the vertical leg of the triangle, the result given for each of the substitutions is another wavelength and another frequency, each expressed as the value of the hypotenuse.

this is crap.

When these two values are multiplied together they give a value for the speed of light, see wavelength or frequency. It gives a pure mathematical derivation for the speed of light, but the numeric value is not in SI units (the second and the meter).

pure bullshit.

To be valid at 45 degrees, the duration of the time unit has to equal one, but that duration is not that of the second. The current SI definition for the speed of light is just that, a definition, which provides a reference numeric value for everyone to use. The Euclidean definition provides a numeric value with near unlimited precision. The dimension set that was identified in an old document was 47.713 cm at 26.25400 degrees (there was a scaling factor). The old document did not express this in centimeters, but I use centimeters so others will not have to convert the value. Once I recognized that the dimension represented a wavelength, it was then finding the mathematical form that represented the general case. I was astounded by how much technical and mathematical information was expressed by that simple dimension. I was also astounded that somebody over a century ago knew how to express that technical information in that form, let alone knowing the 21 cm wavelength. The author that recorded the information did not have a clue as to what it meant. The only thing original in "Euclidean Natural Units" is substituting wavelengths and frequencies as values in a right triangle. Wavelengths, frequencies and triangles are already defined, it was just a matter of implementing these relationships in a mathematical form. There is no process to describe this form of substition, and it seemed logical to assign the name that fits the geometric form.

because it's original research. it might also be crap. WP does have standards, even though it is still heavily criticized for being unreliable.

In practice, the only thing original is substituting wavelengths and frequencies for the elements of a right triangle. Currere 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

i asked 3 times, other than an allusion to the speed of light, you mentioned nothing about what physical constants get normalized or set to a known quantity with these so-called "natural units". i don't think that you understand the topic matter and are unable to make a real contribution because you just show no evidence that you understand what this is. r b-j 17:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I stated that the three physical constants are "length", "time" and the "speed of light". Have you analyzed the mathematics and the meaning of the values that are described by the dimension set of 47.713 cm at 26.25400 degrees? Currere 21:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

you have succeeded in demonstrating that you really don't know what you're talking about nor what the functional basis of what natural physical units are. c is a physical constant. "length" and "time" are not. they are dimension of physical quantity of which some natural units can be defined. to define a natural unit of length, mass, and time, you need to constrain 3 universal physical constants to be some given natural values (usually 1) in terms of the natural units you are creating. that is 3 equations (for the 3 constrained physical constants) and 3 unknowns, the unit length, unit mass, and unit time. you have 1 (that is c). you need 2 more. r b-j 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conversions

I would like to see another column in each table, with approximate conversions to the metric system. I see a few of the conversions in the main articles (e.g., Planck units). What say you? --DevastatorIIC 20:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

i think it's a good idea. go fer it. it was something i thought should be done but am too lazy to crank it out. if you have a good math program (like MATLAB or Octave, the latter is free) where you can put numerical values to symbols and then crank out the expression and value, that would be safe. or do it with a calculator. whatever works. BTW, i think eventually Natural units should become the "main article" and Planck units can be sucking on the teat of Natural unis. but i am not invested in it. i know that once some real physicists notice the page, this article will grow and refine. r b-j 01:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, use the "m" or minor edit flag only for fixing a spelling mistake or similarly something merely cosmetic. that way, you're telling other editors not to bother to check over your edit (even though some will anyway). adding a new idea to a talk page is, IMO, not really minor. you want people to look it over. r b-j 01:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)