Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
LeoK
Posts:
4
Registered:
6/25/12
|
|
Re: The substance of math
Posted:
Jun 27, 2012 4:16 AM
|
|
Hi, Dr J R Stockton
> In principle, a physicist should know precisely enough where there is an
> exact kilogram - safely stored away at Sevres. Getting authorised to
> get near enough to see it is another matter; but I do have a photograph
> of it.
We have to distinguish between a absolute mass and a relative mass.
The 1 kg mass reference in Sevres is to modern science like a dinosaur
is on the street. It's outdated - but still the only we got. - The Sevres mass
has, to novel physics, to be seen only as a reference mass - not a absolute
mass. I was, in my post, talking about a absolute mass. Not a relative.
> The facts may change in the foreseeable future; IIRC, it is possible,
> but not necessary, to redefine the kilogram as the mass of a certain
> number of atoms of a certain isotope assembled under certain conditions.
Even if you count the exact number of atoms in a reference unit of mass
and this time place it in the Tower of London - it still only is a reference
unit. Because two similar atoms of whatever matter has not exactly the
same weight. Every atom in universe does differ in weight, also under
exactly unified conditions. - This is the sad truth in physics.
But in mathematics a reference unit of mass, m, is absolute - this also is
the sad truth - if you are a true physicist. And maybe is joyful if you are
devoted to mathematics. We physicists have to endure this discrepancy.
A simple example of this is the Newton formulas of [F=ma] and [F=mg].
Where, in mathematics, the mass, m, in both expressions is absolute.
And are relative in physics - are relative in real life. Of course, you can
use the Sevres mass in both Newton formulas. But what happens if you
try to copy the Sevres mass reference? You only get two different weights.
I don't really have to mention this. - I know that a proton is made of
quarks and the electron is a elementary particle in it self - if you chose
to use a hydrogen atom for a weight reference. The view of that every
single quark that exists in our universe is unique and that the same goes
for every single electron in our universe - is just up to date physics.
- And I am up to date in these issues. So in my world every single
hydrogen atom has its own unique mass and weight. You can't use
any existing volume or amount of any existing matter as a absolute
reference for weight. But you can use it as a relative reference - like the
one in Sevres.
Volià
LeoK
June 27, 2012
"Dr J R Stockton" <J.R.Stockton@physics.org> wrote in message
news:LBN9p5Mmug6PFwX6@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalidmerlyn.demon.co.uk...
> In sci.math message <4fe8777b$0$4266$c83e3ef6@weathergirl-
> read.tele2.net>, Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:36:26, LeoK <news@groups.net>
> posted:
>
>>In physics, on the other hand, there is no such thing as a absolute unit
>>of mass. You can never find such a matter or mass that has a absolute
>>amount of mass. This is impossible in physics - but is feasible in math.
>
> In principle, a physicist should know precisely enough where there is an
> exact kilogram - safely stored away at Sevres. Getting authorised to
> get near enough to see it is another matter; but I do have a photograph
> of it.
>
> The facts may change in the foreseeable future; IIRC, it is possible,
> but not necessary, to redefine the kilogram as the mass of a certain
> number of atoms of a certain isotope assembled under certain conditions.
>
> --
> (c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton@physics.org
> Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.
|
|
|
|
