The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. How do we arrive at dimensionless physical constants?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

How do we arrive at dimensionless physical constants?

  • 2 Replies
  • 3984 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline thedoc (OP)

  • Forum Admin
  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 510
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 21 times
How do we arrive at dimensionless physical constants?
« on: 15/04/2016 20:50:01 »
Pulkit Gambhir  asked the Naked Scientists:
   Hey guys

I had a question I was wondering if you could help me solve.

Often times reading about physics, I come across this concept of dimensionless physical constants. I am very curious to know how are the values of these constants determined. For instance as a high school student I never quite understood who & how managed to determine the value of Avogadro's constant.

Are all these constants only known from empirical expiremental calculations or do any of them have a closed form mathematical formula (presumable made from other mathematical constants).

And finally are all these physical constants known to be irrational numbers? If they are, then is there any theory as to why?

Thanks
Pulkit


 
What do you think?
« Last Edit: 15/04/2016 20:50:01 by _system »
Logged
 



Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 21159
  • Activity:
    69.5%
  • Thanked: 60 times
  • Life is too short for instant coffee
Re: How do we arrive at dimensionless physical constants?
« Reply #1 on: 16/04/2016 15:27:38 »
Avogadro's constant can't be irrational - it's defined as the number of units in a mole, 6.022140857 × 10^23, i.e. an integer. You could in principle count the number of carbon atoms in 12 grams of carbon, or the number of hydrogen atoms in 1 gram of hydrogen, but the practical experimental determination is a bit more roundabout. Avogadro's hypothesis, as supported by Faraday's experiments, is that the numbers will be equal. If you are counting things, you will always end up with an integer, and all integers are rational.   

On the other hand the fine structure constant was for many years believed to be a rational number, 1/137, though nobody could work out why it should be. It now turns out that it isn't quite 1/137, so we have stopped looking for a reason why it should be - it just is what it is, from experimental measurement! 

Yet again, both π and e are necessarily irrational, can be proved so from their mathematical definitions, and can be calculated to a far greater degree of accuracy than they can be measured.
Logged
Helping stem the tide of ignorance
 
The following users thanked this post: hamdani yusuf

Offline evan_au

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11035
  • Activity:
    9%
  • Thanked: 1486 times
Re: How do we arrive at dimensionless physical constants?
« Reply #2 on: 17/04/2016 05:24:09 »
Wikipedia helpfully has a list of dimensionless physical quantities. Many of these are dimensionless variables, comparing ratios of quantities which do have a dimension.

For example, the refractive index is the ratio of the speed of light in some material (in m/s) vs the speed of light in a vacuum. But there are many potential materials, which could be measured at many potential frequencies. You could measure the velocity in different units (eg miles/hour), but the ratio is dimensionless, and independent of the units used.

When you take a ratio, the dimensions cancel out, and you are left with a dimensionless number. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dimensionless_quantities

Quote from: Pulkit Gambhir
dimensionless physical constants.
These are values which are considered basic to measurement.

Some of them are exact quantities because they are defined that way by the units we use - for example Avogadro's number of Carbon-12 atoms weighs exactly 12 grams, by definition. If Chemists were measuring in ounces instead of grams, Avogadro's number would be different.

But we only know Avogadro's number to about 8 decimal places, while it actually has 23 digits. So it doesn't have to be a whole number, but we may as well treat it as if it is a whole number.

Another one is defined to be irrational: the vacuum permeability constant µ0, whose numerical value is 4π×10−7.

On the other hand, once we knew the fine structure constant to 5 decimal places, it became clear that it wasn't a whole number.

There are some constants which are believed to be so fundamental that they are independent of the units we use. For a list, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.547 seconds with 31 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.