The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
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
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Recent Topics
Lonely Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
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
1091 Views
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
thedoc
(OP)
Forum Admin
Administrator
Hero Member
513
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 12 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
alancalverd
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
5269
Activity:
52.5%
Thanked: 190 times
life is too short to drink 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 to stem the tide of ignorance
The following users thanked this post:
hamdani yusuf
evan_au
Naked Science Forum King!
4517
Activity:
48%
Thanked: 285 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:
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER
or
LOGIN
Logged
Naked Science Forum
Re: How do we arrive at dimensionless physical constants?
«
Reply #2 on:
17/04/2016 05:24:09 »
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...