Article View: sci.astro
Article #4773Re: pi (was Re: Is lightvelocity accelerating?)
From: son3776
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 22:34
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 22:34
41 lines
3400 bytes
3400 bytes
Thomas S. Zemanian (ts_zemanian@pnl.gov) wrote: > Allow me to suggest that there really can be no consensus on this issue at > this point. "Son" from UT/Dallas is in too deeply now to back down and > still save face, although it's rapidly becoming clear to me that he is > mistaken. I'll try one last attempt, and if this fails to settle the issue > I recommend we all let this drop. > If we are to distinguish whether pi be a physical or a mathematical > constant (or both, as some have recently suggested), we must have some way > to distinguish the two. I feel that a physical constant would be one which > is determined by a measurement, whereas a mathematical constant should drop > out of a mathematical argument. This is the gist of the > circles-on-curved-surfaces arguments that have been batted back and forth. > Now, we can calculate the value of pi, in theory, to arbitrary precision. > The precision of a physical measurement, by constructing a huge circle, is > maximized by making as large a circle as possible and measuring the > circumference and radius as accurately as possible. However, given a > finite universe (I hope we can agree on that, but if not, how about a > finite region of space accessible to us to build a circle within...) and a > limit due to quantum uncertainty in how well we can measure the > circumference and diameter of that circle, we see that we can never measure > pi as precisely as we can calculate it. How, then, can pi _possibly_ be a > physical constant? > It's just a number. The fact that we can't measure it to total accuracy does not exclude it from being a physical constant. Elementary charge is a physical constant with a computational value of 1.60e-19C and a *best* (1986) value of 1.60217738e-19C with an uncertainty of .30 parts per million. Even though we still haven't measured this to an exact accuracy, we still consider it to be a physical constant . . . so saying that we can't measure pi to a certain degree of accuracy does not mean that pi is not a physical constant. -- "Somewhere else the tea's getting cold." -- The Doctor
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3kkvt7$h5j@utdallas.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!nntp.gmd.de!dearn!blekul11!ccsdec1.ufsia.ac.be!reks.uia.ac.be!idefix.CS.kuleuven.ac.be! Belgium.EU.net!EU.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.tamu.edu!news.utdallas.edu!not-for-mailReferences:
<3jss8u$4gs@utdallas.edu> <cZBu2c6w200w@alcyone.darkside.com> <3kaa63$g5j@utdallas.edu> <ts_zemanian-160395152955@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: ff8cf,7d15a3c97705a5a5 X-Google-Attributes: gidff8cf,public X-Google-Thread: f44bc,7d15a3c97705a5a5 X-Google-Attributes: gidf44bc,public X-Google-Thread: fa827,7d15a3c97705a5a5 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa827,public X-Google-Thread: f74ae,7d15a3c97705a5a5 X-Google-Attributes: gidf74ae,public X-Google-Thread: 1038c2,7d15a3c97705a5a5 X-Google-Attributes: gid1038c2,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-20 17:35:58 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!nntp.gmd.de!dearn!blekul11!ccsdec1.ufsia.ac.be!reks.uia.ac.be!idefix.CS.kuleuven.ac.be! Belgium.EU.net!EU.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.tamu.edu!news.utdallas.edu!not-for-mail From: son3776@utdallas.edu Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,swnet.sci.astro,fj.sci.astro Subject: Re: pi (was Re: Is lightvelocity accelerating?) Date: 20 Mar 1995 16:34:15 -0600 Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas Lines: 41 Message-ID: <3kkvt7$h5j@utdallas.edu> References: <3jss8u$4gs@utdallas.edu> <cZBu2c6w200w@alcyone.darkside.com> <3kaa63$g5j@utdallas.edu> <ts_zemanian-160395152955@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: infoserv.utdallas.edu NNTP-Posting-User: 5319 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]