mersenneforum.org Dimensional analysis
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2011-07-31, 07:59 #1 davieddy     "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2·3·13·83 Posts Dimensional analysis Joe Hatton (one of my Oxford tutors) threw me this one: When you figure out a formula with the method of dimensions, how come the "right" numerical constant always has the order of unity? (2, pi or summat). I assumed at the time that he knew the answer, but it could equally well have been a genuine query. Any ideas? David Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2011-07-31 at 08:12
2011-07-31, 16:17   #2
xilman
Bamboozled!

"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across

267728 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy Joe Hatton (one of my Oxford tutors) threw me this one: When you figure out a formula with the method of dimensions, how come the "right" numerical constant always has the order of unity? (2, pi or summat). I assumed at the time that he knew the answer, but it could equally well have been a genuine query. Any ideas? David
It doesn't.

The most egregious example I know of is the cosmological constant. The observed value is about 120 orders of magnitude smaller than that calculated.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you and Hatton (who I also knew, BTW).

Paul

 2011-07-31, 19:56 #3 wblipp     "William" May 2003 Near Grandkid 53·19 Posts Paul points out that "always" is an exaggeration. I suspect that to the extent it is true, it is because units are chosen to be convenient for people, and getting answers with small numbers is an important part of convenience. In astronomy, the A.U and the parsec come to mind as measures that exist primarily because they result in small numbers for some discussions.
 2011-07-31, 23:33 #4 davieddy     "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2·3·13·83 Posts Yep. Much of it comes down the fact that when you are strolling across Hampstead heath at twilight and encounter a puddle, it doesn't take that much longer to walk round it than through it. Assuming you can see it of course. (I had just mistaken an aircraft about to land for Venus at the time). BTW I think Joe was probably thinking about things like "why is fine structure constant ~1/137 and not 10120 ?" David PS Joe and Gwynneth were still living in their home in North Oxford last time I heard. He's in his 90s and prone to blackouts, she is blind but their minds are still sharp! Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2011-07-31 at 23:55
 2011-08-01, 11:53 #5 davieddy     "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2·3·13·83 Posts I prefer not to think about the number of beer molecules I consume
2011-08-01, 13:24   #6
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))

Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

645410 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wblipp Paul points out that "always" is an exaggeration. I suspect that to the extent it is true, it is because units are chosen to be convenient for people, and getting answers with small numbers is an important part of convenience.
That's a property of unit systems in general; if you're working in grams and centimetres then your energy comes out in small multiples of ergs, if you're working in kilograms and metres then it comes out in small multiples of joules.

I think the constants are small because they're mostly the result of integrals of not-wildly-varying functions over small intervals.

(though the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is quite a long way from unity, and the argument that power is proportional to T^4 is quite a subtle one)

 2011-08-01, 19:05 #7 davieddy     "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 145128 Posts Here's a real coincidence, I think: Unless the MksA (SI) system was adopted with this in mind, is it not remarkable that the electric potential at an atomic radius from a proton is a handful of volts? Can you think of similar examples? David OTOH, the emf of a Voltaic cell might explain a lot of it. Yep. I think keeping the Amp and the Volt convenient/appropriate units might have a lot to do with the adoption of the m and kg, so as to get the Joule right. Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2011-08-01 at 19:56
 2011-08-01, 20:18 #8 davieddy     "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2×3×13×83 Posts This thread is veering rather close to the one which spawned 3 plates = 1 pipe
 2011-08-02, 09:34 #9 cmd     "(^r'ยฐ:.:)^n;e'e" Nov 2008 ;t:.:;^ 17508 Posts 137.036 ..ropos~anth..
2011-08-02, 09:59   #10
davieddy

"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2·3·13·83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy This thread is veering rather close to the one which spawned 3 plates = 1 pipe
Quote:
 Originally Posted by cmd 137.036 ..ropos~anth..
Yes cmd.
We know this sort of puzzle is right up your street

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post TObject Software 4 2013-02-05 23:53 akruppa Factoring 8 2010-01-08 17:01 fivemack Math 2 2008-09-13 06:07 Kees Puzzles 19 2007-04-12 14:47 troels munkner Miscellaneous Math 2 2006-07-17 03:18

All times are UTC. The time now is 01:37.

Sun Jun 4 01:37:35 UTC 2023 up 289 days, 23:06, 0 users, load averages: 1.01, 0.80, 0.87