Link: Copy link
I don't know about that; there are lots of arguments for using the dozenal system for units, many of which are much more convincing than coincidences in fundamental constants in terms of daily applicability. Even the fundamental constant coincidences, while extremely interesting (and I'm glad you uncovered them, as I'd never seen them before), are only approximate, if I'm reading your paper right. Is it more convincing to say, "A dozenal unit system is better because of these relationships between constants which you rarely encounter," or, "A dozenal unit system is better because you can easily get exactly one third of a unit without repeating fractional parts?"It is only the Universal Unit System that can answer the decimal people's question
why must be duodecimal unit system.
I agree, and it's an important distinction.There was an arrangement of discussion that we should distinguish conceptual origin of
the unit and definition of the unit. I want to replace 'conceptual origin' with 'human scale'.
Agreed.1. The unit quantity should be human scale. (See also here)
Here's where I start to wonder. First, our measurements for these things are constantly getting more refined; will you redefine your human-scale units to match up with these newer, more specifically measured fundamental constants? The difference will, of course, be minute, but it's a valid question.2. The unit defintion should guarantee commonness and reproducibility as much as possible in large range.
(See the 2nd paragraph of Chapter 1 of the paper http://dozenal.com .)
It is the best choice to use the fundamental constants for the unit definitions for Item 2.
Especially, the speed of light in vacuum and the quantum of action are vary common and stable
in the largest range in current physics paradigm.
I understand that. But how do you decide which integer power of the dozen to use for the human-scale unit? Is it an arbitrary choice based on the one that comes out approximately the right dimension, in your opinion? Or is there some system to it? The paper didn't make that clear, at least to me.Therefore, it is natural that the units are defined as integer powers of twelve
multiple of the fundamental constants.
Agreed. Non-coherent units don't bother me much, as long as the system itself is coherent. But I do find that a 1:1 correspondence of basic units is extremely helpful, and without this I think it's hard to say a system is coherent. As I understand it, you've got 1:1 correspondence with your fundamental constants, but not with the human-scale units, which are set by more or less arbitrary (by which I mean only "chosen without systematic justification; it's not meant as pejorative) integer exponents on those fundamental constants. But it's the human-scale units that will be used the vast majority of the time. So while there's a 1:1 correspondence in the fundamental, base units, there is no such correspondence in the human-scale units. Is this correct?I think that we would rather control than prohibit non-coherent units.
It only has to clarify the rule of the usage.
Well, it would be silly not to agree when you're right, which of course you often are.dgoodmaniii,
Thank you for agreeing to a lot of points.
Right. But when they refine the velocity of light by another few akis (to use TGM nomenclature), this will slightly but truly alter the dimensions that you measure via the velocity of light. (Or rather, more accurately, the accuracy of the dimensions measured with the velocity of light will correspondingly increase, altering however slightly your practical values.) Do you incorporate these into your system or not?There is no possibility from the viewpoint of 'reproducibility'.dgoodmaniii @ Aug 15 2010, 06:23 AM wrote:will you redefine your human-scale units to match up with these newer, more specifically measured fundamental constants?
Each fundamental constants used for the definition in the Universal Unit System is, not a measured quantity,
but a quantity which measures another quantities of the same dimention with enough reproducibility.
Right, I know where they're listed, but they seemed arbitrary; that is, not chosen systematically, but more because they simply produce human-sized units that seemed right to you. Am I correct?Fundamental constants that relate to nature scale are shown Table 1.dgoodmaniii @ Aug 15 2010, 06:23 AM wrote:But how do you decide which integer power of the dozen to use for the human-scale unit?
Human scale and cosmic/atomic scale are mainly connected through factor 12.^8.
This is important for human recognition to nature scale.
Moreover, the units should be human scale as the pivot that connects cosmic scale with atomic scale.
I thought it wasn't 1:1, and I think that's a problem. Not having a 1:1 correspondence compels mankind to an eternity of miscalculated exponents and other basic calculation errors for no good reason. TGM is a model here, in my opinion. Once the basic unit, the Tim, is selected, every other unit flows from there with an easy, 1:1 correspondence. So once we have the Tim, we can easily measure the unit of acceleration (1 Gee = 1 unit per Tim per Tim), which yields us the unit of velocity (1 unit per Tim) and length (1 Grafut), and so on.It is not 1:1 correspondence.dgoodmaniii @ Aug 15 2010, 06:23 AM wrote:you've got 1:1 correspondence
The number of fundamental constants is more than the number of dimensions of the unit.
Therefore, the relation shown in a dimensionless ratio comes out between fundamental constants.
See 2.1 of http://dozenal.com and Table 1.
The small change of the gravitational constant doesn't influence the definition of the Universal Unit System as commented previous time.dgoodmaniii @ Aug 23 2010, 02:05 PM wrote:Also, wouldn't the truth of Dirac's decreasing constants idea wreak considerable havoc with this system?
I think that the improvement of the measurement precision of space and time indirectlydgoodmaniii @ Aug 23 2010, 02:05 PM wrote:Do you incorporate these into your system or not?
There is finally very little arbitrariness though it was based on human scale which has arbitrariness.dgoodmaniii @ Aug 23 2010, 02:05 PM wrote:I know where they're listed, but they seemed arbitrary; that is, not chosen systematically, but more because they simply produce human-sized units that seemed right to you. Am I correct?
The quoted topic and the topic of the relation between the units and the fundamental constants are another topics.dgoodmaniii @ Aug 23 2010, 02:05 PM wrote:Rather, there are multiple base units from which different dimensions are derived, and those base units only correspond to one another approximately by multiples of the dozen.
We have already acquired reproducibility enough to guarantee that these approximations are possible.the last paragraph of page.2 of [url=http://dozenal.com]http://dozenal.com[/url] wrote:the unit system that is constructed by using the dozenal system and using 'the speed of light in vacuum', 'the quantum of action', and the Boltzmann constant as the defining constants in such a way that these constants become strict multiples of integer powers of 12 of the unit quantities, and the Rydberg constant, the atomic mass unit, the Bohr radius, and 'half the value of the Planck length' can be approximated by multiples of integer powers of 12 of the unit quantities.
The great transformation of concept ruins commonness of the corresponding definition constant.the 3rd paragraph of page.1 of [url=http://dozenal.com]http://dozenal.com[/url] wrote:The history of units of measure, on the other hand, is the history of the establishment of new concepts that have accompanied the development of natural science. The laws of nature describe the 'relationship' between 'a given quantity' and 'another quantity' specified as mathematical expressions. The 'given quantity' and 'another quantity' referred to here are often quantities that correspond to 'newly established or greatly transformed concepts' that are born of new discoveries, as occurred with mass, energy, and electrical charge. As this process goes on, the need arises to deal with quantities of a new concept and a quantity is selected as a standard for that purpose. That quantity becomes a new unit.
If there is no comment, I will change 'harmonized' to 'harmonic'.Takashi @ Aug 11 2010, 02:37 AM wrote:'Harmonized' means that human activity and fundamental physical constant are harmonized.
There is a word 'harmonic' that matches 'cosmic' and 'atomic' to the rhyme.
Is it natural for native speakers to use 'harmonic' instead of 'harmonized'?
See chapter 2.1 and appendix D.1 of http://dozenal.com .Luke-Jr @ Mar 10 2011, 02:19 AM wrote:Why were these values chosen?
See the #6 of this thread and 'Clock_by_Rydberg' sheet of http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~dd6t-sg/uni ... densed.xls .Luke-Jr @ Mar 10 2011, 02:19 AM wrote:1. What are the names of the basic units for measurement, weights, temperatures, etc, and what are their imperial/metric equivalents?
See the #15 of this thread .Luke-Jr @ Mar 10 2011, 02:19 AM wrote:2. What are the prefixes/suffixes used to denote larger or smaller amounts of these units?
I guess there are good reasons? I can't really make any sense out of this site.Takashi @ Mar 12 2011, 01:22 AM wrote:See chapter 2.1 and appendix D.1 of http://dozenal.com .Luke-Jr @ Mar 10 2011, 02:19 AM wrote:Why were these values chosen?
I'm afraid this still seems too complicated. How many SI or (even better) US/imperial units are each of the new ones?Takashi @ Mar 12 2011, 01:22 AM wrote:See the #6 of this thread and 'Clock_by_Rydberg' sheet of http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~dd6t-sg/uni ... densed.xls .Luke-Jr @ Mar 10 2011, 02:19 AM wrote:1. What are the names of the basic units for measurement, weights, temperatures, etc, and what are their imperial/metric equivalents?
The first through third exponents seem sensible enough, but then it jumps immediately to 8th exponent? How would one handle 1,000,000 units of whatever? And since cosmic/atomic lack abbreviations(?), one has to write out the full word? What is larger/smaller than cosmic/atomic? After all, a cosmic byte (no new data unit?) would only be equivalent to 430 MB...Takashi @ Mar 12 2011, 01:22 AM wrote:See the #15 of this thread .Luke-Jr @ Mar 10 2011, 02:19 AM wrote:2. What are the prefixes/suffixes used to denote larger or smaller amounts of these units?
See the last paragraph of chapter 3.3 of http://dozenal.com/ and #30,#33 of this thread .Luke-Jr @ Mar 12 2011, 01:50 AM wrote:The first through third exponents seem sensible enough, but then it jumps immediately to 8th exponent?
See the second table of #6 of this thread and prefix column of 'Clock_by_Rydberg' sheet of http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~dd6t-sg/uni ... densed.xls .Luke-Jr @ Mar 12 2011, 01:50 AM wrote:What is larger/smaller than cosmic/atomic?
See chapter 4 and the last 2 paragraphs of chapter 3.5 of http://dozenal.com/ .Luke-Jr @ Mar 12 2011, 01:50 AM wrote:How many SI or (even better) US/imperial units are each of the new ones?
There are not abbreviations, but notations. I am making a summary now.Luke-Jr @ Mar 12 2011, 01:50 AM wrote:And since cosmic/atomic lack abbreviations(?), one has to write out the full word?
'octal century' = 64 yearTakashi @ Apr 1 2011, 11:23 AM wrote:Rather I want to express 'dodeci meter' and 'octal century' by shorter words.
Does the word 'Span' apply to the above unit?Takashi @ Apr 5 2011, 10:11 PM wrote:'octal century' = 64 year
- half of the Least Common Multiple (LCM) of the length of a day and a tropical year
- two times human generation approximately
Code: Select all
1.1 The length of the unit terms 1.1.1 The unit terms to be used more frequently are shorter. But, It is not necessary to extremely shorten them. There are many words more frequently used in daily use than unit terms. Unit terms don't have priority over these words. Don't shorten the term which distinguish an important difference. (example) Identification of the plus and minus of the power prefix. 1.1.2 The unit terms not to be used so frequently are longer. (reference) The policy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-yllion is right. 1.2 Don't do novel naming in vain. (exception) Units(time, length, volume and mass) and lower power(1-4) prefixes used most frequently may attach new names or abbreviations. It is difficult to learn mass novel names. Errata are not avoidable even in proposer. Because unit terms for decimal and duodecimal are identifiable in context, we can reuse words used widely for decimal as words for duodecimal. Unit terms for decimal should be combined only with the decimal numbers. Unit terms for duodecimal should be combined only with duodecimal numbers. You can omit the self-evident element in context. 1.3 The peculiar name of the units 1.3.1 Give the peculiar name to a useful unit suitable for a start point of the deriving. Because the unit system is coherent, how to derive units is free. Therefore, it is not realistic to give a new derived unit a peculiar name one by one. (It is the introduction of mass novel names.) I choose useful units suitable for start points of the deriving to become easy to understand how all derived units were derived, and only give peculiar names to these useful units. 1.3.2 Collision with the conventional variable name If there is no special circumstances, choose the name with the initial letter which is different from a conventional variable name of the corresponding dimensional quantity.
Code: Select all
2.1 The length of the symbol Should be as short as possible. 2.2 Correspondence with the naming of the unit terms 2.2.1 The element which is not self-evident in context Express all them by a letter. (example) The identification of the plus and minus of the power prefix depends on existence (+/-) of the letter not the position of the letter. 2.2.2 The element which is self-evident in context In general, don't omit these elements, too.