For example, every other constant we come across in natural science is irrational number in our number system. e.g Cicle is natural shape, Pi is irrational. Gravity is natural, G is irrational. Electrostatic force is natural, Epsilon and charge measured on electron is irrational and so on.
Will it not be worthwhile to find why all such natural constants are irrational in our number/measurement system?
2006-09-27 06:43:04 · 5 answers · asked by Me Myself 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
I mean, if we can find a number system in which all these natural constants are integers, we will be able to solve many unsolved mysteries in nature.
2006-09-29 08:47:15 · update #1
Actually, we already do that. In context, we work with units where the speed of light is 1, where acceleration is measured in 'g' units, where angles are measured in radians, and charge is measured in units of 'e', the charge of the electron. Now, your challenge is to see if you can find one consistent set of units that works that way. I don't know if there's a charge smaller than 'e'. The minimum unit of mass would need to be extroardinarily small. If you could find such a set of units, I think that would be very revealing and very valuable, and would earn you a very respectable place in the annals of science. An excellent question.
2006-09-27 13:18:58 · answer #1 · answered by Frank N 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mathematics is ultimately a representation of nature, no more, and definitely less. A finite detail in your ability to observe will probably be good enough for everyday science through the most esoteric of physics. The uncertainty principle would certainly be staring you down soon into this journey anyways.
I would say it would not be worthwhile to find why "G" and the like are irrational in our number/measurement system. Empirical data could be good enough once we understand the nature of things.
....material science
2006-10-05 05:59:18 · answer #2 · answered by designer_brian 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there are a form of issues that prepare the vast bang surpassed off, CBR (cosmic heritage radiation) and the pink shift are 2 which. The pink shift shows that one and all products interior the universe are increasing remote from one yet another and the CBR is envisioned through the vast bang theory. For a more beneficial distinct clarification you'll favor to dive deeply into the physics of it. "Macro evolution" is a creationist time period, biologists do not ignore that any significant replace in a inhabitants is the authentic results of any variety of smaller differences and there is no longer something that advise that a "magic barrier" exists between species, it really is to assert, there is no longer something in biology that shows that if 2 populations of a similar species are separated and adjust in yet otherwise that there is any basic mechanism the position those differences will be constrained in besides. there are a form of robust books that outline why all of us do not ignore that evolution has and is an ongoing procedure, i'd advise Dawkins "the great prepare in the international". You (nicely per chance no longer you, yet others) truly can no longer in worry-free words show that air exist, yet can tell what gases make it up and in what volume those gases are, case in aspect hydrogen is someplace round 15 parts in line with million. something you could opt to think about is that any biologist or physicist, interior the case of the vast bang, would income a great deal of repute and intensely probable fortune for arising with a theory to change evolution and yet no man or woman has submitted a paper alongside complicated evolution for over 80 years or a minimum of no longer one which met the rigorous criteria of the peer evaluate procedure. Edit: even if in case your statement that the data pointed to a author (which it maximum emphatically does no longer), it really is sparkling from the data that that author doesn't be the god of the Bible. it really is sparkling that the advent tale does no longer resemble or come on the point of matching the data in besides, even if if we replace the definition that Genesis makes use of for "day" into meaning almost 2 billion years in line with day. (This surely makes the Bible a lot worse...).
2016-10-16 02:33:36 · answer #3 · answered by carrilo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes its a good question and has a good answer too.its correct that we use irrationals but in order to end up with rationals. i mean that if try solving it out with rationals then probably we wont get wat we want .those are the absolute values derived for solving various problems.doesn't matter wat the result is.if they are approximated to a great extent in order to make them integers then the answer will be far more complex and inaccurate.
2006-10-03 20:16:19 · answer #4 · answered by bhagyashree_pani 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
2006-09-27 09:59:59 · answer #5 · answered by Vigilant Möth 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋