Brent>> all physical measurements will be rational numbers

SB> Well, it is quite a statement ;o) so you may write down an exact
SB> Planck constant (h), please illustrate that...
SB> If you experience difficulty to do that for ( h ) please try
write
SB> down an exact gravitational constant ( G )...

Brent>No, problem.  Like most physicists I write h=1, G=1, c=1.

Apparently no problem ;o)

--sb


On Jul 24, 9:29 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> stefanba...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Brent> all physical measurements will be rational numbers
>
> > Well, it is quite a statement ;o) so you may write down an exact
> > Planck constant (h), please illustrate that...
> > If you experience difficulty to do that for ( h ) please try write
> > down an exact gravitational constant ( G )...
>
> No, problem.  Like most physicists I write h=1, G=1, c=1.
>
>
>
> > Ref: Planck constant:  h = 4.135 667 33(10) × 10−15 eV s
> > (10) The two digits between the parentheses denote the standard
> > uncertainty in the last two digits of the value.
>
> The uncertainty is in the conversion to eVs.  It arises because different 
> people
> got different numbers when measuring, but each measurement was a rational 
> number.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> > SB> there is no way to write down an exact arbitrary irrational number
> > Brent> There is no problem writing down irrational numbers:
> > Brent> sqrt(2), pi,... See nothing to it.  ;-)
>
> > You miss the key word "arbitrary", it is simple to show that the
> > number of irrational numbers which can be expressed/encoded with ZERO
> > entropy equals to number of rational numbers (sqrt(2) is one of such
> > examples).
>
> > --sb
>
> > On Jul 23, 4:30 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >> stefanba...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> SBJ: Information entropy of physical fundamental constants
> >>> The fundamental constant can be measured increasingly accurate, it
> >>> does not seem (for me) that the  repetitive pattern of rational
> >>> numbers after some number of digits may take place;
> >> Physical measurements are always relative, i.e. one quantify is measured in
> >> units of another quantity.  It is generally thought that there is a 
> >> smallest
> >> possible unit, the Planck scale, so all physical measurements will be 
> >> rational
> >> numbers (integers in Planck units).
>
> >>> if it is the case
> >>> then there is not enough "room" in the universe / multiverse to
> >>> accommodate such information as exact representation of fundamental
> >>> constant - just in principle, there is no way to have it exact as
> >>> there is no way to write down an exact arbitrary irrational number and
> >>> it is not a technical limitation it is a fundamental limitation unless
> >>> it may be represented as a rational number ;o).
> >> There is no problem writing down irrational numbers: sqrt(2), pi,... See 
> >> nothing
> >> to it.  ;-)
>
> >> Of course from an information standpoint you want to know their bits.  But 
> >> it
> >> also easy to write down a quite short program that will compute whatever 
> >> bit you
> >> want to know for those irrational numbers.  But you are right that for 
> >> almost
> >> all real numbers is impossible to give them a finite representation.  But 
> >> why
> >> believe in those numbers anyway, they are convenient fictions.
>
> >>> Information Entropy
> >>> can be measured as an average number of bits per symbol/digit encoded
> >>> by rank-0 context model + entropy encoder (let say arithmetic
> >>> encoder). Therefore, there are two distinct possibilities: entropy
> >>> equals zero or Log2(10) (for decimal representation) or simply: ZERO
> >>> or NON-ZERO. I have my ideas how NON-ZERO case may workout but I'm
> >>> interested to listen others opinions.
> >> Most cosmogonies assume the (microscopic) entropy of the universe is zero. 
> >>  It
> >> started at the Planck scale, where there is room for at most one bit and 
> >> since
> >> QM insists on unitary evolution the entropy cannot change (as measured at 
> >> the
> >> Planck scale).  The increase in entropy we see is due to our coarse 
> >> graining, or
> >> as Bruno would say, "above our substitution level".  It is impossible to 
> >> however
> >> to use the negative information to get back to local zero because the 
> >> expansion
> >> of the universe has carried the correlations beyond the relativistic 
> >> horizon.
> >> At least that's the common theory.
>
> >> Brent
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to