If Wikipedia is taken as a scientific authority, then the situation is
really bad.
Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 11.12.2016 22:36:
Ben, List:
On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]>
wrote:
According to Wikipedia, the Planck length is, in principle, within a
factor of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no
theoretically known improvement in measurement instruments could
change that. But some physicists have found that that's not quite as
much of a barrier as it may seem to be.
Your post is unclear. I know of no mathematical nor physical nor
chemical reason for such a conclusion about measurements of
commensurabilities.
Is the mathematics of electric field theory constrained by the
physical principles that motivate this conclusion about this
measurement of Planck’s constant?
Perhaps others may be able to expand on the origin of this conjecture.
But, from my perspective, it is merely another example of the problems
of scientific epistemologies and Wikipedia’s style of informing
public opinion.
Historically, this issue has arise on this list serve with respect
controversial Wikipedia articles that appear to be authored by a
member of Peirce-L.
Cheers
Jerry
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
