With the tread of FT Background including a discussion about time, I though
that I would throw out the following for discussion.
Hypothesis: There is no universal measurement. Every measurement is relative,
that is is defined in comparison to something else. Examples:
Weight/Mass. This can be based on the atomic weight of a hydrogen
molecule. But could be based on the mass of an electron or quark just as well.
And if measurements are based on this small of a unit, it makes it VERY
unwieldy to work with large masses such as that of an armored vehicle. Time:
Time on earth is based on planetary rotation and orbit. If your species
developed on another planet the time would be different. Time based on change
of energy states does not work because the time it takes is dependent on the
amount of external energy. Time based on decay of a particle will vary
depending on what particle you choose. Energy: Energy units are based on
performing a specific task. That is, a calorie is an amount of energy it takes
to raise the temperature a specific amount of water 1 degree at a specific
altitude. As you can see there are many factors involved. If you base it on
electron energy states, Oscar's Razor comes into play. (Oscar's Razor states
that you cannot tell both the energy state and position of an electron. This
is because the act of observing an electron changes its state). Again, scaling
up from subatomic to newtonian level presents a problem. *It may be Oscam's
Razor. My brain is fading now.
Distance/Size: Distance is dependent on what you measure against. This
is why we developed standard measurements. But they are based on whim or other
factors such as time and heat.
Corollary: Since there are no universal measurements, there is no basis for
communication. You say math is a constant? Math is good for describing facts,
but unless you have a consensus on the measurements, it is less useful for
describing theory. And how do you describe democracy, freedom, ownership and
other such concepts mathematically?
> Brian Bell wrote:
> Hypothesis: There is no universal measurement.
Interesting ideas here....
> Every measurement is relative, that is is defined in comparison to
That's the truth. By definition, a definition has to have a frame of
reference. (Gahh, that's twisted. (8-) ) Thus, there is no universal
frame of reference.
However, you can choose things so that your frame of references is as large as
possible.
> Examples:
That's really not a problem, because as soon as you define your base
measurement, you can build a consistent measurement system on top of
that e.g. going from grams (or pounds, if you insist (8-) ) to ton(nes).
And it works in a large scale, in that a hydrogen atom is going to be a
hydrogen atom anywhere in the Universe (assuming a) you buy the theory that
laws of physics are wide scale, and b) you ignore nasty things like
singularities.)
> Time: Time on earth is based on planetary rotation and orbit. If
Use the Cesium clock standard - one TimeJerry is the amount of required
for my reference material to vibrate x times (where x is a very large number).
Then you can tackle the distance problem really easy. One DistanceJerry is the
distance light covers in one TimeJerry.
> Energy: Energy units are based on performing a specific task. That
You can however express energy as E=mv^2, or mgh, or other ways that avoid
this problem.
> Corollary: Since there are no universal measurements, there is no
Wasn't this brought up in 'Contact?' (I'm thinking of the book, not the
movie.) Measurements can be handled as long as you can somehow let the other
people know what frame of reference you're using. (The idea of Voyager and the
12 Quasars comes to mind, if my memory is at all
working...)
And as long as you establish the vocabulary, you can express the actual
definition of things like democracy, freedom, and ownership. (Granted, the
actual implications may be beyond communication; but, on the flip side, we
have problems discussing it amongst ourselves.)
I should throw in a disclaimer that I was trained as an Applied Mathematician,
so I believe most things in the Universe are open to measurement and analysis
through mathematics.
Apologies for the rambling (gotta love the midnight shift...)
J.
> At 23:36 11/02/98 -0700, you wrote:
General relativity, I believe?
> states, Oscar's Razor comes into play. (Oscar's Razor states that you
Almost:). I believe it's Hiezenberg's Uncertainty Priniciple (and even the I
may have spelled his name wrong). Actually, as I remember, you can't
measure the amount of energy an electron of itself has - the energy
state of an electron is down to where it's orbiting round an atom and you
measure the amount of energy it gives off when it changes orbits in the form
of EM radiation. These *are* (as far as I remember) universally constant. And
a I think it's Occam's Razor, which is the 'if it quacks like a duck and walks
like a duck' one.
> Corollary: Since there are no universal measurements, there is no basis
You can't. But there *are* certain things which are apparently to us actually
constant. Two examples would be the speed of light (which stays constant in
the normal universe) and the ratio of a circle's radius to it's circumference.
Whether this allows you to communicate effectively with an alien species is a
separate issue. In terms of the FT universe and
measurement you can have a standard measure of time - there are various
ways to do it like atomic decay rates etc. But if you have FTL comms you can
just have a universal speaking clock:). That's presuming you have FTL travel.
If you only have very very near light speed ravel then your tim is up the
kaibish too. ( I am presuming whatever FTL system you use doesn't suffer from
relativistic effects). even then, some of the newer 'possibly FTL' particle
effects (like spin reversion) COULD be used to make for standard time
measurement regardless of distance.
TTFN
Jon
Ah a Physics Thread! I love these.
> >states, Oscar's Razor comes into play. (Oscar's Razor states that you
Oh boy. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that you can not know both
the position and the momentum of a particle to an arbitrary degree of
precision. In other words if you know the position precisely then there is a
minimum degree of uncertainty to your knowledge of the momentum.
It also works for energy and time. If you know the energy of a particle
precisely then there is a minimum uncertainty to the length of time it will
stay in that energy state.
> And a I think it's Occam's Razor, which is the
Occam's Razor is a statement that you should make as few assumptions as
possible. Which can lead to the duck statement so long as you
_know_ rather than _assume_ that ducks are the only things that
walk like a duck and quacks like a duck. Occam's Razor is useful but
rather over-rated.
(What you are thinking of might be the equivalence principle which
states that if you find _an_ answer you have found _the_ answer.)
Cheers,
> Hypothesis: There is no universal measurement.
True, very true but.....
> Examples:
Yes, but you can simply define a larger unit of mass as 10^30 time that of the
electron. Pointing at an electron is fairly easy. A simple (if large) number
is a fairly easy concept to get across. Hence a scale of mass with a unit of
~1.0977 kg has just been designed.
> Time: Time on earth is based on planetary rotation and orbit. If
Point at a pulsar that is clearly visible. Pulsars have a very well defined
frequency. Time base now defined. Arbitrary but fine if both parties can see
the same portion of the universe.
> Energy: Energy units are based on performing a specific task. That
Energy will always be a derived quantity. Energy is dimensionally mass x
length squared over time squared. If you can define mass, length and time
scales you have defined an energy scale.
> Distance/Size: Distance is dependent on what you measure against.
This
> is why we developed standard measurements. But they are based on whim
The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. We already have a timebase from
our pulsar so we can now define length.
I have made one big assumption here. My assumption is that any alien race we
communicate will not be living in very high gravity wells or at speeds near to
that of light. If they are then relativity comes into play and their mass and
time scales will be different but if we're talking to them they probably
understand relativity and so can make the conversions just as easily as we
can.
Cheers,
[snip]
> (Oscar's Razor states that you
That's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: the act of observing a system
affects the system being observed.
*Occam's* razor is the principle that if there are more than one explanation
for a given phenomenon, the simplest explanation is (most likely) the correct
one. Also called the "Sword of Margola" (IIRC) in Nightfall.
- Sam
> > Energy: Energy units are based on performing a specific task. That
I believe Occam's Razor is a choice where you are quite literally damned if
you do, damned if you don't. You are, I believe, referring to the inability to
know the energy state and position of an electron at the same time which
physics types call The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (But I could be
mistaken..... I slept through about half my Engineering Physics courses....)
/************************************************
AARGH! I can't believe I got that one wrong. Occam's Razor is indeed a warning
to not assume things (in this case, I shouldn't have assumed my memory was
good....) and what I presented (damned if you do, damned if you don't) was
actually Hobson's Choice.
Apologies to any for my misinformation.
BTW, I'm most impressed by the level of general Ed out there in the GZG
list.... I'm surprised how many good explanations (all from different folk) of
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle have appeared. Just goes to show you that
we're a well educated bunch (*patting
self on back*).... :)
Tom.
/************************************************