Earth/matrix
The Theoretical Interpretation of Spacetime/motion


The Idea of "Uncertainty" in the Fundamental Physical Constants:

Relational Computations without Physical Bases

 

By Charles William Johnson

©September, 2014

Tweet

 

If a particular constant represents the relationship or ratio of three or four different constants, the question arises regarding the concept of "uncertainty" in the measurements.

 

Take a hypothetical example, where you have constant 1 = to (constant 2 divided by constant 3) divided by (constant 3 divided by constant 4).

 

The simple sum or relationships of the "uncertainty" of each constant (1 - 4) would affect the cited "uncertainty" of constant 1.

 

Consider an example of a constant that contains or represents four fundamental physical constants. Consider its apparent nature as shown on the complete list of fundamental physical constants provided by NIST. It appears as follows:

 

Constant

Value

Uncertainty

Unit

Atomic mass constant energy equivalent in MeV

931.494061

0.000021

MeV

 

This constant needs to be broken down into its constituent parts, as it represents minimally four other constants according to the tenets of the complete listing of the fundamental physical constants of the NIST:

 

a)

Atomic mass constant energy equivalent in MeV (931.494061)

=

atomic mass constant energy equivalent (1.492417954)

divided by electron volt (1.602176565)

 

b)

Atomic mass constant energy equivalent (1.492417954)  

=

atomic mass constant (1.660538921)

multiplied times c-square (8.987551787)

Further, one may consider additional complementary derivations. But, for our analysis we limit our observations to the four or five main constants cited.

    c)

Atomic mass constant

=

(1/6.02214129)

d)

c times c (2.99792458 times 2.99792458);

in other words the constant of the speed of light in vacuo multiplied times the constant of the speed of light in vacuo

 

e)

electron volt, elementary charge, atomic unit of charge, etc. 1.602176565

=

joule/electron volt
(1 / 6.24150934)

 

Now, without examining all the different levels of relationships that intervene previously in order to derive the constant 1.0, consider the uncertainties of the four constants cited in relation to one another. This may be done visually by simply replacing the values of the constant (1-4) with their corresponding values of uncertainty.

 

Again consider the four|five constants:

 

a)

Atomic mass constant energy equivalent in MeV (931.494061)

=

atomic mass constant energy equivalent (1.492417954)

divided by

electron volt

(1.602176565)

 

b)

Atomic mass constant energy equivalent (1.492417954)

=

atomic mass constant  (1.660538921)

multiplied times c-square (8.987551787)

 

Now, consider those same constants replaced with their respective values of uncertainty:

 

a)

Atomic mass constant energy equivalent in MeV

(0.000021 e6)

=

atomic mass constant

energy equivalent

(0.000 000 000 066 e-10)

divided by

electron volt

(0.000 000 035 e-19)

 

b)

Atomic mass constant

energy equivalent

(0.000021 e6)

=

atomic mass constant

(0.000 000 073 e-27)

multiplied times

c-square (exact*)

 

[*the value for c (299792458) is cited as being, but one can only wonder whether the square of that value represents an exact measurement; doubtful in my mind as c is the physical limit to spacetime motion; the physical limit to spacetime motion cannot be physically multiplied by itself, it would derive a numerical value that has no existence in spacetime. In my view, c-square is an inexact theoretical concept regarding the speed of light in a vacuum. And, I say this because c does not represent the physical limit to spacetime motion of matter-energy. Superluminal velocities exist regarding c, but not in the manner proposed by the concept of c-square. However, this theme represents a different line of discussion from the one being presented here regarding the notion of uncertainty in the physical constants.]

 

Now, place the uncertainty values in the mathematically corresponding places of the constants. The corresponding uncertainty values represent variations in the "constants" that literally multiply exponentially when related to one another in the manner as they are presented on the complete list of fundamental physical constants.

 

a)

(0.000021 e6)

=

(0.000 000 000 066 e-10)

divided by (0.000 000 035 e-19)

 

b)

(0.000 000 000 066 e-10)

=

(0.000 000 073 e-27) multiplied times (inexact)

 

By all appearances the potential relationships of the variation in the numerical values of the constants, their values of uncertainty, would be greater than what is presented for each constant.  To propose the idea that constant 1.492417954 e-27 has a possibility of uncertainty of 0.000 000 066 e-10, when this constant is based upon four other uncertain constants [ (0.000 000 035 e-19); (0.000 000 000 066 e-10); (0.000 000 073 e-27) (inexact) ] is misleading to say the least. In my view, the reasoning offered for the nature of the fundamental physical constants in their aspect of "uncertainty" is without any physical basis. The numerical values of "uncertainty" of the physical constants in some relational instances are simply numbers ---not physical measurements. In my view, it is impossible to do the math, because there is no math to be done; the relationship of the uncertainty numbers do not exist as proposed.

 

The case presented here is one of many to be found on the complete list of the fundamental physical constants. It is unnecessary, in my view, to examine all of the relational cases of a constant based on multiple constants. A single example should suffice to recognize the weakness in the theoretical presentation of the fundamental physical constants in terms of relating their numerical values of uncertainty.

 

One final comment is in order. If all of spacetime is in constant motion, then the idea of "uncertainty" in the measured numerical values has little meaning, at the cited theoretical level, as variation is a constant aspect of matter-energy. Even according to the cobbled and hobbled theory of relativity, the lengthening of matter-energy events at certain velocities mean variation in their numerical values, i.e., uncertainties and inexact measurements. Along this line of reasoning, the very word-concept of a "fundamental physical constant" requires further analysis.

 

©September, 2014 Copyrighted by Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved.

Earth/matriX Editions

www.earthmatrix.com              charles@earthmatrix.com


Home Books Forum Links Author