Re: My suggestion for scientific units.

ande452_at_attglobal.net
Date: 08/31/04 

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:34:20 -0700

This was thought of many years previously.

Xman wrote:
>
> You can choose any types of scientific units you want such as metres,
> inches, miles etc. But which will be the most *simplest* to use when
> we are describing such things as a theory of everthing?
>
> I have good reason to believe that the following are very useful, if
> not a particularly special assignment of values of units:
>
> We set c = 1, h/2pi = 1 , mass of neutron = 1
>
> From this we get units like the following:
>
> length unit ~ 1.5*10^(-13) cm
> time unit ~ 4.6 10^(-24) seconds
>
> interestingly the length unit is close to what is called 'classical
> electron radius.
>
> Now if we follow Dirac's cosmology and assume that the gravitational
> constant G is inversely proportional to T (time since big bang). Then
> this gives approximately in our units:
> G ~= 70/T
>
> (I don't know where this small number close to 70 comes from but it is
> small enough to perhaps be explained in some future TOE). If we chose
> a particle mass other than the neutron, such as the electron, then we
> would not get such a small number.
>
> Why is this system useful?
> ==========================
> It is useful for all atomic theories since with these units we have
> for example mass of helium ~ 4, mass of electron ~ 1/1840 , mass of
> top quark in quark model ~ 186. So all the useful masses become
> numbers close to 1. (i.e. not millions of times bigger or smaller).
> The mass scale of cosmic rays resonances is approximately 1 in our
> units.
> The sum of the charged lepton masses is almost exactly 2 in our units
> e+mu+tau~2
>
> This shows that using these units (and Dirac's cosmology) all physical
> values have numbers close to 1.
>
> (Other units, for example using the Planck mass, assume a static
> gravitational constant and are less useful in my opinion since they
> don't correspond to anything special physics values.)
>
> What can these units be called?
> ===============================
> You can call them 'Neutron units' or 'Paul' units (after me!) if you
> like. I challenge anyone to find a more useful set of units than
> these.
>
> Finally
> =======
> In our units the charged lepton masses are eigenvalues of the
> following symmetrical matrix:
>
> (2/3 z z)
> (z* 2/3 z)
> (z* z* 2/3)
>
> where the complex number z has |z|~=0.8. Which shows how the three
> different values of the masses of electron(1/1840), muon(207 x
> electron_mass) and tau(3477 x electron_mass) may perhaps be found in a
> GUT from a symmetrical theory.