Advertisement

Where Do We Live? Reflections on Physical Units and the Universal Constants

  • E. U. Condon

Abstract

Physicists are always busy measuring things. Measurement implies methods of measurement and the adoption of arbitrary units in terms of which things are measured. Our arbitrary units have been chosen from a definitely practical standpoint and thus have no direct relation to the fundamental quantities of nature; that is, to the so-called universal constants, the quantities which are not properties of special substances but are fundamental characteristics of the physical world. Let us therefore have a look at the unit systems of physics.

Keywords

Natural Unit Universal Constant Rotational Energy Physical Unit Numerical Magnitude 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. 2.
    For interesting accounts of ancient and modern units see: Glazebrook, Proc. Phys. Soc. 43, 412 (1931); Gliozzi, Atti di Torino 67, 29 (1931).Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Planck, Theory of Heat Radiation,Blakiston, 1914, p. 173; Lewis and Adams, Phys. Rev. 3, 92 (1914); Lewis, Phys. Rev. 18, 121 (1921); Lewis, Contributions from the Jefferson Physical Laboratory,Cambridge, 1922, Vol. 15; L.L. Whyte, Critique of Physics,Norton, 1931.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Hartree, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 24, 89 (1928). See also Ruark, Phys. Rev. 38, 2240 (1931); Clark, Phil. Mag. 14, 291 (1932). As to the experimental values of the constants the best critical survey is that of Birge, Rev. Mod. Phys. 1, 1 (1929). See also Bond, Phil. Mag. 10, 994 (1930); Birge, Phys. Rev. 40, 228 (1932).Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    A number of relations of this type have been published recently: Witmer, Nature 124 180 (1929); Phys. Rev. 42 316 (1932); Perles, Naturwiss. 16 1094 (1928); Clark, Naturwiss. 21 182 (1932); Rojansky, Nature 123 911 (1929); Mills, Science 75, 243 (1932) and criticism by Birge, p. 383.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    Eddington, Nature 124, 840 (1929); Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 27, 15 (1931); Proc. Roy. Soc. Al26, 696 (1930); Fürth, Zeits. f. Physik 57, 429 (1929); Bond, Proc. Phys. Soc. 44, 374 (1932); Flint, Proc. Phys. Soc. 42, 239 (1930); Beck, Heiv. Phys. Acta 6, 309 (1933); Schames, Zeits. f. Physik 81, 270 (1933); Narlikar, Nature 131, 134 (1933).Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Since it is the square of the permanent moment which occurs in the temperature-dependent part of the susceptibility in the Langevin-Debye formula the relative magnitude of the polarizability and the permanent moment terms in the susceptibility is the same in the magnetic as in the electric case. See Van Vleck, The Theory of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities, Oxford, 1932.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Eddington, The Internal Constitution of the Stars Cambridge, 1926, Chap 1.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    Jeans, Astronomy and Cosmogony Cambridge, 1928, Chap. 16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. U. Condon
    • 1
  1. 1.Palmer Physical LaboratoryPrinceton UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations