Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Make US Great Again

As there's still not a push to convert the metric system to a natural unit system, mind you, because of quite good reasons, it might be best to stick with the SI-unit system. Though this system doesn't base itself to any universal physical constant, it can (by definition) be derived from these. At least it should be. Currently the physicist are guessing that between 19 to 26 constants are present in universe, not accounting the possible constants associated with dark matter and dark energy. Many of these are of no use in normal human interactions. It's also clear that a system based on these would need to be normalized to be usable in human context. F.e., I could say I'm 1,126077784 * 1035 Planck lengths tall, but why not say this with simpler numbers and say I'm c. 6 feet. We might take 1035 Planck Lenghts as our base unit in such a system to get on human scale (this would be ~161,6 cm aka ~5 feet 3⅝ inches).

The metric system might also need refinement, as the base of all metric measures has been changed over time. F.e. metre is no longer a 1/10'000'000th of the quarter of the distance round the globe via poles, but something to do with wave-particle frequencies in a theoretical perfect vacuum (oops, quite not so), making the exact metre accessible to only physicists and their imagination. But it must be agreed that this distance changes also by natural means, heavy earthquakes and such large mass movements shape the earth. These natural phenomena and the measurement errors present in the late 18th century make the current meter ~0,1478% too large for the original definition. Still, many countries use the SI-based system of measurement. This is of course no problem as long as the numbers we get can be converted to natural units. It just wouldn't be prudent to say to an alien, "I'm 1,82 meters". Or maybe it would, but she/he/it wouldn't understand. She/he/it might also decide I'm too Earth-centric to live. Thus we might use multiples or fractions of natural units as a base. I guess this is not a large problem currently, but soon might be.

The headline of this post is of course inspired by the you-know-who, with the exception of changing the noun to the correct one (MUGA instead of MAGA). Many of you have likely already guessed what the post is about. That is, the incompatibility between the historical, anthropogenically derived units of measurement and the almost scientific SI-system. The reason why I say "almost" in this context should be obvious to math and phys students, this is of course the nature of universe in which there are no irrational numbers (as far as we can know it). F.e. we need 62 decimals of π to calculate the circumference of the universe to multiples of Planck lengths. Planck length is about the shortest accepted length within the framework of quantum physics (without considering black holes) so this number of decimals should be the only ones needed. Still, mathematicians can live on their imaginary Euclidian Plane and calculate it much further. π to 62 decimals is 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459 and the physicists won't need to blow up their computers' math processors. There are a whole bunch of these numbers not existing in the universe, as any mathematician may tell you. Heck, there is even a number j for which j2=1, but j≠1! The things people dream up.

The whole shebang above of course means that ∞ and 0 would exist only in our imagination, or at least be even harder to define than now. Alternately, we could define "universe = 1", and all the numbers we use would be fractions of this, but this is veering to ontological questions and the foundations of mathematics, so I better leave it alone. F.e. the situation where you have 0$ wouldn't exist, but instead the bank might say you have ε$ on your account (1st definition). As there are no coins of this size, the real life effect would be the same.

To cut to the chase, to MUGA, you the people of USA, could convert the aged measurement units you use to the SI-based system with the following conversion factors (suggested names for the units included):

inch = 2.5 cm
inch*2/5 = 1 cm
4*inch = 10 cm
6*inch = 15 cm = lttle hands span
7*inch = 17.5 cm = span
10*inch = 25 cm = foot = shoe size 10 (or 40)
12*inch = 30 cm = old foot
2*foot = 1/2 m
3*foot = 75 cm = step
3*old foot = 90 cm = yard
4*foot = 1 m = hobbit
4*old foot = 1.20 m = there's nothing that is this size (minimum size of dwarfs)
6*foot = 1.50 m = dwarf
12*foot = 3 m
26*step + 2*foot = 20 m = chain
lap*1/2 = 200 m = furlong
lap = 400 m
4*lap = 1600 m = old mile
2000 steps = 1500 m = 1000 dwarfs = mile
2*mile = 3000 m = chase
2000 yards = 1800 m = nautical mile

This would instantly make US at least 0,5% greater, and for the bolder of you, who would convert to the 'new' mile of 1500 m, a whole 7.2896% greater. This would mean the mile-run records might be made greaterer and areas would similarly be huge'er by far. Similar adjustments could be made for weights, like, pound is half a kilo, so everyone would feel less fat (c.9%) afterwards. I'm not going to go through all the conversions required to MUGA, but you really should change the gallon to be 3,75 liters so you'd get more gallons per buck. Some additional suggestions for conversion factors may appear on the page later on the blog after I figure out what the odd electric voltage you guys use means for electric bills.

If you feel this is a cheap trick, consider that you use an imperial system, despite having a two-party democracy and a president (of sorts).

(Hopefully I got the calculations correct)