Is there a possibility that, in another region of space, µ0

File: 2243288.jpg (219KB, 850x896px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 850x896px

The value of the permeability constant is a function of π, so yes it will change if the region of space is sufficiently warped such that Euclidean geometry no longer applies.

>>8491928
>if the region of space is sufficiently warped such that Euclidean geometry no longer applies
I can't think of anywhere that conforms to that definition but I'm not an astronomer either, does such a place exist?

>>8491938
B L A C K H O L E

>>8491628
Sure, why not?

>>8491928
Euclidean geometry doesn't apply around black holes. Euclidean geometry doesn't apply where frame dragging exists.

>>8492230
>Sure, why not?
Wouldn't that change the speed of light in that vicinity?

>>8492365


The speed of light changes between mediums too my man.

>>8492543
That's misleading. The light always propagates at c. In some mediums the photons bounce back and forth, as a result it takes longer for them to move through said medium.

>>8492543
I was thinking that this could have an effect on the measurement of the distance of luminous objects behind one such "altered permittivity" pocket, but on second thought, not really

>>8492636
Or maybe it does, fuck if I know

>>8491928
>is a function of π, so yes it will change if the region of space is sufficiently warped such that Euclidean geometry no longer applies
Wait, is there a mathematical theorie where pi has a different value?
I know non euclidean geometry but this doesn't change the value of pi. A different value of pi would have a huge impact to all branches of math. For example there's a connection between pi and the prime numbers so the properties of natural numbers would be different! Is such a math even thinkable for the human mind?

>>8492667
Well, even the natural numbers aren't necessarily natural to the universe. By all accounts we should be counting by base e if that's what we wanted to achieve. Though Euler's identity shows that there's a link between the two, so a different pi would even include a change in the natural base of the universe, which has even bigger ramifications than just gemoetry. That's getting into territory where I doubt we could even bother with trying to understand because it's impossible for it to exist in reality as we know it.

>>8492688
>even the natural numbers aren't necessarily natural to the universe
Do you imply that I could travel in a spaceship and suddenly I'm not 1 Person anymore but 2,785 persons because the natural numbers have shifted?

>>8492792
No, I'm talking about how the universe doesn't count in natural numbers. Each time we count past 9 we rollover and add 1 to the second digit. The universe rolls over every time it counts past ~2.718281828459045

>>8492831
First of all: The natural numbers are not equivalent to Decimal notation. That we use the base 10 is artificall but that has nothing to do with the definition of natural numbers.

And why do you think that e would be more natural than 1,2,3,... ? We have 4 dimensions, a Proton is made up of 3 quarks, we have E=mc^2 and F_G(r)=Gm_1,m_2/r^2.
You see, natural numbers occur everywhere in science. However I don't know any important physical theorem which involves e.

>>8492890
e and ln appear everywhere in statistical mathematics and other such things that involve processes and not rigidly-determined values, which sadly is given the backseat with academics that railroad you into calculus instead. Population dynamics equations found in biology, for example, require the natural logarithm. Chemistry also uses it it many things involving rates. For calculating activation energy, for example, it requires taking the natural log of the Arrhenius equation. Equilibria also use ln. I can't give any specific examples right now, but there are certainly chemical equilibrium equations that involve e.

>>8492890
Also, remember that the reason why natural numbers are as common as they are in math is because we have units that are manufactured to work with them. Consider important numbers that are not defined in human-made units- Planck's constant, Newton's constant, pi, e, or phi. These are all irrational numbers and reflect natural mathematics. I'm not saying natural numbers have no place, of course- those are great for counting things like quarks. But saying that our equations operate on natural numbers is pretty narrow-minded. Most of them work that way because we have designed them to with the units we use in them.

>>8493085
Most of your example only use the logarithm. But it's pretty similar if you use the natural logarithm ln or a logarithm of any other base, e.g log_10. The reason is that for any arbitrary constant y you can write ln x as c*log_y x for a constant c. So you can write any of your formulas with another logarithm, you just have to adjust your constants.
>>8493107
The Planck's constant and Newton's constant are not just numbers, they also involve physical units. So their value depends on how you define these units. They only have such weird values because we use the metric system. But we could easily define a unit system such that both constant are for example 1, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

I'm not saying that pi and e are not important numbers. I'm just a bit curious why you think that e is more natural as the fucking NATURAL numbers!
But we're getting a bit off topic here. My actual statement was, that I don't think, that mathematical constants like pi or e could be different at any place in our universe.
Maybe OP's µ_0 or c varies in size, but if you try to change pi or e you recognize, that it would change our whole math and logic. It's impossible to even imagine it.
The universe is a part of the physical world and the physical world is a part of the mathematical world. But another value for pi lies far beyond the boundaries of these worlds.