From Osher Doctorow
I typed two 82.0 Sections by mistake, so this should be
numbered 83.2 as it is.
Something is slightly non-intuitive about an observable or
measurable (more or less) constant like k for springs or
m or m_o or mo for K.E. Although it is constant for a
particular type of object, it differs for certain different types
of objects. Thus, although it meets the qualifications of
a constant stated earlier for Quantum Gravity, it really can
be regarded as a variable "in spirit" or in its basic idea.
Since, furthermore, it has a dimension or dimensions all
its own (a dimensional constant at least in fixed scenarios),
its "observability" or measurability becomes even more
plausible, which we would ordinarily ascribe to a non-
constant variable although not always.
The other side of the argument is, however, even more
plausible, since in much of Causation it is important to
"keep outside influences constant" where possible.
Objects simply do not ordinarily change their rest masses,
but they do change their velocities or speeds, distances or
even lengths, temperatures, forces, energies, power,
etc. So until a better idea comes along, we should
arguably tolerate a certain ambiguity in constants.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
