<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JMP</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Modern Physics</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2153-1196</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jmp.2014.56049</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JMP-45033</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Physics&amp;Mathematics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Self-Contradictions from the Excessive Use of Natural Units
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>llen</surname><given-names>D. Allen</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sub>1</sub></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><addr-line>Physics Division, New Terra Enterprises, Los Angles, USA</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>allend.allen@yahoo.com</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>09</day><month>04</month><year>2014</year></pub-date><volume>05</volume><issue>06</issue><fpage>383</fpage><lpage>386</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>6</day>	<month>January</month>	<year>2014</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>8</day>	<month>February</month>	<year>2014</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>5</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2014</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
   The hypothesis c = h = G = 1 implies that unit mass is not a single-valued function but rather has two widely varying values, such as 7.4 &#215; 10<sup>-51</sup> kg and 4.0 &#215; 10<sup>35</sup> kg. Hence, the considerable body of work in theoretical physics that uses this common convention must be deemed suspect. In order to avoid this problem, theoreticians must limit themselves to c = h = 1 or, exclusively, c = G = 1 depending upon whether they are chiefly concerned with atomic physics or with gravity, respectively. 
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Primitive Dimensions</kwd><kwd> Measurement Systems</kwd><kwd> Natural Units</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The primitive dimensions of mechanics are space, mass and time. We can experience these dimensions intuitively through our senses. When we walk across a room we experience moving through an extent of physical space. When we do unaided manual labor we become familiar with mass or at least weight. When we celebrate an anniversary we acknowledge an interval of time lasting one year. But to make scientific measurements we need a measurement system.</p><p>Definition 1: A physical measurement system is an ordered 3-tupple containing three distinct literal words chosen from a natural language, such as English, that designate the unit of measurement for an interval of space, the unit of measurement for a quantity of mass, and the unit of measurement for an interval of time, in that order. Each element of a physical measurement system is independent of the other two.</p><p>The MKS system [meter, kilogram, second] is an example of a physical measurement system and the one that will be used in this paper. Note that the meter is not an intrinsic function of the kilogram or of the second, and the kilogram is not an intrinsic function of the second. Rather, each element of the MKS system was chosen by historical serendipity. For clarity, this paper will abbreviate kilogram as kg, and second as sec, but will not abbreviate meter.</p><p>There is a more historically recent type of measurement system.</p><p>Definition 2: A natural measurement system is an ordered 3-tuple [Ux, Um, Ut] of three distinct word variables that designate the unit of measurement for an interval of space, the unit of measurement for a quantity of mass, and the unit of measurement for an interval of time, in that order. The elements of a natural measurement system are not all independent of one another.</p><p>In theoretical physics it is a common practice to simplify calculations by using a natural measurement system to give one or more constants a magnitude of unity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.45033-ref1">1</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.45033-ref13">13</xref>] . This is done without much thought or analysis, an oversight the present paper serves to correct.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Common Conventions</title><p>Begin with a simple but important observation.</p><p>Lemma: The ratio of two units of measurement for the same primitive dimension raised to the same power is a dimensionless real number.</p><p>Proof (by example): It is convenient to use an example that will be helpful in the sequel.</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153606"><label>. (1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\41cb8dde-ec02-408b-9ccf-a39310cdafab.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Now consider a simple and common natural unit by adopting the convention,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153607"><label>, (2)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\5ebe3e15-513d-4f54-bbfc-424578cbaf4f.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where c is the vacuum speed of light. Equation (2) means</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153608"><label>. (3)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\0e4170f1-6f2f-4e49-a7f5-291c954ac153.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Equation (3) has simple solutions since it follows from (2) and (3) that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153609"><label>, (4)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\29834296-0554-43d5-b4ab-d8764d6c60c3.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153610"><label>. (5)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\ae2cc5ea-f32d-4819-883f-187e740aba58.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>It then follows by lemma that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153611"><label>, (6)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\55fe2b01-5b39-4c8e-969f-d4a33e800fca.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where (meters&#183;light-Ut<sup>−1</sup>) and (sec&#183;Ut<sup>−1</sup>) are dimensionless but variable real numbers that depend upon the value for Ut in seconds.</p><p>Let k be a physical constant that must be expressed using all three primitive dimensions: space, mass and time. If we have c = 1, then it is obvious from (4)-(5) that in order to have c = k = 1, unit mass Um must be a single-valued function of unit time Ut. As a common example, suppose we have</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153612"><label>, (7)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\c5622a85-9871-4493-806d-9615905ec10c.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where h is Planck’s constant,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153613"><label>. (8)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\a9821e4c-5879-40c2-bb23-79b44ee93a30.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Equations (7)-(8) mean that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153614"><label>. (9)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\2cc71e37-1b9b-4463-8f21-6b9346a3628c.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>It follows from (9) that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153615"><label>, (10)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\f282be75-c746-49ea-bea6-e013b1212682.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where by lemma (meters<sup>2</sup>&#183;light-Ut<sup>−2</sup>) and (sec&#183;Ut<sup>−1</sup>) are dimensionless real numbers. Without loss of generalization, assume Ut = “second”. Then from (1), (10) becomes</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153616"><label>. (11)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\dc78fb97-9b85-46af-982e-e6f4e87739d2.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>But now suppose we want</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153617"><label>, (12)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\74a18e73-0c02-4303-b9d7-eb60bceca401.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153618"><label>(13)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\b42b47a1-20c8-4870-a5d2-b2d8a15e6cef.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>is the gravitational constant. Then (12) becomes</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153619"><label>, (14)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\ae0d347b-dc73-4028-8821-1a91b02b7b40.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>such that</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153620"><label>, (15)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\8bc24468-18c3-4e52-ac22-b12d687f77ed.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where by lemma, (meters<sup>3</sup> light-Ut<sup>−3</sup>) and (Ut<sup>2</sup> sec<sup>−2</sup>) are dimensionless real numbers. Again assume without loss of generalization that Ut = “second”. Then from (1) and 15,</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153621"><label>, (16)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\ab98ce3d-d6c6-4391-b657-9b380c77a9e3.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>and</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153622"><label>. (17)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\a2ec5a58-a6c6-45f3-9e93-02f129e426de.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Comparing (11) and (17), we see that the hypothesis</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153623"><label>(18)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\7234216d-e510-40c3-b2d3-2bee468b7bf0.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>implies</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153624"><label>(19)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\68a72a67-fdaf-43e6-97d8-7f575af753db.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Equation (19) is obviously false and by 86 orders of magnitude! Yet many theoreticians make use of (18) or natural units in the same form that substitute ℏ for h or 8πG for G [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.45033-ref9">9</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.45033-ref13">13</xref>] . This merely changes the values in (11) and (17) without making them equal. In order to confirm this, suppose we multiply h by a literal real number r<sup>&#177;1</sup>, where r ≠ 1. Then (11) becomes</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153625"><label>. (20)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\17a984ae-a473-4ef3-a14a-f23f30701ec3.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>We could also multiply G by a literal real number u<sup>&#177;1</sup>, where u ≠ 1. Then (17) becomes</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153626"><label>. (21)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\c9351429-8b4a-4c87-88fa-be88b1e2b0fe.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Hence, 19 becomes</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153627"><label>(22)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\82170e8a-8e31-4768-be0c-808f92cc2c7e.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>and</p><disp-formula id="scirp.45033-formula153628"><label>. (23)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="htmlimages\9-7501694x\e4376e11-22c9-46d9-803e-97124aef47fb.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Thus, literal numbers such as 1/2π or 8π or anything similar cannot begin to account for the magnitude of the error shown by (19).</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Conclusions</title><p>It has been demonstrated that the excessive use of natural units due to a hypothesis in the form of h = c = G = 1 implies a grossly false assumption, such as 7.4 &#215; 10<sup>−51</sup> = 4.0 &#215; 10<sup>35</sup>. Since anything can be proven if we start with a false hypothesis, the considerable body of theoretical research that relies on this false assumption [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.45033-ref9">9</xref>] -[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.45033-ref13">13</xref>] must be deemed suspect.</p><p>In order to avoid this problem, theoreticians must choose between c = h = 1 or, exclusively, c = G = 1 depending upon whether they are chiefly concerned with atomic physics or with gravity, respectively. As a reviewer was astute enough to point out, the hypothesis c = h = G = 1 has no physical meaning whatsoever. It is merely used to simplify calculations. But the constants h and G have very different physical meanings and to equate them is to wind up with a mathematical self-contradiction.</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.45033-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Baumann, D. and Green, D. (2011) Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011. (IOP Journal)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.45033-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Li, M. and Wang, Y. (2010) Physics Letters B, 687, 243-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2010.03.042</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.45033-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Longair, M.S. (2003) Planck and Natural Units. In: Theoretical Concepts in Physics: An Alternative View of Theoretical Reasoning in Physics, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, New York, 336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840173</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.45033-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Perkins, D.H. (2000) Introduction to High Energy Physics. 4th Edition, Cambridge University Press, New York. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809040</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.45033-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Artru, X. and Rullhusen, P. (1998) Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 145, 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-583X(98)00241-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.45033-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Barton, G. (1990) Physics Letters B, 237, 559-562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(90)91224-Y</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.45033-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Boffi, S., Giusti, C. and Pacati, F.D. (1979) Nuclear Physics A, 319, 461-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(79)90526-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.45033-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kolbenstvedt, H. (1967) Journal of Applied Physics, 38, 4785-4787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1709220</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.45033-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tsyba, P.Y., Kulnazarov, I.I., Yerzhanov, K.K. and Myrzakulov, R. (2011) International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 50, 1876-1886. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10773-011-0703-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.45033-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Corda, C. (2009) International Journal of Modern Physics D, 18, 2275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218271809015904</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.45033-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kothawala, D., Sarkar, S. and Padmanabhan, T. (2007) Physics Letters B, 652, 338-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.07.021</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.45033-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mirza, B. and Zamaninasab, M. (2007) Journal of High Energy Physics, 2007. (IOP Journal)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.45033-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Witten, E. (1986) Physics and Geometry. In: Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Berkeley, 3-11 August 1986.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>