5 ms·
> The Avogadro number isn't a fundamental physics constant That's a pretty arbitrary assertion. Who defines what "fundamental" is? The number of periods of <so
by tomp 11y ago
> The Avogadro number isn't a fundamental physics constant
That's a pretty arbitrary assertion. Who defines what "fundamental" is? The number of periods of <something> of Caesium atoms used to define the duration of one second doesn't sound very fundamental either.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoYou seem to be assuming that the atom is fundamental. It's not. Why not base things off the mass of an electron instead? What you want, is to go down to the smallest unit possible, which is apparently Planck's Constant.
- marcosdumay 11y agoIn fact, the second and candela aren't choices aren't that fundamental, mostly reflecting how those are measured. All the others come from the speed of light, fundamental charge, Plank's constant, and gases constant; those are pretty fundamental to physics. Avogadro's number is used to define the atomic units, what makes a lot more sense than pushing it into metric calculations. The wikipedia page is great: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system#Future_developments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system#Future_developme...
- duaneb 11y agoIt's an arbitrary physics constant.