Better Units

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

So, I've been thinking. The units we use, both metric and imperial, are all quite arbitrary.

So, just like everyone uses radians instead of degrees now, let's make some better units, defined by universal constants.

First up, the logical starting point. Lightspeed.

Next, some time units. I came up with the half-life of Radium-224 (~3.63 days), Technetium-99 has a half-life of 211100 years, and the time it'll take for the first stellar black hole to die from Hawking Radiation, which I won't list here.

Anyone got s'more?

[Treamayne]

5 hours ago, KaladinsSenseOfHumorSpren said:

The units we use, both metric and imperial, are all quite arbitrary.

Quote

The metre (or meter in US spelling; symbol: m) is the base unit of length in the International System of Units (SI). Since 2019, the metre has been defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of ⁠1//299792458⁠ of a second, where the second is defined by a hyperfine transition frequency of caesium.

That does not seem arbitrary to me. . . 

[BigBadBagsworth He/him/his]

26 minutes ago, Treamayne said:

1//299792458⁠ of a second

His point isn’t that it’s inconstant, just that there’s no reason for it to be 1//299792458⁠ of a second instead of, say, 1//293 455 783. People came up with an arbitrary distance called the meter, then made it precise by linking it to an equally arbitrary fraction of a light second.

Also: 

 

[Treamayne]

1 hour ago, BigBadBagsworth said:

His point isn’t that it’s inconstant, just that there’s no reason for it to be 1//299792458⁠ of a second instead of, say, 1//293 455 783. People came up with an arbitrary distance called the meter, then made it precise by linking it to an equally arbitrary fraction of a light second.

Understood. Though, that does not really fit the definition of "arbitrary" - at least not as I understand it. 

Quote

arbitrary (comparative more arbitrary, superlative most arbitrary)

1. (usually of a decision) Based on individual discretion or judgment; not based on any objective distinction, perhaps even made at random.
2. Determined by impulse rather than reason; often connoting heavy-handedness.

The foot being based on the Monarch's actual foot was arbitrary. But even the very first definition of the metre was not arbitrary:

Quote

The metre was originally defined in 1791 by the French National Assembly as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle, so the Earth's polar circumference is approximately 40000 km.

It may not be very accurate, nor based on physical constants. But all I was trying to point out is that "arbitrary" isn't really the correct word or connotation for what was being asked. It's a loaded political word with lots of baggage and implies things that are not, in fact, true.

I have no problem with the thought exercise, itself. But using loaded phrases and misusing word definitions (especially in an appeal to scientific accuracy) does bother me, so I attempted sarcasm as a method of showing the inherent problem of misusing a word in a post about not misusing definitions of measurements. 

I'm sorry. 

Edited October 16, 2025 by Treamayne
SPAG

[Argenti he/him]

8 hours ago, KaladinsSenseOfHumorSpren said:

So, I've been thinking. The units we use, both metric and imperial, are all quite arbitrary.

So, just like everyone uses radians instead of degrees now, let's make some better units, defined by universal constants.

First up, the logical starting point. Lightspeed.

Next, some time units. I came up with the half-life of Radium-224 (~3.63 days), Technetium-99 has a half-life of 211100 years, and the time it'll take for the first stellar black hole to die from Hawking Radiation, which I won't list here.

Anyone got s'more?

All units are arbitrary- no matter what you're doing, they're not chosen for any reason in particular. The length of the meter isn't random, but the fact that we decided to use that length at all is. Lightspeeds works as a measure of speed, time and distance- but it's not very useful. I don't want speed limit signs to say "0.000000000000000002" Lightspeed! or whatever.

 

[CoderDrag0n8 He/Him]

8 hours ago, KaladinsSenseOfHumorSpren said:

So, I've been thinking. The units we use, both metric and imperial, are all quite arbitrary.

So, just like everyone uses radians instead of degrees now, let's make some better units, defined by universal constants.

First up, the logical starting point. Lightspeed.

Next, some time units. I came up with the half-life of Radium-224 (~3.63 days), Technetium-99 has a half-life of 211100 years, and the time it'll take for the first stellar black hole to die from Hawking Radiation, which I won't list here.

Anyone got s'more?

Halves of giraffes

Edited October 16, 2025 by CoderDrag0n8

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

13 hours ago, Argenti said:

All units are arbitrary- no matter what you're doing, they're not chosen for any reason in particular. The length of the meter isn't random, but the fact that we decided to use that length at all is. Lightspeeds works as a measure of speed, time and distance- but it's not very useful. I don't want speed limit signs to say "0.000000000000000002" Lightspeed! or whatever.

Hmm... that is a problem...

But I think it's not too bad.

Bottom quarks decay in about 10^-12 seconds

Light moves 2.99792458 millimetres in that time

So now we have length!

Mass and energy don't need different units, they can just be the mass of an unexcited electron, about 10^-30 kilograms. 

[Argenti he/him]

6 minutes ago, KaladinsSenseOfHumorSpren said:

Hmm... that is a problem...

But I think it's not too bad.

Bottom quarks decay in about 10^-12 seconds

Light moves 2.99792458 millimetres in that time

So now we have length!

Mass and energy don't need different units, they can just be the mass of an unexcited electron, about 10^-30 kilograms. 

Why bottom quarks? Why not charm quirks?

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

19 minutes ago, Argenti said:

Why bottom quarks? Why not charm quirks?

Don't they decay faster?

[CoderDrag0n8 He/Him]

1 hour ago, KaladinsSenseOfHumorSpren said:

Hmm... that is a problem...

But I think it's not too bad.

Bottom quarks decay in about 10^-12 seconds

Light moves 2.99792458 millimetres in that time

So now we have length!

Mass and energy don't need different units, they can just be the mass of an unexcited electron, about 10^-30 kilograms. 

14 hours ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

Halves of giraffes

I direct you to my above post

The new unit!

Halves of giraffes or gira

Like, that is 5.6892 Gira long

(or it could be ffes)

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

2 hours ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

I direct you to my above post

The new unit!

Halves of giraffes or gira

Like, that is 5.6892 Gira long

(or it could be ffes)

But

Giraffes aren't constant

And only exist on Earth

[CoderDrag0n8 He/Him]

6 hours ago, KaladinsSenseOfHumorSpren said:

But

Giraffes aren't constant

And only exist on Earth

Shhhhh

shhhħhhhh

[BigBadBagsworth He/him/his]

22 hours ago, Argenti said:

Why bottom quarks? Why not charm quirks?

I think he means there’s no reason to choose bottom quarks over charm quarks. 
 

I think the best units are the speed of light for speed, time until the heat death of the universe for time, and total energy and mass of the universe for energy and mass respectively, then do what the metric system does and make progressively smaller and smaller fractions of the units. 

[Argenti he/him]

19 minutes ago, BigBadBagsworth said:

I think the best units are the speed of light for speed, time until the heat death of the universe for time, and total energy and mass of the universe for energy and mass respectively, then do what the metric system does and make progressively smaller and smaller fractions of the units. 

Why base 10?

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

To pop in, clearly base 3 is the best

[Through The Living Ash he/him]

15 hours ago, Argenti said:

Why base 10?

10 fingers. Makes math easier for children. 

[Argenti he/him]

Just now, Ashkaloda said:

10 fingers. Makes math easier for children. 

We have 5 fingers, 14 joints on each hand.

 

[Through The Living Ash he/him]

Just now, Argenti said:

We have 5 fingers, 14 joints on each hand.

 

Is that supposed to be a counterargument? I do not follow your point. 

[Argenti he/him]

1 minute ago, Ashkaloda said:

Is that supposed to be a counterargument? I do not follow your point. 

Having 10 of something easily accessible doesn't mean it's the most logical option. We've got 5 and and 14 of something very easy to count too.

[Through The Living Ash he/him]

14 minutes ago, Argenti said:

Having 10 of something easily accessible doesn't mean it's the most logical option. We've got 5 and and 14 of something very easy to count too.

Okay, but most people must bend both the joint towards the end of the finger and the one in the middle at the same time, excepting the thumb, and there are many who cannot raise the ring finger without raising the base joint of the middle finger, which would lead to 9 positions for each hand. So base 18 is theoretically plausible, but much less comprehensive than base 10 would be. 

And base 5 is worse than 10 on the virtue of simply being able to get to a higher number without having to increase a digit. 

[Argenti he/him]

8 minutes ago, Ashkaloda said:

Okay, but most people must bend both the joint towards the end of the finger and the one in the middle at the same time, excepting the thumb, and there are many who cannot raise the ring finger without raising the base joint of the middle finger, which would lead to 9 positions for each hand. So base 18 is theoretically plausible, but much less comprehensive than base 10 would be. 

And base 5 is worse than 10 on the virtue of simply being able to get to a higher number without having to increase a digit. 

Frankly the thing about being unable to raise the ring finger is just an issue of muscles, not an issue of physical limits.

[Through The Living Ash he/him]

42 minutes ago, Argenti said:

Frankly the thing about being unable to raise the ring finger is just an issue of muscles, not an issue of physical limits.

Ye, but many people can't do it. 

[Argenti he/him]

2 hours ago, Ashkaloda said:

Ye, but many people can't do it. 

People just gootta get gud and do it with practice

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

22 hours ago, BigBadBagsworth said:

I think he means there’s no reason to choose bottom quarks over charm quarks. 
 

I think the best units are the speed of light for speed, time until the heat death of the universe for time, and total energy and mass of the universe for energy and mass respectively, then do what the metric system does and make progressively smaller and smaller fractions of the units. 

Yes, but it's hard to define when the universe will actually reach heat death. You'd need to know when the last black hole dies, and for that you must know when the last black hole is born and what mass it'll have.

22 hours ago, Argenti said:

Why base 10?

22 hours ago, Kansas Stormcursed said:

To pop in, clearly base 3 is the best

Base 12 is better

Count our wrists along with your fingers

[BigBadBagsworth He/him/his]

7 hours ago, Ashkaloda said:

10 fingers. Makes math easier for children. 

 

45 minutes ago, KaladinsSenseOfHumorSpren said:

Yes, but it's hard to define when the universe will actually reach heat death. You'd need to know when the last black hole dies, and for that you must know when the last black hole is born and what mass it'll have.

Still, you won’t really find other non-changing, non-arbitrary units for time, and a system needs units for time. Or maybe time between the Big Bang and the first star?