
Challenge: Create a Periodic Table of Physical Measurements
Discover and Underlying Order
Mendeleev created the periodic table to organize what was then known
about the elements. By doing so he was able to predict properties of undiscovered
elements as well as guide chemists to develop theories of atomic structure.
GellMann and Zweig organized the known subatomic particles into a table
by their properties. By doing this they were able to discern the existence
of quarks from the underlying properties of the table. Here we propose
that the known measurable properties of physics be organized into a table
based on their properties. The least we would expect from this would be
the creation of a very handy reference guide for students of physics.
But is it possible that we might discover something more? Could such a
periodic table of the measurable universe lead to discoveries of underlying
structures, or properties not yet measured? That is the challenge of this
page.

Last update: October 2012
this
project has already been started!


The obvious starting point for making a periodic table of physical measurements
would be to organize the table by fundamental units. Our chart needs to
include key information about each measure. Is it a vector, scalar, or
statistical? Is it conserved? Is there a known minimum or maximum possible
value? Below we show two pieces to motivate the organizational structure.
The first page involves all units of time and distance with no units of
mass (exponent of mass equals zero.)
In terms of organization, moving to the right on the table involves increasing
the exponent of distance, moving to the left involves decreasing the exponent
of distance. Mathematically, this means that moving left involves taking
the derivative with respect to distance. Moving right involves taking
the integral with respect to distance and considering the boundary value
conditions. Moving down the table involves decreasing the exponent for
time. Mathematically speaking, moving down means taking the derivative
with respect to time. The organization is easy to see under D1. Velocity
is the time derivative of distance. Acceleration is the time derivative
of velocity.
M0

d0

d1

d2

t0


Distance  vector
Wavelength vector
Planck length = smallest


t1

Frequency
Highest = 1/ Planck time
Angular velocity  vector

Velocity  vector
Wave velocity
Fastest = speed of light (c)


t2


Acceleration  vector
Gravity  vector

E/m conversion constant (c2)

page 2
M1

d0

d1

d2

t0

Mass  scalar
Conserved with energy



t1


Momentum  vector
conserved

Angular momentum  vector
conserved

t2


Force  vector

Energy  scalar / statistical
Conserved
Torque vector


Related pages at this site


With this structure we can create an organized list of all the known
measurements used in physics. This would make for a great reference guide.
But does the chart have some underlying structure that will teach us more?
We can look for hints.
To the right of the block for mass we have a blank. The structure of the
chart suggests that block would be filled as mass integrated across distance.
Can we determine any useful purpose for integrating mass across distance?
The block could also be seen as the derivative of momentum with respect
to time. For a whole system, since momentum is conserved, this value should
always be zero. But could it have meaning when examining components of
a system?
We might find information in other ways of moving around the chart. Side
to side is to differentiate or integrate with respect to distance, up
and down would be time. But physical constants take us in other directions.
We can move from frequency to energy by multiplying by the Planck constant,
h. Can all moves across the chart in the same direction be made, in a
physically meaning full manner, using the Planck constant? Would Planck's
constant take us from velocity to another measure with units m1*d3/t2?
Similar questions may be raised for the gravitational constant, G, the
electrical constant, e, the magnetic constant, m,
and the speed of light, c.
Finally, if the fundamental constants do work like vectors across this
table, this would suggest the table could be transformed like a vector
space. Would this lead to new useful ways to organize these properties
and hint at unseen relationships between them?
Summation
An organized table makes for a great reference. Creating this table would
be a great step forward for education in physics. But might something
more be discovered from the table? We challenge you to find out.

Outside links


Part 2: Musing from the implications of periodicity
We can arrange the three physical force constants  Gravity: G, electric:
e, and magnetism: u  to see if the order suggests anything. Our starting
point is to find pattern or relationships within their fundamental units.
Once arranged to group their units, we notice that one appears to be missing.
The pattern would be complete if we add another constant which has mass
(1/kg) like gravity, and distance (m) like magnetism.
Characteristic units 
m^3 / S^2

m

kg/c^2

1/e: kg/c^2 * m^3/S^2

u: kg/c^2 * m

1/ kg

G: 1/kg * m^3/S^2

Tbd: 1/kg * m

This missing piece in the pattern makes one wonder whether a force of
nature remains undiscovered (or undiscussed.) We can predict the value
of this unknown by setting it equal to one in terms of Planck units, then
converting back to common units. If we predict the value of this constant
by following the Planck unit pattern the value would be about 7.42*10^28
kgm. The units and position on our chart imply that the force would be
related to motion like magnetism.
Reasoning from that, if this force were real, it would be about 10^18
times weaker than the electric force in a particle accelerator. In the
large scale, if a 1 kg object flew roughly 2000 Mph within 1 meter of
earth, the force would be about 1 newton, or roughly 1/10th the force
of gravity on that object. Thus, the only place we would expect to see
this force large enough to be significant would be in with very large
close fast objects (eg: brown dwarves circling each other), or subatomic
distances.
Does such a force exist? Should its constant be added to the list of known
physical constants? How would we find out? Is it reasonable to believe
that this force exists? When we look at the mass equation from relativity
we might guess that extremely fast objects should have a higher gravitational
field. But the field would have to be dependent on relative motion. By
analogy, magnetic fields around moving charged particles depend on relative
motion. So the idea makes sense.
At the subatomic scale this new undiscovered force may be about the same
magnitude as weak force. It doesn't appear to have the correct units to
match the weak force. But the weak force is attractive at extremely close
subatomic distances, and repulsive farther out. Again, using the magnetism
analogy the force on a moving charged particle is opposite just outside
a toroid from what it is inside. Perhaps it does make sense to suggest
this for is real and has already been observed.
On the very large scale could some of the unusual motions in space be
attributed to this force that depends on relative motion? Could dark energy
actually be a relative motion force?
This musing shows how a periodic organization of physical properties might
lead to new insights for physics.

References:
