Is true that most of science can be done with only 2 constants, Euler's e and pi?

Is it true that most of science can be done with only 2 constants, Euler's e and pi?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes & No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Neither Yes nor No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2
I overlooked those constants @topsquark , but then happy coincidence, these are not mathematical constants. :) except ln(2)\ln (2) (where?)
 
I like to say that mathematics only needs {0,±1,±2}{e,i,π} \{0,\pm 1,\pm 2\} \cup \{e, i, \pi\} and everything else is only calculation. I think we will get problems reducing physics to such a small set of constants. Physics means measuring quantities and real life is colorful. I am not sure what most physical formulas would look like in natural units (or Planck units). At least we would remove most physical constants and only remain {1,4,π}. \{1,4,\pi\}.
 
I know one formula (I think): ΔpΔxh4π\Delta p \Delta x \leq \frac{h}{4 \pi}

Population growth: P(t)=poφtP(t) = p_o \varphi^t

Yes, I seem to have forgotten α1137\alpha \approx \frac{1}{137}, but I don't think it's a mathematical constant.

High school, I don't remember seeing an ee. Acturial "science" I guess.
 
I like to say that mathematics only needs {0,±1,±2}{e,i,π} \{0,\pm 1,\pm 2\} \cup \{e, i, \pi\} and everything else is only calculation. I think we will get problems reducing physics to such a small set of constants. Physics means measuring quantities and real life is colorful. I am not sure what most physical formulas would look like in natural units (or Planck units). At least we would remove most physical constants and only remain {1,4,π}. \{1,4,\pi\}.

given that there are formulas available to compute pi, (Leibniz formula and others), and e, (series form of exx=1\left . e^x \right |_{x=1} ) from the integers via calculation, I don't see why you include those.
 
given that there are formulas available to compute pi, (Leibniz formula and others), and e, (series form of exx=1\left . e^x \right |_{x=1} ) from the integers via calculation, I don't see why you include those.

Easy. Lindemann's proof (1882) that the ratio between circumference and diameter of a circle is transcendental is clearly mathematics. π \pi is a valid abbreviation for that constant and we need its name. Calculatory approximations are mathematically completely irrelevant.

And without {e,i,π} \{e, i, \pi\} we couldn't write what most mathematicians consider the most beautiful formula
eiπ+1=0. e^{i \pi }+1 = 0.
Besides that, π \pi even occurs in physical constants written in natural units, in Buffon's needle experiment, or in countless other places, and not the least in Cauchy's integral formula.

And e e is fundamental, too, as the solution to y=y. y'=y.
 
However OP asked about "most of science" - not only mathematics.
I was too hasty. Haste makes waste. Apologies.

I didn't encounter ee in my high school (way, way, way back). Things were so simple back then. Any high school topics with ee in it (exclude math)? Thank you.
 
I was too hasty. Haste makes waste. Apologies.

I didn't encounter ee in my high school (way, way, way back). Things were so simple back then. Any high school topics with ee in it (exclude math)? Thank you.
Half-life, exponential decay, Electromagnetism, freefall, ...

-Dan
 
Half-life, exponential decay, Electromagnetism, freefall, ...

-Dan
Wiki articles doesn't mention ee specifically, in connection to these topics.

I think we did compound interest back then; unfortunately without ee. 🤓
 
I was too hasty. Haste makes waste. Apologies.

I didn't encounter ee in my high school (way, way, way back). Things were so simple back then. Any high school topics with ee in it (exclude math)? Thank you.
You did not encounter "charge of electron" or "mass of electron" in your high-school physics class?!! You must have lived very sheltered life!!
 
Top