this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
1064 points (95.2% liked)

Math Memes

1967 readers
17 users here now

Memes related to mathematics.

Rules:
1: Memes must be related to mathematics in some way.
2: No bigotry of any kind.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 days ago (3 children)

the most impressive thing to me is that people managed to standardize and zero in a precise "second" especially back when seconds were kept by mechanical means. I wonder how they went about ensuring it.

[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

A 1m pendulum has a 1 second half-period.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

is it not dependent on mass at all? It's possible given that this is the metric system that this is actually just a convenient retroactive truth about meters. I suppose it wouldn't necessarily be, but then you're accounting for gravity as well, which means you're going to need a pretty effective approximation there. As well as a way to account for any mechanical losses as well.

I'm not sure the metric system even existed when we developed the first mechanical time keeping devices.

[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

So I did some digging and the use of 1-second pendulum as a unit of length predates the metre by about a century. It's very possible it informed the choice of ratio to use when defining it properly, like we did with the recent definition change.

It's all on Wikipedia if you want to dive in yourself.

[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

The mass cancels out.

I don't know if it's purely a coincidence. The meter comes from the Earth's circumference (1/10 000 000 of the pole-equator distance) and I believe the second is much older, which points to a coincidence.

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

At least that's an useful approximation, but too inprecise for accurate measurements over an entire day.

[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's only 0.3% off. You probably have more uncertainty on the length of the pendulum.

[–] Successful_Try543@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

0.3 % would correspond to 3 mm difference in length of the pendulum.
After an hour, the difference between real and measured time would already be 10.9 s, and over an entire day, it would accumulate to 261.3 s, way too much for useful long term measurements.
Yet, it is an useful approximation for qualitative measurements, e.g. when Galileo Galilei did his fall experiments, he might have used a prendulum instead of his pulse for measuring.

[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

I'm not hauling this as the ultimate time keeping method. Friction in the system will mean you need to readjust it anyways. It's just a neat fact that pi^2 ~= g

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Atomic measurments, it's why atomic clocks are the most accurate.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

that's a recent invention though, the first mechanical time keeping devices are what's interesting to me.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

The atoms are the powerhouse of the clock.