Re:One quantum transition makes light at 21 cm
by raldi on Thursday April 24, 2025 @01:29PM
(#43785256)
That not just imprecise usage of that term; it’s completely incorrect. The correct term would be its exact opposite, “approximately”.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:One quantum transition makes light at 21 cm
by boothby on Thursday April 24, 2025 @01:48PM
(#43785472)
Indiscreet discrete mathematician checking in. If they said "exactly" we'd have a real problem. Instead, "precisely" in this context means "human eye cannot distinguish from exact value at a stone's throw."
Yes, physicists and engineers hate me, why do you ask?
Re:One quantum transition makes light at 21 cm
by kbelder on Friday April 25, 2025 @12:11PM
(#43795257)
"It's precisely 21 cm."
"Is it 21 cm?"
"No."
Re:One quantum transition makes light at 21 cm
by LeifCarrotson on Thursday April 24, 2025 @02:07PM
(#43785685)
I expect the non-technical author/editor was playing the telephone game and originally wanted to emphasize that the frequency is always the same value, not that the hydrogen emissions frequency is related by arbitrary factors of 9192631770.000 Hz, 1/299792458.000 seconds, and then exactly 21.000/100.000 to the caesium-133 frequency.
Re:One quantum transition makes light at 21 cm
by hexhu on Thursday April 24, 2025 @01:53PM
(#43785523)
so the claim is inaccurate by 1mm and missing precision data. I'd call it inaccurate and imprecise XD
Re:One quantum transition makes light at 21 cm
by cluckindan on Thursday April 24, 2025 @01:35PM
(#43785323)
The exact opposite would be ”imprecise” or ”inaccurate”