Is Pi [b]really[/b] squared? (A Physics and Theoretical-Chemistry question.)

[Popup]

I think it is time to draw attention to the epochal paper by Alan Sokal, that appeared in Social Text in 1999, Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Alan Sokal is a theoretical physicist who wanted to show how contemporary philosophical ideas can be used in modern theoretical physics:

the pi of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity

Is that sort of what you had in mind?
(The full text - with commentaries can be found at http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2.html )
[sub] It was of course an elaborate joke. Sokal is mocking the contemporary so-called philosophers - many of which believed for a long time that the article was for real! It is well worth a read![/sub]

[Bromley]

Well, the only use that I could find for capital pie was for Unified Field Theory stuff (that last word indicating my level of competence in this field :)).

So, maybe Para doesn’t want to get drawn into whether you can or not (unify, that is). Whatever, it’s certainly mysterious.

[John_Kentzel-Griffin]

** Parameter Π²**,

According to Euclidian geometry, the area of a circle is pi r[sup]2[/sup]. The values for 2 and pi are exact constants, not parameters. Euclidian geometry assumes that space is flat. If space is curved, the area of a circle may be greater or less than pi r [sup]2[/sup] as the curvature is negative or positive respectively. But we don’t say that pi or two changes value. Pi and two are still constants. By all measurements, it appears that our space is flat or very nearly flat.

** Bromley**,

Did you read any of that guy’s theories? They are seriously whacked out theories. Is this guy serious? Check this out:

from** 5.2 A Simple Kitchen Experiment – the magic of an egg**

If one takes an egg and stands it on end on a flat surface, if carefully placed, it will remain standing maintained by the free electrons traveling up and down the diallel lines – most of them reflecting off of the shell of the egg. With very careful sensing equipment, this electron flow could be measured, which keeps the egg upright.
<snip>
Eggs could never be made to stand on top of a piano. All different kinds were tried as well as a variety of phases of the moon and sun. Apparently, the “PIANO WIRES” both interact with and perturb the local diallel gravitational field lines. The wires will conduct from end to end – much like an egg – and set up tiny RF fields which could either attract or repel that of the egg.

Now that’s what a genuine Unified Field theory should explain: Why it is we cannot stand eggs on a piano. (It’s them diallel lines, don’t you know.) I don’t know of any other attempt at unified field theory that even addresses this.

[Parameter_928_178]

*Originally posted by Achernar *
**Urban Ranger, two points:

1. While that is the definition of pi, there is nothing implicit in that definition that says that pi is constant.

2. The OP, I believe, is not talking about pi. The OP wants to know about some other quantity called Pi. (Note that it’s capitalized.) Just what Pi is, though, is classified. **

Not exactly “classified”, Achernar; at least not in the technical sense.

May I quote myself from a post above?

Sorry to be enigmatic, CurtC. When I started this thread, everything seemed straightforward to me: I noticed no mystery in the term “[symbol]P[/symbol]²”. As the thread progressed and I felt that it would be imprudent of me to mention the context, I began to regret having started it.

Nonetheless, CurtC, if even one person reads this thread who understands the context, I shall be more than satisfied that I have not wasted my, nor you-all-un’s, time; even if such a hypothetical person doesn’t, or can’t, respond.