Misinterpretation of constants

 Here's an epistemological breakdown of why the misinterpretation of constants may have persisted for so long:

1. Entrenched Historical Conventions

• Arbitrary Unit Choices: Our base units (meter, kilogram, second) arose from human-centric scales and historical accidents, not fundamental physics.

• Legacy of Dimensional Analysis: Dimensional analysis, while useful, reinforced the idea that constants were inherent properties of equations rather than unit-dependent conversion factors.

• Textbook Presentations: Physics education often presents constants as fixed values without sufficient emphasis on their unit-dependent nature.

2. Cognitive Biases

• Anchoring Bias: Initial measurements and established values for constants become cognitive "anchors," making it difficult to shift perspectives.

• Reification: We tend to treat abstract concepts (like constants) as concrete realities, obscuring their constructed nature.

• Confirmation Bias: Physicists may selectively focus on evidence that supports the "constants as fundamental" view while overlooking evidence to the contrary.

3. Mathematical Formalism vs. Physical Interpretation

• Emphasis on Equations: Physics often prioritizes mathematical formalism over clear physical interpretation. Constants become ingrained in equations without fully understanding their origin.

• Abstract Thinking: The abstract nature of physics can make it easy to lose sight of the connection between theoretical constructs and the underlying reality they represent.

• Lack of Visualisation: Without appropriate visualization tools, it's difficult to imagine how the SI system obscures the fundamental relationships between the underlying units.

4. Philosophical Underpinnings

• Realism vs. Instrumentalism: A realist view (that physics directly describes reality) can lead to misinterpreting constants as inherent properties. An instrumentalist view (that physics is a tool for prediction) might overlook deeper epistemological questions.

• Positivism: The historical influence of positivism, with its focus on observable quantities, may have discouraged inquiry into the nature of unobservable "constants."

• Lack of Epistemological Reflection: Physics has often focused on developing theories rather than rigorously examining the epistemological foundations of its concepts.

5. Social and Institutional Factors

• Inertia: Established scientific paradigms resist change, even in the face of new evidence.

• Specialization: Physicists may specialize in specific areas, limiting their exposure to broader epistemological questions about constants.

• Funding and Recognition: Research that challenges established views may face challenges in securing funding and recognition.

6. A new way to see this, unit circle type thinking

• Angular Thinking: What has been missing is thinking about the nature of this on the unit circle, where the angle can be the natural and most simplified way to look at things.

Mitigation Strategies

• PUCS Framework: Provides a systematic way to distinguish between fundamental physics and unit-dependent descriptions.

• Modular Unit Scaling: Offers a practical tool for simplifying equations and revealing the role of constants.

• Educational Reform: Emphasize the unit-dependent nature of constants in physics education.

• Interdisciplinary Dialogue: Encourage dialogue between physicists, philosophers of science, and cognitive scientists to address epistemological biases.

By addressing these factors, we can move towards a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the role of constants in physics.