• Fermion@feddit.nlEnglish
        46·
        23 天前

        2 * 0 = 0

        Doubling the mass of photons is no change.

        Repealing Bournoulli’s principle requires changing how kinetic collisions of molecules translates into bulk measurables like pressure and density. There’s no way to predict what that does without first specifying more about what changes are made.

      • ContriteErudite@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        23 天前

        [note: I thought the OP said “proton”]

        Best case? atoms shrink slightly and some changes to how chemistry works

        Realistic case? The change in nuclear binding energies renders protons unstable, making many elements unstable or radioactive. All matter suddenly becomes much heavier, changing gravity and internal pressure, which in turn disrupts stellar and planetary structures. Fusion reactions depend on precise mass differences between particles, which may alter how stars generate energy, or completely prevent them from forming altogether. Additionally, since proton mass is tied to the strong nuclear force, it will fundamentally alter physics, and it’s likely that protons will decay into neutrons, preventing atoms from existing at all.

        The first wish would affect how fluids act under pressure, including how our blood would move throughout our bodies. Depending on the exact effects, the wisher may not even get the chance to make the second wish because their blood would either stop moving, or they would drop to ground as every capillary in their body ruptures causing an immediate loss of blood pressure, quickly followed by loss of consciousness and then death.

        IF they live long enough to make the second wish, then they probably wouldn’t live long enough to make the third.

          • ContriteErudite@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            23 天前

            Wow, I totally missed that. I need to start wearing my glasses🤦‍♂️
            I must have just assumed proton, since photons have zero rest mass and doubling that wouldn’t change anything.

      • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        3·
        22 天前

        Pi can be equal to whatever you want, as long as you’re using a number base that accounts for it. Pi is only an irrational number because base-10 is a rational base. You could create a number base that sets pi equal to 1, if you wanted.

          • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            2·
            20 天前

            That’s exactly my point. A base pi system would have pi equal to 1. In a base pi number system, a circle with a radius of 1 would have a circumference of 10. A radius of 10 would be a circumference of 100. Etc… Pi (and the relationship between a circle’s radius and circumference) only normally requires complex math because base 10 is a rational number base.

    • wieson@feddit.orgEnglish
      4·
      23 天前

      Make Binomi a real renaissance Italian mathematician, so that we can finally know who came up with the binomial formulas.

  • birdwingEnglish
    29·
    23 天前

    Why not change the measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, to be from 0.007 into 0.006?

    Boom, now only hydrogen can be made.

    Or if we put it to 0.008, boom, now everything fuses way faster.

    • pressanykeynow@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      22 天前

      Ok, it’s not 2PiR now, but just PiR. Given how often 2Pi is used some mathematicians will actually be happy. Would be a mess with other constants though.

      Edit. Also all the people in IT will have a terrible week trying to figure out why their programs started working weird, then figuring out why they even need those constants. Log messages would be funny though.

      • harambe69@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        22 天前

        I was talking more about physical constants, like magnetism, gravity, planck, etc. But sure, mathematical ones work, too. Probably even worse than physical constants doubling, since the doubling of mathematical ones would imply the corruption of reality itself.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        21 天前

        Constants are known at compile time, and therefore are more performant as they don’t need to be reasoned about at runtime.

        These days it’s not much of a performance boost but never a bad idea to use constants where appropriate.

    • Soup@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      22 天前

      If the one-electron theory is true you could just double its charge and see what happens. Would only need to do it in one place for it to be everywhere.