To think this is really helping me understand measurements of mana in Botania better (or more precisely, why the measurements we're given AREN'T as precise as exact numbers) is just wild.
I absolutely loved metrology when doing my mechanical engineering qualification, I still use it after being in several facets of the industry. I would absolutely blow my bolt if I could get a job in a high end metrology lab. For an alternatively obscure and yet delightful documentary on much the same topic, check out "Alan Davies: How Long is a Piece of String?", I'm going to watch it again after this!
Living in America I remember when we tried to convert to the much easier metric system. I was about 8 yrs old and remember when people went to get gas using liters instead of gallons. It's amazing how much people resist change even when it's easier and already accepted internationally
Ted LeMoine Yes, I was in 5th grade I believe. I liked it. Got good at it and wanted it to succeed. Then they just pulled the plug on it which was ridiculous. If the education system would have kept up with it our generation or the one after would have adapted just fine I believe.
The metric system is far easier to use than the imperial system . Basic concepts of measurement have to be retaught again and again to students ! Look even NASA lost a Mars probe due to not having just one system of measurement !
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 26:39 *The kilogram is being redefined using the Planck constant, related to fundamental physics rather than a physical object.* 27:29 *The ampere's definition involves fundamental electrical charge, moving away from its impractical original definition based on forces between wires.* 28:43 *Kelvin definition currently focuses on the triple point of water, highlighting the traditional reliance on physical states.* 29:41 *The triple point of water is used to measure standard temperature, with artifacts present in every lab, serving as humanity's temperature benchmark.* 31:01 *From May 2019, temperature measurement will shift to focus on molecular energy via the Boltzmann constant, removing reliance on the triple point of water.* 32:20 *The new SI units are based on natural constants, providing stability and reducing uncertainties in unit definitions for future measurement advancements.* Made with HARPA AI
Awesome dude, very important topic and I really get it .... a shopping mall in São Paulo was built over an old Sears store: they had to lift the old building, build new foundations, parking space, and drop the building over it ... it's hard it is to make people understand how amazing something like that is.
Very well done. I especially like the point about there's really no such physical item as a pound, kilogram, foot, inch, meter, centimeter etc. I've tried explaining this to some for a few years now and I'm not getting the idea across. There all inventions to represent a physical object that we all agree fits the definition of the object. That universal agreement is the only thing that allows any unit of measurement to be used. Basing the measurements on what are thought to be natures constants should make that universal agreement a lot easier to standardize our measurement systems.
Well it was also stated in this video there's always uncertaintry while measureing anything. So no matter how accurate a constant is then since we do have to measure it that uncertainty is still going to be there. I guess there's a point where we can guarantee accuracy to a certain level where any more likely doesn't matter very much unless it's for scientific purposes. Yes he did say there were natual standards there now trying to base our measurement systems on, but it was also stated that they "think" those standards are a constant. There still not 100% sure of those facts yet. I guess any new measurement standards should come with a warning lable of "subject to future change" :-)
concise, well-presented, and even fun! this is one of the most fundamental talks by Ri on one of the most fundamental concepts in science in fact, math (probably the least empirical study subject) has also the same default difficulty with its base system 10 digit system has nothing to do with the universe's fundamental truth, not to mention beyond that it's just due to we apes happen to have 10 numbers of fingers! what's more fundamental is 2 digit system, binary with 0 and 1 it's in fact has one component, 1 and 0 is just the absence of 1 it works for machines not for us though
Mass, Energy, Momentum and Temperature should all be measured in the same units as each other. Distances and Time intervals should also be measured in the same units as each other.
Here: www.nist.gov/pml/redefining-kelvin-thermodynamic-temperature At the bottom you can look at other things like the boltzmann constant wich played an important role
Coud you please define the units using the constants so that they are nicely packed in a base 10 form. Please? like 10 quadrillion planck lenghts is a nanometer or something like that. (dont know if that would make sense, but im just trying to illustrate my point)
Different groups at different research labs measure the physical constants upon which the new units will be based on, as accurately as possible using current standards. Then they will fix those values and will try to make new standards in future such that the constants will have the values they have been defined. Hence the size of the units will be fixed and it will exist as an abstraction notion. As our knowledge and technology improves over time we will be able to come up with better and better techniques for creating standards that approximate the real size of the units.
If "what you see is what you get" physics is the natural cause-effect of QM measuring time duration history by a probability statement, then the constants of nature, the Standard Model imprinted in timespace singularity-superposition is the natural choice for standard units that relate directly to the Quantum unit duality vector-values. It's Systematically self defined and mathematically programmed by quantum computation as the laws of physics and science in general. This is a very significant lecture, the relationships, (using a family to make it personally relevant), put simply and effectively, illustrated the principle of measured connectivity that is usually described in more complex music-mathematics, because the science began that way, but now is a good time to revise the methodology.
Mathematics, measurement, dimensions, all are subjected to the realms of Infinite Possibilities that creates what I.S., Information System in a picosecond.
Despite the SI there has gone something wrong with a spacecraft because kilometers and miles or nautical miles were messed up. And even journalists have (very constant and frequent) problems by translating an American billion to a European billion of whatever unit.
Im not sure about the point of this comment I remember hearing about that spacecraft loss but it was about mixing up two different units of measurement
Why does the Candela deserve to be on this list? It is unique among the SI units that it is normalized to human biology. Yes, there is bias in the other units to bring their magnitude up to every day human scales, but no other unit's definition breaks down when you apply it to the same phenomena on a different scale. Shouldn't the SI unit be based on radiant intensity (e.g. Watts per steradian) rather than Watts per steradian that we happen to be able to see?
so they are a million times more accurate than a physical weight. does that mean the equipment cant measure anymore precise than that? or are they not truly constant after all? and what does that say about the universe? are we living in a simulation? quantum mechanics preventing accuracy beyond the Double.Epsilon of the universe?
My suspicion is there are no constants, but some systems are so incredibly stable their evolution occurs over timescales we puny humans can hardly conceive. For our measuring purposes they're constant enough though.
Traditional standards have never been arbitrary. It's merely relative and accurate enough for the time and place they were established. It's always been based on something that is useful because it is commonly relatable and very similar in dimension or weight across different examples of others of it's kind (so it can be averaged). At one place and point in time it was the distance between the elbow and finger tips. At another it was the length of a barely corn. If you loose the artifact you can (ideally) make a new one by going back to it's source that everyone (again ideally) has common access to and their measurement for most purposes should be close enough for most common applications. Even though the length of a barely corn varied significantly between individual corns of barely. If you take 4 at random from a pile, line them up against a ruler as strait as you can get, them long ends to long ends (helps if the ruler has a groove running it's length) over the course of 10 such measurements your average will be the same as if you take 50 or 100 such measurements. As long as your not working to an impractically perceptible amount of decimal places (I've actually done this experiment a few times as I eat a lot of barely). That's because even though the length of an individual barely corn is not constant. They exist length wise within bounding constants. Meaning that there is a maximum length one can be and a minimum length one can be. A constant is just something that is possible, and probable enough to become actual, over time. If you find something that does this measuring out to infinity. Then you've found a perfect constant. But just because you found a constant that is X amount better (but you still can't claim it's perfect. So perfection can't be the standard for a constant) doesn't mean we didn't have them at any previous point.
Unless you showed there world is essentially discrete, in which case voila, perfect measurement is possible. Then it just becomes a limiting factor due to technology, but as real as any physical object.
He messed up on his measurement of 2.875 Michaels.....He used 6 of the 7 letters in Michael or 6 of 8 if using the plural Michaels.....Neither are .875........or 7/8
There is also a scale based on Farenheit that starts at absolute zero. The Rankine scale. None are better or worse than the other as far as units themselves go and as we begin the define them based on fundamental constants the fact that the international system keeps the value of the standards will no longer be relevant. Trying to get anybody to change how they talk about a temperature or any measurable quality is not going to be easy without a reason to do so.
very good talk, not that officials care, but as usual the main point underlying new standard measurement has been overlooked. you are transferring to new which is based on atom activity. sadly man dose not know structure of atom or mechanism which produce the activity. when you find out you will know that it is unstable and constantly subject to Chang. what is more it is localized. not on geographical scale, but on stellar scale. MG1
Its an average Also why would it matter if its inaccurate at stellar scale when that can be acoounted for by the scientists that work that field? The point is having a better foundation and you just have to accept that we as a species might not exist someday so we don't need anything that is permanent or perfect beyond what we can use On a side note do you suffer from dyslexia?
chadoftoons, They are replacing current one to have more stable and precise reference. They have not looked for the real reason for instability, because they do not know structure of matter or its activity. The scientists working in field do not have a clue because their current models of space and matter are fiction. The way they present their work is acceptable by people ignorant of true facts, but not by rational individuals. Wight changes at different location due to gravity. Gravity affects all physical matter. They forget at the same location gravity changes too. They should find out why after eliminating all the obvious reasons. They have not. My English Is MS and Google. Those who do not understand nature, create complex language to appear knowledgeable. Nature is simple. I can explain it simply. MG1
With respect, I am not a genius or genies. I just have access to scientific information useful for man. The information scientists across the world are looking for. As they are new to them, I had to understand it to be able to explain to recipients. Winston Churchill Dwight D. Eisenhower knew about me. Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill asked shah of Persia about ancient knowledge when they were meeting Joseph Stalin in Tehran. Shah asked us for help. By the time we gathered relevant info from our people, Roosevelt was dead. Shah gave some information to Churchill & Eisenhower and promised them to send me to west to complete my grandfather’s unfinished work with Max Planck and other scientist. As it is normal practice for west, they did not keep their promise. They just want the information for themselves. This was not the agreement. a few years ago I instructed our people to release my 1975 Bremen summerhouse notes discreetly to selected scientist in Russia, India and China. Since then I have been arrested twice. All my electronic removed. I am monitored 24/7. Now I put comment on you tube for those who are interested in the real understanding of nature. In my comment I leave clues to the released information in the east for benefit of all. In the land of liars. The biggest lie is truth. Full detail on official request only. MG1
Ummm prove it that plank length is not changing ... You can;t ... !!! it just a change of what is the ProtoType. fundamental constant do not exist . prove it.. you can't cos you have to measure it against something you know. and is flawed by yr own admission.
You assume that you need a prototype to make a measurement because we started with the prototype in history but this is not true. You can measure one Planck length with an interferometer. You can build an interferometer without knowing what a meter is. It is proven.
Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the lecture. Whether or not fundamental constants exist is something that is to be determined through experiment. It's not something for you to declare based on your personal feeling. Its possible to do measurements which compare different physical processes against each other to determine how stable a physical constant is. The exact value of the constants depend on our current standards but their stability can be established independently. It has been established that units of measures that are realised based on the fundamental constants are far, far more stable than the standards that we use today. So when the new SI units are introduced, the various standards realised based on different techniques will all reproduce the same unit of measurement for decades. If the constants were not stable over the course of the age of the Universe then units of measures that are realised through techniques related to astronomy would produce different units compared to those produced through other techniques. A substantial body of evidence now exists to show that, that won't happen.
That there is emergence of Gödel's incompletness theorem. "There are truths that you can not prove to be true", roughly speaking. We only have reasonable confidence, like the measurement that constants are million times more constant than the old kg prototype.
Gödel incomplete structures always include non-standard infinities and has absolutely no bearing on this issue. Gödel completness has literally nothing to do with "reasonable confidence" or measurement limitations, both of which are complete in this axiomatic structure.
I don't think you get what the issue is. I didn't imply Gödel says anything about measurement limitations or reasonable confidence. That's all your own hallucination. Original question was "is the Planck's constant proven to be constant?". No it isn't. Or is it? All we got is "reasonable confidence".
This guy knows what he’s talking about. My full respect. Thx a lot.
To think this is really helping me understand measurements of mana in Botania better (or more precisely, why the measurements we're given AREN'T as precise as exact numbers) is just wild.
I absolutely loved metrology when doing my mechanical engineering qualification, I still use it after being in several facets of the industry. I would absolutely blow my bolt if I could get a job in a high end metrology lab. For an alternatively obscure and yet delightful documentary on much the same topic, check out "Alan Davies: How Long is a Piece of String?", I'm going to watch it again after this!
Living in America I remember when we tried to convert to the much easier metric system. I was about 8 yrs old and remember when people went to get gas using liters instead of gallons. It's amazing how much people resist change even when it's easier and already accepted internationally
More like, resist change when it's not mandatory.
Ted LeMoine Yes, I was in 5th grade I believe. I liked it. Got good at it and wanted it to succeed. Then they just pulled the plug on it which was ridiculous. If the education system would have kept up with it our generation or the one after would have adapted just fine I believe.
The metric system is far easier to use than the imperial system . Basic concepts of measurement have to be retaught again and again to students !
Look even NASA lost a Mars probe due to not having just one system of measurement !
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
26:39 *The kilogram is being redefined using the Planck constant, related to fundamental physics rather than a physical object.*
27:29 *The ampere's definition involves fundamental electrical charge, moving away from its impractical original definition based on forces between wires.*
28:43 *Kelvin definition currently focuses on the triple point of water, highlighting the traditional reliance on physical states.*
29:41 *The triple point of water is used to measure standard temperature, with artifacts present in every lab, serving as humanity's temperature benchmark.*
31:01 *From May 2019, temperature measurement will shift to focus on molecular energy via the Boltzmann constant, removing reliance on the triple point of water.*
32:20 *The new SI units are based on natural constants, providing stability and reducing uncertainties in unit definitions for future measurement advancements.*
Made with HARPA AI
Wow I remember going to talks at the NPL with him. So cool to see him here
Very enthusiastic speaker.
Good lecture.
Awesome dude, very important topic and I really get it .... a shopping mall in São Paulo was built over an old Sears store: they had to lift the old building, build new foundations, parking space, and drop the building over it ... it's hard it is to make people understand how amazing something like that is.
Very well done. I especially like the point about there's really no such physical item as a pound, kilogram, foot, inch, meter, centimeter etc. I've tried explaining this to some for a few years now and I'm not getting the idea across. There all inventions to represent a physical object that we all agree fits the definition of the object. That universal agreement is the only thing that allows any unit of measurement to be used. Basing the measurements on what are thought to be natures constants should make that universal agreement a lot easier to standardize our measurement systems.
Well it was also stated in this video there's always uncertaintry while measureing anything. So no matter how accurate a constant is then since we do have to measure it that uncertainty is still going to be there. I guess there's a point where we can guarantee accuracy to a certain level where any more likely doesn't matter very much unless it's for scientific purposes. Yes he did say there were natual standards there now trying to base our measurement systems on, but it was also stated that they "think" those standards are a constant. There still not 100% sure of those facts yet. I guess any new measurement standards should come with a warning lable of "subject to future change" :-)
concise, well-presented, and even fun!
this is one of the most fundamental talks by Ri on one of the most fundamental concepts in science
in fact, math (probably the least empirical study subject) has also the same default difficulty with its base system
10 digit system has nothing to do with the universe's fundamental truth, not to mention beyond that
it's just due to we apes happen to have 10 numbers of fingers!
what's more fundamental is 2 digit system, binary with 0 and 1
it's in fact has one component, 1
and 0 is just the absence of 1
it works for machines
not for us though
Mass, Energy, Momentum and Temperature should all be measured in the same units as each other. Distances and Time intervals should also be measured in the same units as each other.
Whilst I did enjoy this talk I am now curious to how they measured the temperature to a new precision
Here: www.nist.gov/pml/redefining-kelvin-thermodynamic-temperature
At the bottom you can look at other things like the boltzmann constant wich played an important role
4:50 "How can I communicate to people that this really thermomatters!?" :D
I use cubits still but Im thinking of moving to corgis.
Coud you please define the units using the constants so that they are nicely packed in a base 10 form. Please? like 10 quadrillion planck lenghts is a nanometer or something like that. (dont know if that would make sense, but im just trying to illustrate my point)
Different groups at different research labs measure the physical constants upon which the new units will be based on, as accurately as possible using current standards. Then they will fix those values and will try to make new standards in future such that the constants will have the values they have been defined. Hence the size of the units will be fixed and it will exist as an abstraction notion. As our knowledge and technology improves over time we will be able to come up with better and better techniques for creating standards that approximate the real size of the units.
What happens when gravity waves alter space/time/ as they pass by?
If "what you see is what you get" physics is the natural cause-effect of QM measuring time duration history by a probability statement, then the constants of nature, the Standard Model imprinted in timespace singularity-superposition is the natural choice for standard units that relate directly to the Quantum unit duality vector-values. It's Systematically self defined and mathematically programmed by quantum computation as the laws of physics and science in general.
This is a very significant lecture, the relationships, (using a family to make it personally relevant), put simply and effectively, illustrated the principle of measured connectivity that is usually described in more complex music-mathematics, because the science began that way, but now is a good time to revise the methodology.
Mathematics, measurement, dimensions, all are subjected to the realms of Infinite Possibilities that creates what I.S., Information System in a picosecond.
Despite the SI there has gone something wrong with a spacecraft because kilometers and miles or nautical miles were messed up.
And even journalists have (very constant and frequent) problems by translating an American billion to a European billion of whatever unit.
Im not sure about the point of this comment
I remember hearing about that spacecraft loss but it was about mixing up two different units of measurement
Why does the Candela deserve to be on this list? It is unique among the SI units that it is normalized to human biology. Yes, there is bias in the other units to bring their magnitude up to every day human scales, but no other unit's definition breaks down when you apply it to the same phenomena on a different scale. Shouldn't the SI unit be based on radiant intensity (e.g. Watts per steradian) rather than Watts per steradian that we happen to be able to see?
so they are a million times more accurate than a physical weight. does that mean the equipment cant measure anymore precise than that? or are they not truly constant after all? and what does that say about the universe? are we living in a simulation? quantum mechanics preventing accuracy beyond the Double.Epsilon of the universe?
It is the limit of the measurement. And that doesn't prove they change.
My suspicion is there are no constants, but some systems are so incredibly stable their evolution occurs over timescales we puny humans can hardly conceive. For our measuring purposes they're constant enough though.
What are the dimensions of the Stephanie mass at the end of the pendulum?
Traditional standards have never been arbitrary. It's merely relative and accurate enough for the time and place they were established. It's always been based on something that is useful because it is commonly relatable and very similar in dimension or weight across different examples of others of it's kind (so it can be averaged).
At one place and point in time it was the distance between the elbow and finger tips. At another it was the length of a barely corn. If you loose the artifact you can (ideally) make a new one by going back to it's source that everyone (again ideally) has common access to and their measurement for most purposes should be close enough for most common applications.
Even though the length of a barely corn varied significantly between individual corns of barely. If you take 4 at random from a pile, line them up against a ruler as strait as you can get, them long ends to long ends (helps if the ruler has a groove running it's length) over the course of 10 such measurements your average will be the same as if you take 50 or 100 such measurements. As long as your not working to an impractically perceptible amount of decimal places (I've actually done this experiment a few times as I eat a lot of barely).
That's because even though the length of an individual barely corn is not constant. They exist length wise within bounding constants. Meaning that there is a maximum length one can be and a minimum length one can be. A constant is just something that is possible, and probable enough to become actual, over time. If you find something that does this measuring out to infinity. Then you've found a perfect constant. But just because you found a constant that is X amount better (but you still can't claim it's perfect. So perfection can't be the standard for a constant) doesn't mean we didn't have them at any previous point.
Unless you showed there world is essentially discrete, in which case voila, perfect measurement is possible. Then it just becomes a limiting factor due to technology, but as real as any physical object.
I'm not understanding what you're trying to put across. Could you rephrase it?
"My system of Units, I hope you noticed, that the names are gender balanced and they'r also ethnically diverse."
This guy is already in 2021
its now May 2019 where are these SI changes
I knew I wasn't fat. I've been the same 110 kilos for decades. I've just gained about 130 Mic'O'Max.
What a nerd!
Much respect
Usually metrologists are nerds among nerds.
For the stereotypical metrologist this man is as unnerdy as it gets :)
Lets give credit where it is due: That dude is hilarious!!!
What about the tiny changes in the standards of measurement over time?
... That's the entire point of the talk, ya dingus.
Did you watch this?
He messed up on his measurement of 2.875 Michaels.....He used 6 of the 7 letters in Michael or 6 of 8 if using the plural Michaels.....Neither are .875........or 7/8
From the title, I was expecting a talk about geodesy.
The only way to know anything is to measure it.
Eccentric
How to measure the World? - Destroy it! Then measure fragment's velocity, mass, density, temperature, and composition.
2:00 So science is not about math? so why no college will take me cause my math grade is too bad?
I wonder how this measures up to TED talks.... Hmmm..... (See what I did there?)
Fahrenheit feels more precise than Celsius. Kelvin rules all.
Vhan Wolfe kelvin are literaly celcius but starting the count at absolute zero
Im not sure "feels" are very good when you measure but if that stops you from using the other two its probably fine
Celsius essentially is Kelvin, just transformed to a more approachable scale for the needs of everyday human life.
There is also a scale based on Farenheit that starts at absolute zero. The Rankine scale. None are better or worse than the other as far as units themselves go and as we begin the define them based on fundamental constants the fact that the international system keeps the value of the standards will no longer be relevant. Trying to get anybody to change how they talk about a temperature or any measurable quality is not going to be easy without a reason to do so.
Vhan Wolfe
Kelvin is ABSOLUTE ! Ha ha !
very good talk, not that officials care, but as usual the main point underlying new standard measurement has been overlooked. you are transferring to new which is based on atom activity. sadly man dose not know structure of atom or mechanism which produce the activity. when you find out you will know that it is unstable and constantly subject to Chang. what is more it is localized. not on geographical scale, but on stellar scale. MG1
Its an average
Also why would it matter if its inaccurate at stellar scale when that can be acoounted for by the scientists that work that field? The point is having a better foundation and you just have to accept that we as a species might not exist someday so we don't need anything that is permanent or perfect beyond what we can use
On a side note do you suffer from dyslexia?
chadoftoons, They are replacing current one to have more stable and precise reference. They have not looked for the real reason for instability, because they do not know structure of matter or its activity. The scientists working in field do not have a clue because their current models of space and matter are fiction. The way they present their work is acceptable by people ignorant of true facts, but not by rational individuals. Wight changes at different location due to gravity. Gravity affects all physical matter. They forget at the same location gravity changes too. They should find out why after eliminating all the obvious reasons. They have not.
My English Is MS and Google. Those who do not understand nature, create complex language to appear knowledgeable. Nature is simple. I can explain it simply. MG1
We should have known you were a genius! That's why you write youtube comments instead of giving lectures like Michael.
With respect, I am not a genius or genies. I just have access to scientific information useful for man. The information scientists across the world are looking for. As they are new to them, I had to understand it to be able to explain to recipients. Winston Churchill Dwight D. Eisenhower knew about me. Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill asked shah of Persia about ancient knowledge when they were meeting Joseph Stalin in Tehran. Shah asked us for help. By the time we gathered relevant info from our people, Roosevelt was dead. Shah gave some information to Churchill & Eisenhower and promised them to send me to west to complete my grandfather’s unfinished work with Max Planck and other scientist. As it is normal practice for west, they did not keep their promise. They just want the information for themselves. This was not the agreement. a few years ago I instructed our people to release my 1975 Bremen summerhouse notes discreetly to selected scientist in Russia, India and China. Since then I have been arrested twice. All my electronic removed. I am monitored 24/7. Now I put comment on you tube for those who are interested in the real understanding of nature. In my comment I leave clues to the released information in the east for benefit of all. In the land of liars. The biggest lie is truth. Full detail on official request only. MG1
looks lika one micheal is about a foot (ha! michael foot -old political joke)
Ummm prove it that plank length is not changing ... You can;t ... !!! it just a change of what is the ProtoType.
fundamental constant do not exist . prove it.. you can't cos you have to measure it against something you know. and is flawed by yr own admission.
You assume that you need a prototype to make a measurement because we started with the prototype in history but this is not true. You can measure one Planck length with an interferometer. You can build an interferometer without knowing what a meter is. It is proven.
Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the lecture. Whether or not fundamental constants exist is something that is to be determined through experiment. It's not something for you to declare based on your personal feeling. Its possible to do measurements which compare different physical processes against each other to determine how stable a physical constant is. The exact value of the constants depend on our current standards but their stability can be established independently. It has been established that units of measures that are realised based on the fundamental constants are far, far more stable than the standards that we use today. So when the new SI units are introduced, the various standards realised based on different techniques will all reproduce the same unit of measurement for decades.
If the constants were not stable over the course of the age of the Universe then units of measures that are realised through techniques related to astronomy would produce different units compared to those produced through other techniques. A substantial body of evidence now exists to show that, that won't happen.
That there is emergence of Gödel's incompletness theorem. "There are truths that you can not prove to be true", roughly speaking. We only have reasonable confidence, like the measurement that constants are million times more constant than the old kg prototype.
Gödel incomplete structures always include non-standard infinities and has absolutely no bearing on this issue. Gödel completness has literally nothing to do with "reasonable confidence" or measurement limitations, both of which are complete in this axiomatic structure.
I don't think you get what the issue is. I didn't imply Gödel says anything about measurement limitations or reasonable confidence. That's all your own hallucination. Original question was "is the Planck's constant proven to be constant?". No it isn't. Or is it? All we got is "reasonable confidence".
Very narrow minded and outdated viewpoints