Jonathan wrote: > As a physical scientists I am definitely excited about this. I think > the basic plans are sound. > > I presently do units as symbolic variable defined in terms of a list > of standard SI units. I also define a list of physical constants with > units. This works quite well, but as mentioned by others this means > everything ends up expressed in terms of the fundamental units. I > then either have to recognize what derived unit the fundamental > expression is or divide it by derived units to see what I have. > > So here are the key things beyond the already existing functionality > that would be ideal: > 1) Automatic look up of physical units and their uncertainties at the > NIST web site. I think the package should maintain a table and then > have a check_physical_constants() function.
That might be a bit difficult. They are not in any easily accessible format. It is interesting that the charge on an electron returned by Mathematica (or Wolfram Alpha) is not the recommended value. Both NPL in the UK and NIST reference some document (2006 I think), yet WRI's value is not that value. It is however correct within the uncertainty of the measurement. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
