NATURAL SYSTEMS OF UNITS.

To the Centenary Anniversary of the Planck System

K.A. Tomilin∗
Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Moscow, RF

The history of natural systems of units based on fundamental constants is consid-

ered. The development of metrology as is shown goes from multiplicity of arbitrary
measures to more fundamental scales. The progress of quantum metrology allows
to hope for adoption in the future of unified fundamental system of units based on
fundamental constants.

Introduction. There were three main stages of the evolution of metrology. Originally
man chose measures of time and length as parameters of own body. These were universal
and convenient measures, because everyone always carried all measures with himself, but
it were very inaccuracy measures. From this stage the names of measures such as “foot”,
“duim” (“thumb”, on Holland), mile (thousand of double steps) et al. are maintained
to the present time. The progress of classical physics in XVII-XIX centuries in many
respects was based on adoption of universal natural measures such as the parameters of
the Earth’s orbit, the Earth, water, terrestrial atmosphere. The third stage is connected
with discovery at the beginning of the XX century of fundamental constants as absolute
measures of Nature, i.e. standards which have absolute own accuracy, and with the
following development of quantum metrology at the end of the XX century. From the
standpoint of fundamental constants, the development of metrology can be described as
transition from measurement of fundamental constants to measurement by fundamental
constants.
Further the history of natural systems of units based on fundamental constants such as
velocity of light c, Planck constant h, elementary electric charge e, mass of some particle
mo , coefficients in Newton kg and Coulomb laws ke is considered. By tradition, systems
of units based on fundamental constants are called “natural systems of units”, but a
more precise name is obviously “universal” (as J.C.Maxwell proposed), “absolute” (as
C.F.Gauss proposed) or “fundamental systems of units”.

On the history of fundamental constants. The fundamental (universal, natural,

absolute) physical constants are the fruit of quantum relativistic revolution of the end of
XIX – of the beginning of XX centuries. There had been no fundamental constants in the
classical physics. At that time velocity of light and gravitational constant were considered
as special parameters not having fundamental meaning.
The history of some fundamental constants (like velocity of light or Planck constant)
is well-known. Contrarily, the history of gravitational constant is quite unknown. An-
other problem is that physicists are modernising the history of physics. For example,
some physicists believe that I.Newton introduced this constant and H.Cavendish mea-
sured it. In reality neither I.Newton, nor L.Euler, J.D’Alembert, J.Lagrange, A.Clairaut,
∗
E-mail: tomilin@history.ihst.ru

287
P.S.Laplace, C.F.Gauss or others introduced the gravitational constant, because the grav-
itational constant is an unnecessary parameter for celestial mechanics. For a long time
scientists were formulating the Newton’s law of universal attraction without gravitational
constant kg . Thus the astronomical system de facto was originally “natural”, as it was
based on adoption of kg =1.
The experiment of Cavendish (1797-98) [1] demonstrates the principal difference be-
tween concept of “historical reality” as used by physicists and historians of physics. For
physicists, Cavendish measured gravitational constant because this experiment is exper-
iment on determination of gravitational constant in the framework of the contemporary
physical picture of world. But for a historian of physics, Cavendish measured the mean
density of the Earth. The notion of “gravitational constant” was not existent in the physics
of that time. But only after the experiment of Cavendish the gravitational constant was
introduced in Newton’s law of universal attraction. Probably at first the gravitational
constant appeared in S.D.Poisson’s “Traité de Méchanique” in 1811 [2].

Absolute system of C.F.Gauss (kg =1, km =1, ke =1). C.F.Gauss (1777-1855) con-
sidered the law F = m1rm 2
2
as the universal law of Nature for masses, “magnetic masses”
and electric charges [3]. For quantitative analysis of terrestrial magnetism in 1832 C.F.Ga-
uss proposed such form of this law for “magnetic masses” (i.e. km =1) [4] and later
C.F.Gauss and W.Weber proposed the same form of the law for electric charges (i.e.
ke =1). Gauss used millimeter, milligram and second as principal mechanical units. Also
in celestial mechanics Gauss put the law of gravitation in the same form without the
gravitational constant (i.e. kg =1) [5]. Thus the Gauss’s idea of “absolute measures” was
the reduction of electric, magnetic and gravitational units to the three main mechanical
units by the means of adoption of coefficients ki =1 in corresponding laws.

Universal systems of J.C.Maxwell (λN a, c, kg ), (λN a , c, mo ). In the Address

to the Mathematical and Physical Section of the British Association for Advancement
of Science on Sept. 15, 1870 in Liverpool, J.C.Maxwell (1831-1879) noted: “If we wish
to obtain standards of length, time and mass which shall be absolutely permanent, we
must seek them not in the dimensions or the motion, or the mass of our planet, but in
the wavelength, the period of vibration, and the absolute mass of this imperishable and
unalterable and perfectly similar molecules” [6].
Three years later in 1873 Maxwell published his famous “Treatise on Electricity and
Magnetism”. In the first chapter devoted to the systems of units Maxwell analysed various
systems applied in science and practice, and proposed two “universal systems of units” [7].
As “the most universal standard of length” Maxwell proposed to adopt “the wave length
in vacuum of a particular kind of light, emitted by some widely diffused substance such as
sodium, which has well-defined lines in its spectrum”. As “universal unit of time” — “the
periodic time of vibration of the particular kind of light whose wavelength is the unit of
length”. As “a universal standard of mass” — “the mass of a single molecule of a standard
substance”. The other variant of universal system of Maxwell differed only in the adoption
of the unit of mass, which was derived from the law of universal attraction as the mass
providing unit acceleration on unit length (i.e. gravitational constant kg =1). Maxwell
noted that “if we adopted the units of length and time derived from the vibrations of

288
light, then the unit of velocity is the velocity of light”. It was very important for Maxwell
to choose the velocity of light S=1, as it lead to the unification of electrostatic and
electromagnetic systems. On essentially Maxwell proposed two main types of systems
of units, connected with the two interactions known in that time: electromagnetic and
gravitational.
Also in the chapter on electrolysis Maxwell, for explanation of empirical Faraday
law, suggested the idea of equivalence of quantity of electricity for decomposition of one
molecule of any substance. Maxwell called this quantity of electricity the molecular charge
or “one molecule of electricity” and emphasised that “if it were known it would be the
most natural unit of electricity” [ibid, p.312]. Though Maxwell noted that the idea of
molecule of electricity was “out of harmony with the rest of this treatise”, it turned out to
be prophetic. And all first calculations of elementary electric charge were derived exactly
from the Faraday law of electrolysis.

System of G.J.Stoney (c, kg , km , e). In 1874 prominent Irish physicist G.J.Stoney

(1826-1911) proposed a natural system of units based on the following fundamental con-
stants: 1) electromagnetic constant connected with the relation of electrostatic and elec-
tromagnetic units (i.e. velocity of light S), 2) “coefficient of gravitation” (gravitational
constant kg ) and 3) quantity of electricity connected with decomposition of one molecule
in electrolysis (i.e. elementary charge e) [8].Stoney also used the electromagnetic system
of units (i.e. he adopted km =1, where km is a coefficient in the law F = km m1rm 2
2
(m1
and m2 - ”magnetic masses”)). From Faraday law of electrolysis G.J.Stoney estimated
the value of the smallest electric charge as e = 10−20 A · s (i.e. 10−20 Coulomb). It was
the first in history estimation of the value of elementary electric charge e (modern value
is e = 1.6021892 · 10−19 C; error by 16 times was caused by the inaccuracy of Loshmidt
constant).

In Stoney’s system the unit of length lo = ce2 kg ke = 1.38050· 10−34 cm, unit of time



to = ce3 kg ke = 4.60486 · 10−45 s, unit of mass mo = e kkge = 1.85945 · 10−6 g, where ke
is the coefficient in the Coulomb law, ke = km c2 . It should be noted that Stoney’s √ units
are equal to Planck’s units multiplied by the root from the fine-structure constant α.
Later in 1956 B.Ludovichi also proposed this system with some modification of elec-
tromagnetic units (rationalization of electromagnetic units and adoption of additional √
magnetic unit) [9]. Units of length, time and mass of the Ludovichi system are in 4π
times as much as the Stoney units.
The meaning of the Stoney scale is in that it determines of region of applicability of
both QED and General Relativity. So, in 1954 L.Landau, A.A.Abrikosov, I.M.Khalatnikov
2
proved that QED becomes inapplicable due to gravitation just for impulse p ∼ keg ,
p ∼ 2 · 10−6 g ∼ 1027 eV (i.e. for Stoney scale) [10]. In this connexion, the Stoney
scale must have become the scale of unification of gravitation and electromagnetic in-
teraction if a correct theory of such kind would have been constructed. √So it is not
accidentally that H.Weyl discussed “the gravitational unit of charge reg = e c2G ”, i.e. the
Stoney length, in his works on unified theory in 1918-19, but he could not introduce this
scale in his theory in reality because of the very small value reg .

289
“Naturlische Maasseinheiten” of M.Planck (c, h, kg , k). In 1897-99 M.Planck
(1858-1947) made five reports on irreversible processes of radiation in Berlin Academy.
In the closing fifth report on May 18, 1899 he applied some logarithmic law of entropy
introduced by him for explanation of the empirical Wien law of radiation. Quantitative
analysis required that two new physical constants a and b were introduced in the law of
entropy. Planck at once characterised these constants as “universal” in connexion with
the universal (as he supposed) nature of the law of entropy, and calculated its values as
a = 0, 4818 · 10−10 s · grad and b = 6.885 · 10−27 erg · s. Constant b is Planck constant
h (later named by Planck as “quantum of action”). Later Planck introduced constant
k = h/a (nowadays called the Boltzmann constant) instead of constant a.
In the closing paragraph of “Naturlische Maasseinheiten”, Planck proposed the nat-
ural system of units based on the “universal constants” a, b, c, f (f - gravitational
constant kg ) [11]. Planck also calculated the values of units of length, time, mass and
temperature. Planck did not adopt any electromagnetic units. Nowadays, the Planck
system is understood
√ as (c, h̄, kg )-system, of which the units differ from the original
Planck
units in 2π times. In the Planck system, the unit of length
is the Planck length
−33
lpl = kg h̄
= 1.61605 · 10 cm, the unit of time is tpl = kg h̄
= 5.39056 · 10−44
c3
c5
s, the unit of mass is the Planck mass mpl = h̄c
kg
= 2.17671 · 10−5 g, and the

unit of temperature is Tpl o
= 1
k
h̄ c5
kg
= 1.41696 · 1032 K. Later the Planck energy

Epl = h̄ c5
kg
= 1.221047 · 1019 GeV was also introduced. The poor accuracy of the
Planck values was caused by insufficient accuracy of the gravitational constant kg .
Soon after that, m.Planck published a detailed account of his researches on the theory
of heat radiation (based in general on the report made on May 18, 1899) in “Annalen
der Physik” [12]. The text also included the same closing paragraph on the natural
system of units. In 1906, M.Planck published his “Theory of heat radiation”, the book,
in which one of the paragraphs was also devoted to the natural system of units. This
book was republished in 1906, 1913 (2 ed.), 1921 (4 ed.) etc., and in the first three
editions Planck kept this paragraph (the text of the paragraph in the book was identical
to the corresponding paragraph in the articles except for the numerical values of physical
constants) [13]. One more time M.Planck mentioned his system of units in the report
“Unity of the physical picture of the world” (Leiden, 1908) [14]. Planck emphasised that
the advantage of his system consisted in that it was based on constants describing the
universal phenomena - gravitation and heat radiation. Thus, between 1899 and 1923
M.Planck published the idea of his natural system of units at least eight times, and five
times with numerical calculations of the units of length, time, weight and temperature.
The following history of the Planck values was analysed by G.E.Gorelik [15], [16]. In
1918 A.Eddington in his “Report on Relativity Theory of Gravitation” characterised the
three physical constants c, h and kg as “fundamental constants of nature” and supposed
that they determine the “fundamental unit of length” – 4 · 10−33 cm, which “must be the
key to some essential structure” [17].
Later many scientists pointed out the “absurdity” of Planck values: very small units
of length and time, high unit of temperature and strange unit of weight, comparable with
mass of a ”speck of dust”, and unavailability of this system of units for metrology.

290
 Only in the 1950-s the Planck values gained the second life due to the development
of quantum gravitation and clarification of its role as limits of applicability of the Gen-
eral Relativity (GR) and Quantum Relativity Theory (QRT). It was first found out by
M.P.Bronstein (1936), then by O.Klein (1954-55), J.Wheeler (1955) et al. Earlier in 1916
and 1918 A.Einstein noted that the quantum theory must modify the General Relativity
theory [18], [19]. In 1936 the role of h1/2c1/2/kg 1/2 (i.e. the Planck mass) as limit of
measurability in QRT was ascertained by M.P.Bronstein [20] (the main part of the paper
27
reprinted in [16, p.175-182]). In 1954, as noted above √ the role of the Stoney scale 10 eV
(which is less than the Planck scale of energy in α times) as the gravitational limit of
applicability of QED was cleared by L.D.Landau, A.A.Abrikosov and I.M.Khalatnikov.
In 1954 O.Klein proved that the Planck length is the gravitational limit of applicability


of quantum relativistic theory [21], [22]. In 1955 J.Wheeler proved that length kg h̄/c3
(i.e. the Planck length; at that time J.Wheeler did not know that this scale had been
introduced by Planck) is the quantum limit of General Relativity theory [23]. M.Planck’s
priority was reestablished in 1957 and was fixed in terminology

(the term “Planck values”).
In 1965 M.A.Markov supposed that mass mo = h̄ c/kg = 2 · 10−5 g (i.e. the
Planck mass) is the upper limit for the masses of elementary particles [24]. In 1966
A.D.Sakharov substantiated that there is a maximum temperature of heat radiation To =
k −1 c5/2h̄1/2kg −1/2 = 1.42 · 1032 grad, i.e. the Planck temperature [25]. In 1971 S.Hawking
proved that the Planck mass is the minimum limit of mass of the black holes. In 1982
M.A.Markov suggested that the Planck density is the limiting density of matter [26].
Nowadays the Planck scale is generally considered as the fundamental scale for which
quantum fluctuations of space-time arise, that must lead to a radical change of the space-
time concept (D.A.Kirjnits et al).

Electronic system of units (c, me , e, ke ). The electronic system has been applied
in physics since the beginning of the XXth century, but it is not certainly known who
was the first to propose it. Probably, it was made by J.A.Fleming [27]. The unit of
2
length in this system is the classical radius of electron re = ke mee c2 = αλ̄384e ≈ 137 λ̄e
,
where α is a fine-structure constant. The meaning of the classical radius of electron is
in that this scale is the limit of applicability of the classical electromagnetic theory. In
1934-35 M.Born used the electronic system in his unitary theory of electromagnetic field
(he concluded that the length 1.236· re = 3.48· 10−13 cm was to be considered the “true”
radius of electron) [28]. In 1950-s W.Heisenberg in his unlinear unified field theory also
considered the length 10−13 cm as the fundamental scale [29].

Atomic system of Hartree (h̄, me , e, ke ). In 1927 British physicist and mathemati-

cian D.Hartree (1897-1958) proposed a new method for solution of Schrödinger equation in
case of multielectronic atoms (the method of self-consistent field advanced by V.A.Fock
in 1930). At the beginning of his article D.Hartree adopted special atomic system of
units: the Bohr radius aH as the unit of length, the mass of electron me as the unit of
mass, and the charge of electron e as the unit of charge [30]. He also chose the coef-
ficient in Coulomb law ke =1. The aim of Hartree was the maximum simplification of
Schrödinger wave equation by the elimination of unnecessary coefficients. The Hartree
system turned out very convenient for atomic physics, which is described by laws of non

291
relativistic quantum theory, and hence it found very wide application in this area. For
the units adopted by Hartree (as he noted himself), the unit of action was equal to h/2π.
So we can describe the Hartree system as (h̄, me , e, ke ). In the Hartree system the
2
unit of length is the Bohr radius aH = meh̄ke e2 = λ̄αe ≈ 137λ̄e = 5.2917722497 · 10−9
3
cm, the unit of time to = me h̄ke 2 e4 = 2.418884335 · 10−17 s. The unit of velocity is
the velocity of light multiplied by the fine-structure constant: νo = α c ≈ 137 c
. This
is the velocity of electron on the first Bohr orbit of atom of hydrogen and the lower
limit for velocities of electrons in more complicated atoms. In 1958 the unit of energy
Eo = me kh̄e2 e = 43.5974819 · 10−19 J = 27.2113961 eV was named hartree in honour of
2 4

D.Hartree.

Quantum relativistic system (c, h̄, me , ke ). In 1931 American physicist A.Ruark

(1899-1978) proposed two new systems of units for the tasks of atomic physics [31].
Both systems were based on the velocity of light c and the mass of electron me . As the
third unit Ruark adopted the Bohr radius aH (in first system) and the compton length
of electron λ̄e = mh̄e c = 3.861593234 · 10−11 cm (in second system). In both systems he
chose coefficient ke =1. The second system had wide application and is usually called the
quantum relativistic system (c, h̄, mo , ke ), where mo is the mass of some particle. The
appearance of this system was connected with the advancement of quantum relativistic
theory and the discovery of Dirac wave equation. In the quantum relativistic system the
unit of time is to = mh̄o c2 = 1.288088853 · 10−21 s (for electron) and the unit of charge
√
is equal to α−1/2 ≈ 137 = 11.706237 of elementary charge. Ruark understood that
a modification of his system with the adoption of the elementary charge as the unit of
electric charge would lead to appearance of a coefficient in the Coulomb law, but for some
reason considered it unacceptable.
In the second half part of the XXth century the quantum relativistic system (c, h̄, eV ,
ke ) became widely applicable in the high energy physics.

Quantum electrodynamical system (c, h̄, e, mo ). In 1949 German physicist and

metrologist U.Stille proposed a natural system for electrodynamics, based on the velocity
of light c, the Planck constant h, the elementary charge e, the mass of proton mp , the kern
magneton 2πµk and the Boltzmann constant k [32]. The Stille system can be essentially
considered the modification of the quantum relativistic system by adoption of more natural
units for electromagnetism, such as elementary charge e and kern magneton µk .
In the Stille system the unit of length is the compton length of proton λp = mhp c =
1.321410025 · 10−13 cm. The unit of time is τp = mhp c2 = 4.407749393 · 10−23 s.
It should be noted that some physicists (P.Bridgman, D.Hartree, P.Wesson et al.)
believed that a system, in which the velocity of light c, the Planck constant h̄ and the
elementary charge e were simultaneously adopted as the units, would be convenient but
e2
was not possible in principle. Their argumentation was based on the relation as h̄c ≈ 137
1
.
2
In reality, the formula of the fine-structure constant is as α = ke h̄c ≈ 137 , where ke is
e 1

the coefficient in the Coulomb law. So we can choose c, h̄ and e as the fundamental
units. In this system the constant ke = α ≈ 137 1
. The meaning of the formula of the
fine-structure constant becomes clear if the formula is rewritten as ke = α h̄e2c ≈ 137 1 h̄ c
e2
.

292
From this formula it is evident that the fine-structure constant α is the fundamental value
of ke , and constants c, h̄ and e constitute the fundamental dimension of the dimensional
electromagnetic constant ke [33].
System (c, h̄, e, me ) was also discussed by metrologists A.H.Cook (1972) and P.W.Petley
(1983) as prospective systems for quantum metrology [34], [35].
The main proposed natural systems of units, based entirely on the fundamental con-
stants, are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Natural systems of units

Unit of Unit of Unit of Unit of Coefficients Unit of

velocity action charge mass in laws length
Astronomical kg =1 astronomical unit
system
C.F.Gauss kg =1, practical measures
and W.Weber ke=1, (1 mm et al)
(1832 et al.) km =1
J.C.Maxwell c mo wave length of any
(1870) spectral line λNa
J.C.Maxwell c kg =1 wave length of any
(1873) spectral line λNa
G.J.Stoney c e kg =1, Stoney length lst
(1874) km =1
M.Planck c h kg =1 Planck length lpl
(1899)
Electronic c e me ke=1 classical radius
system of electron re
D.Hartree h̄ e me ke = 1 Bohr radius aH
(1927)
A.Ruark c me ke = 1 Bohr radius aH
(1931)
A.Ruark c h̄ me ke = 1 compton wave
(1931) length of electron λ̄e
U.Stille c h e mp compton wave
(1949) length of proton λp
A.Cook c h̄ e me compton wave
(1972) length of electron λ̄e

Some other systems of units were also proposed, but they were either insignificantly
different than those described above (by factors 4π et al.), or they were not quite natural
systems (based only on the fundamental constants).

Natural systems of units and practical measures. The progress of the quantum
metrology at the end of XXth century led to the acceptance in 1983 of some practical
value of the velocity of light 299792458 m/s as exact. It means that the unit of length
is defined as the distance which light passes with in 1/299792458 of a second, and the
practical unit of velocity 1 m/s is determined as 1/299792458 of the velocity of light c.

293
Thus, the problem of measurement of the velocity of light ceased to exist in 1983, and
nowadays the experiments on “determination of the velocity of light” must be considered
as experiments in reproducing the practical measures, such as 1 m and 1 m/s, on the basis
of the fundamental measures of nature. The discovery of quantum Hall effect opens an
opportunity of setting the values of conductivity σo = e2/h, or resistance Ro = σo −1 , as
fundamental measures [36]. The further progress of the quantum metrology and possible
discovery of new quantum effects [37], [38], will perhaps lead in future to the acceptance
of some practical values of constants e and h̄ (for example, e = 1.60217733 · 10−19 C and
h̄ = 1.05457266 · 10−34 J · s as exact. However, the final construction of a natural system
of units based entirely on the fundamental constants is not possible without the discovery
of one more fundamental constant, which would not be a combination of already-known
constants, i.e. fundamental length, mass etc.
The unification of interactions, perhaps, will produce exactly the missing fundamental
constant of such kind. According to the modern concepts, the coupling constants of
all interactions should integrate at some energy. This scale of energy (and, accordingly,
length), will, probably, become the fundamental scale of the unified theory and, hence,
will play a fundamental role and in all physics. Another opportunity is connected to a
choice the quark confinement energy Λ, which is considered as fundamental constant in
QCD (a.V.Efremov [39]), as a fundamental measure.
The adoption of some scale of energy as fundamental measure together with the con-
stants S, h̄ and e would result in the establishment of this system of units as the unified
fundamental system for the theoretical physics as a whole. The transition to this sys-
tem of units in experimental physics will depend on an opportunity of standardization
of physical quantities on the basis of these scales. As to the practical measures, they
will keep the meaning for practical purposes, but the practical units will be determined
as certain exact portions of the fundamental scales, as it has already been done with
the velocity of light. In this connection it would be convenient for scientists to choose
the simplest relationships between practical and fundamental measures, e.g. as m10n or
even 10n (however, it would require a change of practical measures, connected with large
costs). Such idea was first proposed by A.Gretsky in 1957 [40]. He suggested to choose
practical units in such a way that the Planck values and, accordingly, constant S, h̄, kg
would be precisely equal to 10n . It corresponds to a choice of practical units lo = 1.616
cm, to = 0.539 s, mo = 217.67 g and To = 1.417 grad. At that, the Planck’s values
would have the following values: Planck length lpl = 10−33 · lo ; time tpl = 10−43 · to;
Planck mass mpl = 10−7 · mo; temperature Tplo = 1032 · To . The fundamental constants
S, h̄, kg and k would correspondingly have convenient values in this system: S = 1010 ,
h̄ = 10−30 , kg = 10−6 and k = 10−19 of Gretsky’s practical units. The system of units,
suggested by A.Gretsky, will hardly find an application, as the accuracy of standards of
weights based on the gravitational constant is insufficient; however, the idea can be po-
tentially implemented in future, yet in the framework of another natural system of units,
more acceptable for quantum metrology.
For a summary of the history of natural systems of units based on the set of the
fundamental constants (c, h̄, e, mo ; kg =1, ke =1, km =1,... ), it may be briefly expressed
as the transition from the “absolute system” (ki =1) to the “fundamental system” (c=1,
h̄=1, e=1, Eo =1), where E0 is some fundamental energy (see Tabl.1).

294
Conclusions. There is an important ethical principle “to have one measure” stated in
Bible. It is interesting that it was expressed in a physical form: “You shall not have in
your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two
kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and just weight you shall have, a full and
just measure you shall have” (Deuteronomy, chapter 25, 13-15). “You shall do no wrong
in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. You shall have just balances,
just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin” (Leviticus, chapter 19, 35-36). “A just balance
and scales are the Lord’s; all the weights in the bag are his work” (The Books of Proverbs,
chapter 16, 11). (Ephah and hin were dry measures for grain etc.).
The development of metrology from a great number arbitrary anthropomorphous mea-
sures to unified universal measures clearly shows that the same principle is being fulfilled
in physics. The accord of ethical and physical principles was first noted by A.Eddington,
when in 1920 he chose the words from The Book of Deuteronomy as an epigraph to the
chapter on Weyl’s unified theory in his “Space, time and gravitation” [41]. Perhaps he
believed that the theory of Weyl set some fundamental measures, but Weyl only discussed
this issue. We obviously live in the world where the fundamental principles of ethics and
physics agree with each other. Sooner or later man will set some natural measures as
fundamental and will correlate his practical measures with them.

References

[1] Cavendish H. Phil. Trans. of Royal Soc. of London, 1798, vol.88, p.469-526.

[2] Poisson S.D. Traité de Mécanique, Paris, t.1-2, Paris, 1811.

[3] Gauss C.F. Werke, Band 5, Göttingen, 1877, S.195-242.

[4] Gauss C.F. Ibid, S.79-118.

[5] Gauss C.F. Ibid, S.1-22.

[6] Maxwell J.C. The Scientific Papers, v.1-2, P., v.1, p.45-60.

[7] Maxwell J.C. A treatise on electricity and magnetism, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1873, vol.1,
425 p.

[8] Stoney G.J. Phil Mag, vol.11, p.381-390 (1881).

[9] Ludovichi B. Am. J. Phys., vol.5, p.400-407 (1956).

[10] Landau L.D., Abrikosov A.A., Khalatnikov I.M. DAN SSSR, vol.95, p.1177 (1954) (on
Russian).

[11] Planck M. S.-B. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., S.479-480 (1899).

[12] Planck M. Ann. Phys. 4(1), S.69-122 (1900).

[13] Planck M. Vorlesungen über die Theorie der Wärmestrahlung, Leipzig, 1906; 2 Auf., 1913,
208 S.

[14] Planck M. Phys. Ztschr., 10, S.62-75 (1909).

295
[15] Gorelik G.E. Einsteinovskii sbornik, 1978-79, M.: Nauka, 1983, p.334-364 (on Russian);
Gorelik G.E. Einstein Studies, vol.3, Boston, 1992, p.364-379.
[16] Gorelik G.E., Frenkel V.Ja. Matvei Petrovich Bronstein and soviet theoretical physics in
the thirties, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Boston, Berlin, 1994, 208 p.
[17] Eddington A.S. Report on the relativity theory of gravitation. 1918, 91 p.
[18] Einstein A. Sitzungsber. preuss. Akad. Wiss., 1, 688-696 (1916).
[19] Einstein A. Sitzungsber. preuss. Akad. Wiss., 1, 154-167 (1918).
[20] Bronstein M.P. Phys. Zeit. der Sowjetunion, 6, S.149 (1936).
[21] Klein O. Kosmos (Sweden), 32, s.33 (1954) (on Sweden).
[22] Klein O. Helv. phys. acta suppl., 4, p.58 (1956).
[23] Wheeler J. Phys. Rev., 97, p.511-536 (1955).
[24] Markov M.A. Progr. Theor. Phys.: Suppl. Commemoration Issue for 30th Anniversary of
the Meson Theory by Dr.H.Yukawa, 1965.
[25] Sakharov A.D. Pis’ma v JETP, 3, 439-441 (1966) (on Russian).
[26] Markov M.A. Pis’ma v JETP, 6, 214-216 (1982) (on Russian).
[27] Dolinsky E.F., Pilipchuk B.I. In: Encyclopedia izmerenii, controlia i avtomatizatsii, vol.4,
m.-L., 1965. (on Russian).
[28] Born M. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (A), 2, p.533 (1935).
[29] Heisenberg W. Introduction to the unified field theory of elementary particles, L., N.Y., S.,
1966.
[30] Hartree D.R. Proc Phil Soc (Cambridge), vol.24, p.89-110 (1928).
[31] Ruark A.E. Phys Rev, vol.38, 12, p.2240-2244 (1931).
[32] Stille U. Annalen der Physik, vol.6, 5, S.208-212 (1949).
[33] Tomilin K.A. European J. Physics, vol.20, 5 (1999).
[34] Cook A.H. Reports on progress in physics, vol.35, 5, p.463 (1972).
[35] Petley B.W. In: Quantum metrology and fundamental constants, 1983, p.343.
[36] Braun E. In: Gravitational measurements, fundamental metrology and constants /ed. V.
De Sabbata, V.N.Melnikov, Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1988, p.19-58.
[37] The quantum Hall effect /ed.R.E.Prange, S.M.Girvin, Springer-Verlag, N.Y., 1987.
[38] Likharev K.K., Zorin A.B. In: Proc. of the 17th International Conference on Low Temper-
ature Physics, LT17, Karlsruhe, 1984, p.1153.
[39] Quantum chromodynamics. In: Fizicheskaya encyclopedia, t.2, M., 1990 (on Russian).
[40] Gretsky A.T. J. Frank. Inst., 268, 5, p.388-400 (1959).
[41] Eddington A.S. Space, time and gravitation. Cambridge, 1920.

296