Yeah, I saw the author says it depends on the units. But like, why is this interesting? This is not physics, just some number coincidence in the metric unit system, and I'm sure one can find many more these kind of things by playing around with the constants. The fact the author calls this a "wonderful coincidence" is just... Like, a simple energy conservation or momentum conservation, taught in middle school, is infinitely worth being talked than this.
One philosophy in physics, is that the world and its rules are independent of human. We actively try to eliminate and downplay historical and human factors in the theory, and try to talk about just "the physics", because those factors often obscure the real physics (mechanism) and complicate the calculation. I mean people can find a historical thing interesting, but I guess I just feel disappointed that people find such a trivial thing so interesting, and maybe think that this is what physics is about, while physics is about anything but those pure coincidences.
Physicists need some precise definitions of units, and this is hard. Harder than most people expect. You can't do physics properly using your current king's foot size. This, more than the actual computations, was Huygens' valuable insight.
So you need a universal constant to serve as a standard, and it turns out very few things are in our world. One of them is the ratio of the perimeter of a circle over its diameter. So it's no wonder that this ratio comes up under various forms in our standard units, more often than chance would predict.
This is interesting because students of physics need to understand the complexity and importance of coming up with a standard set of measurement units, based on universal constants.
This is also interesting because the reason we need standard units is that we need science to be reproducible. If all I care about is to understand the world on my own then using the size of my own foot will do just fine as a unit.
Accessorily it's also useful to address the nonsense belief that such coincidences prove the existence of god or the perfection of nature.
None of this will come as radically insightful to you, but there are a lot of people in this world for whom this is not the case.
I'm also not a fan of over the top language, but this seems to be the norm of our attention-seeking times.
>This is not physics, just some number coincidence in the metric unit system
It's not a coincidence. The meter was (historically) intentionally defined as how long a pendulum is that swings in 2 seconds. When you do that, g = pi^2.
>The fact the author calls this a "wonderful coincidence"
The author doesn't call it a wonderful coincidence. The author asks the question of whether it's a wonderful coincidence or not, and comes to the conclusion: no.
Consider this to be an article about physics, not history. The article can be boiled down to one sentence: “the meter was originally defined to make pi^2=g”. This was a fun fact I didn’t know.
One philosophy in physics, is that the world and its rules are independent of human. We actively try to eliminate and downplay historical and human factors in the theory, and try to talk about just "the physics", because those factors often obscure the real physics (mechanism) and complicate the calculation. I mean people can find a historical thing interesting, but I guess I just feel disappointed that people find such a trivial thing so interesting, and maybe think that this is what physics is about, while physics is about anything but those pure coincidences.