I have rewritten this page from scratch, because it was flatly idiotic before. Now it is merely lame. --Jimbo Wales
It's important to focus on the Fundamental Dimensions used in physics, so we can understand at any given point of any given physics discussion what we are talking about.
Infact, if you add 2 apples to 2 apples you get 4 apples. But if you add 2 apples to 3 oranges... what do you get? Yes, you get 5 fruits, but you will loose the particular aspect of the apple and of the orange that you started with. So let's focus on the fact that usually we deal with 4 fundamental dimensions or units in:
... and that we CAN NOT obviously add a Time measurement (say 5 seconds) to a Length measurement (say 1 mile) because it makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense.
(1 sec + 1 mile = ???)
From these 4 dimensions we can talk about the 80% of ALL physics problems existing now or in the future... (Future?? Who knows the future?)
If you want to talk of the other 20% you need to add other 3 dimensions
Once we agreed on so... How would you measure ESP ([Extra Sensorial Perceptions]?)? (LOL) :) (So we can talk about 101 % of physics now, say metaphysics)
Thanx Jimbo, for letting me appear less idiotic.
Very obliged.
The Anome
Hmm, nah, I've added this new page as a link to the physics page under the "Concepts" paragraph.
Little guru
Yes, you did that, but the question is whether a link to dimensional analysis (and maybe adding some information to that page) wouldn't have sufficed.
And whilst we're at it, what about geometric algebra? (See http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~clifford/introduction/intro/intro for a discussion).
The Anome
I worked as a computer science technician in 2 different Electrotechnical labs, and I can assure you that imaginary numbers exist in the calculus of alternate currents. Is this what you were aiming to talk about?
No, I'm not claming that complex numbers don't exist. I was talking about vector sums between quantities of different dimensions. Of course all of these notations are abstractions - do the natural numbers 'exist' in reality? How 'real' they (and all the other abstractions) are in physical theory has only to do with the falsifiability of their predictions.
I think this material is (or should be covered) on dimensional analysis. Also, the tone is too colloquial here.
So what Axelboldt, you don't like having a [small talk]? once every while?
... and that we CAN NOT obviously add a Time measurement (say 5 seconds) to a Length measurement (say 1 mile) because it makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense.
It would make quite lot of sense. In fact, it's quite often being done in physics.
5 seconds + 1 mile = 5.0000053681938 seconds = 931412.99 miles.
Sorry, but i got to disagree with that Taw.
What are you adding?
Duh?
5 oranges + 1 apple = 5.0000053681938 oranges = 931412.99 apples
LOL
We could become MILLIONAIRES[?]? at the speed of light in selling fruit! (apples of course)
ROTFL
little guru
Surely all this should be dealt with within dimensional analysis, or in a new fundamental units article? I can't see how temperature is a dimension, either. -- The Anome
I think this article is confused on two counts:
Firstly, the article should probably be talking about units, as the Anome suggested. Dimensions is a misleading term, since it has two distinct but related meanings - one might speak of the "dimensions of space", or the "dimensions of measurement".
Secondly, the word "fundamental" is also misleading. It can mean (i) a complete system of units, such as the SI system, or (ii) a natural (minimal) system of units for describing fundamental physics, i.e. the Planck units (see for example http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants).
I think the article is going to have to be re-written. Anyone?
-- CYD
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|