Timeline for Is my friend right about omitting $c^2$ in world famous tiny equation?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 27, 2020 at 12:43 | comment | added | user87745 | @AlfredCentauri Yeah, as you can see, things like $E^2=m^2+p^2$ also wouldn't work out unless you make $c$ dimensionless. Maybe one can argue they'd work out "numerically" but in reality, they'd remain dimensionally inconsistent unless $c$ is truly dimensionless. :) | |
| May 27, 2020 at 12:36 | comment | added | Alfred Centauri | @DvijD.C., this is precisely what I thought when I read this (I had a comment typed) and then, I looked around here and found counterexamples. I've understood the $(c=1)$ expression to mean that $c$ is the dimensionless constant $1$, not the 1 light-second per second dimensionful constant | |
| May 26, 2020 at 23:24 | comment | added | user87745 | This is not what is done. You set $299792458 \text{ meters} = 1 \text{ second}$. When we say $c=1$, we mean it--there is no units hiding with that $1$. ;) | |
| May 26, 2020 at 15:29 | history | answered | my2cts | CC BY-SA 4.0 |