Timeline for Multiplication allows for different units: why can't we multiply apples by apples?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2021 at 7:13 | vote | accept | xdutoit | ||
| Jan 16, 2021 at 2:40 | answer | added | TBissinger | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 16, 2021 at 2:20 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 25, 2021 at 3:06 | |||||
| Jan 16, 2021 at 1:59 | comment | added | Bill N | I’m voting to close this question because it's not about physics. | |
| Jan 16, 2021 at 1:49 | history | edited | Sandejo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
corrected spelling, edited tags
|
| Jan 16, 2021 at 0:55 | comment | added | David White | The units in physics are based on empirical evidence from experiments. No one (to my knowledge) has designed a valid experiment where you multiply apples by apples. | |
| S Jan 16, 2021 at 0:37 | history | suggested | jpf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typo in title
|
| Jan 15, 2021 at 23:13 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 16, 2021 at 0:37 | |||||
| Jan 15, 2021 at 23:09 | answer | added | Dale | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 15, 2021 at 21:46 | comment | added | jacob1729 | The apples and oranges analogy is just an analogy. Apples are not actually a dimension. | |
| Jan 15, 2021 at 21:39 | answer | added | jpf | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 15, 2021 at 21:14 | history | edited | xdutoit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jan 15, 2021 at 21:11 | comment | added | G. Smith | Quantities which are the number of something are dimensionless. | |
| Jan 15, 2021 at 21:09 | comment | added | xdutoit | And I haven't talked about quantum mechanics yet :) Yes indeed, I see what you mean... | |
| Jan 15, 2021 at 21:08 | comment | added | G. Smith | As you progress in physics, “reality” and “existence” become problematic concepts. What is important is models and measurements. | |
| Jan 15, 2021 at 21:05 | answer | added | Agnius Vasiliauskas | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 15, 2021 at 21:04 | comment | added | xdutoit | I see your point, and I can't indeed understand this statcoulomb. But, on the other hand, apart form the understanding, it seems to me that a "square meter" has an existence, a reality (it represents a "surface" something I can see), that a "square apple" lacks... no ? | |
| Jan 15, 2021 at 21:00 | comment | added | G. Smith | No physicist would write “$N_\text{apples}=3\text{ apples}$”. They would write “$N_\text{apples}=3$”. | |
| Jan 15, 2021 at 20:52 | comment | added | G. Smith | And is has a meaning: I can understand what of $m/s$, $m^2$, $Nm$, etc. represent. Can you understand $1\text{ cm}^{3/2}⋅\text{g}^{1/2}⋅\text{s}^{−1}$ (a statcoulomb)? Units do not have to have a “meaning” beyond what they are. | |
| Jan 15, 2021 at 20:47 | history | asked | xdutoit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |