Fundimental Units

Discussion concerning other (non-RS) systems of theory and the insights obtained from them, as applied to the developing RS2 theory.
Post Reply
BlueEagle
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:33 pm

Fundimental Units

Post by BlueEagle »

Forgive me if you have already covered this...

In classical physics we are given seven 'Fundamental Units'.
  • Quantity

    Distance/Length

    Mass

    Time

    Electrical Charge

    Temperature

    Number

    Light Intensity

    Classical Unit

    meter (m)

    gram (g)

    second (s)

    coulomb (C)

    kelvin (K)

    mole (mol)

    condela (cd)

    Space/Time Unit

    meter (m)

    ?

    seconds (s)

    ?

    ?

    ?

    ?
Now, electrical charge, temperature and light intensity are all forms of energy, so are all three different units needed?

The mole is unneeded as a fundimental unit, due to the fact that it is only a number.

So, how do I fill in the unknown spaces in the chart.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Fundimental Units

Post by bperet »

Quantity
  • Distance/Length -- s
  • Mass -- t3/s3 (from E=mc2)
  • Time -- t
  • Electrical Charge -- s for quantity of charge, t/s for energy of charge (physics doesn't recognize the difference)
  • Temperature -- thermal=frequency (s/t or t/s depends on photon)
  • Number -- ONE (in natural units)
  • Light Intensity (condela) -- never heard of that one. Now is it derived?
BlueEagle wrote:
Now, electrical charge, temperature and light intensity are all forms of energy, so are all three different units needed?
No. Only space and time are needed. Energy is t/s.

But I should note that Larson discovered an error in legacy physics regarding electric charge, which sometimes appears as "s" (quantity), as in the area of a capacitor, and sometimes as "t/s", energy.

BlueEagle wrote:
The mole is unneeded as a fundimental unit, due to the fact that it is only a number.
You can calculate all these constants directly from natural units of space and time, based on what Larson outlined. But in the RS, they are reduced to their simplest terms, based on the speed of light, which is Unity -- 1 unit of space per 1 unit of time. All units can be expressed in terms of space and time.[/]
Every dogma has its day...
BlueEagle
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:33 pm

Re:

Post by BlueEagle »

Quote:
Light Intensity (condela) -- never heard of that one. Now is it derived?
Not in legacy physics.

Sorry, I did spell it wrong though; "candela" which is the unit for "luminous intensity."

Quote:
Mass -- t3/s3 (from E=mc2)
E (energy) usually defined as Joules in legacy physics. Joules = (kg x m2)/s2 or (mass x distance2)/time2

How do you derive the unit for mass out of E=mc2?
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re:

Post by bperet »

BlueEagle wrote:
Sorry, I did spell it wrong though; "candela" which is the unit for "luminous intensity."
We knew it as "candlepower" in my day.

www.electro-optical.com wrote:
The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 × 1012 hertz and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of 1/683 watt per steradian.
A "watt" is a measurement of power, in the RS having units of "1/s". It is derived from the equation: watts = voltage x current

1/s = t/s² x s/t, which is the product of force (voltage) and speed (current).

The "steradian" is just the fractional part of the surface of a sphere, which is there to adjust the focus of power along a beam (versus a radiant sphere), so being a percentage, has no units. So "candela" would be the same as "watts", 1/s.

BlueEagle wrote:
Quote:
Mass -- t3/s3 (from E=mc2)
E (energy) usually defined as Joules in legacy physics. Joules = (kg x m2)/s2 or (mass x distance2)/time2

How do you derive the unit for mass out of E=mc2?
Energy = t/s (inverse speed or work, time per unit distance).

"c" is the velocity of light, a speed, s/t.

E = m c2

t/s = m (s/t)2

m = (t/s) / (s/t)2

m = t3 / s3
Every dogma has its day...
Ardavarz
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:59 pm

LT-system

Post by Ardavarz »

This is all very interesting.

I am aware also about another way to express dimensionality of mass via distance (L) and time (T). This was done by James Clerk Maxwell in 1873. It is derived from the two definitions of "force" - from Newton's Second Law and the Law of Gravity:

1) F = m a

2) F = G (m1m2)/r2

From here if the forces are made equal:

m a = G (m1m2)/r2

and the gravitational constant G is assumed to be dimensionless, we have:

M L T-2 = M2 L-2

and thus:

M = L3 T-2.

Maxwell relates this also to Kepler's Third Law of planetary motion. This same result was used in making up the so-called "LT-system of fundamental units" proposed back in 1960s-70s by Roberto di Bertini and Pobisk Kuznetsov in Russia. It considers all physical units expressed by integer powers of distance (L) and time (T). In this system L3 T-2 is the dimensionality not only of gravitational mass, but also of electric charge and "magnetic mass". This can be interpreted as "volume (L3) with angular acceleration (T-2)" or "volume with density" (density in this system also has dimensionality T-2). There arises the problem of distinguishing between those three measures. Bertini and Kuznetsov proposed a model with 3+3 dimensions (3 spatial and 3 temporal) in which both space and time are vectors (thus there can exist "longtitudinal" and "transverse" time with different scale factors). Then the "time areas" (T2) from the above expression of dimensionality would be different for gravitaional (mass), electric and magnetic charges, i.e. they would be in different planes defined by the three temporal axes (which alludes to some intimate relation existing between gravitational and electro-magnetic forces).

I was quite amazed when I recently (completely by accident) came across Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of physical theory which seems to be based on very similar ideas. The comparison between them can prove to be very insightful. I hope to be able to write more about these topics soon - I am very busy these days, just couldn't help myself but post this now.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Dimensions of Motion

Post by bperet »

Being a fan of Maxwell, I noticed that as well.

You may want to read Larson's paper: The Dimensions of Motion, which documents many of the space (L) and time (T) relationships. (Click on title to access PDF).
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply