It’s interesting how many units are built from the base SI units. However, I don’t really accept the mole as a “unit” in the same sense, it feels more like a counting number. Also, the ampere can be expressed in terms of coulombs.I tried to create a “unit grid” showing how all the base units relate to each other. In this representation, I use two dimensions for seconds and meters. Kilogram is shown in red and slightly shifted to the right to represent a third dimension. Coulomb is slightly shifted upward and shown in blue to represent a fourth dimension. Kelvin, yellow, is just there since I ran out of ideas.I also had to add subscripts to indicate powers of kilograms and coulombs, since color alone isn’t enough to represent different exponents. Purple appears where red and blue overlap, and orange where red and yellow overlap.If I haven’t made any mistakes, that’s it, enjoy!
>>16969131>It’s interesting how many units are built from the base SI unitsYou fucking idiot. ALL (derived) units are built from base units. That's why they're called base units.
>>16969131Your visual is quite cute and practical, OP.
>>16969134I'll phrase it that way, it's cool that there's only 7 units (6 if we don't count mol) that can be considered base units and all of them are derived from them. I still can wrap my head around the fact that energy is just m2 * s-2 * kg. How is energy just mass on surface accelerating?>>16969153Thanks! It's kind of like creating periodic table but for physics. It could be a helpful visual for students. You can just walk a few steps and know exactly what you need to multiply to get another unit. Interesting how most of them are contained within negative second and positive meter space.
> Also, the ampere can be expressed in terms of coulombs.Did you know lightyears can be expressed in nanometers? I wonder why we don’t fucking see that more often.
>>16969473coulomb exists as a property of atoms, it's their chargeampere is the amount of charges per second going through the wire, it is derivative of coulomb
>>16969131Looks like I made a mistake, Om has -2 of coulombs
>>16969460>How is energy just mass on surface accelerating?Because it's defined as force over distance and force is acceleration times mass and acceleration is distance over time twice. It's the reason these things have their own units because despite the fact that it has 2 distances it doesn't really mean surface more like double weighted distance and if you choose to interpret it as surface then it's no longer accelerating but going trough time at cubic rate since you use both meters for the surface and have nothing left for movement in spacial dimensions.
Update>>16969575Right, I confused meters.
>>16969131you may enjoy jowseys dimensional analysis paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286439505_The_Geometry_of_Spacetimewhere he points out https://archive.org/details/treatiseonelectr01maxwrich/treatiseonelectr01maxwrich/page/4/mode/1up?q=astronomicalthat maxwell himself prefaced his entire work with this reality that kg, through the gravitational bodies equation, has a dimensional relationship expressed purely in t and l, or looks like m and s.
