*Post by J. J. Lodder**Post by Ross Finlayson**Post by J. J. Lodder**Post by Ross Finlayson**Post by J. J. Lodder**Post by Ross Finlayson**Post by Thomas Heger**Post by Tom Roberts**Post by J. J. Lodder**Post by Tom Roberts*Nope. YOU have imposed specific units onto the formula/equation. The

equation itself does not impose any particular units on its variables

seem to think there is only one.

A forteriori, any result that depends on any particular choice

of units (or dimensions) is unphysical.

Yes, of course. Good point. Similarly, any result that depends on

choice of coordinates is unphysical.

Not quite...

Because velocity is 'relative' (relative in respect to what you regard

as 'stationary'), kinetic energy is frame dependent.

Since the used coordinate system defines 'stationary', you need a

coordinate system for kinetic energy and that for practically everything

else.

TH

When I hear "unphysical" I think it means "in the mathematical

representation and having no attachment to the physical representation,

in the system of units of the dimensional analysis in the

geometric setting".

The dimensional analysis and attachment to geometry and

arithmetic usually is about the only "physical" there is.

Dimensional analysis has nothing to do with physics.

Dimensions are man-made conventions.

Nothing would change if the whole concept had never been invented.

*Post by Ross Finlayson*(Geometry and arithmetic and the objects of analysis

and so on.)

Things like "negative time" and "anti-deSitter space" are

unphysical, as are the non-real parts of complex analysis,

usually, though for example if you consider the Cartanian

as essentially different from the Gaussian-Eulerian,

complex analysis, then the Majorana spinor makes an

example of a detectable observable, though, one might

aver that that's its real part, in the hypercomplex.

Well, yes, but that is another meaning of 'unphysical,

Jan

Yet, "conservation", i.e. "neither the destruction or creation",

of quantities, is exactly as according to the quantity its units.

Conservation laws do no depend on units and dimensions in any way.

*Post by Ross Finlayson*The, "dimensionless", when a usual sort of "dimensional analysis"

is the Buckingham-Pi approach, is a detachment of sorts from

the "dimensional analysis".

Yes, standard dimensional analysis,

Jan

Oh, here that's called 'dimensionless analysis'.

That's either an error or a silly neologism,

Jan

It's kind of like Higgs field.

"Hey, have you heard of Higgs' field?"

"Yeah, I suppose."

"You know, it's not a field."

".... What's that supposed to mean?"

"It's not a field according to the usual definition

in physics of what a field is, it's just an interface."

"Whuh - why don't they call it that?"

"You know there's a Higgs classical field?"

"Well now I'm wondering."

"It's a field, in physics."

"Oh, well, so, there is a Higgs field?"

"No, it's just the usual field."

Quantities, and their derivations, have implicit units,

about them.

Any changes, model infinite formations of expressions,

in algebraic terms, canceling variously to 1 above and

below the divisor and 0 left and right the equals sign,

that each little formula looks like quantities, yet is

just a term in an infinite expressions of terms,

with no beginning and no end.

Then, classically of course it's considered classical

and a constant, more than less, yet the "quantities"

are all their derivations all their terms.

So, "implicits", and that's their name, "implicits",

or for reformulation or parameterization or extensionality

resulting whatever isn't a closed form resulting a term,

or for whatever aren't trivial result terms, make for

a real solid reflection that "the theory" is a

sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, the potential fields

are real, the classical field is really itself a potential

field again, and, there are approaches to dimensional

analysis of the usual sort, project into greater dimensions

to affect to reflect where the terms come from, then for

example little algebraizations like Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless".