5 ms·
The number 1 isn't the SI unit for dimensionless constants. The SI unit for dimensionless constants is 602214076000000000000000. No, "amount of something" or "
by lalaithion 5y ago
The number 1 isn't the SI unit for dimensionless constants. The SI unit for dimensionless constants is 602214076000000000000000.
No, "amount of something" or "number of atoms" is not a different unit than dimensionless constants; that would be like if the SI unit had "the amount of charge held by 10^30 electrons" as a different unit than "charge".
- minitoar 5y agoI don’t get this. What do moles have to do with dimensionless values?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- prutschman 5y agoI think they're referring to the fact that there is one dimensionless base unit already standardized in SI: the mole. There aren't two length units, so there "shouldn't be" two dimensionless ones. (Whether they were trying to be funny or not I couldn't tell you.)
- gerdesj 5y agoIt's a mol not a mole (sounds the same) lol (or is that lole?) "they" are not trying to amuse anyone.
- drdeca 5y agoHow do you know that lalaithion was not trying to amuse anyone?
- prutschman 5y agoThe "mole" is the unit, "mol" is the symbol for the unit, like with "kilogram" and "kg".
- dragonwriter 5y ago> The SI unit for dimensionless constants is 602214076000000000000000. The radian and steradian represent firm rejection of the mole as a general dimensionless unit, despite it being a base unit and arguably (depending on how you feel about particles as a dimension) dimensionless.
- OscarCunningham 5y agoSince moles count the number of atoms, perhaps they can only be used for natural numbers? Whereas you could legitimately say that something was -1.7 unos.