Understanding Dimensional Analysis and Deriving M = L^3 T^-2 for Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter HotMintea
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derive
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the dimensional analysis of mass, specifically the claim that mass can be represented as M = L^3 T^-2. Participants challenge this assertion, emphasizing that mass is not equivalent to [length]^3 [time]^-2. The conversation references Newton's equations and the need for a valid equation for force that accurately reflects mass dimensions. The consensus is that the original claim lacks credibility and is associated with unreliable sources.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with dimensional analysis concepts
  • Knowledge of mass and its physical dimensions
  • Ability to interpret mathematical equations in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study dimensional analysis techniques in classical mechanics
  • Explore the derivation of mass dimensions from Newton's second law
  • Investigate credible sources on dimensional analysis and mass
  • Learn about the implications of incorrect dimensional analysis in physics
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and anyone interested in the principles of dimensional analysis and the correct interpretation of mass in physical equations.

HotMintea
Messages
42
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



"Maxwell showed that we can easily do a dimensional analysis on mass, using only Newton’s equations. Mass is [length]^3 [time]^-2 ." (http://milesmathis.com/coul.html)

I would like to know how to do the dimensional analysis and derive M = L^3 T^-2.

2. The attempt at a solution

Since the right side of F\ = \frac{dp}{dt} has M^1, I think I need another equation for force that has M^n on the right side, where n ≠ 1.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mass is definitely not [length]^3 [time]^-2. That link is a crackpot website.
 
ideasrule said:
Mass is definitely not [length]^3 [time]^-2. That link is a crackpot website.

That may be why the author did not cite the source!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
985
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K