Talk:Base unit of measurement

message: This article seems to be erroneous, lacks references, and is too short for such an important subject. Furthermore SI_base_unit article should be sufficient to describe units that are thought to be mutualy independant.
Ref: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
Merge or redirect "Fundamental units" to SI_base_unit please.
Abaharaki 05:15, 08 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. There is noting erroneous about this article. The SI system has more to do with having accurate standards for physical quantities. Most, if not all SI units are dependent on each other as far as theoretical physics is concerned. So, SI units are not relevant when we talk about fundamental units. Count Iblis (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with merging, however the difference between fundamental units (a set of 6 units that form a basis to construct any physical quantity) and SI units (the set of 7 base units defined by )  should be made very clear! Usually the unit candela is the SI system is seen as the unit that's not really necessary, mainly because it is the unit which is farthest from our physical instinct. --Jaapkroe (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again this erroneous idea of saving space at the expense of clarity. Those who lack in capability to segregate linguistic terms should stand off such proposals for mergers. Nobody would propose to merge physics and philosophy. I prefer those proposals which directly contribute input but simply criticise what has been the effort of others.Wireless friend (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I have reverted Ehrenkater's edits - since the wording was inappropriate for an encyclopedia / POV. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that the ref to the article by Okun et. al should be restored, it is very relevant to the discussion about whether there exists any fundamental units or not. I agree that this article should not be merged with the article on the SI units. I disagree that this is because this article is less factual than the SI article. The SI article is written from another angle. This article is written from the POV of fundamental physics and then the view of theoretical physicists is more important. Count Iblis (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: Isn't the "bit" also a fundamental unit, important for information theory, thermodynamics, etc... I don't see how it can be made out of the other units mentioned here. 193.190.253.144 (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit 

message: How can the number of fundamental quantities be established in connection to some other aspects independently from the type of systems of units? Can this number be linked to the number of fundamental macroscopic physical laws?--86.125.156.119 (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of fundamental quantities in different systems of units 

message: The modern term for this appears to be "base unit" (to distinguish it from "derived unit").  Technically, there is nothing fundamental about these units; their choice is purely a matter of convention, and the term "fundamental unit" is therefore a misnomer.  The term does not even occur in the article International System of Units, for example, and it is apparently not used in the SI standard, since that refers to "base unit", and links to SI base unit.  The same argument applies to any system of measurement.  It seems reasonable, therefore, that "base unit" is the notable term, and that this article should be renamed to Base unit (measurement), or some similarly disambiguated title.  —Quondum 00:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that there is no response to my proposal to rename this article.  I'll give it a few more days for comment, then rename it if I see no objections.  —Quondum 02:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Move completed to Base unit (measurement).  —Quondum 02:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposal: to 'Base unit' 

message: The section on natural units has currently has four paragraphs. The two long ones in the middle have no references. Only occasionally does the article topic -- base units -- come up in these middle paragraphs. With no references I don't know how to repair them.
The article by Duff cited in this section does not use "base unit" but has an interesting review characterization of 3, 2, 4, 7 "constants" with many references.
Duff, Michael J. "How fundamental are fundamental constants?." Contemporary Physics 56.1 (2015): 35-47. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it seems like this section is out of place, left over from "fundamental units"? @Quondum? Johnjbarton (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In this article, we should probably limit it to the observation that there is one base unit per base dimension, although  which dimensions are chosen is very flexible for a given system of quantities, and that the system of quantities determines the number of base dimensions.  Listing a few examples to illustrate (e.g., SI: 7, CGS: 3) may make sense.  Showing that zero base dimensions is possible, as is currently done, seems to me to be barely relevant.  Don't be shy to remove almost everything in the section.  —Quondum 19:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, I agree. Duff's main points (dimensionless-ness and 0 option) belong in Natural units. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural units section