B Are trigonometric ratios physical quantities?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether trigonometric ratios like sine and cosine can be considered physical quantities. While angles are recognized as physical quantities, the classification of trigonometric functions as such is debated, as they are seen more as descriptions of relationships rather than measurable entities. The conversation highlights the necessity of transitioning from mathematical concepts to physical interpretations, emphasizing that mathematical functions require context to be deemed measurable. The distinction between physical quantities and mathematical descriptions is crucial, as it influences how we understand measurements in physics. Ultimately, the classification of trigonometric functions remains a complex issue intertwined with philosophical considerations.
Suyogya
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I already know the fact that angles are physical quantities, but sin, cos of some angles are quantities?
Quantities are those things, which can be quantified, are sin, cos, tan be quantified through measurement, if yes then other mathematical functions should also be categorised as physical quantities, but they not, why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suyogya said:
I already know the fact that angles are physical quantities ...
Well, not really. Angles are DESCRIPTIONS of physical attributes, as are other math functions such as the trig functions.
 
  • Like
Likes anorlunda
phinds said:
Well, not really. Angles are DESCRIPTIONS of physical attributes, as are other math functions such as the trig functions.
Angles are physical quantities (as written in the Wikipedia's list of derived quantities)
 
Suyogya said:
Angles are physical quantities (as written in the Wikipedia's list of derived quantities)
This distinction leads nowhere. E.g. take the angle of reflection on a mirror: is it a physical quantity or the description of what the light beam does? That's a question for linguists and philosophers. You defined a physical quantity of something, that can be measured. O.k., that makes sense as quantity already implies a measurement. But what did you have in mind as a mathematical function, that can be measured and does not correspond to a physical quantity?

You must always make the step from mathematics to physics beforehand, which is why @phinds called it a description. A mathematical function is nothing but a set of pairs. So before you can call it a physical quantity, you have to say, what these pairs should describe! It's not the pairs that can be measured, it's their identification with a real word property. Wikipedia wasn't accurate here, because the goal of that page wasn't a philosophical one, but a practical one. In any case, this transformation step from mathematics to physics has to be made, even if you hide it somewhere, as e.g. in distance (value of a metric) equals length (measurable physical quantity).
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks

Similar threads

Back
Top