I Dimension of an Angle: Clarifying the SI Standard

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter BobF
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angle Dimension
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of defining a dimension for angles within the SI standard, highlighting the distinction between radians and degrees. It emphasizes that angles can be treated as dimensioned entities, proposing the introduction of "arc meters" (am) as a base unit for measuring angles. This approach aims to clarify the relationship between arc length and radius in angle measurement, addressing the limitations of traditional definitions. The proposal suggests that angles are sub-dimensions of the length dimension, allowing for a more structured understanding of angular measurements. Feedback is welcomed on the practicality and implications of this new dimension in mathematical and scientific contexts.
BobF
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Angles are regarded as being dimensionless. We introduce a new dimension for angles and show how it works with traditional formulas.
Quickly estimate the value of this expression: sin(1.57). If your answer was about 1, then you assumed that 1.57 was a radian value. If your answer was about 0, you assumed that 1.57 was degrees. If you said that you can’t determine an answer, then you were expecting to see an angle expressed in either degrees or radians, not a bare number.

This is what a dimensionless entity looks like. There are no units. Rather than trying to invent dimensionless units, we will define a dimension for angles. It will work with the existing formulas that involve dimensionless angles. But perhaps it will give some additional clarity in some situations. I welcome opinions as to whether

We can easily see that angles have a dimension. The illustration that we will use throughout this document is this:
1616118921175.png
Divide the circle into 360 equal intervals. The number of intervals between A and B is the number of degrees in the angle with vertex C. The circle is a dimension, the degrees is the measurement scale. This is a dimension.

This explanation will not satisfy many readers. The solution must fit within the metric system and the SI standard. Using the same diagram, give the radius CA a length of 1 meter; the arc AB also has a length of 1 meter. Then the angle ACB is 1 radian. Since the distance from A to B is measured along an arc rather than a straight line, we'll call its measure "arc meter" or "am". This is the base unit of measure for the circle dimension.

Now we use the traditional definition for angles. The number of radians in an angle is the arc length divided by the radius, or am/m. This is the base unit for the dimension Angle. Where the traditional formula m/m failed is that it did not acknowledge the need for the numerator to be measured on an arc. By making a Circle dimension with its measure "am" the arc requirement is retained in the formula.

About now some of you may be feeling a bit uneasy about this approach. Now that the whole structure is visible, let's look at a few details.

In SI each of the dimensions has a unique formula. While the unit "am" was introduced, the formula for deriving it is simply "m". Circle is a sub-dimension of the SI Length dimension. That means that "am" can be converted (with no conversion factor) to "m", but not the other way around (without additionial information not contained in the formula). Sub-dimensions is not a concept used elsewhere in SI. Whether it could be of value in other situations is beyond the scope of this document.

It is worth mentioning that the Angle dimension is also a sub-dimension of dimension 1. am/m converts to m/m which reduces to 1. But rather than manually placing a unit on a number, this approach provides a path to computing the radian measure.

One of the equations that is often cited as "proving" that angles are dimensionless is s = r θ. r is in meters and theta in radians. Evaluating the right side yields s in arc meters.

I am very interested in reactions to this proposal. Do you like it? Believe it? Would it be useful for you in your work? Would adding a dimension of this sort provide problems in the equations that you use? Would the am measure be beneficial to you? I look forward to your comments.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top