Dimension of the electric charge in CGS and in SI?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the dimensions of electric charge in the CGS and SI unit systems, exploring the implications for physical constants such as the Bohr magneton and permittivity. Participants examine the compatibility of dimensions between the two systems and the challenges in converting between them.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the relationship between the dimensions of electric charge in SI and CGS, suggesting that the dimension of charge in CGS is related to that in SI by a velocity factor.
  • Another participant states that the dimension of charge in electrostatic CGS units is ##M^{1/2} L^{3/2} T^{-1}## and emphasizes that the dimensions in SI and CGS are not compatible, cautioning against direct conversions.
  • A later reply acknowledges that the Bohr magneton has different dimensions in SI and CGS, despite being the same physical quantity.
  • One participant raises a question about the numerical conversion factor between magnetic field units in CGS and SI, expressing confusion about its dimensionality.
  • Another participant provides a reference for converting between CGS and SI units, although they have not tested it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the compatibility of dimensions between SI and CGS units, with some asserting that they are fundamentally incompatible while others explore potential relationships. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these differences for physical constants.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the definitions of physical constants and the treatment of dimensions across different unit systems. The role of vacuum permittivity in SI is highlighted as a defined constant that does not have a counterpart in CGS.

mbond
Messages
41
Reaction score
7
The Bohr magneton is (see e.g. Wikipedia) in SI units:
$$\mu_B=\frac{e\hbar}{2m_e}$$
and in CGS units:
$$\mu_B=\frac{e\hbar}{2m_ec}$$
So the dimension of the electric charge in SI, ##[q_{SI}]##, is related to the dimension of the electric charge in CGS, ##[q_{CGS}]##, by:
$$[q_{CGS}]=[q_{SI}].velocity$$
Now, the electrostatic force between two charges ##q_1## and ##q_2## separated by a distance ##r## is in SI:
$$F=\frac{q_1q_2}{4\pi\epsilon_0r^2}$$
and in CGS:
$$F=\frac{q_1q_2}{r^2}$$
So the dimension of the permitivity, ##[\epsilon_0]##, is given by:
$$[\epsilon_0]=\frac{[q_{SI}]^2}{[q_{CGS}]^2}=velocity^{-2}$$
which is not true.
So I guess I make a mistake somewhere, and I would be grateful for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The dimension of charge in electrostatic cgs units is ##M^{1/2} L^{3/2} T^{-1}##. The dimension of charge in SI is ##Q##. They do not have compatible dimensions so you have to be careful in conversions.

mbond said:
So the dimension of the permitivity, [ϵ0][ϵ0][\epsilon_0], is given by:
##\epsilon_0## doesn’t even exist in cgs, so this approach is fundamentally mistaken. The vacuum permittivity is a defined constant in SI. You obtain its dimensionality in SI through its definition, not through comparison with other unit systems where it doesn’t exist.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Dale.

Actually, I think I can answer my own post:
The Bohr magneton does not have the same dimension in SI and in CGS, although this is, of course, the same physical quantity in both system.

One has the same "paradox" with the magnetic field: ##B_{CGS}=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{\mu_0}}B_{SI}## with ##\mu_0## in ##N/A^2##. So when one says 1 tesla=10,000 gauss, the 10,000 is not a "pure" number, it has a physical dimension.
 
##\sqrt{4\pi\over\mu_0}\ ## is ##\ 10^{3.5} \ ## ( in ##C\;kg^{-{1\over 2}} m^{-{1\over 2}}\ ## ? ) so I am confuzzed o_O ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
482
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
421
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
873
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K