Dimensional analysis assumption

In summary, the conversation discusses the validity of assuming a linear relationship between physical variables, such as force and velocity, in equations describing physical phenomena. The use of the Buckingham Pi theorem is mentioned as a way to determine the form of such equations based on the dimensions of the variables involved. However, it is also noted that dimensional analysis is not foolproof and can sometimes lead to incorrect results, as demonstrated by the example of kinetic energy where a more precise formula was later discovered.
  • #1
walking
73
8
Problem:

wKYew.png


MIAUf.png


Source: Halliday et al Physics 4e, p9, sample problem 4.

Why is it valid to assume that $$F\alpha v^b$$ as the author does here, and not some more complex equation e.g. $$F=av^{e_1}+bm^{e_2}+cr^{e_3}$$, or $$F=av^{e_1}+bv^{e_2}+\cdots $$ (or some other equation)?

A very similar question I had is from same source, page 10, sample problem 5:
ywTU6.png

PyG58.png


Again, why can authors assume that the variables appear as a product without there being any summing involved?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I believe, for your examples, this follows from the Buckingham Pi theorem. In both of your examples, you have 4 variables ##q_i## and 3 independent physical dimensions (##M, L, T##). You can hence form ##4-3=1## dimensionless group ##\Pi = {q_1}^{\alpha} {q_2}^{\beta}{q_3}^{\gamma}{q_4}^{\delta}## for some ##\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta## to be determined, and by the Pi theorem the relationship must take the form$$f(\Pi) = 0$$for some function ##f##. Inverting this relationship,$$\Pi = {q_1}^{\alpha} {q_2}^{\beta}{q_3}^{\gamma}{q_4}^{\delta} = f^{-1}(0)= K$$where ##K = f^{-1}(0)## is a constant. So the relationship between the ##q_i## must take the form$$q_1 = K^{\frac{1}{\alpha}} {q_2}^{-\frac{\beta}{\alpha}}{q_3}^{-\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}}{q_4}^{-\frac{\delta}{\alpha}} \equiv C {q_2}^{a} {q_3}^{b} {q_4}^{c}$$for some new constants ##C##, ##a##, ##b##, ##c##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes sysprog
  • #3
LaTeX point - \propto gets you the ##\propto## symbol, which LaTeX then spaces similar to an = sign rather than a symbol. So ##F\propto v^b##, rather than ##F\alpha v^b##.
walking said:
$$F=av^{e_1}+bm^{e_2}+cr^{e_3}$$
If this were the case, what would ##F## be if ##v=0## but ##m\neq 0## and ##r\neq 0##? Does that make sense?
walking said:
$$F=av^{e_1}+bv^{e_2}+\cdots $$
Here you have no dependence on mass at all. Is it your experience that swinging a one kilogram mass on a string is just as easy as swinging a one ton mass? If not, is this equation plausible?

That said, you are correct to be suspicious. For example, if you consider kinetic energy, you might apply this analysis and conclude that ##E\propto mv^2##. With a bit of experiment you could find that the constant of proportionality is 1/2, so ##E=\frac 12mv^2##. Great! Unfortunately, Einstein showed that a more precise formula for kinetic energy is ##E=(\gamma-1)mc^2##, where ##\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}##. If you do a Taylor series expansion of ##\gamma## you'll find that $$E=(\gamma-1)mc^2\approx \frac 12mv^2+\frac 38m\frac{v^4}{c^2}+\ldots$$At every day velocities that second term is negligible and it's completely understandable that we were unaware of it until we started studying things that move at or near lightspeed. But there's no way to get to it (or to the full formula) by dimensional analysis.

So the moral of the story is that dimensional analysis will always give you a plausible answer. In Newtonian physics, it will often give you the correct answer. It's a useful sanity check on any formula you get from any process (if the dimensions don't match, it's wrong). But it isn't in any sense foolproof.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog and etotheipi
  • #4
etotheipi said:
I believe, for your examples, this follows from the Buckingham Pi theorem. In both of your examples, you have 4 variables ##q_i## and 3 independent physical dimensions (##M, L, T##). You can hence form ##4-3=1## dimensionless group ##\Pi = {q_1}^{\alpha} {q_2}^{\beta}{q_3}^{\gamma}{q_4}^{\delta}## for some ##\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta## to be determined, and by the Pi theorem the relationship must take the form$$f(\Pi) = 0$$for some function ##f##. Inverting this relationship,$$\Pi = {q_1}^{\alpha} {q_2}^{\beta}{q_3}^{\gamma}{q_4}^{\delta} = f^{-1}(0)= K$$where ##K = f^{-1}(0)## is a constant. So the relationship between the ##q_i## must take the form$$q_1 = K^{\frac{1}{\alpha}} {q_2}^{-\frac{\beta}{\alpha}}{q_3}^{-\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}}{q_4}^{-\frac{\delta}{\alpha}} \equiv C {q_2}^{a} {q_3}^{b} {q_4}^{c}$$for some new constants ##C##, ##a##, ##b##, ##c##.
I appreciate your answer but I have to say it is definitely above my level at the moment. Could you possibly explain it at a slightly lower level without the Buckingham Pi theorem?

Ibix said:
LaTeX point - \propto gets you the ##\propto## symbol, which LaTeX then spaces similar to an = sign rather than a symbol. So ##F\propto v^b##, rather than ##F\alpha v^b##.

If this were the case, what would ##F## be if ##v=0## but ##m\neq 0## and ##r\neq 0##? Does that make sense?

Here you have no dependence on mass at all. Is it your experience that swinging a one kilogram mass on a string is just as easy as swinging a one ton mass? If not, is this equation plausible?

That said, you are correct to be suspicious. For example, if you consider kinetic energy, you might apply this analysis and conclude that ##E\propto mv^2##. With a bit of experiment you could find that the constant of proportionality is 1/2, so ##E=\frac 12mv^2##. Great! Unfortunately, Einstein showed that a more precise formula for kinetic energy is ##E=(\gamma-1)mc^2##, where ##\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}##. If you do a Taylor series expansion of ##\gamma## you'll find that $$E=(\gamma-1)mc^2\approx \frac 12mv^2+\frac 38m\frac{v^4}{c^2}+\ldots$$At every day velocities that second term is negligible and it's completely understandable that we were unaware of it until we started studying things that move at or near lightspeed. But there's no way to get to it (or to the full formula) by dimensional analysis.

So the moral of the story is that dimensional analysis will always give you a plausible answer. In Newtonian physics, it will often give you the correct answer. It's a useful sanity check on any formula you get from any process (if the dimensions don't match, it's wrong). But it isn't in any sense foolproof.
The questions I gave were just random examples. I know they are not (and cannot be) correct but I was just using them to say "why does it have to a product rather than a sum or something else". I have read your answer but unfortunately I still do not see why it has to be a product. You said dimensional analysis will give a plausible answer, but why does it have to be a product? On what grounds are the authors always able to just assume it will be a product of some sort using the variables involved? I still do not understand this point.
 
  • #5
walking said:
Could you possibly explain it at a slightly lower level without the Buckingham Pi theorem?

I think, the thing to keep in mind is that the author has carefully chosen examples where the quantity must take the form on the RHS, i.e. due to the aforementioned Pi theorem. But these are quite special cases, and in general the Pi theorem will not restrict the relationship between the quantities to be of such a simple form as when there is only one dimensionless group. For instance, see @Ibix's example.
 
  • Like
Likes walking
  • #6
walking said:
You said dimensional analysis will give a plausible answer, but why does it have to be a product?
What's 1m + 1kg? Is 1m heavier than 1kg? Is 1kg faster than 1m/s?

None of these questions make sense. Why not? Because the dimensions don't match. You can only compare quantities whose dimensions do match. That means that any formula that looks like ##m+v## isn't a reasonable guess for anything.

Additionally, we have the intuition that the centripetal force ought to be zero for an object that isn't moving. So anything looking like ##m+v## isn't reasonable because it's generally non-zero for ##v=0##. To get a quantity that is always zero if ##v=0## we need to be multiplying by ##v##, not adding it. Similar arguments apply to ##m## - in the limit as ##m## gets really small we expect the centripetal force to get really small. Again, that only works if you multiply by ##m##, not add it. And if ##r## gets really large we expect the force to go to zero since the object is nearly moving in a straight line. So we need to divide by ##r##, not add or subtract it. So we have to guess ##m^\alpha v^\beta r^\gamma## because that's the only way to get all three of those behaviours. And we require the dimensions to match those of a force because we can't compare things with different dimensions.

Hope that makes sense. As I said, it's a plausibility argument. You can get caught out by dimensionless factors, as in kinetic energy or the more complex relativistic example I gave last time. But it's a good starting place.
 
  • Like
Likes nasu and walking
  • #7
Ibix said:
What's 1m + 1kg? Is 1m heavier than 1kg? Is 1kg faster than 1m/s?

It's funny, I wonder if there's a really obscure formalism where things like ##1\text{m} + 1\text{kg}## are elements of like a 'quantity' vector space, with e.g. ##\{ \text{m}, \text{kg} , \dots \}## as a possible basis for that space. I'm pretty sure it satisfies all the axioms of a vector space, but it would be weird to see if there were any applications... or at least, every time someone tells me to convert units I'm going to tell them that I'm changing my basis of quantity space

But to compare ##1\text{m}## and ##1\text{kg}##, we'd need to define a norm on that space somehow, and that's when it doesn't work anymore :frown:
 
  • #8
In the usual 4d formalism for relativity we let ##c=1## and treat length and duration as equivalent (that's one part of why dimensional analysis starts to go awry with relativity). It makes sense to do so because the distinction between time and distance is somewhat blurred into timelike and spacelike separations anyway.

I don't think there's currently a natural way to extend that to mass. As I recall, just setting ##G=1## and whistling real loud gives problems in QFT in some way PeterDonis explained last time this kind of thing came up, but I've now forgotten.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #9
Ibix said:
What's 1m + 1kg? Is 1m heavier than 1kg? Is 1kg faster than 1m/s?

None of these questions make sense. Why not? Because the dimensions don't match. You can only compare quantities whose dimensions do match. That means that any formula that looks like ##m+v## isn't a reasonable guess for anything.

Additionally, we have the intuition that the centripetal force ought to be zero for an object that isn't moving. So anything looking like ##m+v## isn't reasonable because it's generally non-zero for ##v=0##. To get a quantity that is always zero if ##v=0## we need to be multiplying by ##v##, not adding it. Similar arguments apply to ##m## - in the limit as ##m## gets really small we expect the centripetal force to get really small. Again, that only works if you multiply by ##m##, not add it. And if ##r## gets really large we expect the force to go to zero since the object is nearly moving in a straight line. So we need to divide by ##r##, not add or subtract it. So we have to guess ##m^\alpha v^\beta r^\gamma## because that's the only way to get all three of those behaviours. And we require the dimensions to match those of a force because we can't compare things with different dimensions.

Hope that makes sense. As I said, it's a plausibility argument. You can get caught out by dimensionless factors, as in kinetic energy or the more complex relativistic example I gave last time. But it's a good starting place.
Thanks, the intuition has definitely made it easier to digest.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix

Related to Dimensional analysis assumption

What is dimensional analysis assumption?

Dimensional analysis assumption is a mathematical technique used to analyze and solve problems involving physical quantities. It is based on the principle that physical quantities can be expressed in terms of fundamental dimensions such as length, mass, and time.

Why is dimensional analysis assumption important?

Dimensional analysis assumption is important because it allows scientists to check the consistency and accuracy of their equations and calculations. It also helps in converting between different systems of measurement and in identifying the relationships between physical quantities.

What are the steps involved in dimensional analysis assumption?

The steps involved in dimensional analysis assumption are:
1. Identify the physical quantities involved in the problem
2. Determine the fundamental dimensions for each quantity
3. Set up an equation using the fundamental dimensions
4. Substitute the given values into the equation
5. Simplify the equation and solve for the desired quantity

What are some common applications of dimensional analysis assumption?

Dimensional analysis assumption is commonly used in physics, chemistry, engineering, and other scientific fields to solve problems involving physical quantities. It is also used in designing experiments, developing new theories, and verifying existing theories.

What are the limitations of dimensional analysis assumption?

While dimensional analysis assumption is a useful tool, it has some limitations. It assumes that the physical quantities involved are independent of each other, which may not always be the case. It also does not take into account the effects of non-linear relationships between quantities. Additionally, it cannot account for uncertainties or errors in measurements.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
901
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
809
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
803
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
988
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
1
Views
627
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
986
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
7K
Back
Top