Dimensionally impossible equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Granger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Impossible
AI Thread Summary
The equation v = e^bt is deemed dimensionally impossible because the left side has dimensions of length/time (LT^-1), while the right side, e^bt, is dimensionless. For the equation to be valid, the term bt must be dimensionless, which means b must have dimensions of 1/time. This inconsistency arises because transcendental functions like e^x cannot operate on units and must remain dimensionless. The discussion highlights that without a specific context or unit system, such equations are not typically valid in standard SI units. Overall, the equation fails to maintain dimensional consistency, making it dimensionally impossible.
Granger
Messages
165
Reaction score
7
I was reading some stuff about dimensionally impossible equations. It was said that the equation

v = e^bt (b is a constant so that bt is dimensionless)

was dimensionally impossible. I understand that BUT I don't understand what they said next about the dimension of the right-side. They said it was dimensionless, but I thought it had dimension T (like the left-side has dimension LT^-1)... Can someone explain me why I'm wrong? Thanks :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Granger said:
I was reading some stuff about dimensionally impossible equations. It was said that the equation

v = e^bt (b is a constant so that bt is dimensionless)

was dimensionally impossible. I understand that BUT I don't understand what they said next about the dimension of the right-side. They said it was dimensionless, but I thought it had dimension T (like the left-side has dimension LT^-1)... Can someone explain me why I'm wrong? Thanks :)
If that equation were written as v(t) = v0ebt then it would make more sense.

For that to make sense, ebt has to be dimensionless.
 
You said that ##bt## was dimensionless, so of course ##e^{bt}## is dimensionless also. But this is inconsistent with ##v(t)## having dimensions of length/time, so it is a "dimensionally impossible equation".

Generally speaking, transcendental functions like ##e^x##, ##\sin(x)##, ##\log(x)##, etc. can never operate on units and are always dimensionless. A small exception is when the inverse function appears in the same equation, like ##f(t) = e^{4 \log t}##. But it's unclear why you would ever write it this way rather than ##f(t)=t^4##.
 
Last edited:
Any such equation has a constant in front, in this case, the constant is 1, in appropriate units. for example, v = e^bt would mean: v = (1 m/s) e^bt, a particular case of the equation written by jbriggs 444 above
 
Khashishi said:
You said that ##bt## was dimensionless, so of course ##e^{bt}## is dimensionless also. But this is inconsistent with ##v(t)## having dimensions of length/time, so it is a "dimensionally impossible equation".
If b has dimensions of "1 over time", say, sec^{-1}, then bt is "dimensionless". Then ##v(t)= x_0e^{vt}## has whatever units ##x_0## does.

Generally speaking, transcendental functions like ##e^x##, ##\sin(x)##, ##\log(x)##, etc. can never operate on units and are always dimensionless. A small exception is when the inverse function appears in the same equation, like ##f(t) = e^{4 \log t}##. But it's unclear why you would ever write it this way rather than ##f(t)=t^4##.
 
Chandra Prayaga said:
Any such equation has a constant in front, in this case, the constant is 1, in appropriate units. for example, v = e^bt would mean: v = (1 m/s) e^bt, a particular case of the equation written by jbriggs 444 above
No, unless the text specifically states that a particular system of natural units are being used, such as atomic units. You would never see an equation like this with implied SI units.
 
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
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top