General question about dimensional analysis

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of dimensional analysis, particularly focusing on the dimensions of a variable represented by \mu in the context of an acceleration expression. Participants explore the implications of different interpretations of the problem statement and the meaning of inverse units, specifically in relation to distance and other physical quantities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant initially misreads the problem statement, leading to confusion about the dimensions of \mu and the interpretation of terms like \frac{1}{r}.
  • Another participant suggests that \mu has dimensions of 1/time² based on the correct interpretation of the problem.
  • A participant questions the meaning of inverse meters (m⁻¹) and whether it is undefined, expressing a desire for clarification.
  • Another participant provides context by explaining that inverse meters can represent quantities like wavenumber, which relates to the number of wavelengths per unit distance.
  • A further reply suggests that the interpretation of inverse meters is context-dependent, offering examples such as wavenumber in electromagnetic radiation or a hypothetical linear density of objects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the problem and the meaning of inverse units. There is no consensus on the implications of \frac{1}{r} or the broader significance of inverse meters, indicating ongoing exploration and debate.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the potential for misinterpretation of the problem statement, which affects their understanding of the dimensions involved. The discussion highlights the importance of context in interpreting physical quantities and their units.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying dimensional analysis, physics students grappling with unit interpretation, or individuals curious about the implications of different physical quantities and their dimensions.

V0ODO0CH1LD
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
I am actually going to post the problem that sparked the question I am about to ask, but I don't need help with the answer and that's why I didn't start this thread in the homework and coursework section. Actually, I just realized I read the problem statement in the wrong way, which makes my question pointless with regards to the problem. Anyway, I am still wondering about it independently of weather it helps with the problem or not. So here it it:

The problem stated that an acceleration has magnitude [itex]\mu(r+\frac{a^3}{r^2})[/itex], where [itex]a[/itex] is the initial displacement and [itex]r[/itex] is the distance from the origin. What the problem asked was to check what were the dimensions of [itex]\mu[/itex]. When you read it right it's an easy problem, right?

But in the way I had originally read it, it stated: an acceleration has magnitude [itex]\mu(\frac{r + a^3}{r^2})[/itex]. Which makes the thing inside the parenthesis look like [itex]\mu(\frac{1}{r}+\frac{a^3}{r^2})[/itex].

Well, [itex]\frac{a^3}{r^2}[/itex] would just be something like [itex]\frac{(am)^3}{(rm)^2}[/itex], where [itex]m[/itex] is some unit of distance and that would simplify to [itex]\frac{a^3}{r^2}m[/itex]. Which is fine.

But what would [itex]\frac{1}{rm}[/itex] mean? Like, a dimensionless something per unit of distance? How should I think about [itex]\frac{1}{r}m^{-1}[/itex]? Or does it not even exist on the account that I read the problem wrong? At first I was like: well; I have something like 1/r inverse meters, so that must mean I have r regular meters.. But that makes no sense. Is there a correct way to view this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe you are overthinking. I assume μ(r+a3/r2) is correct. You state that r and a are distances, so μ has dimension 1/distance x distance/time2, so that μ has dimension 1/time2.
 
mathman said:
I believe you are overthinking.2.

Sorry, I tend to do that..

I understood the problem after reading the problem statement correctly, but it still got me wondering what (meter)-1 means. Not any other unit over meters, just inverse meters. What does it mean if I say 3m-1? Is it undefined?
 
Depends on the context. The wavenumber of a wave has units of m^-1; that is, the number of wavelengths per unit distance.
 
The meaning is left for you to decide/discover, but whatever you find must reconcile with the fact that there are three of them per metre.

It might be three full wavelengths of EM radiation per metre, and you'd be specifying light in the UHF frequency band, or it might refer to the linear density of turtles as they follow a one-dimensional path towards the sea.

Whatever it is, there are three of them in a metre.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
423
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K