Is there any quantity in physics that has the unit kg^2 in it?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter labview1958
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics Unit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of physical quantities with the unit kg2. Participants explore theoretical implications, examples, and the relationships between mass, length, and time in the context of dimensional analysis.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that no fundamental physical quantity has the unit kg2, while others suggest that one could construct such a quantity by squaring a mass-related quantity.
  • A participant notes that the gravitational force equation can be rearranged to show that kg2 can appear in derived units.
  • There is a discussion about the lack of diverse exponentiation for mass compared to length and time, with some participants questioning the analogy between these dimensions.
  • One participant highlights a philosophical distinction in how dimensions are treated in classical physics, particularly regarding area and volume versus time and mass.
  • Participants discuss the relationship between mass, length, and time in the context of electrical quantities, referencing different unit systems, including Gaussian units.
  • There is a mention of how charge can be expressed in terms of force and distance, leading to a derived unit that involves mass, length, and time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence of quantities with the unit kg2, and multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of dimensional analysis in physics.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include unresolved assumptions about the nature of mass and its dimensional representation, as well as the implications of different unit systems on the understanding of physical quantities.

labview1958
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Is there any quantity in physics that has the unit kg^2 in it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nothing fundamental exists to my knowledge with those units. You could construct anything you want though. For instance, the Newtonian gravitational force between two bodies of identical mass is F = G r-2 m2. You could rearrange this to be m2 = Fr2/G and both sides now have units of kg2
 
labview1958 said:
Is there any quantity in physics that has the unit kg^2 in it?
Take any physical quantity with units of kg and square it and give it a name. Then you have a physical quantity with units of kg^2.

I don't think that is what you mean, but I don't know what you really want.
 
I'm not aware of any useful quantity with units of kg2
 
labview1958 said:
Is there any quantity in physics that has the unit kg^2 in it?

That's an interesting observation: length and time both occur with many different exponents, but mass does not, apparently.
 
Andy Resnick said:
That's an interesting observation: length and time both occur with many different exponents, but mass does not, apparently.

I'm not sure that exponents of length and time are completlely analogous though.

At least in classical physics, there seems (to me) to be a philosophical difference between an integral over an area or volume, leading to units of L2 or L3, and a double integration or differentiaton wrt time, leading to T2.

To give a specific example, for acceleration necessarily seems to need to be interpreted as (m/s)/s, but it doesn't make much sense to interpret density as ((kg/m)/m)/m.

One might say that space is intrinsically multi-dimensional, but time and mass are not.

And how the "MLT" units for electrical quantites, for example charge = M0.5L1.5T-1, relate to all this is another question!
 
AlephZero said:
And how the "MLT" units for electrical quantites, for example charge = M0.5L1.5T-1, relate to all this is another question!
Could you elaborate on this?
 
AlephZero said:
And how the "MLT" units for electrical quantites, for example charge = M0.5L1.5T-1, relate to all this is another question!

lugita15 said:
Could you elaborate on this?

There is an alternative system of units for electromagnetism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_units" , where Coulomb's law is written without any proportionality constant:
[tex]F = \frac{Q_1 Q_2}{r^2} \text{ ,}[/tex]
i.e. without the factor of k or 1/4πεo. With units of force and distance already defined in mechanical physics, this equation determines the units of charge in much the same way that F=ma sets the units of force to be MLT -2.

Solving the above equation for the charges, we get
[tex]Q_1 Q_2 = F \ r^2[/tex]
So the units of charge2 are equivalent to F·r 2. Or we can say that the units of charge are equivalent to (F·r 2)1/2:
Charge units ~ (MLT -2 · L2)1/2 = (ML3T -2)1/2 = M1/2L3/2T -1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Redbelly98 said:
There is an alternative system of units for electromagnetism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_units" , where Coulomb's law is written without any proportionality constant:
[tex]F = \frac{Q_1 Q_2}{r^2} \text{ ,}[/tex]
i.e. without the factor of k or 1/4πεo. With units of force and distance already defined in mechanical physics, this equation determines the units of charge in much the same way that F=ma sets the units of force to be MLT -2.

Solving the above equation for the charges, we get
[tex]Q_1 Q_2 = F \ r^2[/tex]
So the units of charge2 are equivalent to F·r 2. Or we can say that the units of charge are equivalent to (F·r 2)1/2:
Charge units ~ (MLT -2 · L2)1/2 = (ML3T -2)1/2 = M1/2L3/2T -1
Yes, I already knew about CGS units. I thought you meant there was a way to relate them in SI.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
AlephZero said:
I'm not sure that exponents of length and time are completlely analogous though.

<snip>

That's correct- notions of MLT are totally different than x-y-z (or variations thereof: xyzt, MLTQ, etc.).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K