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

In summary, there is no fundamental physical quantity with units of kg^2, but it is possible to construct quantities with these units by squaring any physical quantity with units of kg. In classical physics, there is a difference in interpretation between integrals over area/volume and double integration/differentiation with respect to time, leading to different units for length and time. In electromagnetism, there are alternative units known as Gaussian units, where the units of charge are determined by Coulomb's law and can be expressed in terms of force and distance. However, there is no direct relationship between SI and CGS units.
  • #1
labview1958
37
0
Is there any quantity in physics that has the unit kg^2 in it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
I'm not aware of any useful quantity with units of kg2
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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!
 
  • #7
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?
 
  • #8
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:
  • #9
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.).
 

1. What is the significance of the unit kg^2 in physics?

The unit kg^2 is used in physics to measure the quantity of moment of inertia, which is the measure of an object's resistance to changes in rotational motion. It is also used to measure the quantity of angular momentum, which is the measure of an object's rotational momentum.

2. Can other units be converted into kg^2 in physics?

Yes, other units such as meters squared (m^2) and centimeters squared (cm^2) can be converted into kg^2 using appropriate conversion factors. This is because kg^2 is a unit of area, and area can be expressed in various units.

3. Is kg^2 a base unit in the SI system of measurement?

No, kg^2 is not a base unit in the SI system of measurement. The base units in the SI system are meter, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, mole, and candela. However, it is a derived unit that is commonly used in physics.

4. How is kg^2 related to the concept of mass in physics?

Kg^2 is not directly related to the concept of mass in physics. However, it is used in equations that involve mass, such as the equation for moment of inertia (I = mr^2), where m is the mass in kilograms and r is the distance from the axis of rotation in meters.

5. Can kg^2 be used to measure quantities in other fields besides physics?

Yes, kg^2 can be used to measure quantities in other fields such as engineering and mechanics. It is a unit of area, which is a fundamental concept in these fields. However, it may not be commonly used in other fields outside of physics.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
873
Replies
13
Views
708
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
1
Views
911
Back
Top