Losing the Units: Explaining Why Exponentials are Dimensionless

  • Thread starter Thread starter starzero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Units
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept that trigonometric functions and the natural exponential function are dimensionless. Specifically, it emphasizes that expressions like sin(ωt) and exp(t) require their arguments to be dimensionless to maintain mathematical validity. The example provided illustrates that while initial conditions in equations introduce units, the functions themselves do not. The discussion also highlights the importance of treating arguments of exponential functions as dimensionless, particularly in physics, where this principle is sometimes overlooked.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of trigonometric functions and their properties
  • Familiarity with the natural exponential function and Euler's formula
  • Basic knowledge of differential equations, specifically second-order linear equations
  • Concept of dimensionless quantities in physics and mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of dimensionless parameters in physics
  • Learn about the derivation and applications of Euler's formula
  • Explore the concept of series expansions for exponential functions
  • Investigate the role of dimensional analysis in mathematical modeling
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics and mathematics, educators explaining dimensional analysis, and professionals involved in mathematical modeling or engineering applications.

starzero
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hi All and sorry if this is too easy a question but here goes...

Sines, Cosines and the rest of the trig functions are the ratio of two lengths and thus are dimensionless quantities.

That is if I plug in a value for t in sin(ωt) there are no units.

For example the solution of

x'' + ω^2 x = 0 with x(0) = x0 and x'(0) = v0 is given by

x(t) = x0 cos(ωt) + v0/ω sin(ωt)

The units come from the initial conditions not the sine or cosine.


So here is the question...

Same is true ( I believe ) when using the natural exponential function exp(t).

How does one simply explain this.

I tried to reason it out using eulers formula exp(iω) = cos(ω) + i sin(ω) figuring that again we get ratios of lengths,
however in the case where the real part is non-zero we get another exponential (which is not the ratio of lengths)

exp(a +ib) = exp(a)(cos(b) + i sin(b))

Is there a simple explanation as to why we "lose the units" when using the exponential function?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not strictly correct to supply any argument with dimensions to an exponential or trig function. Example: \omega t has no dimensions (frequency is 1/time, and time/time is dimensionless).

Why is it incorrect? Consider a series expansion of the exponential function.

e^x = 1 + x + \frac{1}{2} x^2 + \ldots{}

x must be a dimensionless parameter. If it had, say, dimensions of length, how would we add length to 1 and to length squared?

Nevertheless, in physics this strict need is sometimes ignored. As an example, you should take as implicit that e^t is in fact e^{t/\tau} where \tau is 1 in whatever units of time you're working with.
 
Muphrid said:
It is not strictly correct to supply any argument with dimensions to an exponential or trig function. [..]
Nevertheless, in physics this strict need is sometimes ignored. As an example, you should take as implicit that e^t is in fact e^{t/\tau} where \tau is 1 in whatever units of time you're working with.
Yes indeed, and it may be useful to give an example (of not ignoring this):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capdis.html
 
Thank you both for your fast insightful and illustrative replies.
 
In sci-fi when an author is talking about space travellers or describing the movement of galaxies they will say something like “movement in space only means anything in relation to another object”. Examples of this would be, a space ship moving away from earth at 100 km/s, or 2 galaxies moving towards each other at one light year per century. I think it would make it easier to describe movement in space if we had three axis that we all agree on and we used 0 km/s relative to the speed of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
990
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K