Losing the Units: Explaining Why Exponentials are Dimensionless

  • Thread starter Thread starter starzero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Units
AI Thread Summary
Trigonometric functions like sine and cosine are dimensionless because they represent ratios of lengths, meaning their arguments must also be dimensionless. This principle extends to the natural exponential function, where the argument must be dimensionless for the series expansion to hold true. If an argument had dimensions, it would be impossible to combine it with dimensionless quantities in a meaningful way. In physics, this requirement is sometimes overlooked, leading to expressions like e^t being interpreted as e^(t/τ) to ensure dimensional consistency. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurate mathematical modeling in physics.
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.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
934
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top