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 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
967
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top