Question about this unit conversion principle (multiplying by "1")

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 731016
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Unit conversion
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the principle of unit conversion, specifically converting metric tonnes to kilograms using the factor of 1 tonne equaling 1000 kilograms. The participants clarify that while multiplying by the conversion factor is mathematically valid, it is crucial to understand the implications of dimensional analysis. The consensus is that treating units as variables during calculations is essential for accurate conversions, and simply stating that 100,000 tonnes equals 100,000 tonnes does not provide a useful answer for conversions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of unit conversion principles
  • Familiarity with dimensional analysis
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical operations involving units
  • Concept of conversion factors in physics and mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study dimensional analysis techniques in physics
  • Learn about conversion factors and their applications in various fields
  • Explore examples of unit conversions in engineering contexts
  • Investigate common pitfalls in dimensional analysis and unit conversions
USEFUL FOR

Students in science and engineering, educators teaching unit conversions, and professionals in fields requiring precise measurements and conversions, such as physics and engineering.

member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
Suppose I want to convert 100,000 metric Tonnes to kilograms, then I would perform, a unit cancellation:

Given that 1 t = 1000 kg

##100,000 t \times \frac{1000~kg}{1 t} = 1 \times 10^8 kg##, however, why are we allowed to multiply the 100,000 by that?

My reasoning is,
##1 t = 1000 kg##
##1 = \frac{1000 kg}{1 t}## therefore multiplying by ##100,000 t## by ##\frac{1000 kg}{1 t}## is the same as multiplying by 1

Does someone please know whether my reasoning is correct?

Many thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes
 
  • Love
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SammyS and member 731016
Frabjous said:
Yes
Thank you for your reply @Frabjous!
 
ChiralSuperfields said:
Suppose I want to convert 100,000 metric Tonnes to kilograms, then I would perform, a unit cancellation:

Given that 1 t = 1000 kg

##100,000 t \times \frac{1000~kg}{1 t} = 1 \times 10^8 kg##, however, why are we allowed to multiply the 100,000 by that?

My reasoning is,
##1 t = 1000 kg##
##1 = \frac{1000 kg}{1 t}## therefore multiplying by ##100,000 t## by ##\frac{1000 kg}{1 t}## is the same as multiplying by 1

Does someone please know whether my reasoning is correct?
No, it is not. Treat the dimensions in the equation as you would unknown variables.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
hmmm27 said:
No, it is not. Treat the dimensions in the equation as you would unknown variables.
You need to expand on that.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd, DaveE and member 731016
##100,000t \times 1 = 100,000t## which is incorrect not the answer to the question.

##\frac t t=1## as a next step yields the correct answer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
hmmm27 said:
No, it is not. Treat the dimensions in the equation as you would unknown variables.
How is that different?

I guess you mean something like this?
##ax = by \Rightarrow x = \frac{b}{a} y##
then substitute to get ## cx = c (\frac{b}{a} y) = (c \frac{b}{a}) y ##
where ## a,b,c ## are constants and ## x, y ## are units (variables?)

This is instead of
##ax = by \Rightarrow 1 = \frac{by}{ax} ##
## cx = cx (1) = cx (\frac{by}{ax})= (c \frac{b}{a}) y ## as others suggested.

I feel like I'm missing your point here.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd, member 731016 and Frabjous
You can multiply 100,000t by 1 and you do indeed get 100,000t. So what? That not what is sought. What is sought is to get a final answer in kg, not in t. To do that you need to multiply 100,000t by 1000Kg/t to get 10E8Kg. Units matter.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd and member 731016
My point is the OP used "reasoning" which, while useful in creating or validating a conversion factor, doesn't solve the equation by itself whereas, after including it in the calculation, simple cancellation does :
##100,000 \cancel t \times \frac{1,000kg}{\cancel t} = 100,000,000kg##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
  • #10
ChiralSuperfields said:
##1 = \frac{1000 kg}{1 t}##
I believe that such equation is not correct.
##1000~kg/t## is simply a rate, a proportion.
It is used only because it is useful in mathematical operations, where it can be cancelled to obtain the desired units.

IMHO, it is not different from ##3600~s/h## or ##1000~km/m##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
  • #11
Lnewqban said:
I believe that such equation is not correct.
##1000~kg/t## is simply a rate, a proportion.
It is used only because it is useful in mathematical operations, where it can be cancelled to obtain the desired units.

IMHO, it is not different from ##3600~s/h## or ##1000~km/m##
Is there a situation where assuming the equation is correct will get you in trouble?
I agee that it is not different from 3600s/h or 1000m/km.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
  • #12
Frabjous said:
Is there a situation where assuming the equation is correct will get you in trouble?
I agee that it is not different from 3600s/h or 1000m/km.
It is not incorrect if used as a conversion factor ; but the OP specifically asked "Are we allowed to multiply like that"... then proceeded to not bother, or at least not show the bother.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
  • #13
hmmm27 said:
It is not incorrect if used as a conversion factor ; but the OP specifically asked "Are we allowed to multiply like that"... then proceeded to not bother, or at least not show the bother.
I am looking for the substantive reason that you believe it is sometimes wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
  • #14
Frabjous said:
I am looking for the substantive reason that you believe it is wrong.
That I believe what is wrong ? That ##100,000t = 100,000t## is not a useful answer for "convert from tonnes to kg's" ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
  • #15
Frabjous said:
Is there a situation where assuming the equation is correct will get you in trouble?
I agree that it is not different from 3600s/h or 1000m/km.
No, unless it is taken out of context.
It may be mathematically correct, but I don't know enough to see any value in something like
##1=1~kilo-banana/1000~bananas##.

sddefault.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016 and hmmm27
  • #16
Lnewqban said:
No, unless it is taken out of context.
It may be mathematically correct, but I don't know enough to see any value in something like
##1=1~kilo-banana/1000~bananas##.
Obviously you have never studied economics on the Planet of the Apes. :wink: Low utility situations do not invalidate a concept.

There are known pitfalls when dimensionality comes into play. For example, the addition of non-dimensional numbers or the dimensional equivalence of torque and energy. We struggle through.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016, DaveE and SammyS

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
894
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
22K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K