Visualizing Dimensional MLT quality

  • Thread starter Thread starter seanwperry
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quality
Click For Summary
Visualizing dimensional units beyond basic length, area, and volume can be challenging, particularly when combining mass and length, such as in the case of force expressed as M*L*T^-2. While the concept of "per" is intuitive for ratios, understanding products like kg*m requires a different approach, as traditional analogies to area break down. The discussion emphasizes the importance of accepting the SI system's base units and encourages familiarity with common relationships rather than complex visualizations. It is noted that more complicated operations, like raising units to powers, are generally dimensionless, and exponents must be dimensionless for meaningful interpretation. Overall, the conversation revolves around finding effective ways to conceptualize and work with dimensional analysis in physics.
seanwperry
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
My problem is a general one concerning how to best visualize/get a good mental construct for what's happening when we get simple units by multiplying dimensions other than length^2 or length^3. I don't seem to have any trouble with the intuition about the quotient of values: the notion of 'per' suffices pretty well here. I'm going to use MLT for mass, length, time. L/T (velocity) is a ratio comparing how many units of length per unit(s) of time. So here's the crux of it. Say we're talking force with dimensional units of M*L*T^-2. I don't have a problem with per T per T to get T^-2. But how can I visualize what a M*L, like a kg*m is? I've tried thinking about this as a analogous to area being L*L but one of the dimensions is mass, but my visualization breaks down when the units aren't both L. Is there a more illuminating way to think about it, or is a analogy to area going to be as far as I should try to pursue this?

Thanks! -_-

PS are there any units where we raise units to the power of units? L^T, etc.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Here is an introductory site for dimensional analysis: http://joneslhs.weebly.com/

But I think your question is not "How do I analyze this for a formula?" but rather "How best to think about compounding of multiple units?"

The latter comes from our attempt to define a set of mutually independent "base units" of measure, each one corresponding to one of the "dimensional units". Since the SI system is built on this basis, you can simply accept it. That is, "Force", which appears to be a fundamental idea within physics has a dimensional unit, the Newton, which can be expressed in terms of more "elementary" dimensional units.

Most people, in my experience, simply memorize the relationships that they commonly use. Since I rarely work with magnetic properties, I always have to look these up. But most of the others I simply recall - much like how I know that 4 x 6 is 42 without any thinking.

I suppose I'm suggesting that you just "get used to it", but I never teach this topic, so I'm curious what the teachers will have to say.

PS: AFAIK, you will never see something like L^T; everything more complicated than multiplication/division is always dimensionless, while addition/subtraction is only valid if the units are the same across all of the terms.
 
seanwperry said:
PS are there any units where we raise units to the power of units? L^T, etc.

What possible meaning could "Five metres to the power of six seconds" have? An exponent has to be dimensionless.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
948
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K