Where did the radian come from (Torque)?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter raddian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Torque
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of radians in the context of torque and angular acceleration. Participants explore the relationship between torque, angular velocity, and angular acceleration, questioning the role of radians in these equations and their implications in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about the absence of radians in the torque equation, questioning where radians come into play.
  • Others clarify that angular velocity is measured in radians per second and angular acceleration in radians per second squared.
  • A participant suggests that radians are dimensionless and that the units of angular velocity can be expressed simply as s-1.
  • Some participants propose that the use of radians is a default in scientific contexts, while degrees or other units can be converted from radians.
  • One participant mentions that the formulae for circular motion assume angles are measured in radians, which leads to the conclusion that radians are inherently linked to the geometry of circles.
  • Another participant notes that radians are a natural unit of arc, implying that their use is universal across different cultures and times.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of using radians versus degrees in various formulas, with some participants emphasizing the importance of radians in calculus and physics.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about their own understanding of the topic, indicating that the discussion has not fully resolved their questions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions of angular velocity and acceleration in terms of radians, but there is ongoing debate about the implications and understanding of these units in the context of torque and other physical equations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the fundamental question of the origin and necessity of radians in these contexts.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight that the formulas used in circular motion are derived with the assumption that angles are measured in radians, which may lead to confusion when considering other units like degrees. There are also references to the dimensional nature of radians and their relationship to physical quantities.

raddian
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
In the simple torque equation:

\tau_z = \alpha_z \times I

\frac{\tau_z}{I} = \alpha_z

Finally:

\frac{10 N.m}{10 kg.m^2} = \alpha_z

\frac{10 kg.m^2}{10 kg.m^2.s^2} = \alpha_z

1 \frac{rad}{s^2} = \alpha_z
 
Physics news on Phys.org
raddian said:
In the simple torque equation:

\tau_z = \alpha_z \times I

\frac{\tau_z}{I} = \alpha_z

Finally:

\frac{10 N.m}{10 kg.m^2} = \alpha_z

\frac{10 kg.m^2}{10 kg.m^2.s^2} = \alpha_z

1 \frac{rad}{s^2} = \alpha_z

Do you use Google?
 
Yes. I understand that a "radian" is an angle measure. But radian is nonexistent in the formula.
 
What are the units of angular velocity? Of angular acceleration?
 
Angular velocity: rad/s

Angular acceleration: rad/s^2
 
maybe i should use an analogy

In the formula for acceleration:

a = \frac{\Delta V}{time}

a = \frac{\frac{m}{s} - \frac{m}{s}}{s}

The formula explicitly shows that a = \frac{m}{s^2}

In the formula for torque, torque (τ) and the moment of momentum (I) do not have the units of "radians", hence my question: Where did the radians come from?
 
Radians are really dimensionless. The units of angular velocity are simply ## \text{s}^{-1} ##. We usually add "radians" so that we can distinguish that from other possible dimensionless units, such as "revolutions" or "degrees".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
voko said:
Radians are really dimensionless. The units of angular velocity are simply ## \text{s}^{-1} ##. We usually add "radians" so that we can distinguish that from other possible dimensionless units, such as "revolutions" or "degrees".

Yes, I see. Two questions: if the answer for acceleration (given the torque equation) was written as ## x \frac{rad}{s} ##, why doesn't the value change from ## 1 \text{s}^{-1} ## to ## \frac{1 rad}{2\pi sec} ##. Would ## x \frac{deg}{s} ## be any different?

How do you use "#..#"?
 
Last edited:
hi raddian! welcome to pf! :smile:
raddian said:
if the answer for acceleration (given the torque equation) was written as x rad/s, would x °/s be any different?

(you mean /s2 :wink:)

yes! you need to convert from radians to degrees, using π = 180° :wink:
How do you use "#..#"?

you type two #s and two #s after :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #10
Just like 2 degress is very different from 2 radians, 2 degrees per second is very different from 2 radians per second. You convert between the two exactly as you would convert between degrees and radians for simple angles. So ## 1 \ \text{rad} \ \text{s}^{-2} ## which you got previously gets converted to ## 57 \ ^ \circ \text{s}^{-2} ## by multiplying the former with ## 180^\circ \over \pi ##.

You may be asking yourself "how do I know which dimensionless unit I should use"? It is very simple: in science, anything related to angles is done in radians by default. Then the result may be converted to degrees or revolutions or something else.

Regarding the use of #..#, this is just a shorthand for the itex tag, just like $ .. $ is a shorthand for the tex tag. Note you need two #'s and two $'s on each side.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #11
But because ## \alpha = \frac{10 N.m}{10 kg.m^{2}} ##

shouldn't the answer technically be ## 1 \frac{}{s^{2}} ##? And isn't ## 1 \frac{}{s^{2}} ## very different from ## 1 \frac{rad}{s^{2}} ##?
 
  • #12
The answer as ## 1 \ \text{s}^{-2} ## is perfectly correct. We know that it means ##1 \ {\text{rad} \over \text{s}^2} ## because we know that our default measure for angles is radians.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #13
Voko your answer led me on the right path to http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:w8p0JeQq9gMJ:mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/64034.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk. Thank you all for your answers.
 
  • #14
The angular acceleration can be α=\frac{rad}{s^{2}}, because the angular velocity is ω=\frac{rad}{s} (how many rads per second the matter moves on a circle).
Now the rad on a circle is connected to meters, because knowing the radius of the circle, you can determine how many meters the particle has moved, just by knowing how radians have changed. So for an obvious one, the full circle would be 2π (rads) and the length in meters is the well know 2πR
The nice thing is that radians are dimensionless (the dimensions were absorbed into the radius)
 
  • #15
The radian is a natural unit of arc - scientists and mathematicians on another planet / continent / age would all eventually find themselves using radians, quite independently (not the same name, of course). The use of 360 degrees or 100 divisions or whatever, is quite arbitrary.
 
  • #16
d\frac{sin(x)}{dx}=cos(x) if x is expressed in radians. That is why many formulae use the radians unit.
 
  • #17
raddian said:
maybe i should use an analogy

In the formula for acceleration:

a = \frac{\Delta V}{time}

a = \frac{\frac{m}{s} - \frac{m}{s}}{s}

The formula explicitly shows that a = \frac{m}{s^2}

In the formula for torque, torque (τ) and the moment of momentum (I) do not have the units of "radians", hence my question: Where did the radians come from?
Now I (think) understand your question.

The answer is that when we derive the formulae used in circular movement we suppose the angles are measured in radians.

From wiki:
"Let R be the radius of the circle, θ is the central angle in radians"

The arc length is s = \frac{\theta}{R}

Theta is dimensionless, you could use degrees or turns, but the formula is derived supposing it is measured in radians.

You can measure angles in degrees (even in dB) but then you should use another formulae.
 
  • #18
alva said:
d\frac{sin(x)}{dx}=cos(x) if x is expressed in radians. That is why many formulae use the radians unit.

The current that flows through a capacitor is
i =C\times\frac{dV}{dt}

If the voltage is v(t) = V_{0}\timessin(w.t)

the current will be i(t) = C.w.cos(wt)

and the impedance of the capacitor will be w.C if w is expressed in radians
 
  • #19
alva said:
and the impedance of the capacitor will be w.C if w is expressed in radians

The impedance of a capacitor is 1/(w.C). My mistake.
 
  • #20
From wiki:

Sound intensity level or acoustic intensity level is a logarithmic measure of the sound intensity (measured in W/m2), in comparison to a reference level.

The measure of a ratio of two sound intensities is

L= 10 . log_{10}\frac{I1}{I0} dB

where I0 is the reference level.

The result of this formula has to be expressed in dB. Why? It is dimensionless. Where did the dB come from? From the way we used to derive it.

Honestly, I do not feel comfortable with my own answers.
 
  • #21
help me please

please solve the integral in the attached file
 

Attachments

  • #22
alva said:
From wiki:
where I0 is the reference level.

The result of this formula has to be expressed in dB. Why? It is dimensionless. Where did the dB come from?

"dB" means wrt I0

it's a way of saying what the log of I/I0 is :smile:

(Basma Elyan, please start a new thread)
 
  • #23
tiny-tim said:
"dB" means wrt I0

it's a way of saying what the log of I/I0 is :smile:

I think the question posed by the OP is "Where did the dB/radians come from?"
Not "What is a dB/radian?"
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K