Why dimensions can be treated as algebraic quantities?

AI Thread Summary
Dimensions in physics can be treated as algebraic quantities, allowing for operations like addition and multiplication to be performed on them. When multiplying units, such as seconds, the result reflects the nature of the operation; for example, multiplying seconds by seconds yields seconds squared (sec^2), which represents a rate of change. This algebraic treatment helps in understanding physical concepts like acceleration, where units are expressed as meters per second squared (m/s^2). The discussion emphasizes that while certain units may not exist in a tangible sense, they are essential for ensuring consistency in equations and comparisons. Ultimately, understanding these relationships aids in grasping the underlying principles of physics.
0000
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Hi, in my physics book (serway) they say "dimensions can be treated as algebraic quantities" but I don't understand this very well. If I sum meters I get meters, if I multiply meters I think I get meters^2 because the area of a rectangle is b.h. But if, for instance, I multiply seconds.seconds I don't uderstand why I get sec^2.

Algebraically x.x = x^2 but x represent a a number not time, weight, etc.

I see it like 3 apples x 2 apples = 6 apples^2.

Probably I'm getting this wrong, Could you help me to understand this right please?

As always, excuse me if my english isn't very clear.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i hope this helps

asking such question, i assume you are like me, a person fusing about how everything tiny detail functions,:approve:

yes it is rite that they can be treated as algebraic quantities,
in physics, a letter is usally used with the inclusion of units
we say, the force is donated by F, not F N as in F Newton

the apple case is rite, but we don't see ourselfs multiple apples by apples do we,we can say, i bought 6 sets of 4 apples, that implies 4 * 6 applies ie 24 apples but we don't see ourselves multiplying apples by applies

we can treat them as algebric quanties as we always express them as rates (unit 1) / (unit 2), such as in velocity (m/s) but we find it better to treat units as algebric qualites as exampled in the case of acceleration
a= (v_f - v_0) / t where v_f is the final velocity and v_0 is the intial velocity which is denoted by the unit (m/s) and time in s
then a's unit must be (m/s * 1/s)

we donate this unit
(m * 1)/ (s*s) which is m s^-2

lets give it a numberic value as well
the acceleration of a car is 2 metres per second per second or 2 metres per second squared ( to the north) . then in a 1 sec period, the cars speed changes m s^-2 * 1s =2 metres per second or (2m/s)/s * 1s = 2 metres per second

so really there is not sec^2 in the world but it exists as sec and is usually expressed as the rate of something ( unit 1 (eg. Joule)/ sec) and then it follows that the rate of change of that rate is ( unit 1/ sec / sec) which is better expressed as (unit 1 s^2) and as seen in the acceleartion case multple this by a value of time will result in the change if the other rate in that time period!

I hope this is suppose to help you more than to add confusion!
PS my english is not so perfect either!
 
Yes that is true calculus_jy , the units like J*m/s^3 don't exists, they just help us to see what a specific physical formula tells us. And also to make sure that what is on the left side is the same as the right side. You can't compare a quantity that has the units J/T with another one that has m/s^3
 
Thank you for your answers.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top