Why is Gaussian charge not equivalent to SI charge?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter songoku
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimension
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of dimensions and units in physics, particularly in the context of different systems of units such as SI and Gaussian units. Participants explore the necessity and implications of using dimensions alongside units, as well as the differences in how electric charge is represented in these systems.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the necessity of dimensions when units can suffice for conversions between quantities.
  • Others argue that dimensions provide a framework for understanding the relationships between different physical quantities, such as distinguishing between length and mass.
  • A participant explains that in natural units, energy, mass, and momentum share the same units but have different dimensions.
  • There is a discussion on how to convert between different units of charge, specifically between statcoulombs and SI coulombs, highlighting the complexity of electromagnetic units.
  • Some participants assert that the dimension of a physical quantity is essential for understanding its nature and conversion capabilities.
  • One participant notes that the statcoulomb has a different dimensional representation in cgs units compared to SI units, which leads to confusion in conversions.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the differences in dimensions between Gaussian and SI units mean that one cannot equate charges directly but must use conversion factors.
  • There is a suggestion that it would be clearer if the distinction between Gaussian charge and SI charge was explicitly stated in educational resources.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role and importance of dimensions versus units, with no consensus reached on whether dimensions are necessary for understanding physical quantities. The discussion on the conversion of electric charge between systems also remains unresolved, with varying interpretations of the implications of these differences.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the definitions and applications of dimensions and units, particularly in the context of electric charge. There are references to specific mathematical relationships and definitions that are not universally accepted among the participants.

songoku
Messages
2,512
Reaction score
394
TL;DR
Physical quantities have unit and also dimension, such as unit of mass is kg and the dimension of mass is M
But what is the actual use of dimension? We can do dimension analysis but it can be simply changed into unit analysis and the result will be the same. So why introduce dimension for physical quantities? Why unit is not enough?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In different systems of units the units of quantities with different dimensions can be the same. E.g., in natural units with ##c=1## energy, mass, and momentum have the same units, but these quantities have different dimensions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: songoku
songoku said:
So why introduce dimension for physical quantities? Why unit is not enough?
How else would you know that you can convert miles into kilometers but not into kilograms?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mayhem, songoku, Vanadium 50 and 3 others
You can see dimension as a specific ruler that measures some physics quantity, one ruler for each specific quantity. The units are then the small bars on this ruler that tells you what 1 unit in this dimension exactly is.

So take the dimension of mass, the units can be kg, pounds, etc. Each unit tells you what measure we give to 1 (1 kg, 1 pound, etc). But they all measure the same thing: mass.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: songoku
Dale said:
How else would you know that you can convert miles into kilometers but not into kilograms?
Or that you can convert ##\dfrac{\text{(statcoulombs)}^2}{\text{cm}}## into Joules?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: songoku, Dale and vanhees71
Dale said:
How else would you know that you can convert miles into kilometers but not into kilograms?
Sorry I still do not get this part. I think I can know I can convert miles to km and not to kg by knowing the physical quantities that represented by the units, without knowing the dimension. Miles and km are units of length and kg is unit of mass so direct conversion from length to mass is not possible. Am I missing something?

kuruman said:
Or that you can convert ##\dfrac{\text{(statcoulombs)}^2}{\text{cm}}## into Joules?
I can't do this one. Statcoulombs is another unit for electric charge and cm is unit for length, so I tried to convert ##\frac{C^2}{\text{m}}## to ##\frac{\text{kg}. \text{m}^2}{\text{s}^2}##

$$\frac{C^2}{\text{m}}=\frac{\text{A}^2 \text{s}^2}{\text{m}}$$

I have changed all the units to base units and I do not know how it can be same as Joules

Thanks
 
songoku said:
Miles and km are units of length and kg is unit of mass so direct conversion from length to mass is not possible. Am I missing something?
Yes. Apparently you are missing that length is the dimension of miles and kilometers and mass is the dimension of kilograms. Your response actually supports my argument exactly.

Were you not aware that length is the dimension of the meter? See p 136 here for the dimensions of all SI units https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf

songoku said:
Statcoulombs is another unit for electric charge
The statcoulomb is a unit of charge, but charge is not a base dimension in cgs units. The dimension of the statcoulomb is ##L^{3/2} M^{1/2} T^{−1}##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: songoku and Doc Al
Dale said:
Yes. Apparently you are missing that length is the dimension of miles and kilometers and mass is the dimension of kilograms. Your response actually supports my argument exactly.

Were you not aware that length is the dimension of the meter? See p 136 here for the dimensions of all SI units https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf

I always think like this:

Physical quantity = length
Unit = meter (m)
Dimension = L

Physical Quantity = mass
Unit = kilogram (kg)
Dimension = M

So no, I am not aware that length is the dimension of meter because I think length is physical quantity, not dimension. That is why I ask why we need dimension when we already have units because I used to think that dimension is redundant since the application of dimension that I am aware is dimensional analysis, which can be done the same way by units analysis.

Is it not correct to think length is physical quantity and not a dimension?

The statcoulomb is a unit of charge, but charge is not a base dimension in cgs units. The dimension of the statcoulomb is ##L^{3/2} M^{1/2} T^{−1}##
How can we know the dimension of statcoulomb is ##L^{3/2} M^{1/2} T^{−1}##? Is there a way to derive it, like we derive C = A.s?

Thanks
 
For the electromagnetic quantities in different systems of units, it's more complicated. Take the usual Gaussian units and the SI units.

In the Gaussian units no extra base unit for electric charge is introduced, while in the SI it is, i.e., the Coulomb or Ampere times second.

The mechanical units are easy to convert, because for all three base units in the SI (s, m, kg) there are also base units in the Gaussian system (s, cm, g).

So to see, how statcoulombs are converted in SI Coulombs, you have to use the definition via Coulomb's force law for two charges of the same magnitude.
$$F=\frac{Q_G^2}{r^2}.$$
The unit of charge is
$$1 \text{statC}=1\text{Fr}=1 \sqrt{\text{dyn}} \cdot \text{cm}=1 \text{g}^{1/2} \text{cm}^{3/2} \text{s}^{1/2}.$$
I.e., ##1\text{statC}## is defined such that for two charges of ##1 \text{statC}## at a distance of 1 cm you get a force of 1 dyn.

To get this charge in SI Coulombs just consider two charges at a distance of ##1 \; \text{cm}=10^{-2} \text{m}## leading to a force of ##1 \; \text{dyn}##. Now ##1 \text{dyn}=1 \text{g} \; \text{cm}/\text{s}^2=10^{-5} \text{kg} \; \text{m}/\text{s}^2=10^{-5} \text{N}.##
The charge corresponding to 1 dyn force between two equal charges at the distance of 1 cm in the SI then leads to
$$1 \; \text{statC} \hat{=} \sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon_0} (10^{-5} \text{N})^{1/2} 10^{-2} \text{m} \simeq 3.336 \cdot 10^{-10} \text{C}.$$
The confusing aspect of the em. units is that the quantities have not only different units but also different dimensions! That's why I can't write an equality sign between a charge in statC and a charge measured in SI-C but only a "refers-to sign".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: songoku
  • #10
songoku said:
Sorry I still do not get this part. I think I can know I can convert miles to km and not to kg by knowing the physical quantities that represented by the units, without knowing the dimension.

What you call physical quantity IS the dimension. It is exactly the same thing.

songoku said:
Physical Quantity = mass
Unit = kilogram (kg)
Dimension = M

Here, again, the dimension is mass, the letter 'M' is just shorthand thereof. And thus, what you call Physical Quantity is called 'Dimension' in Physics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: songoku and symbolipoint
  • #11
vanhees71 said:
The confusing aspect of the em. units is that the quantities have not only different units but also different dimensions! That's why I can't write an equality sign between a charge in statC and a charge measured in SI-C but only a "refers-to sign".

Wouldn't it be less confusing if it was explicitly stated that Gaussian charge is not equal to SI charge? For example, wikipedia states: $$Q_{Gaussian}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon_0}} Q_{SI}$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and songoku
  • #12
songoku said:
I always think like this:

Physical quantity = length
Unit = meter (m)
Dimension = L

Physical Quantity = mass
Unit = kilogram (kg)
Dimension = M

So no, I am not aware that length is the dimension of meter because I think length is physical quantity, not dimension.
If you read the link that I posted earlier you will see that it says "Physical quantities can be organized in a system of dimensions, where the system used is decided by convention. Each of the seven base quantities used in the SI is regarded as having its own dimension. The symbols used for the base quantities and the symbols used to denote their dimension are shown in Table 3"

So according to this the dimensions are how we organize the physical quantities. Thus, length is a physical quantity and in order to organize physical quantities SI assigns length its own dimension, also called length. The symbol L is not the dimension of length, it is just a symbol used to denote length. The dimension of length is length.

Charge is also a physical quantity. As described above, the organization of charge into a system of dimensions depends on the convention used. In SI, charge is assigned the dimension of electric current times time, ##I T##. In cgs, charge is assigned the dimension of length to the 3/2 times mass to the 1/2 times time to the -1, ##L^{3/2} M^{1/2} T^{−1}##.

The dimension is not the physical quantity, and it is not the symbol, and it is not the unit. It is a convention for organizing physical quantities. I don't think that any of them are redundant with each other. So going back to your OP you cannot discard dimension.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and songoku
  • #13
Thank you very much for all the help and explanation vanhees71, Dale, Arjan82, kuruman, Orthoceras
 
  • #14
What kind of physical quality or kind of quantity: Dimension.

@Arjan82 gave the most direct best response for what is dimension.
 
  • #15
Orthoceras said:
Wouldn't it be less confusing if it was explicitly stated that Gaussian charge is not equal to SI charge? For example, wikipedia states: $$Q_{Gaussian}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon_0}} Q_{SI}$$
Yes, that should be explicitly stated. Neither many textbooks nor Wikipedia are very accurate on this.

That's why I would write the ##\hat{=}## symbol, not an equality sign in the quoted formula. Also see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimetre–gram–second_system_of_units
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
836