Why revolutions (or turns) are dimensionless?Are units of angle really dimensionless?Why are angles dimensionless and quantities such as length not?Simple Harmonic Motion - What are the units for $omega_0$?Is $0,mathrmm$ dimensionless?Why are angles dimensionless and quantities such as length not?Are units of angle really dimensionless?Are quantum operators dimensionless?Units for dimensionless quantitiesExplain Kerr-Newmann Black Hole Spins in SI UnitsDimensionless consistency and quantitiesHow to handle dimensional analysis under exponentsWhy the quantities are dimensionless in curves plots?
Can a professor do an internship?
Does anyone know a basepoint-free construction of universal covers?
How to manage publications on a local computer
What are standard cryptographic assumptions?
What does TWRP "Fix Contexts" do?
What does Bitcoin policy language offer the developer that Miniscript doesn't? What is the difference between Bitcoin policy language and Miniscript?
Pattern Matching, FullForm and DisplayForm
Where is a warlock's soul?
How to write numbers in the form of using foreach or ...?
How do I resolve science-based problems in my worldbuilding?
How to present boolean options along with selecting exactly 1 of them as "primary"?
Why do Muslim refugees seek asylum in Europe and not in rich countries in the Middle East?
Horizontally mirror a brainflak program
Thermal runaway on extruder hotend
My mysterious "ruins" wander around and change on their own, what'd be a rational way for them to do that?
Invalid time zone 'UTC'
Does any country have free college & open admissions?
how to make a twisted wrapper
Conditionals across a new environment
Is there any point in adding more than 6 months' runway in savings instead of investing everything after that?
What is a dropfile?
Which are the scriptures endorsed by Swaminarayana Sampradaya?
Stochastic Integral Graph
What do you call someone whose unmarried partner has died?
Why revolutions (or turns) are dimensionless?
Are units of angle really dimensionless?Why are angles dimensionless and quantities such as length not?Simple Harmonic Motion - What are the units for $omega_0$?Is $0,mathrmm$ dimensionless?Why are angles dimensionless and quantities such as length not?Are units of angle really dimensionless?Are quantum operators dimensionless?Units for dimensionless quantitiesExplain Kerr-Newmann Black Hole Spins in SI UnitsDimensionless consistency and quantitiesHow to handle dimensional analysis under exponentsWhy the quantities are dimensionless in curves plots?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
I think that the reason is because one revolution or one turn is equal to $2 pi$ rad or to $360$ degrees.
We can relate rads and degrees to two units of length that cancel each other.
rad $= fracarc: lengthradius: of: the :arc: length$
degree $=$ arc length$ * frac 1360$ of the total circunference.
In both cases the meters from the numerator cancel with the meters from the denominator. This implies that rads and degrees are dimensionless, but not unitless.
Is there another explanation why a revolution is dimensionless?
Is there an analogous explanation, that meters with meters cancel each other, for revolutions?
Or you can only explain it equating revolutions with degrees or radians?
Morover, Tipler's Physics for scientists and engineers explains what a dimension is in this way.
I can measure the number of revolutions (for instance with a photoelectric sensor) of a turning plate. So I have a number with units(revolutions or rads). Don't we have a dimension in this case, the angle?
units dimensional-analysis
edited Jul 30 at 4:47
Qmechanic♦
116k14 gold badges231 silver badges1390 bronze badges
asked Jul 30 at 2:40
roy212roy212
363 bronze badges
$endgroup$
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I think that the reason is because one revolution or one turn is equal to $2 pi$ rad or to $360$ degrees.
We can relate rads and degrees to two units of length that cancel each other.
rad $= fracarc: lengthradius: of: the :arc: length$
degree $=$ arc length$ * frac 1360$ of the total circunference.
In both cases the meters from the numerator cancel with the meters from the denominator. This implies that rads and degrees are dimensionless, but not unitless.
Is there another explanation why a revolution is dimensionless?
Is there an analogous explanation, that meters with meters cancel each other, for revolutions?
Or you can only explain it equating revolutions with degrees or radians?
Morover, Tipler's Physics for scientists and engineers explains what a dimension is in this way.
I can measure the number of revolutions (for instance with a photoelectric sensor) of a turning plate. So I have a number with units(revolutions or rads). Don't we have a dimension in this case, the angle?
units dimensional-analysis
edited Jul 30 at 4:47
Qmechanic♦
116k14 gold badges231 silver badges1390 bronze badges
asked Jul 30 at 2:40
roy212roy212
363 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@G.Smith I can measure the number of turns (for instance with a photoelectric sensor) of a turning plate. So I have a number with units(revolutions or rads). Don't we have a dimension in this case?. I added to the O.P. the explanation of dimension given by Tipler's Physics for scientists and engineers
$endgroup$
– roy212
Jul 30 at 3:21
1
$begingroup$
I've deleted a comment that should have been posted as an answer.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:29
$begingroup$
A turn/cycle/revolution is a unit of angle. Possible duplicates: Are units of angle really dimensionless? , Why are angles dimensionless and quantities such as length not? and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
Jul 30 at 4:49
$begingroup$
@Qmechanic The question you link to does not seem to be a duplicate (despite the title of the post). That question asks whether two different dimensionless units (radians and steradians) are compatible for comparison/addition. This question asks for why angles specifically are dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jul 30 at 4:58
1
$begingroup$
I dispute the premise of the question. The October Revolution clearly had units of time, and the Arab Spring was in newtons per metre.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jul 30 at 16:31
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I think that the reason is because one revolution or one turn is equal to $2 pi$ rad or to $360$ degrees.
We can relate rads and degrees to two units of length that cancel each other.
rad $= fracarc: lengthradius: of: the :arc: length$
degree $=$ arc length$ * frac 1360$ of the total circunference.
In both cases the meters from the numerator cancel with the meters from the denominator. This implies that rads and degrees are dimensionless, but not unitless.
Is there another explanation why a revolution is dimensionless?
Is there an analogous explanation, that meters with meters cancel each other, for revolutions?
Or you can only explain it equating revolutions with degrees or radians?
Morover, Tipler's Physics for scientists and engineers explains what a dimension is in this way.
I can measure the number of revolutions (for instance with a photoelectric sensor) of a turning plate. So I have a number with units(revolutions or rads). Don't we have a dimension in this case, the angle?
units dimensional-analysis
edited Jul 30 at 4:47
Qmechanic♦
116k14 gold badges231 silver badges1390 bronze badges
asked Jul 30 at 2:40
roy212roy212
363 bronze badges
$endgroup$
I think that the reason is because one revolution or one turn is equal to $2 pi$ rad or to $360$ degrees.
We can relate rads and degrees to two units of length that cancel each other.
rad $= fracarc: lengthradius: of: the :arc: length$
degree $=$ arc length$ * frac 1360$ of the total circunference.
In both cases the meters from the numerator cancel with the meters from the denominator. This implies that rads and degrees are dimensionless, but not unitless.
Is there another explanation why a revolution is dimensionless?
Is there an analogous explanation, that meters with meters cancel each other, for revolutions?
Or you can only explain it equating revolutions with degrees or radians?
Morover, Tipler's Physics for scientists and engineers explains what a dimension is in this way.
I can measure the number of revolutions (for instance with a photoelectric sensor) of a turning plate. So I have a number with units(revolutions or rads). Don't we have a dimension in this case, the angle?
units dimensional-analysis
units dimensional-analysis
edited Jul 30 at 4:47
Qmechanic♦
116k14 gold badges231 silver badges1390 bronze badges
asked Jul 30 at 2:40
roy212roy212
363 bronze badges
edited Jul 30 at 4:47
Qmechanic♦
116k14 gold badges231 silver badges1390 bronze badges
asked Jul 30 at 2:40
roy212roy212
363 bronze badges
edited Jul 30 at 4:47
Qmechanic♦
116k14 gold badges231 silver badges1390 bronze badges
edited Jul 30 at 4:47
Qmechanic♦
116k14 gold badges231 silver badges1390 bronze badges
edited Jul 30 at 4:47
Qmechanic♦
116k14 gold badges231 silver badges1390 bronze badges
116k14 gold badges231 silver badges1390 bronze badges
asked Jul 30 at 2:40
roy212roy212
363 bronze badges
asked Jul 30 at 2:40
roy212roy212
363 bronze badges
asked Jul 30 at 2:40
roy212roy212
363 bronze badges
363 bronze badges
$begingroup$
@G.Smith I can measure the number of turns (for instance with a photoelectric sensor) of a turning plate. So I have a number with units(revolutions or rads). Don't we have a dimension in this case?. I added to the O.P. the explanation of dimension given by Tipler's Physics for scientists and engineers
$endgroup$
– roy212
Jul 30 at 3:21
1
$begingroup$
I've deleted a comment that should have been posted as an answer.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:29
$begingroup$
A turn/cycle/revolution is a unit of angle. Possible duplicates: Are units of angle really dimensionless? , Why are angles dimensionless and quantities such as length not? and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
Jul 30 at 4:49
$begingroup$
@Qmechanic The question you link to does not seem to be a duplicate (despite the title of the post). That question asks whether two different dimensionless units (radians and steradians) are compatible for comparison/addition. This question asks for why angles specifically are dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jul 30 at 4:58
1
$begingroup$
I dispute the premise of the question. The October Revolution clearly had units of time, and the Arab Spring was in newtons per metre.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jul 30 at 16:31
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
@G.Smith I can measure the number of turns (for instance with a photoelectric sensor) of a turning plate. So I have a number with units(revolutions or rads). Don't we have a dimension in this case?. I added to the O.P. the explanation of dimension given by Tipler's Physics for scientists and engineers
$endgroup$
– roy212
Jul 30 at 3:21
1
$begingroup$
I've deleted a comment that should have been posted as an answer.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:29
$begingroup$
A turn/cycle/revolution is a unit of angle. Possible duplicates: Are units of angle really dimensionless? , Why are angles dimensionless and quantities such as length not? and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
Jul 30 at 4:49
$begingroup$
@Qmechanic The question you link to does not seem to be a duplicate (despite the title of the post). That question asks whether two different dimensionless units (radians and steradians) are compatible for comparison/addition. This question asks for why angles specifically are dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jul 30 at 4:58
1
$begingroup$
I dispute the premise of the question. The October Revolution clearly had units of time, and the Arab Spring was in newtons per metre.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jul 30 at 16:31
$begingroup$
@G.Smith I can measure the number of turns (for instance with a photoelectric sensor) of a turning plate. So I have a number with units(revolutions or rads). Don't we have a dimension in this case?. I added to the O.P. the explanation of dimension given by Tipler's Physics for scientists and engineers
$endgroup$
– roy212
Jul 30 at 3:21
$begingroup$
@G.Smith I can measure the number of turns (for instance with a photoelectric sensor) of a turning plate. So I have a number with units(revolutions or rads). Don't we have a dimension in this case?. I added to the O.P. the explanation of dimension given by Tipler's Physics for scientists and engineers
$endgroup$
– roy212
Jul 30 at 3:21
1
1
$begingroup$
I've deleted a comment that should have been posted as an answer.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:29
$begingroup$
I've deleted a comment that should have been posted as an answer.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:29
$begingroup$
A turn/cycle/revolution is a unit of angle. Possible duplicates: Are units of angle really dimensionless? , Why are angles dimensionless and quantities such as length not? and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
Jul 30 at 4:49
$begingroup$
A turn/cycle/revolution is a unit of angle. Possible duplicates: Are units of angle really dimensionless? , Why are angles dimensionless and quantities such as length not? and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
Jul 30 at 4:49
$begingroup$
@Qmechanic The question you link to does not seem to be a duplicate (despite the title of the post). That question asks whether two different dimensionless units (radians and steradians) are compatible for comparison/addition. This question asks for why angles specifically are dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jul 30 at 4:58
$begingroup$
@Qmechanic The question you link to does not seem to be a duplicate (despite the title of the post). That question asks whether two different dimensionless units (radians and steradians) are compatible for comparison/addition. This question asks for why angles specifically are dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jul 30 at 4:58
1
1
$begingroup$
I dispute the premise of the question. The October Revolution clearly had units of time, and the Arab Spring was in newtons per metre.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jul 30 at 16:31
$begingroup$
I dispute the premise of the question. The October Revolution clearly had units of time, and the Arab Spring was in newtons per metre.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jul 30 at 16:31
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Is there another explanation why a revolution is dimensionless?
In the end the radian is dimensionless because the BIPM (the organization which defines the SI) decided that it is dimensionless.
Here is the official definition of the SI, updated earlier this year: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
On p 136 it defines each of the base units to have its own unique dimension, and specifies that all derived units have dimensions corresponding to the base units used to derive the derived unit. Then on p 137 it defines the radian to be a derived unit of m/m, implying that the radian is dimensionless.
The dimensionality of a unit is just as much a matter of convention as its size. For instance, in SI the ampere is a fundamental unit with dimension of current, $I$ meaning that charge has dimensions of $IT$. In contrast, in cgs units the statcoulomb has dimensions of $L^3/2M^1/2T^-1$.
So, although the radian is defined by the BIPM as dimensionless, there would be nothing logically wrong with a non-SI unit of angle that was considered to have dimensions. It is entirely a matter of convention. However, note that if you change your units then you may also need to change some of your physics formulas.
You have specifically asked about “turns” or “revolutions” rather than radians. As far as I am aware there is no governing body defining a system of units in which the unit of angle is a turn or a revolution. Therefore, the dimensionality is entirely up to you. If you like you may consider a turn to have dimension, and if you like you may consider it to be dimensionless. There is nothing which physically or mathematically prohibits either convention.
answered Jul 30 at 3:19
DaleDale
11.4k3 gold badges16 silver badges46 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Note that the question is about revolutions ("turns") rather than radians. The radian is dimensionless because it's a ratio; a number of turns is dimensionless because it's a thing that you count. The defining logic is in the same section of the SI brochure, but the two angular measures (radians and revolutions) are dimensionless for slightly different reasons.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:48
$begingroup$
Good point. I have added a paragraph specific to “turns” and “revolutions”. Note that there is no requirement that they be dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Dale
Jul 30 at 3:55
1
$begingroup$
I agree with everything you say here, but I feel like it misses the point. The OP is asking why we make revolutions unitless. They are not asking if it's valid to give revolutions units.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 4:36
1
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens The title of the OP says "dimensions" not "units". Units and dimensions are two different things. Miles and millimeters are different units, but they both have the same dimension - length. Similarly for radians and turns of revolutions
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jul 30 at 11:10
1
$begingroup$
@Dale Right, and I feel like that is what the OP might be getting at. What is the reasoning behind this subjective convention. Your answer is still good though. No worries.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 11:14
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f494278%2fwhy-revolutions-or-turns-are-dimensionless%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Is there another explanation why a revolution is dimensionless?
In the end the radian is dimensionless because the BIPM (the organization which defines the SI) decided that it is dimensionless.
Here is the official definition of the SI, updated earlier this year: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
On p 136 it defines each of the base units to have its own unique dimension, and specifies that all derived units have dimensions corresponding to the base units used to derive the derived unit. Then on p 137 it defines the radian to be a derived unit of m/m, implying that the radian is dimensionless.
The dimensionality of a unit is just as much a matter of convention as its size. For instance, in SI the ampere is a fundamental unit with dimension of current, $I$ meaning that charge has dimensions of $IT$. In contrast, in cgs units the statcoulomb has dimensions of $L^3/2M^1/2T^-1$.
So, although the radian is defined by the BIPM as dimensionless, there would be nothing logically wrong with a non-SI unit of angle that was considered to have dimensions. It is entirely a matter of convention. However, note that if you change your units then you may also need to change some of your physics formulas.
You have specifically asked about “turns” or “revolutions” rather than radians. As far as I am aware there is no governing body defining a system of units in which the unit of angle is a turn or a revolution. Therefore, the dimensionality is entirely up to you. If you like you may consider a turn to have dimension, and if you like you may consider it to be dimensionless. There is nothing which physically or mathematically prohibits either convention.
answered Jul 30 at 3:19
DaleDale
11.4k3 gold badges16 silver badges46 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Note that the question is about revolutions ("turns") rather than radians. The radian is dimensionless because it's a ratio; a number of turns is dimensionless because it's a thing that you count. The defining logic is in the same section of the SI brochure, but the two angular measures (radians and revolutions) are dimensionless for slightly different reasons.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:48
$begingroup$
Good point. I have added a paragraph specific to “turns” and “revolutions”. Note that there is no requirement that they be dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Dale
Jul 30 at 3:55
1
$begingroup$
I agree with everything you say here, but I feel like it misses the point. The OP is asking why we make revolutions unitless. They are not asking if it's valid to give revolutions units.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 4:36
1
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens The title of the OP says "dimensions" not "units". Units and dimensions are two different things. Miles and millimeters are different units, but they both have the same dimension - length. Similarly for radians and turns of revolutions
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jul 30 at 11:10
1
$begingroup$
@Dale Right, and I feel like that is what the OP might be getting at. What is the reasoning behind this subjective convention. Your answer is still good though. No worries.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 11:14
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Is there another explanation why a revolution is dimensionless?
In the end the radian is dimensionless because the BIPM (the organization which defines the SI) decided that it is dimensionless.
Here is the official definition of the SI, updated earlier this year: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
On p 136 it defines each of the base units to have its own unique dimension, and specifies that all derived units have dimensions corresponding to the base units used to derive the derived unit. Then on p 137 it defines the radian to be a derived unit of m/m, implying that the radian is dimensionless.
The dimensionality of a unit is just as much a matter of convention as its size. For instance, in SI the ampere is a fundamental unit with dimension of current, $I$ meaning that charge has dimensions of $IT$. In contrast, in cgs units the statcoulomb has dimensions of $L^3/2M^1/2T^-1$.
So, although the radian is defined by the BIPM as dimensionless, there would be nothing logically wrong with a non-SI unit of angle that was considered to have dimensions. It is entirely a matter of convention. However, note that if you change your units then you may also need to change some of your physics formulas.
You have specifically asked about “turns” or “revolutions” rather than radians. As far as I am aware there is no governing body defining a system of units in which the unit of angle is a turn or a revolution. Therefore, the dimensionality is entirely up to you. If you like you may consider a turn to have dimension, and if you like you may consider it to be dimensionless. There is nothing which physically or mathematically prohibits either convention.
answered Jul 30 at 3:19
DaleDale
11.4k3 gold badges16 silver badges46 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Note that the question is about revolutions ("turns") rather than radians. The radian is dimensionless because it's a ratio; a number of turns is dimensionless because it's a thing that you count. The defining logic is in the same section of the SI brochure, but the two angular measures (radians and revolutions) are dimensionless for slightly different reasons.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:48
$begingroup$
Good point. I have added a paragraph specific to “turns” and “revolutions”. Note that there is no requirement that they be dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Dale
Jul 30 at 3:55
1
$begingroup$
I agree with everything you say here, but I feel like it misses the point. The OP is asking why we make revolutions unitless. They are not asking if it's valid to give revolutions units.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 4:36
1
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens The title of the OP says "dimensions" not "units". Units and dimensions are two different things. Miles and millimeters are different units, but they both have the same dimension - length. Similarly for radians and turns of revolutions
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jul 30 at 11:10
1
$begingroup$
@Dale Right, and I feel like that is what the OP might be getting at. What is the reasoning behind this subjective convention. Your answer is still good though. No worries.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 11:14
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Is there another explanation why a revolution is dimensionless?
In the end the radian is dimensionless because the BIPM (the organization which defines the SI) decided that it is dimensionless.
Here is the official definition of the SI, updated earlier this year: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
On p 136 it defines each of the base units to have its own unique dimension, and specifies that all derived units have dimensions corresponding to the base units used to derive the derived unit. Then on p 137 it defines the radian to be a derived unit of m/m, implying that the radian is dimensionless.
The dimensionality of a unit is just as much a matter of convention as its size. For instance, in SI the ampere is a fundamental unit with dimension of current, $I$ meaning that charge has dimensions of $IT$. In contrast, in cgs units the statcoulomb has dimensions of $L^3/2M^1/2T^-1$.
So, although the radian is defined by the BIPM as dimensionless, there would be nothing logically wrong with a non-SI unit of angle that was considered to have dimensions. It is entirely a matter of convention. However, note that if you change your units then you may also need to change some of your physics formulas.
You have specifically asked about “turns” or “revolutions” rather than radians. As far as I am aware there is no governing body defining a system of units in which the unit of angle is a turn or a revolution. Therefore, the dimensionality is entirely up to you. If you like you may consider a turn to have dimension, and if you like you may consider it to be dimensionless. There is nothing which physically or mathematically prohibits either convention.
answered Jul 30 at 3:19
DaleDale
11.4k3 gold badges16 silver badges46 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Is there another explanation why a revolution is dimensionless?
In the end the radian is dimensionless because the BIPM (the organization which defines the SI) decided that it is dimensionless.
Here is the official definition of the SI, updated earlier this year: https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
On p 136 it defines each of the base units to have its own unique dimension, and specifies that all derived units have dimensions corresponding to the base units used to derive the derived unit. Then on p 137 it defines the radian to be a derived unit of m/m, implying that the radian is dimensionless.
The dimensionality of a unit is just as much a matter of convention as its size. For instance, in SI the ampere is a fundamental unit with dimension of current, $I$ meaning that charge has dimensions of $IT$. In contrast, in cgs units the statcoulomb has dimensions of $L^3/2M^1/2T^-1$.
So, although the radian is defined by the BIPM as dimensionless, there would be nothing logically wrong with a non-SI unit of angle that was considered to have dimensions. It is entirely a matter of convention. However, note that if you change your units then you may also need to change some of your physics formulas.
You have specifically asked about “turns” or “revolutions” rather than radians. As far as I am aware there is no governing body defining a system of units in which the unit of angle is a turn or a revolution. Therefore, the dimensionality is entirely up to you. If you like you may consider a turn to have dimension, and if you like you may consider it to be dimensionless. There is nothing which physically or mathematically prohibits either convention.
answered Jul 30 at 3:19
DaleDale
11.4k3 gold badges16 silver badges46 bronze badges
edited Jul 30 at 3:54
answered Jul 30 at 3:19
DaleDale
11.4k3 gold badges16 silver badges46 bronze badges
answered Jul 30 at 3:19
DaleDale
11.4k3 gold badges16 silver badges46 bronze badges
answered Jul 30 at 3:19
DaleDale
11.4k3 gold badges16 silver badges46 bronze badges
11.4k3 gold badges16 silver badges46 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
Note that the question is about revolutions ("turns") rather than radians. The radian is dimensionless because it's a ratio; a number of turns is dimensionless because it's a thing that you count. The defining logic is in the same section of the SI brochure, but the two angular measures (radians and revolutions) are dimensionless for slightly different reasons.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:48
$begingroup$
Good point. I have added a paragraph specific to “turns” and “revolutions”. Note that there is no requirement that they be dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Dale
Jul 30 at 3:55
1
$begingroup$
I agree with everything you say here, but I feel like it misses the point. The OP is asking why we make revolutions unitless. They are not asking if it's valid to give revolutions units.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 4:36
1
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens The title of the OP says "dimensions" not "units". Units and dimensions are two different things. Miles and millimeters are different units, but they both have the same dimension - length. Similarly for radians and turns of revolutions
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jul 30 at 11:10
1
$begingroup$
@Dale Right, and I feel like that is what the OP might be getting at. What is the reasoning behind this subjective convention. Your answer is still good though. No worries.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 11:14
|
show 4 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Note that the question is about revolutions ("turns") rather than radians. The radian is dimensionless because it's a ratio; a number of turns is dimensionless because it's a thing that you count. The defining logic is in the same section of the SI brochure, but the two angular measures (radians and revolutions) are dimensionless for slightly different reasons.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:48
$begingroup$
Good point. I have added a paragraph specific to “turns” and “revolutions”. Note that there is no requirement that they be dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Dale
Jul 30 at 3:55
1
$begingroup$
I agree with everything you say here, but I feel like it misses the point. The OP is asking why we make revolutions unitless. They are not asking if it's valid to give revolutions units.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 4:36
1
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens The title of the OP says "dimensions" not "units". Units and dimensions are two different things. Miles and millimeters are different units, but they both have the same dimension - length. Similarly for radians and turns of revolutions
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jul 30 at 11:10
1
$begingroup$
@Dale Right, and I feel like that is what the OP might be getting at. What is the reasoning behind this subjective convention. Your answer is still good though. No worries.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 11:14
1
1
$begingroup$
Note that the question is about revolutions ("turns") rather than radians. The radian is dimensionless because it's a ratio; a number of turns is dimensionless because it's a thing that you count. The defining logic is in the same section of the SI brochure, but the two angular measures (radians and revolutions) are dimensionless for slightly different reasons.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:48
$begingroup$
Note that the question is about revolutions ("turns") rather than radians. The radian is dimensionless because it's a ratio; a number of turns is dimensionless because it's a thing that you count. The defining logic is in the same section of the SI brochure, but the two angular measures (radians and revolutions) are dimensionless for slightly different reasons.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:48
$begingroup$
Good point. I have added a paragraph specific to “turns” and “revolutions”. Note that there is no requirement that they be dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Dale
Jul 30 at 3:55
$begingroup$
Good point. I have added a paragraph specific to “turns” and “revolutions”. Note that there is no requirement that they be dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Dale
Jul 30 at 3:55
1
1
$begingroup$
I agree with everything you say here, but I feel like it misses the point. The OP is asking why we make revolutions unitless. They are not asking if it's valid to give revolutions units.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 4:36
$begingroup$
I agree with everything you say here, but I feel like it misses the point. The OP is asking why we make revolutions unitless. They are not asking if it's valid to give revolutions units.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 4:36
1
1
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens The title of the OP says "dimensions" not "units". Units and dimensions are two different things. Miles and millimeters are different units, but they both have the same dimension - length. Similarly for radians and turns of revolutions
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jul 30 at 11:10
$begingroup$
@AaronStevens The title of the OP says "dimensions" not "units". Units and dimensions are two different things. Miles and millimeters are different units, but they both have the same dimension - length. Similarly for radians and turns of revolutions
$endgroup$
– alephzero
Jul 30 at 11:10
1
1
$begingroup$
@Dale Right, and I feel like that is what the OP might be getting at. What is the reasoning behind this subjective convention. Your answer is still good though. No worries.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 11:14
$begingroup$
@Dale Right, and I feel like that is what the OP might be getting at. What is the reasoning behind this subjective convention. Your answer is still good though. No worries.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Jul 30 at 11:14
|
show 4 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f494278%2fwhy-revolutions-or-turns-are-dimensionless%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
@G.Smith I can measure the number of turns (for instance with a photoelectric sensor) of a turning plate. So I have a number with units(revolutions or rads). Don't we have a dimension in this case?. I added to the O.P. the explanation of dimension given by Tipler's Physics for scientists and engineers
$endgroup$
– roy212
Jul 30 at 3:21
1
$begingroup$
I've deleted a comment that should have been posted as an answer.
$endgroup$
– rob♦
Jul 30 at 3:29
$begingroup$
A turn/cycle/revolution is a unit of angle. Possible duplicates: Are units of angle really dimensionless? , Why are angles dimensionless and quantities such as length not? and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
Jul 30 at 4:49
$begingroup$
@Qmechanic The question you link to does not seem to be a duplicate (despite the title of the post). That question asks whether two different dimensionless units (radians and steradians) are compatible for comparison/addition. This question asks for why angles specifically are dimensionless.
$endgroup$
– Mark H
Jul 30 at 4:58
1
$begingroup$
I dispute the premise of the question. The October Revolution clearly had units of time, and the Arab Spring was in newtons per metre.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jul 30 at 16:31