5 ms·

Thing is, angles don't really have units (the technical term is they are dimensionless). They are a length (the subtended arc of a circle) divided by a length (

Thing is, angles don't really have units (the technical term is they are dimensionless). They are a length (the subtended arc of a circle) divided by a length (the radius of the circle). When you want to do something like get a sine wave of period T, you inevitably have to include a 2π somewhere. Speaking as someone who had to write down many 2π's in university (especially as I find angular quantities like angular frequencies ugly and unintuitive to work with), I think this notational trick would've been very useful!

Misdicorl 3y ago
This is not true. Angles very much have units and it's why you can express the same concept with different numbers. Pi equals 180 degrees equals 0.5 turns. 1 radian has different units than 1 steradian and if they didn't there wouldn't be a need for two different words to denote them. The quantity is a ratio of two lengths, and the length measure does "drop out". But it's not just any ratio, it's a very particular ratio, and the unit defines the particularness of that ratio.
- jrockway 3y ago
  Yeah, units that algebraically reduce to 1 are always very interesting to me. Consider a chart showing how many CPU seconds you're consuming per second. The unit is seconds/second, which is equal to 1, but it is still a distinct concept from radians.
- jacobolus 3y ago
  The reason it is confusing is because an angle measure is a kind of logarithm of a rotation, and logarithms (sort of) have a unit: the base. The appropriate canonical representation of a rotation is a unit-magnitude complex number z = exp iθ = cos θ + i sin θ, which has a planar orientation (whatever plane i is taken to represent; if you want to represent a 3D rotation you can replace i with an arbitrary unit bivector) but is unitless. Such a rotation z can be thought of as the ratio of two vectors of the same magnitude: z = u / v satisfies zv = u, i.e. is the object by which you can multiply v on the left to obtain u. Whatever original units your vectors u and v had gets divided away. This is similar to the way the "ten" in "scale by ten" is unitless, but if you take the logarithm you get "scale by 10 decibels" or "go up by 3 octaves and 3.9 semitones", which have the base of the logarithm as a kind of unit.
  - Misdicorl 3y ago
    I think I fundamentally disagree with you. Angles do not have a "base" any more than meters do (being embedded inside some metric space could be considered a base I suppose). But you seem to be drawing a distinction between meters and angles in your analogy where I assert none exists. The base of a number system only affects representations. This is not true for divisions of lengths. 1 meter divided by 2 meters is 0.5 as a number. But it is only 0.5 radians under (1ish) specific arrangements of those lengths in a particular metric space
    - jacobolus 3y ago
      The logarithmic base for an angle is something like "degrees", "radians" or "turns". This is analogous to the way a scalar logarithm can have a base of "octaves" (doublings), "decibels", or "powers of the golden ratio" (as found in the Zometool construction toy). Or pick your favorite other logarithmic system. Both are "units" in a certain sense, but neither one is quite the same kind of "unit" as light years or foot–pounds or amperes. > 1 meter divided by 2 meters is 0.5 as a number. But it is only 0.5 radians under (1ish) specific arrangements of those lengths in a particular metric space Just as 1 meter straight ahead divided by 2 meters straight ahead is the unitless scalar number 0.5, we can likewise treat angles (i.e. rotations) as ratios: 1 meter straight ahead divided by 1 meter to the right has the unitless bivector-valued ratio i, oriented like the ground you are standing on. You can multiply this bivector by some other coplanar vector to rotate it a quarter turn. For example, you can multiply it by the vector «3 inches due North» to get the new vector «3 inches due West»; notice how the units do not change because our bivector i is unitless.
      - Misdicorl 3y ago
        I understand your analogy, but I reject it's validity. Degrees/radians/turns map to meters/feet/angstrom. Decibels and octaves are true "number" multipliers. You could for instance talk about degrees in octaves or in dB if you like. It's just not particularly useful for the domain Edit: another example difference. I can't measure an octave or dB. I can measure a degree Edit2: we've reached reply limit but I concede you can measure a decibel. Point about dB degrees still stands though
- movpasd 3y ago
  Jeez, I've really kicked off quite the heated discussion in the replies... I don't want to get bogged down in lengthy arguments, but I feel I should explain my reasoning in more detail. Essentially, I think that whatever angles are, they are not like other dimensionful physical quantities. I have two arguments. The first: Someone mentioned symmetries in a reply. I wanted to mention them too but didn't have time to structure my thoughts into a coherent argument. But the gist of it is that dimensionality is just a kind of scale invariance, and the scale invariance of angles is fundamentally different from that of linear quantities due to their periodicity — to apply a unit transformation, you have to scale the quantity _and the period_. The second: Consider units from a "type theory" perspective instead. If you are considering exclusively linear trigonometry (no arcs), it's trivial to assign a dimensional type structure to expressions (e.g. cos takes angle type and maps it to dimensionless type). But as soon as you allow arc lengths, it becomes cumbersome to type common expressions. I think these distinctions form the crux of the disagreement. Ultimately, it depends on your intuitive notion of what "dimensionality" actually means, and how it ought generalise to other kinds of quantities. Here is an example to highlight my point. Let there be a circle C of centre O and radius r. Let A be a point on the circle. Let there be a point M outside the circle such that (AM) is tangent to C. Let B be the intersection of C and [OM]. Let s be the arc length along C from A to B. Then we want to write AM = r tan(s/r). How does one get s/r to resolve to an angular dimension? Ought we instead ascribe s dimensions of length-angle? Imagine, then, that the circle is in fact a pulley, and we wish to measure a change x in length of rope as the pulley rotates through the angle of the arc from A to B. We would want to write x = s. But this is now dimensionally inconsistent. It's certainly possible to make all these expressions correctly typed by introducting appropriate conversion constants. But this seems to me to be cumbersome. Since in physics, arc and linear lengths can convert freely into one another, it seems more economical to just let angles be dimensionless.
  - Misdicorl 3y ago
    The solution to your quandary is to realize the division operator is massively overloaded in your expression. What you actually want is to specify s and r as true line segments and define a new operator which takes two segments and outputs the angle between them. This operator happens to reduce to division of magnitudes in certain circumstances. Edit: in other words, you've encoded tons of information in the problem statement about the relationship between r and s and you aren't properly encoding that in your type system allowing s/r to output an angle
6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
Angles aren't dimensionless any more than lengths are dimensionless (feet per second makes just as much sense as rpm). It's just that angles have symmetries that lengths don't, which is where 2 pi comes in. Do you want units where your symmetries are expressed in multiples of 1, 2, or 2 pi (for turns, half-turns, and radians, respectively)?
- eigenket 3y ago
  Angles are absolutely more dimensionless than lengths are. For an easy check you can't add quantities where the dimension differs, which means it doesn't make sense to add a length to its cube. On the other hand it does make sense to add an angle to its cube - this is a necessary component of computing sin(angle) by the power series sin(angle) = angle - (angle^3)/6 + ...
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
    How can we compute angle - (angle^3)/6? 360 - (360^3)/6 = -7M degrees or is it this? 2*pi - (2 * pi)^3 / 6 = -35 radians = -2k degrees Or maybe this? 1 - (1^3)/6 = 0.8 turns = 300 degrees They're wildly inconsistent because I'm not taking the units into account and we have to take the units into account.
    - eigenket 3y ago
      Units are not the same as dimensions, something can have a dimension of 1 (which is what we usually mean by "dimensionless") and still have different units, just as something can have a dimension of length but still be measured in meters or feet. As far as you three examples go, which is "correct" depends on what you are trying to calculate - if you want this to approximate the power series for sin close to 0 you should use radians. Otherwise you use something else.
      - 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
        Sure, but that's orthogonal to the "angles don't really have units" assertion and the "it does make sense to add an angle to its cube" assertion, which are the ones I'm responding to. As another example for the second assertion, you can compute e(-t) via power series too, adding seconds to seconds squared and seconds cubed, etc, which comes up all the time. But that doesn't mean `dimensionless + seconds + seconds^2` implies seconds are dimensionless any more than sin's series with `angle + angle^3` implies that angles are dimensionless.
adrian_b 3y ago
The claim that plane angle, solid angle and logarithms are dimensionless quantities is a horrendous mistake and many generations of physicists have been brainwashed by being taught this aberration without ever stopping to think whether this claim can be proved. I will discuss only the plane angle, because it is the most important, but the situation is the same for solid angle and logarithms. The justification commonly given is that the plane angle is dimensionless because it is the ratio of two lengths, the length of the corresponding arc and the length of the radius. This justification is stupid, because that is not the definition of the plane angle, but it already includes the choice of a particular unit. As formulated. this justification only states the trivial truth that the numeric value of any physical quantity is the ratio between that quantity and its unit. By the same wrong justification, length is dimensionless, because it is the ratio between the measured length and the length of a ruler that is one meter long. Correct is to say that the plane angle is a physical quantity that has the property that the ratio between two plane angles is equal to the ratio between the lengths of the corresponding arcs. This is a property of the same nature like the property of voltage that the ratio of two voltages across a linear resistor is equal to the ratio of the electric currents passing through the resistor. This kind of properties are frequently used in the measurement of physical quantities, because few of them are measured directly but in most cases ratios of the quantities of interest are converted in ratios of quantities that are easier to measure. This property of the plane angle allows the measurement of plane angles, but only after an arbitrary unit is chosen for the plane angle. Because the choice of the unit is completely free, i.e. completely independent of the units chosen for the other physical quantities, the unit of plane angle is by definition a fundamental unit, not a derived unit. The freedom of choice for the unit of plane angle is amply demonstrated by the large number of units that have been used or are still used for plane angle, e.g. right angle (the unit used by Euclid), sexagesimal degree, centesimal degree, cycle a.k.a. turn, radian. The fundamental units of plane angle, solid angle and logarithms must never be omitted from the dimensional formulae of the quantities, otherwise serious mistakes are frequent & such mistakes have delayed the progress of physics with many years (e.g. due to confusions between angular momentum & action; the Planck constant is an angular momentum, not an action, as frequently but wrongly claimed). This is a problem especially for the unit of plane angle, which enters in the correct dimensional formulae of a great number of quantities, including some where this is not at all obvious (e.g. magnetic flux).

Misdicorl 3y ago

This is not true. Angles very much have units and it's why you can express the same concept with different numbers. Pi equals 180 degrees equals 0.5 turns. 1 radian has different units than 1 steradian and if they didn't there wouldn't be a need for two different words to denote them. The quantity is a ratio of two lengths, and the length measure does "drop out". But it's not just any ratio, it's a very particular ratio, and the unit defines the particularness of that ratio.

jrockway 3y ago
Yeah, units that algebraically reduce to 1 are always very interesting to me. Consider a chart showing how many CPU seconds you're consuming per second. The unit is seconds/second, which is equal to 1, but it is still a distinct concept from radians.
jacobolus 3y ago
The reason it is confusing is because an angle measure is a kind of logarithm of a rotation, and logarithms (sort of) have a unit: the base. The appropriate canonical representation of a rotation is a unit-magnitude complex number z = exp iθ = cos θ + i sin θ, which has a planar orientation (whatever plane i is taken to represent; if you want to represent a 3D rotation you can replace i with an arbitrary unit bivector) but is unitless. Such a rotation z can be thought of as the ratio of two vectors of the same magnitude: z = u / v satisfies zv = u, i.e. is the object by which you can multiply v on the left to obtain u. Whatever original units your vectors u and v had gets divided away. This is similar to the way the "ten" in "scale by ten" is unitless, but if you take the logarithm you get "scale by 10 decibels" or "go up by 3 octaves and 3.9 semitones", which have the base of the logarithm as a kind of unit.
- Misdicorl 3y ago
  I think I fundamentally disagree with you. Angles do not have a "base" any more than meters do (being embedded inside some metric space could be considered a base I suppose). But you seem to be drawing a distinction between meters and angles in your analogy where I assert none exists. The base of a number system only affects representations. This is not true for divisions of lengths. 1 meter divided by 2 meters is 0.5 as a number. But it is only 0.5 radians under (1ish) specific arrangements of those lengths in a particular metric space
  - jacobolus 3y ago
    The logarithmic base for an angle is something like "degrees", "radians" or "turns". This is analogous to the way a scalar logarithm can have a base of "octaves" (doublings), "decibels", or "powers of the golden ratio" (as found in the Zometool construction toy). Or pick your favorite other logarithmic system. Both are "units" in a certain sense, but neither one is quite the same kind of "unit" as light years or foot–pounds or amperes. > 1 meter divided by 2 meters is 0.5 as a number. But it is only 0.5 radians under (1ish) specific arrangements of those lengths in a particular metric space Just as 1 meter straight ahead divided by 2 meters straight ahead is the unitless scalar number 0.5, we can likewise treat angles (i.e. rotations) as ratios: 1 meter straight ahead divided by 1 meter to the right has the unitless bivector-valued ratio i, oriented like the ground you are standing on. You can multiply this bivector by some other coplanar vector to rotate it a quarter turn. For example, you can multiply it by the vector «3 inches due North» to get the new vector «3 inches due West»; notice how the units do not change because our bivector i is unitless.
    - Misdicorl 3y ago
      I understand your analogy, but I reject it's validity. Degrees/radians/turns map to meters/feet/angstrom. Decibels and octaves are true "number" multipliers. You could for instance talk about degrees in octaves or in dB if you like. It's just not particularly useful for the domain Edit: another example difference. I can't measure an octave or dB. I can measure a degree Edit2: we've reached reply limit but I concede you can measure a decibel. Point about dB degrees still stands though
movpasd 3y ago
Jeez, I've really kicked off quite the heated discussion in the replies... I don't want to get bogged down in lengthy arguments, but I feel I should explain my reasoning in more detail. Essentially, I think that whatever angles are, they are not like other dimensionful physical quantities. I have two arguments. The first: Someone mentioned symmetries in a reply. I wanted to mention them too but didn't have time to structure my thoughts into a coherent argument. But the gist of it is that dimensionality is just a kind of scale invariance, and the scale invariance of angles is fundamentally different from that of linear quantities due to their periodicity — to apply a unit transformation, you have to scale the quantity _and the period_. The second: Consider units from a "type theory" perspective instead. If you are considering exclusively linear trigonometry (no arcs), it's trivial to assign a dimensional type structure to expressions (e.g. cos takes angle type and maps it to dimensionless type). But as soon as you allow arc lengths, it becomes cumbersome to type common expressions. I think these distinctions form the crux of the disagreement. Ultimately, it depends on your intuitive notion of what "dimensionality" actually means, and how it ought generalise to other kinds of quantities. Here is an example to highlight my point. Let there be a circle C of centre O and radius r. Let A be a point on the circle. Let there be a point M outside the circle such that (AM) is tangent to C. Let B be the intersection of C and [OM]. Let s be the arc length along C from A to B. Then we want to write AM = r tan(s/r). How does one get s/r to resolve to an angular dimension? Ought we instead ascribe s dimensions of length-angle? Imagine, then, that the circle is in fact a pulley, and we wish to measure a change x in length of rope as the pulley rotates through the angle of the arc from A to B. We would want to write x = s. But this is now dimensionally inconsistent. It's certainly possible to make all these expressions correctly typed by introducting appropriate conversion constants. But this seems to me to be cumbersome. Since in physics, arc and linear lengths can convert freely into one another, it seems more economical to just let angles be dimensionless.
- Misdicorl 3y ago
  The solution to your quandary is to realize the division operator is massively overloaded in your expression. What you actually want is to specify s and r as true line segments and define a new operator which takes two segments and outputs the angle between them. This operator happens to reduce to division of magnitudes in certain circumstances. Edit: in other words, you've encoded tons of information in the problem statement about the relationship between r and s and you aren't properly encoding that in your type system allowing s/r to output an angle

6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago

Angles aren't dimensionless any more than lengths are dimensionless (feet per second makes just as much sense as rpm). It's just that angles have symmetries that lengths don't, which is where 2 pi comes in. Do you want units where your symmetries are expressed in multiples of 1, 2, or 2 pi (for turns, half-turns, and radians, respectively)?

eigenket 3y ago
Angles are absolutely more dimensionless than lengths are. For an easy check you can't add quantities where the dimension differs, which means it doesn't make sense to add a length to its cube. On the other hand it does make sense to add an angle to its cube - this is a necessary component of computing sin(angle) by the power series sin(angle) = angle - (angle^3)/6 + ...
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
  How can we compute angle - (angle^3)/6? 360 - (360^3)/6 = -7M degrees or is it this? 2*pi - (2 * pi)^3 / 6 = -35 radians = -2k degrees Or maybe this? 1 - (1^3)/6 = 0.8 turns = 300 degrees They're wildly inconsistent because I'm not taking the units into account and we have to take the units into account.
  - eigenket 3y ago
    Units are not the same as dimensions, something can have a dimension of 1 (which is what we usually mean by "dimensionless") and still have different units, just as something can have a dimension of length but still be measured in meters or feet. As far as you three examples go, which is "correct" depends on what you are trying to calculate - if you want this to approximate the power series for sin close to 0 you should use radians. Otherwise you use something else.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
      Sure, but that's orthogonal to the "angles don't really have units" assertion and the "it does make sense to add an angle to its cube" assertion, which are the ones I'm responding to. As another example for the second assertion, you can compute e(-t) via power series too, adding seconds to seconds squared and seconds cubed, etc, which comes up all the time. But that doesn't mean `dimensionless + seconds + seconds^2` implies seconds are dimensionless any more than sin's series with `angle + angle^3` implies that angles are dimensionless.

adrian_b 3y ago

The claim that plane angle, solid angle and logarithms are dimensionless quantities is a horrendous mistake and many generations of physicists have been brainwashed by being taught this aberration without ever stopping to think whether this claim can be proved. I will discuss only the plane angle, because it is the most important, but the situation is the same for solid angle and logarithms. The justification commonly given is that the plane angle is dimensionless because it is the ratio of two lengths, the length of the corresponding arc and the length of the radius. This justification is stupid, because that is not the definition of the plane angle, but it already includes the choice of a particular unit. As formulated. this justification only states the trivial truth that the numeric value of any physical quantity is the ratio between that quantity and its unit. By the same wrong justification, length is dimensionless, because it is the ratio between the measured length and the length of a ruler that is one meter long. Correct is to say that the plane angle is a physical quantity that has the property that the ratio between two plane angles is equal to the ratio between the lengths of the corresponding arcs. This is a property of the same nature like the property of voltage that the ratio of two voltages across a linear resistor is equal to the ratio of the electric currents passing through the resistor. This kind of properties are frequently used in the measurement of physical quantities, because few of them are measured directly but in most cases ratios of the quantities of interest are converted in ratios of quantities that are easier to measure. This property of the plane angle allows the measurement of plane angles, but only after an arbitrary unit is chosen for the plane angle. Because the choice of the unit is completely free, i.e. completely independent of the units chosen for the other physical quantities, the unit of plane angle is by definition a fundamental unit, not a derived unit. The freedom of choice for the unit of plane angle is amply demonstrated by the large number of units that have been used or are still used for plane angle, e.g. right angle (the unit used by Euclid), sexagesimal degree, centesimal degree, cycle a.k.a. turn, radian. The fundamental units of plane angle, solid angle and logarithms must never be omitted from the dimensional formulae of the quantities, otherwise serious mistakes are frequent & such mistakes have delayed the progress of physics with many years (e.g. due to confusions between angular momentum & action; the Planck constant is an angular momentum, not an action, as frequently but wrongly claimed). This is a problem especially for the unit of plane angle, which enters in the correct dimensional formulae of a great number of quantities, including some where this is not at all obvious (e.g. magnetic flux).