Why are the units of angular acceleration the same as that of angular velocity squared?











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












According to this answer, the units for angular velocity squared are $mathrm{rad}/s^2$. The units for angular acceleration are also $mathrm{rad}/s^2$. Why is this the case?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Raymo111 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 4




    Please edit your question to match the details of that answer, which says that dimensionally, both quantities are taken as $1/s^2$. It does not say that the units of angular velocity squared are $mathrm{rad}/s^2$ (they would be $(mathrm{rad}/s)^2$).
    – Chemomechanics
    yesterday












  • Units don't tell you much. There are hundreds of interesting physical quantities out there and only $3$ independent fundamental units, so of course sometimes units will match.
    – knzhou
    yesterday










  • Something I found helpful but is not often taught: In math, we do not need a unit for "radians" because it is just defined by a ratio of length. Thus mathematically, radians must be dimensionless. However, in practical physics and engineering situations, retaining a "rad" unit, even though you didn't need it, turns out to be helpful for catching errors. Most of the time radians have to cancel, or be passed to a sin/cos/tan function.
    – Cort Ammon
    yesterday










  • In the few times where it doesn't, such as the small angle approximation $sin(theta) approx theta$, its nice to have a reminder that you're doing something interesting that's worth taking a second look at to make sure it's legitimate.
    – Cort Ammon
    yesterday

















up vote
6
down vote

favorite












According to this answer, the units for angular velocity squared are $mathrm{rad}/s^2$. The units for angular acceleration are also $mathrm{rad}/s^2$. Why is this the case?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Raymo111 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 4




    Please edit your question to match the details of that answer, which says that dimensionally, both quantities are taken as $1/s^2$. It does not say that the units of angular velocity squared are $mathrm{rad}/s^2$ (they would be $(mathrm{rad}/s)^2$).
    – Chemomechanics
    yesterday












  • Units don't tell you much. There are hundreds of interesting physical quantities out there and only $3$ independent fundamental units, so of course sometimes units will match.
    – knzhou
    yesterday










  • Something I found helpful but is not often taught: In math, we do not need a unit for "radians" because it is just defined by a ratio of length. Thus mathematically, radians must be dimensionless. However, in practical physics and engineering situations, retaining a "rad" unit, even though you didn't need it, turns out to be helpful for catching errors. Most of the time radians have to cancel, or be passed to a sin/cos/tan function.
    – Cort Ammon
    yesterday










  • In the few times where it doesn't, such as the small angle approximation $sin(theta) approx theta$, its nice to have a reminder that you're doing something interesting that's worth taking a second look at to make sure it's legitimate.
    – Cort Ammon
    yesterday















up vote
6
down vote

favorite









up vote
6
down vote

favorite











According to this answer, the units for angular velocity squared are $mathrm{rad}/s^2$. The units for angular acceleration are also $mathrm{rad}/s^2$. Why is this the case?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Raymo111 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











According to this answer, the units for angular velocity squared are $mathrm{rad}/s^2$. The units for angular acceleration are also $mathrm{rad}/s^2$. Why is this the case?







acceleration units angular-velocity






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Raymo111 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Raymo111 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday









Ruslan

8,48342868




8,48342868






New contributor




Raymo111 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked yesterday









Raymo111

1397




1397




New contributor




Raymo111 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Raymo111 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Raymo111 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 4




    Please edit your question to match the details of that answer, which says that dimensionally, both quantities are taken as $1/s^2$. It does not say that the units of angular velocity squared are $mathrm{rad}/s^2$ (they would be $(mathrm{rad}/s)^2$).
    – Chemomechanics
    yesterday












  • Units don't tell you much. There are hundreds of interesting physical quantities out there and only $3$ independent fundamental units, so of course sometimes units will match.
    – knzhou
    yesterday










  • Something I found helpful but is not often taught: In math, we do not need a unit for "radians" because it is just defined by a ratio of length. Thus mathematically, radians must be dimensionless. However, in practical physics and engineering situations, retaining a "rad" unit, even though you didn't need it, turns out to be helpful for catching errors. Most of the time radians have to cancel, or be passed to a sin/cos/tan function.
    – Cort Ammon
    yesterday










  • In the few times where it doesn't, such as the small angle approximation $sin(theta) approx theta$, its nice to have a reminder that you're doing something interesting that's worth taking a second look at to make sure it's legitimate.
    – Cort Ammon
    yesterday
















  • 4




    Please edit your question to match the details of that answer, which says that dimensionally, both quantities are taken as $1/s^2$. It does not say that the units of angular velocity squared are $mathrm{rad}/s^2$ (they would be $(mathrm{rad}/s)^2$).
    – Chemomechanics
    yesterday












  • Units don't tell you much. There are hundreds of interesting physical quantities out there and only $3$ independent fundamental units, so of course sometimes units will match.
    – knzhou
    yesterday










  • Something I found helpful but is not often taught: In math, we do not need a unit for "radians" because it is just defined by a ratio of length. Thus mathematically, radians must be dimensionless. However, in practical physics and engineering situations, retaining a "rad" unit, even though you didn't need it, turns out to be helpful for catching errors. Most of the time radians have to cancel, or be passed to a sin/cos/tan function.
    – Cort Ammon
    yesterday










  • In the few times where it doesn't, such as the small angle approximation $sin(theta) approx theta$, its nice to have a reminder that you're doing something interesting that's worth taking a second look at to make sure it's legitimate.
    – Cort Ammon
    yesterday










4




4




Please edit your question to match the details of that answer, which says that dimensionally, both quantities are taken as $1/s^2$. It does not say that the units of angular velocity squared are $mathrm{rad}/s^2$ (they would be $(mathrm{rad}/s)^2$).
– Chemomechanics
yesterday






Please edit your question to match the details of that answer, which says that dimensionally, both quantities are taken as $1/s^2$. It does not say that the units of angular velocity squared are $mathrm{rad}/s^2$ (they would be $(mathrm{rad}/s)^2$).
– Chemomechanics
yesterday














Units don't tell you much. There are hundreds of interesting physical quantities out there and only $3$ independent fundamental units, so of course sometimes units will match.
– knzhou
yesterday




Units don't tell you much. There are hundreds of interesting physical quantities out there and only $3$ independent fundamental units, so of course sometimes units will match.
– knzhou
yesterday












Something I found helpful but is not often taught: In math, we do not need a unit for "radians" because it is just defined by a ratio of length. Thus mathematically, radians must be dimensionless. However, in practical physics and engineering situations, retaining a "rad" unit, even though you didn't need it, turns out to be helpful for catching errors. Most of the time radians have to cancel, or be passed to a sin/cos/tan function.
– Cort Ammon
yesterday




Something I found helpful but is not often taught: In math, we do not need a unit for "radians" because it is just defined by a ratio of length. Thus mathematically, radians must be dimensionless. However, in practical physics and engineering situations, retaining a "rad" unit, even though you didn't need it, turns out to be helpful for catching errors. Most of the time radians have to cancel, or be passed to a sin/cos/tan function.
– Cort Ammon
yesterday












In the few times where it doesn't, such as the small angle approximation $sin(theta) approx theta$, its nice to have a reminder that you're doing something interesting that's worth taking a second look at to make sure it's legitimate.
– Cort Ammon
yesterday






In the few times where it doesn't, such as the small angle approximation $sin(theta) approx theta$, its nice to have a reminder that you're doing something interesting that's worth taking a second look at to make sure it's legitimate.
– Cort Ammon
yesterday












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
19
down vote



accepted










They have the same units of $mathrm s^{-2}$ only if you don't use $mathrm{rad}$ unit for bookkeeping (which you can indeed avoid because radians are technically dimensionless, similarly to turns and other auxiliary units).
But if you do try to distinguish angles from dimensionless numbers, then they are not the same: the unit of angular acceleration is $mathrm{rad}/mathrm s^2$, and that of square of angular velocity is $mathrm{rad}^2/mathrm s^2$.



If radian is dimensionless, why do we not "simplify" $mathrm{rad}^2$ to $mathrm{rad}$? For the same reason as why we introduced $mathrm{rad}$ in the first place: it's not required to use this symbol, but it does help us remember that we have an angle somewhere. Similarly, if we square it, we must use $mathrm{rad}^2$ because now we have a square of that angle. But as the unit is dimensionless, it's technically not necessary. It's simply for convenience. We could invent a bunch of other dimensionless units to aid us in bookkeeping, but once we've done it, we must keep their correct powers, otherwise these units are simply useless.






share|cite|improve this answer






























    up vote
    3
    down vote













    By definition, angular velocity is defined as the rate of change of angle with respect to time, leading to the equation $omega = Delta theta / Delta t$. From dimensional analysis, this yields units of radians/s. Also by definition, angular acceleration is defined as the rate of change of angular velocity with respect to time, leading to the equation $alpha = Delta omega / Delta t$. From dimensional analysis, $Delta omega$ has units of rad/s, so the units of $alpha$ are $rad/s * 1/s$, leading to final units of $rad/s^2$.



    Note that directly comparing units of $omega ^2$ to units of $alpha$ with no physical basis for doing so, doesn't make sense from a physics standpoint.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      They have the same dimensions because radians are adimensional. The only physical dimension is time so when you square it you get a $time^{-2}$ and when you derive you get the same.






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 4




        Yes, but my question was about why they were the same, not if they were the same.
        – Raymo111
        yesterday


















      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Radians are dimensionless. You can safely set $text{rad}to 1$. Using $[x]$ to mean "the units of $x$, we find:



      The units of angular velocity $[omega] = left[frac{dtheta}{dt}right]= frac{1}{T}$ where $T$ is time. Then $[omega^2] = frac{1}{T^2}$.



      The units of angular acceleration $[alpha] = left[frac{d^2theta}{dt^2}right] = frac{1}{T^2}$.






      share|cite|improve this answer




























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        Your question is a bit like why does my decimal representation of 1/3 never terminate? It's because we have chosen base 10 and if we choose a different base (e.g. 9) we can make 1/3 terminate (e.g. 0.3).



        Units are just comparing a quantity to a reference quantity chosen by convention. I could use seconds as a distance measurement, where it was understood that the reference distance was how far light travels in a second. In that case distance and time have the same units and distance becomes dimensionless akin to refractive index.



        We choose units to keep track of what references we have used, hence the use of rad even when it is dimensionless, and also why we use metres instead of seconds for distance. Units are much more conventional than we often take them to be. Look at the rash of unit systems used in electro-magnetism.






        share|cite|improve this answer








        New contributor




        geoff22873 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.


















          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          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',
          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/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 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
          });


          }
          });






          Raymo111 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f445324%2fwhy-are-the-units-of-angular-acceleration-the-same-as-that-of-angular-velocity-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          19
          down vote



          accepted










          They have the same units of $mathrm s^{-2}$ only if you don't use $mathrm{rad}$ unit for bookkeeping (which you can indeed avoid because radians are technically dimensionless, similarly to turns and other auxiliary units).
          But if you do try to distinguish angles from dimensionless numbers, then they are not the same: the unit of angular acceleration is $mathrm{rad}/mathrm s^2$, and that of square of angular velocity is $mathrm{rad}^2/mathrm s^2$.



          If radian is dimensionless, why do we not "simplify" $mathrm{rad}^2$ to $mathrm{rad}$? For the same reason as why we introduced $mathrm{rad}$ in the first place: it's not required to use this symbol, but it does help us remember that we have an angle somewhere. Similarly, if we square it, we must use $mathrm{rad}^2$ because now we have a square of that angle. But as the unit is dimensionless, it's technically not necessary. It's simply for convenience. We could invent a bunch of other dimensionless units to aid us in bookkeeping, but once we've done it, we must keep their correct powers, otherwise these units are simply useless.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            19
            down vote



            accepted










            They have the same units of $mathrm s^{-2}$ only if you don't use $mathrm{rad}$ unit for bookkeeping (which you can indeed avoid because radians are technically dimensionless, similarly to turns and other auxiliary units).
            But if you do try to distinguish angles from dimensionless numbers, then they are not the same: the unit of angular acceleration is $mathrm{rad}/mathrm s^2$, and that of square of angular velocity is $mathrm{rad}^2/mathrm s^2$.



            If radian is dimensionless, why do we not "simplify" $mathrm{rad}^2$ to $mathrm{rad}$? For the same reason as why we introduced $mathrm{rad}$ in the first place: it's not required to use this symbol, but it does help us remember that we have an angle somewhere. Similarly, if we square it, we must use $mathrm{rad}^2$ because now we have a square of that angle. But as the unit is dimensionless, it's technically not necessary. It's simply for convenience. We could invent a bunch of other dimensionless units to aid us in bookkeeping, but once we've done it, we must keep their correct powers, otherwise these units are simply useless.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              19
              down vote



              accepted







              up vote
              19
              down vote



              accepted






              They have the same units of $mathrm s^{-2}$ only if you don't use $mathrm{rad}$ unit for bookkeeping (which you can indeed avoid because radians are technically dimensionless, similarly to turns and other auxiliary units).
              But if you do try to distinguish angles from dimensionless numbers, then they are not the same: the unit of angular acceleration is $mathrm{rad}/mathrm s^2$, and that of square of angular velocity is $mathrm{rad}^2/mathrm s^2$.



              If radian is dimensionless, why do we not "simplify" $mathrm{rad}^2$ to $mathrm{rad}$? For the same reason as why we introduced $mathrm{rad}$ in the first place: it's not required to use this symbol, but it does help us remember that we have an angle somewhere. Similarly, if we square it, we must use $mathrm{rad}^2$ because now we have a square of that angle. But as the unit is dimensionless, it's technically not necessary. It's simply for convenience. We could invent a bunch of other dimensionless units to aid us in bookkeeping, but once we've done it, we must keep their correct powers, otherwise these units are simply useless.






              share|cite|improve this answer














              They have the same units of $mathrm s^{-2}$ only if you don't use $mathrm{rad}$ unit for bookkeeping (which you can indeed avoid because radians are technically dimensionless, similarly to turns and other auxiliary units).
              But if you do try to distinguish angles from dimensionless numbers, then they are not the same: the unit of angular acceleration is $mathrm{rad}/mathrm s^2$, and that of square of angular velocity is $mathrm{rad}^2/mathrm s^2$.



              If radian is dimensionless, why do we not "simplify" $mathrm{rad}^2$ to $mathrm{rad}$? For the same reason as why we introduced $mathrm{rad}$ in the first place: it's not required to use this symbol, but it does help us remember that we have an angle somewhere. Similarly, if we square it, we must use $mathrm{rad}^2$ because now we have a square of that angle. But as the unit is dimensionless, it's technically not necessary. It's simply for convenience. We could invent a bunch of other dimensionless units to aid us in bookkeeping, but once we've done it, we must keep their correct powers, otherwise these units are simply useless.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited yesterday

























              answered yesterday









              Ruslan

              8,48342868




              8,48342868






















                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote













                  By definition, angular velocity is defined as the rate of change of angle with respect to time, leading to the equation $omega = Delta theta / Delta t$. From dimensional analysis, this yields units of radians/s. Also by definition, angular acceleration is defined as the rate of change of angular velocity with respect to time, leading to the equation $alpha = Delta omega / Delta t$. From dimensional analysis, $Delta omega$ has units of rad/s, so the units of $alpha$ are $rad/s * 1/s$, leading to final units of $rad/s^2$.



                  Note that directly comparing units of $omega ^2$ to units of $alpha$ with no physical basis for doing so, doesn't make sense from a physics standpoint.






                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                    up vote
                    3
                    down vote













                    By definition, angular velocity is defined as the rate of change of angle with respect to time, leading to the equation $omega = Delta theta / Delta t$. From dimensional analysis, this yields units of radians/s. Also by definition, angular acceleration is defined as the rate of change of angular velocity with respect to time, leading to the equation $alpha = Delta omega / Delta t$. From dimensional analysis, $Delta omega$ has units of rad/s, so the units of $alpha$ are $rad/s * 1/s$, leading to final units of $rad/s^2$.



                    Note that directly comparing units of $omega ^2$ to units of $alpha$ with no physical basis for doing so, doesn't make sense from a physics standpoint.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote









                      By definition, angular velocity is defined as the rate of change of angle with respect to time, leading to the equation $omega = Delta theta / Delta t$. From dimensional analysis, this yields units of radians/s. Also by definition, angular acceleration is defined as the rate of change of angular velocity with respect to time, leading to the equation $alpha = Delta omega / Delta t$. From dimensional analysis, $Delta omega$ has units of rad/s, so the units of $alpha$ are $rad/s * 1/s$, leading to final units of $rad/s^2$.



                      Note that directly comparing units of $omega ^2$ to units of $alpha$ with no physical basis for doing so, doesn't make sense from a physics standpoint.






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      By definition, angular velocity is defined as the rate of change of angle with respect to time, leading to the equation $omega = Delta theta / Delta t$. From dimensional analysis, this yields units of radians/s. Also by definition, angular acceleration is defined as the rate of change of angular velocity with respect to time, leading to the equation $alpha = Delta omega / Delta t$. From dimensional analysis, $Delta omega$ has units of rad/s, so the units of $alpha$ are $rad/s * 1/s$, leading to final units of $rad/s^2$.



                      Note that directly comparing units of $omega ^2$ to units of $alpha$ with no physical basis for doing so, doesn't make sense from a physics standpoint.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered yesterday









                      David White

                      3,8731519




                      3,8731519






















                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          They have the same dimensions because radians are adimensional. The only physical dimension is time so when you square it you get a $time^{-2}$ and when you derive you get the same.






                          share|cite|improve this answer



















                          • 4




                            Yes, but my question was about why they were the same, not if they were the same.
                            – Raymo111
                            yesterday















                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          They have the same dimensions because radians are adimensional. The only physical dimension is time so when you square it you get a $time^{-2}$ and when you derive you get the same.






                          share|cite|improve this answer



















                          • 4




                            Yes, but my question was about why they were the same, not if they were the same.
                            – Raymo111
                            yesterday













                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote









                          They have the same dimensions because radians are adimensional. The only physical dimension is time so when you square it you get a $time^{-2}$ and when you derive you get the same.






                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          They have the same dimensions because radians are adimensional. The only physical dimension is time so when you square it you get a $time^{-2}$ and when you derive you get the same.







                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          edited yesterday

























                          answered yesterday









                          Run like hell

                          889521




                          889521








                          • 4




                            Yes, but my question was about why they were the same, not if they were the same.
                            – Raymo111
                            yesterday














                          • 4




                            Yes, but my question was about why they were the same, not if they were the same.
                            – Raymo111
                            yesterday








                          4




                          4




                          Yes, but my question was about why they were the same, not if they were the same.
                          – Raymo111
                          yesterday




                          Yes, but my question was about why they were the same, not if they were the same.
                          – Raymo111
                          yesterday










                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          Radians are dimensionless. You can safely set $text{rad}to 1$. Using $[x]$ to mean "the units of $x$, we find:



                          The units of angular velocity $[omega] = left[frac{dtheta}{dt}right]= frac{1}{T}$ where $T$ is time. Then $[omega^2] = frac{1}{T^2}$.



                          The units of angular acceleration $[alpha] = left[frac{d^2theta}{dt^2}right] = frac{1}{T^2}$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer

























                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote













                            Radians are dimensionless. You can safely set $text{rad}to 1$. Using $[x]$ to mean "the units of $x$, we find:



                            The units of angular velocity $[omega] = left[frac{dtheta}{dt}right]= frac{1}{T}$ where $T$ is time. Then $[omega^2] = frac{1}{T^2}$.



                            The units of angular acceleration $[alpha] = left[frac{d^2theta}{dt^2}right] = frac{1}{T^2}$.






                            share|cite|improve this answer























                              up vote
                              0
                              down vote










                              up vote
                              0
                              down vote









                              Radians are dimensionless. You can safely set $text{rad}to 1$. Using $[x]$ to mean "the units of $x$, we find:



                              The units of angular velocity $[omega] = left[frac{dtheta}{dt}right]= frac{1}{T}$ where $T$ is time. Then $[omega^2] = frac{1}{T^2}$.



                              The units of angular acceleration $[alpha] = left[frac{d^2theta}{dt^2}right] = frac{1}{T^2}$.






                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              Radians are dimensionless. You can safely set $text{rad}to 1$. Using $[x]$ to mean "the units of $x$, we find:



                              The units of angular velocity $[omega] = left[frac{dtheta}{dt}right]= frac{1}{T}$ where $T$ is time. Then $[omega^2] = frac{1}{T^2}$.



                              The units of angular acceleration $[alpha] = left[frac{d^2theta}{dt^2}right] = frac{1}{T^2}$.







                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer










                              answered yesterday









                              zahbaz

                              382316




                              382316






















                                  up vote
                                  0
                                  down vote













                                  Your question is a bit like why does my decimal representation of 1/3 never terminate? It's because we have chosen base 10 and if we choose a different base (e.g. 9) we can make 1/3 terminate (e.g. 0.3).



                                  Units are just comparing a quantity to a reference quantity chosen by convention. I could use seconds as a distance measurement, where it was understood that the reference distance was how far light travels in a second. In that case distance and time have the same units and distance becomes dimensionless akin to refractive index.



                                  We choose units to keep track of what references we have used, hence the use of rad even when it is dimensionless, and also why we use metres instead of seconds for distance. Units are much more conventional than we often take them to be. Look at the rash of unit systems used in electro-magnetism.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer








                                  New contributor




                                  geoff22873 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                                    up vote
                                    0
                                    down vote













                                    Your question is a bit like why does my decimal representation of 1/3 never terminate? It's because we have chosen base 10 and if we choose a different base (e.g. 9) we can make 1/3 terminate (e.g. 0.3).



                                    Units are just comparing a quantity to a reference quantity chosen by convention. I could use seconds as a distance measurement, where it was understood that the reference distance was how far light travels in a second. In that case distance and time have the same units and distance becomes dimensionless akin to refractive index.



                                    We choose units to keep track of what references we have used, hence the use of rad even when it is dimensionless, and also why we use metres instead of seconds for distance. Units are much more conventional than we often take them to be. Look at the rash of unit systems used in electro-magnetism.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    geoff22873 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote










                                      up vote
                                      0
                                      down vote









                                      Your question is a bit like why does my decimal representation of 1/3 never terminate? It's because we have chosen base 10 and if we choose a different base (e.g. 9) we can make 1/3 terminate (e.g. 0.3).



                                      Units are just comparing a quantity to a reference quantity chosen by convention. I could use seconds as a distance measurement, where it was understood that the reference distance was how far light travels in a second. In that case distance and time have the same units and distance becomes dimensionless akin to refractive index.



                                      We choose units to keep track of what references we have used, hence the use of rad even when it is dimensionless, and also why we use metres instead of seconds for distance. Units are much more conventional than we often take them to be. Look at the rash of unit systems used in electro-magnetism.






                                      share|cite|improve this answer








                                      New contributor




                                      geoff22873 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      Your question is a bit like why does my decimal representation of 1/3 never terminate? It's because we have chosen base 10 and if we choose a different base (e.g. 9) we can make 1/3 terminate (e.g. 0.3).



                                      Units are just comparing a quantity to a reference quantity chosen by convention. I could use seconds as a distance measurement, where it was understood that the reference distance was how far light travels in a second. In that case distance and time have the same units and distance becomes dimensionless akin to refractive index.



                                      We choose units to keep track of what references we have used, hence the use of rad even when it is dimensionless, and also why we use metres instead of seconds for distance. Units are much more conventional than we often take them to be. Look at the rash of unit systems used in electro-magnetism.







                                      share|cite|improve this answer








                                      New contributor




                                      geoff22873 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer






                                      New contributor




                                      geoff22873 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      answered 16 hours ago









                                      geoff22873

                                      1




                                      1




                                      New contributor




                                      geoff22873 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                      New contributor





                                      geoff22873 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                      geoff22873 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                                          Raymo111 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded


















                                          Raymo111 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                          Raymo111 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                          Raymo111 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                          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.





                                          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                          • 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.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f445324%2fwhy-are-the-units-of-angular-acceleration-the-same-as-that-of-angular-velocity-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          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







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Morgemoulin

                                          Scott Moir

                                          Souastre