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?
acceleration units angular-velocity
New contributor
add a comment |
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?
acceleration units angular-velocity
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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?
acceleration units angular-velocity
New contributor
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
acceleration units angular-velocity
New contributor
New contributor
edited yesterday
Ruslan
8,48342868
8,48342868
New contributor
asked yesterday
Raymo111
1397
1397
New contributor
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
4
Yes, but my question was aboutwhy
they were the same, notif
they were the same.
– Raymo111
yesterday
add a comment |
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 $[alpha] = left[frac{d^2theta}{dt^2}right] = frac{1}{T^2}$.
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Ruslan
8,48342868
8,48342868
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered yesterday
David White
3,8731519
3,8731519
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
4
Yes, but my question was aboutwhy
they were the same, notif
they were the same.
– Raymo111
yesterday
add a comment |
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.
4
Yes, but my question was aboutwhy
they were the same, notif
they were the same.
– Raymo111
yesterday
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Run like hell
889521
889521
4
Yes, but my question was aboutwhy
they were the same, notif
they were the same.
– Raymo111
yesterday
add a comment |
4
Yes, but my question was aboutwhy
they were the same, notif
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
add a comment |
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 $[alpha] = left[frac{d^2theta}{dt^2}right] = frac{1}{T^2}$.
add a comment |
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 $[alpha] = left[frac{d^2theta}{dt^2}right] = frac{1}{T^2}$.
add a comment |
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 $[alpha] = left[frac{d^2theta}{dt^2}right] = frac{1}{T^2}$.
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 $[alpha] = left[frac{d^2theta}{dt^2}right] = frac{1}{T^2}$.
answered yesterday
zahbaz
382316
382316
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
add a comment |
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.
New contributor
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.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 16 hours ago
geoff22873
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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.
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%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
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
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