13
$\begingroup$

I have a unit measure, say, seconds, $s$. Furthermore let's say I have a dimensionful quantity $r$ that is measure in seconds, $s$. What is the unit measure of $e^r$? ($1/r$ is in $Hz$.)

My question is general, how to find the unit measure of a transformation function $y=f(x)$ where $x$ takes some known unit measure. I give above two functions $f(\cdot)=e^\cdot$ and $f(.)=1/\cdot$.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Unless $r(s)$ is unitless, $e^r$ doesn't make much sense (see, for example, its definition in terms of the power series) $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Apr 25 '14 at 15:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jika: As Kyle mentioned, in physics it is impossible to have something of the form $e^r$, unless $r$ is unitless. If obtain something of the form $e^r$ where $r$ is not unitless, that means you made a mistake somewhere. Try to check your math for errors. $\endgroup$ – DumpsterDoofus Apr 25 '14 at 15:46
23
$\begingroup$

The only sensible rule when working with units is, that you can only add together terms which carry the same unit. Say $ [x]=[y] $, then $x+y$ is unit-wise a valid statement. You may also multiply arbitrary units together. Whether that is physically sensible is another question. Obviously you cannot add, e.g meters and seconds, but multiplying to form $m/s$ as a unit for velocity is a valid operation.

From that follows, that the argument of the exponential must not carry a unit, because the exponential is defined as a power series. $$ e^x =\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n!}$$ If $x$ were to carry a unit, say meters, one would add (schematically) $m+m^2+m^3+\cdots$, which is nonsenical.

If you encounter an exponential, a sine/cosine, logarithm,... in physics you will find almost always that its argument, which must be dimensionless, is a product of often two conjugate variables. Examples are time and frequency, or distance and momentum.

$\endgroup$
  • 18
    $\begingroup$ People do sometimes write things like $\log E$ and so on, with $E$ being a quantity with units, but that's understood to be a shorthand for $\log\frac{E}{E_0}$ for some reference value $E_0$ whose value is irrelevant. (And as far as I'm concerned, it's generally better to write out $\log\frac{E}{E_0}$ explicitly.) $\endgroup$ – David Z Apr 25 '14 at 16:42
  • $\begingroup$ I would say always, not almost always, although it might not be readily apparent. You might have $(e^r)^k$, where $k$ has units of inverse meters. With logs you might have $(\ln{r} - \ln{k})$. An author might choose to drop the second term if it is of no consequence, but that only serves to add to the confusion. $\endgroup$ – garyp Apr 25 '14 at 16:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Another common notation (especially in axis labels) is something like $\log(d/\mathrm{m})$ (in this case the $E_0$ David Z mentions is just "one metre"), or $\log(v/c)$ (the "$E_0$" is a dimensional constant with the same dimensions as the quantity of interest). $\endgroup$ – Kyle Oman Apr 25 '14 at 20:13
10
$\begingroup$

See "what's the logarithm of a kilometer" for a discussion about that. As David Z also said in the comment here, using the logarithm of a dimensionful quantity is actually quite reasonable.

This is not true for the exponential. The power series definition "proves" that, however the same argument would also work for the logarithm. Personally I don't like treating the Taylor series as anything more than a useful calculation tool. The "more fundamental" (of course there's no such metric) definition is as a solution to the differential equation $\tfrac{\mathrm{d}\exp}{\mathrm{d}x} = \exp(x)$. Which tells you right away $$ \tfrac{[\exp]}{[x]} = [\exp] \qquad \Rightarrow\quad [x] = 1. $$ Note that this does not come out when using the analogous definition of the logarithm: $$ \frac{\mathrm{d} \ln}{\mathrm{d}x} = \frac{1}{x} \qquad \Rightarrow \quad \tfrac{[\ln]}{[x]} = \tfrac{1}{[x]} \qquad \Rightarrow \quad [x] =\:? $$ Of course, both equations only define the functions up to gauge of an initial value. For $\ln(1) = 0$ to make sense, you certainly need the argument to be dimensionless. But as long as you only consider differences between logarithms, the gauge cancels anyway!

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Consider:

Conc = 100 mg/mL

Log10( Conc ) = 2

What if I express Conc as mg/dL? Then Conc2 = 1 mg/dL (note that this is the same, just different units with a different quantity):

Log10( Conc2 ) = 0.

Log10( Conc ) ne Log10( Conc2 ) and we have an issue, unless we retain units. Why wouldn't log10 mg/mL be any less reasonable than mg/mL?

Second, consider this argument from the internet: to take the logarithm, the quantity must be dimensionless, thus divide by the unit (under what justification?):

Log10( 10 km / 1 km )

The issue is:

Log10( 10 km / 1 km ) = Log10( 10 km ) - Log10( 1 km )

-Kevin

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "consider this argument from the internet"? Source would be helpful. $\endgroup$ – tusky_mcmammoth Jul 2 '17 at 15:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.