14
$\begingroup$

Torque and energy have the same dimensionality, and so logically are measured in the same units (joules). However, it seems more natural to call the unit for the former a “newton-metre”, because torque does not feel like a form of energy, even though this elaborately described unit means no more or less than a joule.

I could not think of another example of two quantities physically quite different in character that would be measured in the same units, but I expect that there are others. Any examples, please?

$\endgroup$

closed as too broad by Kyle Kanos, John Rennie, Qmechanic Oct 18 at 16:49

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 15
    $\begingroup$ While it is not discussed in the introductory class, there is another distinction between quantities which is just as fundamental as dimensions. Torque and enegy have different tensor character (energy is a saclar and torque is a pseudo-vector), so you should not think of them as being equivalent and should not conflate their units. A "joule" shold be understood as a scalar Newton-meter, while the un-named unit of torque is a pseudo-vector Newton-meter and these are different things. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Oct 17 at 16:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @dmckee That is a extremely useful comment. I had never thought about it that way. Is there a way to indicate the tensor character of a given unit? $\endgroup$ – S V Oct 17 at 17:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SV I've never seen a notation for stating tensor character explcitly. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Oct 17 at 18:01
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ There isn't really any such thing as scalar torque. The simplified version of torque that is used to introduce the notion is the same as the real thing (and thus a pseudo-vector), it just has it's direction implicit rather than explicit (and it's limited to cases with constant direction because of that). But most students taking the introductory course aren't yet ready to understand what "tensor character" means, so the whole thing is let pass without comment. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Oct 17 at 20:09
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ If you multiple a torque by an angle, you get energy. So the fact that torque and energy have same units is closely related to the fact that we can measure angles by unitless quantities. So, if torque and energy are a valid answer, then so is also any two quantities that are related to each other by an angle. $\endgroup$ – JiK Oct 18 at 9:03
12
$\begingroup$

Angular momentum and action have the same dimensions, and Planck’s constant quantizes both.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Interestingly (in light of dmckee's comment on the question) this is another example where the quantities have the same unit-dimensions but different tensor dimensions (pseudo-vector for angular momentum and (I think?) scalar for action). $\endgroup$ – Dast Oct 18 at 11:06
  • $\begingroup$ Thinking of "action" more generally as generalizedMomentum*generalizedDisplacement, then AngularMomentum has units of "action/radian". $\endgroup$ – robphy Oct 18 at 15:16
4
$\begingroup$

A few other examples:

Kinematic Viscosity and Diffusion Coefficients both have dimensions of Length$^2$/Time.

Pressure-driven Permeability has dimensions of Length$^2$, the same as area.

There are undoubtedly many more, and I don't think there's any deep underlying message.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Kinematic Viscosity is just a measure of the diffusion of momentum, so I think that's not an example of unrelated quantities. $\endgroup$ – Rick Oct 18 at 13:34
  • $\begingroup$ Energy-density has the same dimension as pressure, and that does have an "underlying message" insofar as I dropped my jaw when finally understanding how solar wind can push, or how the Bernoulli effect becomes evident $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen Oct 18 at 16:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Rick : True, they're not totally unrelated. However, thermal diffusivity also has dimensions of Length^2/Time, and isn't a measure of momentum flow. There isn't anything to necessarily conclude or not conclude from equivalences of dimensions. $\endgroup$ – Raghu Parthasarathy Oct 19 at 3:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Hagen von Eitzen : That's a good example. But I'm not saying that there is never any deep connection, just that in general there need not be. $\endgroup$ – Raghu Parthasarathy Oct 19 at 3:29
4
$\begingroup$

Some other examples include specific heat and specific entropy (J/(K*kg)), angular speed and frequency (or for example specific growth rate) (1/s), and concentration and density (kg/m^3).

Not so coincidentally all of these physical quantities with the same units are closely related to each other and can be converted into the other by the means of some numerical factor or factor with dimensions that cancel out. For example converting from torque to work requires multiple by the angular displacement which has units of m_arclength/m_radius.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The pair of frequency (Hertz) and radioactivity (Becquerel) might fit your requirements. While the former describes a periodic phenomenon, with equal time between events, the latter describes a statistical process, mainly in radioactive decay. Both units translate to one per second.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Time and Specific Impulse are both measured in seconds.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

There are several unitless quantities:

$\endgroup$

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