You don't always have to change units

When we start learning physics in school, I think we're usually told to convert all quantities into SI base units (metres, kilograms and so forth).  This isn't bad advice as it can certainly prevent some problems.  But it's not always optimal.  And at some point, when we delve more deeply into a particular branch of physics, we will need to become comfortable with somewhat "niche" units.

A simple example of sticking to non-base units is the measurement of density.  Suppose I am given a small cuboid of some material and asked to measure its density.  I get a ruler and measure its dimensions:

3.5 cm x 2.2 cm x 4.7 cm

I put the sample on an electric balance and find its mass to be

120 g

These units -- centimetres and grams -- are what my tools use.  If I convert into metres and kilograms, here's what my calculation looks like:

If instead I'm a bit more sophisticated, I can stay in my original units:

The second method is more efficient: there's simply less writing to do!  And the final number is more elegant too: it turns out grams per cubic centimetre is a natural way to talk about the density of everyday objects.

This tip is very much context specific.  But it's worth asking yourself these questions before you convert units: Do I need to convert?  Do I want to convert?



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Make it dynamic: Relating angles

Image
How often have I walked into a lecture theatre planning to talk about some deep secret of physics only to end up arguing with students about which angle is which in a problem?  To be fair, I also often struggled to follow geometrical arguments when I was a student.  One trick I learned was to try to see the problem as dynamic rather than static, by which I mean imagine the angles changing so I can see how they relate to each other. For example, consider the inclined plane.  In these problems, some object is placed on a surface that is at an angle to horizontal: something sliding down a ramp, for example. We have the usual free-body diagram, indicating the relevant forces (weight of the object, normal force, friction), and the angle of the slope is labelled θ (theta).  To determine the acceleration (if any) of the object we need the net force acting on it.  And one of the things that will require is the angle between the normal force (N) and the vertical.  It turns out to be the same as
Read more

Choose your own angle

Image
The relativity principle says that we get to choose the coordinate system we use when describing physical problems, and that includes deciding which way is up.  To show how useful that can be I'm going to use the inclined plane. We have an object sitting on a surface which is inclined at some angle: a box on a ramp or some such.  We want to know the object's acceleration.  Drawing the free-body diagram is straight-forward: there is weight, a normal force, and usually there is friction as well. We can write down the equations of motion and solve them, but it won't be pretty!  The acceleration has horizontal and vertical components, and because the friction depends on the normal force, which depends on the weight and the angle, the trig functions are going to build up.  Also, it's not so easy to tell what the normal force should be. And so on.... A much better approach is to rotate the coordinate system so that motion of the object is along the x-axis. We can immediately
Read more

Choose your own velocity

Image
When solving physics problems we always have the benefit of choosing our frame of reference.  Not only can we chose where the origin of our coordinate is, but we can also chose which part of our system is stationary.  Consider the following simple kinematic problem: A car is travelling along, and we want to know how long it takes to travel some distance.  We can plug numbers into a kinematic equation and get the answer.  If the car is accelerating then the problem is mathematically a bit more fiddly (a quadratic equation, or do it in two steps with two equations) but it's not conceptually harder. But now consider a similar problem with two moving bodies: Now there's two cars at different speeds, and the question is: how long will it take the red car to overtake the blue car?  This looks rather harder because the distance the red car has to travel is not immediately clear.  But that's only because of our choice of reference frame, which up till now has been implicit. We inst
Read more