I'm convinced that radians are, at the very least, the most convenient unit for angles in mathematics and physics. In addition to this I suspect that they are the most fundamentally natural unit for angles. What I want to know is why this is so (or why not).
I understand that using radians is useful in calculus involving trigonometric functions because there are no messy factors like π/180. I also understand that this is because sin(x)/x→1 as x→0 when x is in radians. But why does this mean radians are fundamentally more natural? What is mathematically wrong with these messy factors?
So maybe it's nice and clean to pick a unit which makes ddxsinx=cosx. But why not choose to swap it around, by putting the 'nice and clean' bit at the unit of angle measurement itself? Why not define 1 Angle as a full turn, then measure angles as a fraction of this full turn (in a similar way to measuring velocities as a fraction of the speed of light c=1). Sure, you would have messy factors of 2π in calculus but what's wrong with this mathematically?
I think part of what I'm looking for is an explanation why the radius is the most important part of a circle. Could you not define another angle unit in a similar way to the radian, but with using the diameter instead of the radius?
Also, if radians are the fundamentally natural unit, does this mean that not only πrad=180∘, but also π=180∘, that is 1rad=1?
Answer
Angles are defined as the ratio of arc-length to radius multiplied by some constant k which equals one in the case of radians, 360/2π for degrees. What you're effectively asking is what's natural about setting k = 1? Again it's tidyness as pointed out in dmckee's alternative answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment