Walter Lewin Notes

8.01x - Lect 1 - Powers of 10, Units, Dimensions, Uncertainties, Scaling Arguments

 There are three fundamental quantities in physics: mass, length, and time

Dimension of Length – L in meters

Dimension of Time – T in seconds

Dimension of Mass – M in kilogram

Note: there are other fundamental quantities but for now, we will focus on the three

 Many quantities in physics can be derived from these quantities

Example:

[ L]
[ speed ] =
[T ]
Means the dimensions of speed is equal to the dimensions of length over time. Regardless of the units m/s,
in/m, km/yr, It will always have a dimension length per time. Other examples include:
3
[ volume ] =[ L ]
[M]
[ density ] = 3
[ L]
[L]
[ acceleration ] = 2
[T]
Now that we have agreed at the units of each quantity, we can now start making measurements. Now it is
important to always remember that any measurements without its uncertainty is completely meaningless.

Now there is rumor that someone who is lying in bed is longer than someone who stands up. Now let’s test if
this is true:

First, we measure the length of a person who is lying down and someone who is standing up and we compare
those measurement considering the uncertainties.

Assuming we measure the length of someone standing up: 149.9 ± 0.1 cm (but I would think that the
uncertainty of the measurement is probably 1 millimeter)

Assuming we measure the length of someone lying down: 150.0 ± 0.1 cm

We determine the difference between the length measurements. Now if the difference in length is, let’s say 1
foot, we would know. But this is not the case. If the difference were only 1 millimeter. We would never know.
Therefore, if the rumor was right, then it is probably only a few centimeters.

I now want to discuss with you Dimensional Analysis. I ask myself: If I drop an apple from a certain height
and I change that height, what will happen with the time for the apple to fall?
Well the time it takes must be proportional to the height raised to some power, let say alpha:

t ∝ hα
It makes sense, the larger the height the longer the apple fall. We assume that mass and gravity is also
proportional to time so:

t ∝ hα mβ gγ
So we made the assumption that:

1. If the height is larger, it takes longer for the apple to fall

Now we analyze the dimension of t

On the left, we have the dimension of time. And on the right, we must also have the dimension of time. The
dimensions on the left- and right-hand side of the equation must be the same.

Now we write the expression in terms of dimensions

[ T ]1=[ L]α ¿
Now, the dimensions on the left- and right-hand side of the equation must be the same. Let us look at the
dimensions and its exponents individually.

There is the dimension of M on the right side but no dimension M on the left side so ¿ must be zero that is ¿

There is the dimension of [ L]α and [ L]γ on the right side but no dimension l on the left side so [ L]α and [ L]γ
must be equal to zero that is
α γ
[ L] +[ L] =0
α +γ =0
−2 γ
There is the dimension of [T ]1 on the right side and [ T ] on the left side so equate the exponents of these
two
1 −2 γ
[T ] =[ T ]
1=−2 γ
−1
γ=
2
−1
Since γ= , then
2
α +γ=0
1
α = we then substitute these Greek letters to
2
α β γ
t∝h m g
End of the dimensional analysis. Therefore, we can conclude that the time it takes for an object to fall equals

1 −1
2 0 2
t∝h m g

t =c
√ h
g
∝h

Where c- constant

Note: This cannot predict the time to fall, but can compare two different heights. For example, drop from 8 m
takes twice as long as drop from 2 m. Then the difference in time will be the square root of the ratio

Experiment:

Consider a setup wherein two apples are raised at a height h with an uncertainty by about a millimeter

Apple 1 height (h1)= 3.000 ± 0.003 m

Apple 1 height (h2)= 1.500 ± 0.003 m

Now, we make a sort of prediction that the square root of the ratio of the height will yield the same result as
the ratio of the time

h1 3.000 ± 0.003
= =2.000 ± 0.006
h2 1.500 ± 0.00

Our answer will be dimensionless number since we divide length by length

h1 3.000 ± 0.003
= =2.000 ± 0.006
h2 1.500 ± 0.00

Squaring the ratio and equating to time…

√ h1 t 1
= =1.414 ± 0.002
h2 t 2

This is our prediction. Now in the experiment we measure t 1=time of theball at h1, t 2=time of theball at h2with
an uncertainty of 2 milliseconds

t 1=0.781 ±0.002 s

t 2=0.551 ±0.002 s

Now we take the ratio.

t 1 0.781± 0.002 s
= =1.417 ±0.008
t 2 0.551± 0.002 s
Comparing that to our prediction, you can tell that they are in almost agreement. The prediction says
1.414 ± 0.002 sec but according to our uncertainty, it could be higher or even lower. And in our experiment, our
result can be off by an 8 since that’s the uncertainty of the timing.

Coincidentally, We have demonstrated that the time that it takes for an object to fall is independent of its
mass.

The Art of Making Measurements

A measurement is meaningless without knowledge of its uncertainty. The lengths of an aluminum rod and the length
of a student are both measured standing straight up and lying down horizontally to test whether the student's length
is larger when he is lying down than when he is standing straight up. Within the uncertainty of the measurements,
the difference between standing and lying is substantial for the student (NOT for the aluminum rod).

Was Galileo Galilei's Reasoning Correct?

Why are mammals as large as they are, and not much larger? The argument suggests that if they become too
heavy, the bones will shatter. Galileo Galilei suggested that material properties of our bones impose a natural limit
on the size of things. Professor Lewin brings this to a test by presenting Galilei's scaling arguments, and he
compares them with actual measurements.

Dimensional Analysis

The dimensions of both sides of the equation must be the same; this is non-negotiable in physics. Using this idea,
Professor Lewin reasons that the time for an object to fall from a certain height is independent of its mass and
proportional to the square root of the height from which it is dropped. He confirms this conclusion by dropping an
apple from 3.000 m and 1.500 m with an uncertainty in each of 3 mm. He then shows why his "prediction" was a
cheat.