Tell me more ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

So I have never actually found a good answer or even a good resource which discusses this so I appeal to experts here at stack exchange because this problem came up again today. What happens to the units of a physical quantity after I take its (natural) logarithm. Suppose I am working with some measured data and the units are Volts. Then I want to plot the time series on a log-scale, only the ordinate is on the log scale, not the abscissa. So the x-axis is definitely in time (seconds let's say) but what are the units on the y-axis? Will it be Volts or log(Volts) or something? If I square the quantities, then the units are squared too so what if I take the log? A rationale in addition to the answer will be appreciated as well.

I guess whatever the answer, the same goes for taking the exponential or sine of the data too, right?

share|improve this question
Overall, the argument $x$ of $\ln(x)$ must be unitless, and a log transformed quantity must be unitless. – glebovg Nov 16 '12 at 2:44
The units remain the same, you are just scaling the axes. As an analogy, plotting a quantity on a polar chart doesn't change the quantities, it just 'warps' the display in some useful way. However, some quantities are 'naturally' expressed as logs (dB, for example), but these are always dimensional quantities (sometimes implicitly referenced to a known quantity). – copper.hat Nov 16 '12 at 2:45
If $x = 0.5$ is measured in some units, say, seconds, then taking the log actually means $\ln (0.5s/1s) = \ln (0.5)$. Hope this helps. – glebovg Nov 16 '12 at 2:51
1  
Prince Ali, you wrote "same goes for taking the exponential or sine of the data too, right?" - what about taking the square as you mention - the square of length is area, which is not length. – alancalvitti Nov 16 '12 at 3:22

3 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Overall, the argument $x$ of $\ln(x)$ must be unitless, and a log transformed quantity must be unitless. If $x = 0.5$ is measured in some units, say, seconds, then taking the log actually means $\ln(0.5s/1s) = \ln(0.5)$. See this for more information about other transcendental functions. Hope this helps.

share|improve this answer
1  
Love the paper, going into the permanent archives. Also explains why classic arguments (like anorton's response below) is wrong. I was surprised to learn that too. – Fixed Point Nov 16 '12 at 22:52

In the expression $\ln{x}$, $x$ must be unitless.

This is because the log function is a series with x raised to differing powers. For instance:

$$-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{\frac{(-1)^k(-1+x)^k}{k}}$$ for $$|-1 + x| < 1$$

Let's say $x$ had units of meters (for example). Then the first term in the series would have units of meters, the second term units of square meters, 3rd term in cubic meters, etc. You can't add quantities with differing powers of units, thus $x$ must be unit-less.

The same argument applies for $|-1+x|\not<1$.

share|improve this answer

Logarithm of a quantity really only makes sense if the quantity is dimensionless, and then the result is also a dimensionless number. So what you really plot is not $\log(y)$ but $\log(y/y_0)$ where $y_0$ is some reference quantity in the same units as $y$ (in this case $y_0 = $1 Volt). Similarly for $\exp$ and $\sin$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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