Comment on 'Angles in the SI: treating the radian as an independent, unhidden unit does not require the redefinition of the term "frequency" or the unit hertz'

TL;DR

This paper critically examines Quincey's claim that the radian should be an independent unit, arguing that such redefinition introduces unnecessary complications and inconsistencies in physics and mathematics.

Contribution

It provides a detailed critique of the proposal to treat the radian as a base unit, highlighting potential issues and clarifying the current understanding of angular quantities.

Findings

The proposed redefinition causes conceptual problems in physics and mathematics.

Treating the radian as a base unit is unnecessary and problematic.

The current SI system adequately handles angles without redefining the radian.

Abstract

In the paper by P. Quincey (2020) [1], the author claims that angles are not dimensionless quantities and that the radian should be a new independent base unit. However, the claim is not supported and the proposed redefinition will cause several problems not only in physics, but also in mathematics. The proposed "unhiding" of the radian will bring hidden problems not discussed in detail. This includes e.g. an introduction of quantities of different kind for time and the corresponding units defined as the second per radian.