system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: using mismatching units for physical properties is bad practice and should not be passed down in higher education.

i'm not quite certain how to word this CMV so i'll give the example i'm thinking about and hope i've made my case. i'm certain other examples can be made in other fields.

this CMV is regarding a pet peeve i've recently acquired while taking a course on lasers.i'm consistently taken aback by phrases - used by my professor or in exercises - such as:  
"energy gap of 632.8 nm" (energy in units of length),  
or  
"the energy of the upper state is 166658.484 cm\^-1" (energy in units of spacial frequency)

the worst offender i've seen is: "ambient temperature of kT = 208 cm\^{‐1}"

that's temperature described not as T but as kT - which is energy, not temperature. that's already bad - which is then obfuscated even further by giving the number in units of spacial frequency, which is neither a unit of temperature nor energy.

far as i can tell this is pretty common both in established, highly regarded textbooks, as well in general parlance of experts in the field, and professors teaching newcomers. it's just generally accepted as an acceptable and appropriate way to convey said information.

is this not insane?

i know get that some units are more useful than others in different fields, and that different fields tend to use dissimilar definitions for the same "thing", but this feels egregious.

want to use wavelength because that's what you're expecting the calculation to require? fine, then it should be "energy gap WITH A WAVELENGTH OF of 632.8 nm". i get that no one that understands what they're reading will actually think it's a unit of energy, but this is still bad practice in my view and i see no reason not to refer to units with this basic level of definitional accuracy.

a nanometer is not a unit of energy, neither is nm\^-1, or a Kelvin, or a Hertz, or any other convoluted indirect reference that one can cook up. if you say "energy" i expect to see a unit of energy at the end of that value. if you're using any other unit for convenience, fine!   
just don't call it energy, ya clown?

calling things by their name should be a basic guideline for scientific expression and i don't understand why it's tolerated to muddy the technical lingo in this way.

CMV? why is this a good thing?
gpt
Sounds to me like you don’t fully understand. If it’s common and the textbooks and professor do it, seems maybe you should ask more question…. Instead of just assuming you know better in an intro class than the book and professor.