Units into Log and Exponential Functions


by terryphi
Tags: exponential, functions, units
terryphi
terryphi is offline
#1
Nov13-10, 10:18 PM
P: 53
Hello,

Something I've wondered about for some time is what happens to units once we pump them into a exponential or log function.

For example in neutron attenuation

I(x) = I_0 * exp(-Sigma * x)

I feel like this something I should know, but I just don't get it.

I suspect what's happening is that the units stay the same since basically all the function is doing is changing the magnitude of the scalar quantity associated with the unit, and not necessarily what the unit measures.

If that's so is there a word I can use to describe a function that does change a inputs unit (such as the aformentioned) and one that does not?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Physicists design quantum switches which can be activated by single photons
'Dressed' laser aimed at clouds may be key to inducing rain, lightning
Higher-order nonlinear optical processes observed using the SACLA X-ray free-electron laser
ZapperZ
ZapperZ is offline
#2
Nov13-10, 10:22 PM
Mentor
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 28,804
Quote Quote by terryphi View Post
Hello,

Something I've wondered about for some time is what happens to units once we pump them into a exponential or log function.

For example in neutron attenuation

I(x) = I_0 * exp(-Sigma * x)

I feel like this something I should know, but I just don't get it.

I suspect what's happening is that the units stay the same since basically all the function is doing is changing the magnitude of the scalar quantity associated with the unit, and not necessarily what the unit measures.

If that's so is there a word I can use to describe a function that does change a inputs unit (such as the aformentioned) and one that does not?
This is a bit puzzling to understand.

If I've read it correctly, then you might have a problem understanding that the argument for the exponential above must be dimensionless. This means that whatever units x has, sigma must have the inverse of that unit.

The same with logarithm.

Zz.
terryphi
terryphi is offline
#3
Nov13-10, 10:50 PM
P: 53
Sorry,

an exponential function can only take a dimensionless arguement?

jtbell
jtbell is offline
#4
Nov14-10, 12:18 AM
Mentor
jtbell's Avatar
P: 11,237

Units into Log and Exponential Functions


Yes.
terryphi
terryphi is offline
#5
Nov14-10, 10:13 AM
P: 53
Sorry, I've never heard this, and I've used several equations which I'm relatively sure have had dimensional arguments.

Can you give some sort of explanation?
S.Daedalus
S.Daedalus is offline
#6
Nov14-10, 12:38 PM
P: 210
In a physical quantity, magnitude and dimension are inseparable -- whatever function you have of its magnitude also applies to its dimension. Trivial example: Square area A = x2. If you know that [x] = m, you also know that [A] = m2, i.e. that area is measured in m2.

However, ex is problematic -- what, exactly, is the exponentiation of a dimension supposed to mean? To better see the problem, expand into a powerseries: f(x) = ex = 1 + x + x2/2! + x3/3! + ... If x now has dimension [dim], the first summand is dimensionless, the second of dimension [dim], the third of dimension [dim]2, and so on. So, what dimension is whatever quantity is denoted by f(x) supposed to have? There's no unique assignment possible. Only if x is dimensionless does one get a unique dimension for f(x) -- which is none, as well.
Nabeshin
Nabeshin is offline
#7
Nov14-10, 02:11 PM
Sci Advisor
Nabeshin's Avatar
P: 2,194
Quote Quote by S.Daedalus View Post
To better see the problem, expand into a powerseries: f(x) = ex = 1 + x + x2/2! + x3/3! + ... If x now has dimension [dim], the first summand is dimensionless, the second of dimension [dim], the third of dimension [dim]2, and so on. So, what dimension is whatever quantity is denoted by f(x) supposed to have? There's no unique assignment possible. Only if x is dimensionless does one get a unique dimension for f(x) -- which is none, as well.
Note that this extends to other non-polynomial functions too, like the sine/cosine functions, and anything that can be made out of them (cosh,sinh,spherical harmonics, bessel functions, etc.).
ZapperZ
ZapperZ is offline
#8
Nov14-10, 03:38 PM
Mentor
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 28,804
Quote Quote by terryphi View Post
Sorry, I've never heard this, and I've used several equations which I'm relatively sure have had dimensional arguments.

Can you give some sort of explanation?
What if you show us what equations you used, and I'm sure we can point out where you made your mistake of thinking they had a dimension.

Zz.
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is online now
#9
Nov14-10, 04:24 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,362
Quote Quote by terryphi View Post
Sorry,

an exponential function can only take a dimensionless arguement?
I imagine you would find it hard to evaluate e(5 bannanas).
That's why an exponential must be dimensionless.
terryphi
terryphi is offline
#10
Nov14-10, 04:28 PM
P: 53
Quote Quote by ZapperZ View Post
What if you show us what equations you used, and I'm sure we can point out where you made your mistake of thinking they had a dimension.

Zz.
Heh, I just realized you're right. Every function I can think of is dimensionless!

Thanks PF :D
terryphi
terryphi is offline
#11
Nov14-10, 10:35 PM
P: 53
Ah, i've found one that doesn't fit.

The Gieger-Nuttall law.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...uttallLaw.html
jtbell
jtbell is offline
#12
Nov15-10, 12:25 AM
Mentor
jtbell's Avatar
P: 11,237
The Geiger-Nuttall is an empirical numerical formula, obtained basically from curve-fitting to data. The values of the coefficients depend on the specific units used for time and energy.

Note that you can re-cast it into a form in which the argument of the logarithm is dimensionless, by writing copies of the equation for isotopes 1 and 2 and subtracting one from the other:

[tex]\ln {\frac{\lambda_2}{\lambda_1}} = -a_1 \left( \frac{Z_2}{\sqrt{E_2}}
- \frac{Z_1}{\sqrt{E_1}} \right)[/tex]

In this version the coefficient [itex]a_2[/itex] drops out. I don't have any appropriate textbooks to check here at home, but I suspect the derivation of the Geiger-Nuttall law by Gamow et al. produces something like what I wrote.
DrDu
DrDu is offline
#13
Nov19-10, 07:15 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 3,370
I know of some examples where the question of dimensions is also not obvious namely physical chemistry where e.g. you can find definitions in text books like "the pH is the negative decadic logarithm of the concentration of hydronium ions".
However, in more careful texts you will see that what enters is always the quotient of the concentration (or activity to be more precise) and the concentration in some standard state, so that the argument of the logarithm is in fact dimensionless.
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is online now
#14
Nov19-10, 11:36 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,362
Surely a quantity may have dimensions but a number can have none. Is there anything more to be said?
terryphi
terryphi is offline
#15
Nov20-10, 08:54 PM
P: 53
So is that a good measure of a book? If they have logs with units?
sophiecentaur
sophiecentaur is online now
#16
Nov21-10, 03:42 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,362
The book may have a lot of good and correct iknfo in it. It just didn't make it clear that the exponential was dimensionless.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Exponential Functions Precalculus Mathematics Homework 14
Exponential Functions General Math 6
Exponential Functions!, please help Precalculus Mathematics Homework 6
exponential functions Calculus & Beyond Homework 5