Correct notation for some functional expressions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the correct mathematical notation for expressing radiation emission and absorption within a volume. Participants explore the formulation of functions representing emitted and absorbed energy, focusing on the appropriate use of notation and the relationships between different volume elements.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests modeling radiation within a volume using a scalar value e(dV) for emitted radiation and a function q(x,y,z) for absorbed energy, questioning the proper expression for total absorbed energy Q(dV).
  • Another participant proposes that dV should be considered an element of volume rather than a point, suggesting a density function e(𝑥) to represent the rate of radiation emitted.
  • There is a discussion about whether the emission function should be expressed as e(x,y,z) instead of e(𝑣𝑒𝑐{x}), with some participants emphasizing the importance of using absolute reference frames for positions.
  • One participant proposes defining the energy emitted by dW and absorbed by dV as q(V,W)dWdV, leading to a function for total absorbed energy as Q(V) = ∫_V q(V,W)dWdV.
  • Another participant challenges the notation and suggests that the total absorbed energy requires integration over the entire volume, introducing the concept of rates of energy emission and absorption.
  • Concerns are raised about the use of dV in different contexts, with suggestions to clarify notation to avoid confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate notation and formulation for the functions involved, with no consensus reached on the best approach. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct expressions and definitions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of notation, the need for clarity in defining volume elements, and the complexity of integrating over multiple dimensions without a clear agreement on the mathematical expressions.

Hypatio
Messages
147
Reaction score
1
Having some trouble determining the most mathematically correct way to express something I understand only numerically and physically. Basically I am modeling radiation within a volume.

1. For each point dV within a volume V there is a scalar value e(dV), which is an amount of radiation emitted from the point.
2. For each point dV there is also a corresponding function q(x,y,z), which is the energy emitted from dV and absorbed throughout the volume. The volume integral of q(x,y,z) is equal to e(dV).
3. For each point dV, an important value is the net energy change from emission and absorption. For each point dV emitted energy is equal to e(dV), but absorbed energy at the point takes the sum of an infinite number of functions q(x,y,z), one for each point dV, and summation occurs at the position dV=(x,y,z). If we call this total absorbed energy Q(dV), then how is it properly expressed? Is Q a functional?

Perhaps it is something like

Q(dV) = \int_V[q(x,y,z)\cup dV] dV

but I don't know.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hypatio said:
each point dV
dV will not be a point; it will be an element of volume.
Hypatio said:
value e(dV), which is an amount of radiation emitted from the point.
It would make more sense to say there is a density function of position, ##e(\vec x)##, so that the rate of radiation emitted by an element dV at ##\vec x## is ##e(\vec x)dV##.
Hypatio said:
function q(x,y,z), which is the energy emitted from dV and absorbed throughout the volume.
I thought that was how e was defined. I think you mean that q is a function of two position vectors, ##\vec x, \vec y##, such that if dV is a volume element at ##\vec x## and dW is a volume element at ##\vec y## then the rate at which radiation is emitted by dW and absorbed by dV is ##q(\vec x, \vec y)dVdW##.
Does that make sense!
 
Thanks for the help. So, there is a function for the emission rate. Shouldn't this be e(x,y,z), not e(\vec{x}), x,y,z are positions (not position vectors?). The transport of emitted radiation itself will of course have a vector, but my approach ignores those details. Instead, you just know the emission field e(x,y,z) and an infinite number of consequent absorption fields q(x,y,z) for each dV of e(x,y,z). Moreover, positions should preferably be given in an absolute reference frame, not relative to the emission point. I need an expression for the amount of radiation absorbed by a given volume element dV from all dV of the volume (the sum, or integral, of an infinite number of functions q(x,y,z)).
 
Hypatio said:
Shouldn't this be e(x,y,z), not e(\vec{x}), x,y,z are positions (not position vectors?).
I believe that haruspex's notation is equivalent to what you wrote. By ##\vec{x}## he means the point (x, y, z).
 
Could I define energy emitted by dW and absorbed by dV as q(V,W)dWdV so that that there is a function for the total absorbed energy as Q(V) = \int_V q(V,W)dWdV, and thus absorbed energy is QdV? Does that make sense?

This is so much easier with a discrete notation:

Q(x,y) = \sum_{i=dV}^{V/dV}q_i(x,y)
 
Last edited:
Hypatio said:
Could I define energy emitted by dW and absorbed by dV as q(V,W)dWdV so that that there is a function for the total absorbed energy as Q(V) = \int_V q(V,W)dWdV, and thus absorbed energy is QdV? Does that make sense?
@haruspex wrote
the rate at which radiation is emitted by dW and absorbed by dV is ##q(\vec x, \vec y)dW dV##, not ##q(V,W)dWdV##.
For the total absorbed energy you would need to integrate over the entire volume, something like this:##Q(V) = \int_V q(\vec x, \vec y)dWdVdV##
Since dV is used for two different purposes here, let's call ##\rho_x## the rate at which energy is emitted by a the volume element around ##\vec x## and ##\rho_y##, the rate at which energy is absorbed by the volume element around ##\vec y##.
Then the equation above would be :##Q(V) = \int_V q(\vec x, \vec y)\rho_x(\vec x) \rho_y(\vec y) dV##
This would necessarily be a triple integral, since you have to integrate over all of the points within the volume.

I don't guarantee that the integral above is correct. I'm just going by the information provided in this thread.

Hypatio said:
This is so much easier with a discrete notation:

Q(x,y) = \sum_{i=dV}^{V/dV}q_i(x,y)
This doesn't make a lot of sense. For a summation, the index generally ranges over the integers, or a subset of it. dV isn't a number -- it's an increment of volume.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K