nucerl
- 3
- 0
Why do we call the attenuation coefficient LINEAR?
I(x)=Ioexp[-µx]
why µ is called linear?
I(x)=Ioexp[-µx]
why µ is called linear?
Linear attenuation coefficient.
- Thread starter nucerl
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Attenuation Coefficient Linear
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
4 replies · 4K views
blather
- 33
- 0
Stop me when you're satisfied.
It's not μ2. Like, if we looked at it on a Log plot.
It's not μ2. Like, if we looked at it on a Log plot.
Last edited by a moderator:
nucerl said:
Perhaps it's bit confusing because the equation in which it's embedded is not a linear equation
The linear bit comes in when we consider that it's 'x' that is the linear distance involved -- the µ is just a coefficient. The equation provides the value of I (presumably an intensity here) with respect to a linear change in the distance x.
blather
- 33
- 0
That's true, something like "exp[x]" is not linear, but think of the logarithmic plot. When we plot this function by taking a logarithmic plot, we see that we get a linear trend. That is, the more particles we send at our attenuator, the more are absorbed. This is characterized by a coefficient (that "mu" looking guy right there) and this trend is linear. It's quite significant to find constants and linear trends in physics. It means we have quantities that describe the material.
I, on first glance in a lab class, would think that a linear trend wouldn't be had so quickly. Like, maybe it would do some sort of decay even if we plotted it on a logarithmic scale. So, I guess some other naive student at some point thought the same thing and started calling it linear. Unfortunately, lots of things in math and physics are misnamed. Take for example the "principal value of an integral." I mean, "principal" isn't even spelled correctly for the context.
More on that logarithmic plot: just take the logarithm of both sides and you'll get it right away. It looks like y=mx+b.
I, on first glance in a lab class, would think that a linear trend wouldn't be had so quickly. Like, maybe it would do some sort of decay even if we plotted it on a logarithmic scale. So, I guess some other naive student at some point thought the same thing and started calling it linear. Unfortunately, lots of things in math and physics are misnamed. Take for example the "principal value of an integral." I mean, "principal" isn't even spelled correctly for the context.
More on that logarithmic plot: just take the logarithm of both sides and you'll get it right away. It looks like y=mx+b.
nucerl
- 3
- 0
blather said:
Thanks for the clarification. I'm satisfied.