Problem integrating gamma ray absorption model

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around integrating a gamma ray absorption model to understand the relationship between the thickness of shielding materials and the intensity of gamma radiation. The initial equation presented is ΔI = -μΔX, leading to the integrated form I = I0e^(-μx), where I0 represents the incident intensity. A participant seeks clarification on the origin of the term I0, realizing it corresponds to the initial intensity when slab thickness is zero, which serves as an integration constant. This insight highlights the importance of recognizing initial conditions in mathematical modeling. The conversation concludes with appreciation for the clarification provided.
d3ntr0n
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


In this lab various thicknesses of a few materials are placed between a source of gamma radiation and a couple different detectors. It is reasonable to assume that some small change in the thickness of the shielding would produce a proportional change in the intensity of the gamma rays measured on the other side. If we define I to be the incident intensity of the gamma rays upon the shielding slab of thickness ΔX, and the emerging intensity on the other side of the shielding to be I’ with proportionality constant µ, we can describe the hypothesis with the simple model:

I) = -μΔX
I

According to the lab manual the solution to the integration of this equation yields

I = I0e^(-μx) ; Where I0 is the incident intensity

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
So for an infinitesimally small change delta, we would use the Latin 'd' giving

dI = -μdX
I

integrating both sides and exponentiating then yields

I = e^(-μX)

So where does the term I0 come from? Can someone show me where my error is?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When the slab thickness is zero there is an initial intensity. That corresponds to an integration constant.
 
Oh wow. Duh. Thank you gneill, I appreciate that.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top