Relating Optical Depth and Extinction (τ(λ) and A(λ))

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between extinction A(λ) and optical depth τ(λ), specifically the equation A(λ) = 1.086 * τ(λ). The user is attempting to derive this relationship using known equations related to magnitudes and intensities. They express difficulty in connecting τ(λ) to intensity measurements and seek guidance on how to relate these concepts. Another participant suggests starting with the definition of apparent magnitudes and provides a relevant equation involving intensity ratios. The conversation emphasizes the need to clarify the relationship between magnitudes and intensities to solve the problem.
Mike89
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hey guys sorry my first post is a help request and not an introduction or anything but I'd really appreciate a helping hand here

Homework Statement



Show that the extinction A(λ) and optical depth τ(λ) are related by the linear relationship A(λ)=1.086*τ(λ)

Homework Equations



m(λ)=M(λ) + 5Log(d)-5 + A(λ)
which I'd rearrage to
m(λ)-M(λ)-5Log(d)+5=A(λ)

Here in lies the problem, I have all the equations I can find in my notes and the slides but nothing that relates τ(λ) to anything other than:

exp(-τ) = (I/I0) (sorry wasn't sure how to subscript the 0 in I0)

and then nothing to relate intensities to magnitudes.

The Attempt at a Solution



I thought maybe I could use 2 stars where I new the apparent and absolute magnitudes ( the sun and vega, etc) and the distance obviously and then calculate how τ(λ) and A(λ) are related and show the 1.086 multiplier in both but I can't work out how to relate A(λ) to anything involving intensity.


I hope you guys can help me out here since I'm stumped :) thanks for anything you can
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Start with the definition of a difference in apparent magnitudes. . .

m_1 - m_2 = 2.5log(I_1/I_2)

extinction, A is defined as A = m^{'} - m

Now, how are I_1, I_2, and tau related. . .
 
AstroRoyale said:
m_1 - m_2 = 2.5log(I_1/I_2)

Souldn't it be m_1 - m_2 = 2.5log(I_2/I_1) ?
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top