Units of Transmittance: Defining & Explaining

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mikeph
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Units
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of transmittance of light, specifically addressing its dimensionless nature as a ratio of incident to transmitted radiation. The formula t(f) = I(f)/T(f) illustrates that both incident and transmitted intensities share the same units, leading to a dimensionless result. Participants emphasize the importance of spectral irradiance and the necessity of integrating intensity over a spectral range to accurately define transmittance. The conversation highlights the confusion surrounding dimensional analysis and the need for clarity in defining terms related to light transmission.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of spectral irradiance and its mathematical representation.
  • Familiarity with the concept of dimensionless ratios in physics.
  • Knowledge of integration in the context of probability distributions.
  • Basic principles of light intensity measurement and its units.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical foundations of spectral irradiance and its applications.
  • Study the integration of functions in probability theory and its relevance to physical measurements.
  • Explore the concept of transmittance in various materials and its implications in optics.
  • Investigate the relationship between mechanical efficiency and other dimensionless ratios in physics.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, optical engineers, and students studying light transmission and its properties will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in the mathematical and conceptual underpinnings of transmittance.

mikeph
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
18
I don't get this. Everywhere I look, the units of transmittance of light are dimensionless.

I get that it's a ratio of incident to transmitted radiation, t(f) = I(f)/T(f), and these two have the same units.

However, light intensity is always properly defined as the power per metre squared of radiation in a given spectral range, f + df, then the intensity is ∫I(f)df. If you want an intensity at a single frequency, you'll never find it because you will never detect a photon at EXACTLY f.

This is the same as probability distributions. The pdf of a distribution is not a probability itself, it must be integrated over probability space. In the same way, the spectral intensity is not an intensity until it is also integrated.

So that leaves me thinking, what on Earth is the transmittance?

In my reasoning we should still define it in terms of a spectral range, and say the transmittance between f and df is t(f)df. Then the units are still inverse frequency because t is the ratio (dimensionless) and df has dimensions of frequency.


Anyone follow? Would love a yes/no answer!
 
Science news on Phys.org
Transmittance is defined as the fraction of light which passes thru a sample:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmittance

Same units in : same units out, therefore it is dimensionless.

Equivalently, what are the units of mechanical efficiency?
 
Anyone follow? Would love a yes/no answer!
"Anyone follow?" Is the only question you asked which can be answered "yes" or "no". The answer to that question is, "yes".

The other two questions have been answered above ;)
Note: if you don't know what something is, then it is not a good idea to try defining it.
 
Thanks for the replies but neither helps address my confusion. Does the probability analogy not make sense?

Nobody I know talks about "fractions of light", they talk about spectral irradiance. I suppose if the transmittance is not a ratio of spectral irradiances, then what is? Because this is the ratio I am interested in.
 
The fraction of light through a medium would be the probability of an incident photon being transmitted or the ratio of the transmitted to incident intensity (and irradiance) of the light. These are equivalent statements.

You can do it just as well with spectral irradiance - in which case you have to specify the bandwidth as well - and the dimensions still cancel out. It looks to me like the dimensional analysis in post #1 is the confusion. Go through it again, step by step, slowly, and pedantically - careful to focus on what it is you are trying to find the dimensions of.

You clearly have the math - and are aware of the definitions of the terms - so I don't see what your difficulty is. Perhaps if you tell us what you are trying to use this for we'll see what is going on?
What's the context?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
5K