DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Cosmic Variance

Posts Tagged ‘integrals’

Unsolicited Advice VIII: Make your integrals dimensionless

by Julianne Dalcanton

Having recently slogged through grading an enormous pile of graduate-level problem sets, I am compelled to share one of the most useful tricks I learned in graduate school.

Make your integrals dimensionless.

This probably seems silly to the theoretical physicists in the audience, who have a habit of changing variables and units to the point where everything is dimensionless and equals one. However, in astrophysics, you frequently are integrating over real physical quantities (numbers of photons, masses of stars, luminosities of galaxies, etc) that still have units attached. While students typically do an admirable job of setting up the necessary integrals, they frequently go off the rails when actually evaluating the integrals, as they valiantly try to propagate all those extra factors.

Here’s an example of what I mean. Suppose you want to calculate some sort of rate constant for photoionization, that when multiplied by the density of atoms, will give you the rate of photo-ionizations per volume. These sorts of rates are always density times velocity times cross section:

\displaystyle \int_0^\infty \left({\rm photon\: density}\right) \, \left({\rm velocity}\right) \, \left({\rm cross\: section} \right)

For a Planck spectrum of photons and a typical energy-dependent cross section above some threshold

\displaystyle \int_{\nu_0}^\infty \left(\frac{u_\nu}{h\nu}\right) \, \cdot \,c \, \cdot \, \sigma_0\,\left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_0}\right)^{-3} \, {\rm d}\nu

which becomes

\displaystyle \int_{\nu_0}^\infty \frac{8\pi\,h\nu^3}{c^3} \, \frac{1}{e^{h\nu/kT}-1} \, \cdot \, c \, \cdot \, \sigma_0\,\left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_0}\right)^{-3} \, \frac{{\rm d}\nu}{h\nu}

This integral looks like a rough customer. You can pull some factors out front, but you’re still left with that unpleasant business in the exponential. You’re also using an integrating variable that has units, making it a bit tougher to check the dimensions of your answer to make sure it’s sensible.

Instead, if you force the variable you’re integrating over to be dimensionless:

\displaystyle x=\frac{h\nu}{kT}

the integral reduces to something that you can start to wrap your brain around:

\displaystyle \frac{8\pi}{c^2} \, \frac{(x_0\,kT)^3}{h^3} \, \sigma_0 \int_{x_0}^\infty \, \frac{1}{e^x-1} \, \frac{{\rm d}x}{x}

Now you have the business end of the integral out front, where you can check the units and the scaling of the answer to see if it makes sense. The integral is also something that is far simpler to evaluate (although in this case, it’s actually not a trivial integration, but at least you can recognize that early and plan on how to deal with it). If you’re in a situation where you have to integrate by parts, the dimensionless integral will save you a world of pain. Even if you make a mistake in evaluating the integral, you’re usually only off by a simple multiplicative factor like pi, or 2. All these things are good.

Share

December 17th, 2008 1:53 PM Tags: integrals
in Advice, Mathematics, Science | 40 Comments | RSS feed | Trackback >





    • Cosmic Variance Cosmic Variance is a group blog by people who, coincidentally or not, all happen to be physicists and astrophysicists:
      • Daniel Holz
      • JoAnne Hewett
      • John Conway
      • Julianne Dalcanton
      • Mark Trodden
      • Risa Wechsler
      • Sean Carroll
      Our day (and night) jobs notwithstanding, the blog is about whatever we find interesting — science, to be sure, but also arts, politics, culture, technology, academia, and miscellaneous trivia. We have similar outlooks on many things, widely disparate opinions about others, and will do our best to keep the discourse reasonably elevated.
    • Recent Posts

      • How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • A 3.8-Sigma Anomaly
      • Boycott Elsevier
      • Mind = Blown
      • Unsolicited Advice XIII: How to Craft a Well-Argued Proposal
      • Your Favorite Deep, Elegant, or Beautiful Explanation
      • Good News/Bad News: Nobel Edition
      • Do I Not Live?
      • Noisy Systems and Wandering Canines
      • Happy Birthday, Stephen Hawking
      • Predictions for 2012
      • A Year Well Blogged
      • Happy Holidays!
      • Last-Minute Shopping List
      • The Girl With Various Interesting Qualities
    • Recent Comments

      • jammer on Mind = Blown
      • Kaleberg on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • David Brown on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • Andrew on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • steven johnson on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • Albert Z on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • Phillip Helbig on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • Marko on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • Marko on How To Think About Quantum Field Theory
      • JoeTurpin on Your Favorite Deep, Elegant, or Beautiful Explanation
      • Valdis Kletnieks on A 3.8-Sigma Anomaly
      • Bob Kirshner on A 3.8-Sigma Anomaly
    • Facebook

    • Archives By Date

    • Archives By Category

    • Useful Pages

      • Home
      • RSS Feed
      • Comments Feed
      • About
      • Links (Blogroll)
      • Guest Bloggers
      • Equations Using LaTeX
      • Facebook page and group
      • Twitter
      • Goodies Store
      • Google Blog Search
      • Technorati Profile
      • Bloglines citations
    • Site Meter



  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us