- the right side of this equation, \({dx\over x}\), is unitless regardless of the units of x;
- therefore the left side, \(d\ln x\), must also be unitless;
- \(d\ln x\) must have the same units as \(\ln x\);
- therefore \(\ln x\) must also be unitless, regardless of the units of x.
The fact that \(d \ln x\) specifies a fractional change in x has further repercussions in astronomy, because it is traditional to quote the measurement of a flux \(f\) in the magnitude system: $$m = -2.5 \log_{10} {f\over f_0}$$ where \(f_0\) is some reference flux. This means that a quoted uncertainty in the magnitude of a star or galaxy, \(dm\), specifies a fractional uncertainty in the flux. Let's work out the details: \(\log_{10} x\) is the same as \({\ln x \over \ln 10}\) so $$dm = -{2.5\over \ln 10} d\ln{f\over f_0} $$ $$dm = -{2.5\over \ln 10} {df\over f} $$ Because \(\ln 10\approx 2.30\), we get \(dm \approx -1.086 {df\over f}\). For quick estimation purposes, the magnitude uncertainty is about the same as the fractional uncertainty in flux.
This explains why a 0.1 mag uncertainty is about a 10% flux uncertainty, regardless of the magnitude. One should not say that a 0.1 mag uncertainty is a 1% uncertainty in an \(m=10\) star, nor a 0.5% uncertainty in an \(m=20\) galaxy. For the quantity that matters---the flux of the object---a 0.1 mag uncertainty implies about a 10% uncertainty regardless of the flux.
No comments:
Post a Comment