On May 25, 5:24 pm, "Tony " <
tony_burba_w_i...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> I remember from a radiometry book, that anyone who uses the word intensity either means to be ambiguous on purpose, or does not know what they are talking about.
>
> Basically, no, there is no clear definition that will fit all branches of science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, not _everyone_ but almost. You're right about that its one of
those generic layman-type terms that everyone wants to use for
everything. See a list of most of them on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity
The field of optics/radiometry is probably the most exact in its usage
and definitions because it has to be.
The late Jim Palmer (my old Professor of Optical Sciences at the
College of Optical Sciences of the University of Arizona) was
particularly irked by the sloppy use of this term, even by those who
ought to know better, and that spurred him to write "Getting Intense
on Intensity":
http://www.optics.arizona.edu/Palmer/intenopn.html
The "true" units of intensity, defined by SI are "flux per steradian."
Flux can be watts or lumens depending on whether you're talking about
all wavelengths, or just visible wavelengths respectively. But that's
too complicated for laymen so, sadly, they make up whatever definition
they want, and that's when the ambiguity/uncertainty starts.