Talk:Cross section (physics)

message: Why is it "not to be confused with Radar scattering cross section"? Radar scattering cross section is just a scattering cross section with radar. Same math, same physics. Radar scattering and light scattering literatures especially borrow from each other extensively. 70.181.67.17 (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird Disambiguation 

message: I made an attempt at basic cleanup by adding an intro paragraph and letting the rest be in sections below.  I am not a physicist however, so the efforts of anyone who can make sure I didn't oversimplify or otherwise screw it up would be appreciated. Knotnic 15:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: please, specify what do you mean by flux --WISo 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  flux 

message: Is there a reason there is no mention of barns as a unit of measure in the page?  The absence is conspicuous, so I thought I'd ask before editing the article. modify 03:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind — I see that they are mentioned in a section by reference to "b". modify 03:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: barns

message: The lemma of this article is cross section, however, both variants are used in the text, each in many places. Which one is correct? --85 [?!] 09:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Use hyphen only in adjective form, e.g., "the cross section was big" and "the cross-section diameter was big". fgnievinski (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I'm used to but not what is done in the article. --85 [?!] 18:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. fgnievinski (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, some random source on the Internet I found on this topic says that for "common compounds", one would not put a hyphen. Perhaps someone has a more reputable source? --85 [?!] 09:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-section or Cross section? 

message: In the sections
*Attenuation
*Scattering of light
*Scattering of light on extended bodies
the same things is said in different ways with some repetition. It would be a good idea to rewrite these three sections more tightly. 178.39.122.125 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three sections needs smoothing 

message: Optical absorption is commonly described using a base 10 log. That is, for visible and near visible light. I suspect the section on light is intended to mean EM radiation from far IR through gamma rays, in which case natural logs might be used for many of those. Since there is a lot of work done using visible and near visible light, especially in photography, it might be that base 10 logs are, over all, more common. Gah4 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  logs 

message: Regarding Scattering of light, and more generally from far-IR through X-rays, and maybe gamma rays, it is often described in density of material, instead of atoms or molecules. That is, in macroscopic terms assuming uniform density. In these cases, an absorption coefficient is used, instead of a cross section. Should the article mention or explain this?  Gah4 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In light scattering, "cross section" is typically used for single scattering by discrete scattering centers like particles and even molecules, but it is used quite extensively in that area, and the calculation of attenuation (NOT absorption, the distinction is very important) coefficients from particle distributions and cross-sections is well developed.70.181.67.17 (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scattering of light