PSN-L Email List Message

Subject: psd units
From: Randall Peters PETERS_RD@..........
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:35:31 -0400


Brett,
       What you mention has been presented to me by the professional seismo=
logists; however, it is not correct, for the following reason:
Any density function always has a 'per' quantity associated with it-for exa=
mple per Hz or per octave or per some fraction of a decade, such as 1/7th (=
as in the celebrated work of Jon Berger, whose units are correct at m^2/s^3=
 /( 1/7th decade).  Unfortunately, he does not in his earth background nois=
e papers directly specify the differential that I've shown in parentheses. =
 One must look in the body of his paper(s) to discover that his bin width i=
s 1/7th decade.  Incidently the proper set is either m^2/s^3/Hz (linear plo=
t) or m^2/s^3/1/7th decade (log plot).
       It is worth noting that a plot of asd in terms of a log abscissa of =
frequency (or period) gives the correct shape (though not properly normaliz=
ed) as what is obtained in terms of a proper accounting of the power.  The =
reason can be readily understood on the basis of nothing other than the mat=
h; i.e., let asd(f)df be the acceleration spectral amount in the range from=
 f to f+df.  To plot in log form we must deal formally with asd(ln f)d(ln f=
).  The integral over the log form must yield the same result as the integr=
al over the linear form, asd(f)df.  But notice that d (ln f) =3D df/f.  The=
 log transformation introduces a new 1/f term that causes the units to beco=
me m^2/s^3/octave.   The actual (specific) power spectral density calculati=
on requires that the single sided FFT spectrum of the acceleration have eve=
ry component divided by its associated frequency.  That is where the change=
 from s^4 to s^3 comes from-not from a replacement of Hz with 1/s.
There is indeed a profound difference between per Hz and per octave-as has =
been addressed in considerable detail in the tutorial that I referenced.
The difference derives from the fact that Hz has units 1/s and octave has n=
o units, since no math function is capable of recognizing units (and the lo=
g is a math function).
     It is incorrect to say that m^2/s^4/Hz is equivalent to m^2/s^3.  To r=
emove the Hz from the equivalent to g^2/Hz by replacing Hz with 1/s yields =
a function that is no longer a density.  As the highly esteemed professor R=
ichard Present of Tennessee Physics that I had as a student used to greatly=
 admonish us:
"Any time you work with a density function, such as p(x), you should descri=
be the quantity represented by p (having variability with x) as the amount =
of  p that is found in the range from x to x+dx; given by p(x)dx.   To repr=
esent asd (f) as having units of m^2/s^4/Hz is equivalent to working with a=
 quantity asd(f)df, where df =3D 1 Hz.  If you remove the df-which is what =
you have suggested, the density function has been tampered with (gutted to =
yield something no longer having a density meaning).  Without the different=
ial there is no rigorously meaningful means for summing (integrating) to ob=
tain the total power.
    The classic example of the critical importance of recognizing this issu=
e involves the density function derived by Einstein to explain the quantum =
nature of blackbody radiation.  It is possible to express this Planck distr=
ibution, which describes radiated energy density within a given bin width-i=
n terms of either frequency bin or wavelength bin.  The functions look enti=
rely different because wavelength is inversely proportional to the frequenc=
y, and the differential of 1/f yields -df/f^2.  In the case of seismology f=
unctions, the psd representation in terms of period is just the mirror imag=
e of the representation in terms of frequency-but only when the abscissa is=
 log scaled.  The frequency form and the period form of the density functio=
ns are entirely different in appearance when plotted in terms of a linear a=
bscissa.  This also is discussed in detail in the paper.   And so to repeat=
, there is no math self-consistency to be realized, if one takes away the d=
ifferential that is always part of a density function.  To do so becomes an=
 exercise in meaninglessness.  It is not therefore permissible to simply re=
place Hz with 1/s and 'doctor' the units to yield apparently equivalent res=
ults.
       In the event that my discussion above is difficult to follow, I reco=
mmend that you take a serious look at the article.  The self consistency of=
 all its parts has been validated by careful numerical simulations.  A high=
ly regarded seismologist (whom I admire greatly) has indicated that he foun=
d nothing wrong with my paper.  Unfortunately, he did not give me permissio=
n to quote him.  The tradition of erroneously associating 'power' with m^2/=
s^4/Hz, as though it represents an actual physical (specific) power is at l=
east three decades old.  One engineer with whom I spoke about the matter sa=
id, "even if you are absolutely correct, Peters, trying to change such a lo=
ng held tradition will be like trying to change the course of the Mississip=
pi River."  Nevertheless, as I mentioned to him, an event in the early 1800=
's, at the New Madrid fault, did just that!
       Randall

Brett,

       What you men= tion has been presented to me by the professional seismologists; however, i= t is not correct, for the following reason:

Any density function always has a ‘per’ quantity associated= with it—for example per Hz or per octave or per some fraction of a d= ecade, such as 1/7th (as in the celebrated work of Jon Berger, w= hose units are correct at m^2/s^3 /( 1/7th decade).  Unfort= unately, he does not in his earth background noise papers directly specify = the differential that I’ve shown in parentheses.  One must look = in the body of his paper(s) to discover that his bin width is 1/7th decade.  Incidently the proper set is either m^2/s^3/Hz (linear pl= ot) or m^2/s^3/1/7th decade (log plot). 

       It is worth not= ing that a plot of asd in terms of a log abscissa of frequency (or period) = gives the correct shape (though not properly normalized) as what is obtaine= d in terms of a proper accounting of the power.  The reason can be rea= dily understood on the basis of nothing other than the math; i.e., let asd(= f)df be the acceleration spectral amount in the range from f to f+df. = To plot in log form we must deal formally with asd(ln f)d(ln f).  The= integral over the log form must yield the same result as the integral over= the linear form, asd(f)df.  But notice that d (ln f) =3D df/f.  = The log transformation introduces a new 1/f term that causes the units to b= ecome m^2/s^3/octave.   The actual (specific) power spectral dens= ity calculation requires that the single sided FFT spectrum of the accelera= tion have every component divided by its associated frequency.  That i= s where the change from s^4 to s^3 comes from—not from a replacement = of Hz with 1/s. 

There is indeed a= profound difference between per Hz and per octave—as has been addres= sed in considerable detail in the tutorial that I referenced.

The difference derives from the fact that Hz has unit= s 1/s and octave has no units, since no math function is capable of recogni= zing units (and the log is a math function).

     It is incorrect to say that m^2/s^4/Hz is equ= ivalent to m^2/s^3.  To remove the Hz from the equivalent to g^2/Hz by= replacing Hz with 1/s yields a function that is no longer a density. = As the highly esteemed professor Richard Present of Tennessee Physics that= I had as a student used to greatly admonish us:

“Any time you work with a density function, such as p(x), yo= u should describe the quantity represented by p (having variability with x)= as the amount of  p that is found in the range from x to x+dx; given = by p(x)dx.   To represent asd (f) as having units of m^2/s^4/Hz i= s equivalent to working with a quantity asd(f)df, where df =3D 1 Hz.  = If you remove the df—which is what you have suggested, the density fu= nction has been tampered with (gutted to yield something no longer having a= density meaning).  Without the differential there is no rigorously me= aningful means for summing (integrating) to obtain the total power.  <= o:p>

    The classic exam= ple of the critical importance of recognizing this issue involves the densi= ty function derived by Einstein to explain the quantum nature of blackbody = radiation.  It is possible to express this Planck distribution, which = describes radiated energy density within a given bin width—in terms o= f either frequency bin or wavelength bin.  The functions look entirely= different because wavelength is inversely proportional to the frequency, a= nd the differential of 1/f yields –df/f^2.  In the case of seism= ology functions, the psd representation in terms of period is just the mirr= or image of the representation in terms of frequency—but only when th= e abscissa is log scaled.  The frequency form and the period form of t= he density functions are entirely different in appearance when plotted in t= erms of a linear abscissa.  This also is discussed in detail in the pa= per.   And so to repeat, there is no math self-consistency to be = realized, if one takes away the differential that is always part of a densi= ty function.  To do so becomes an exercise in meaninglessness.  I= t is not therefore permissible to simply replace Hz with 1/s and ‘doc= tor’ the units to yield apparently equivalent results.

=

       In the event that= my discussion above is difficult to follow, I recommend that you take a se= rious look at the article.  The self consistency of all its parts has = been validated by careful numerical simulations.  A highly regarded se= ismologist (whom I admire greatly) has indicated that he found nothing wron= g with my paper.  Unfortunately, he did not give me permission to quot= e him.  The tradition of erroneously associating ‘power’ w= ith m^2/s^4/Hz, as though it represents an actual physical (specific) power= is at least three decades old.  One engineer with whom I spoke about = the matter said, “even if you are absolutely correct, Peters, trying = to change such a long held tradition will be like trying to change the cour= se of the Mississippi River.”  Nevertheless, as I mentioned to h= im, an event in the early 1800’s, at the New Madrid fault, did just t= hat!

      = ; Randall

=

[ Top ] [ Back ] [ Home Page ]