Talk:Linear density

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The whole idea of linear density makes no sense. There's no such thing as a "one dimensional object". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.141.129 (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The applied definition:

${\displaystyle \mu ={\frac {\partial m}{\partial x}}}$

is in my opinion wrong. It should read

${\displaystyle \mu ={\frac {m}{\delta x}}}$

where m is the mass of the element with length ${\displaystyle \delta x}$

The idea of one dimensional must be specificed. A body can be considered as one-dimensional if

1. the extend in space is in one direction much larger than in the other two directions
2. changes of properties and dependant variables in the two short directions are small

The usage of one- and two-dimensional models is quite important in enineering and in former times in mathematics and physics. WE might consider to create an article for this item.

Paul.Holscher (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Should the first equation read ${\displaystyle {\bar {\lambda }}_{m}={\frac {M}{L}}}$? And the fourth read ${\displaystyle \lambda _{m}={\frac {dm}{dl}}}$? Or is ${\displaystyle m}$ a symbol for linear mass density? TryingMyBest (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply