Black Body Equations (more of a math prob)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rob Hal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black body Body
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the equivalence of two equations for energy flux radiated from a black body, one expressed in terms of wavelength and the other in terms of frequency. Participants are exploring the mathematical relationships and conversions between these two forms.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the equivalence of the two equations and expresses uncertainty about the conversion process, particularly regarding the handling of the left side of the equation. Some participants suggest that differentiating with respect to wavelength involves considerations about negative signs and limits of integration.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the mathematical details of the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the treatment of negative signs in integrals, and there is acknowledgment of the original poster's calculations being correct. However, there is no explicit consensus on the overall understanding of the conversion process.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes considerations about the limits of integration when substituting between wavelength and frequency, which may influence the interpretation of the equations. The original poster is also navigating the constraints of their textbook material.

Rob Hal
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi,

In one of my textbooks, I'm given these two equivalent equations for energy flux radiated from a black body, one dependent on frequency, the other on wavelength:

[tex]I(\lambda)d\lambda = \frac {2c^2h}{\lambda^5} \frac {1}{e^{(hc/KT\lambda)}-1}d\lambda[/tex]

and

[tex]I(\nu)d\nu = \frac {2h\nu^3}{c^2} \frac {1}{e^{(hv/KT)}-1}d\nu[/tex]

Now, I'm just trying figure out how are these equations equivalent? At first, I thought it was simple substitution of the relation [tex]\lambda = \frac{c}{\nu}[/tex], but that doesn't work... so I realize that you have to convert units by differentiating say in this case lambda, and I get the same equations with the exception of a negative sign which I can't see how it cancels.

To be quite honest, I'm just not sure I'm doing the converting right. I'm not exactly sure how to handle the left side of the equation in this case.

Any suggestions or references would be great... Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Excellent...I knew it was really elementary.
Thank you very much!
 
the negative sign is due to the limit of the integral
if the lower limit of your lamda is 0 and upper limit is infinite,ie.
[tex]\int_{0}^\infty I(\lambda) d \lambda[/tex]

after you do the substitution, the lower limit of v will become infinite and the upper limit will be 0! ie,
[tex]-\int_{\infty}^0 I(v) dv[/tex]

in order to make the integral looks nicer, we eat the negative sign and flip the limit of the integral:
[tex]\int_{0}^\infty I(v) dv[/tex]

don't worry, your calculation is completely fine...

PS. the modulus is not a must... the web page just don't want to do this argument
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
46
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K