| Thread Closed |
How Maxwell's theory of radiation could not explain atomic spectra? |
Share Thread |
| Jan15-04, 10:41 AM | #18 |
|
|
How Maxwell's theory of radiation could not explain atomic spectra?http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~honors/boltz.html Reading a bit about M-B distribution has made me even more convinced that I'm on to something. Doesn't the MB curve resemble the Planck curve extremely well ? Except for the fact that the MB curve is normalized, they're basically the same curve ! [8)] Compare: http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes...s/img00001.gif http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~honors/boltz2.jpg What else can we say about BB radiation ? Well, If we were to compare an object, e.g my coffeecup, with the sun ([:D]), we would undoubtedly consider one to be more of a blackbody than the other - simply because it's closer to meeting the criteria. But why is this ? Basically the only thing they have in common, again, is that they're made of tiny vibrating particles. What really separates the two is the sheer number of particles. This causes the sun's radiation to be completely dominated by BB radiation, while my coffeecup's radiation is completely dominated by discrete atomic spectra. I believe the two are directly related, but that's another chapter. So, based on some simple observations, my conclusion about how to best represent this abstract thing, is simply with a huge quantity of vibrating particles. "How can we keep the radiative properties away from the disturbing factors of the outside world?" - We simply eliminate the outside world. If all that existed in our universe were tiny vibrating particles, like during billions of years ago close to the big bang, we would have a perfect blackbody - A REAL ONE. If I'm not mistaken, the radiation from this blackbody goes by the name of "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation". Now that I've found out about Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution I completely understand why Planck's suggestion worked. If we just use an ideal gas as representation for the blackbody instead of an oven, there is no need to assume quantization in order to explain the distribution. What say you ? Am I at least beginning to make more sense ? [:D] Thnx again for responding to my posts. |
| Jan15-04, 10:56 AM | #19 |
|
|
You're absolutely right that the Maxwell-Boltzman distribution was used by Planck. The oscillators in Plack's version were to be in thermal equilibrium, so their energies would follow that distibution. And the path from that to the radiation distribution, while not as trivial as you make it seem, was straightforward.
Planck was not a great mathematician, he was a great physicist. And the replacement of the material in the cavity walls with oscillators was a physical idea, not a mathematical one. If you focus on the cavity being able to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium over a period of time, which your cloud could not because of radiation will show you why the cavity is superior. Every bit of radiation produced in one part of the wall of the cavity is absorbed in some other part of the wall. Has to be, by geometry, no place else to go. So absorption = radiation over time, producing a stable distribution for the radiation. |
| Feb4-04, 07:18 AM | #20 |
|
|
A very good article about this subject:
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/12/8 The cavity is not superior [6)] |
| Thread Closed |
Similar discussions for: How Maxwell's theory of radiation could not explain atomic spectra?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Atomic Emission Spectra | Chemistry | 4 | ||
| Atomic Spectra | Introductory Physics Homework | 0 | ||
| Atomic Emission Spectra | Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics | 6 | ||
| Question on atomic spectra. | Introductory Physics Homework | 7 | ||
| atomic spectra | Chemistry | 1 | ||