Why does Wien's displacement law not hold for frequency?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jezuz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Displacement Law
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around Wien's displacement law and its application to blackbody radiation, specifically questioning why the law does not hold when transformed from wavelength to frequency. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the expected relationship between maximum intensity in terms of wavelength and frequency.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the transformation of Wien's law from wavelength to frequency, questioning the relationship between maximum intensity in both domains. They discuss the implications of the Planck distribution and the need for integrals to equate energy radiated across frequency and wavelength ranges.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants clarifying concepts and exploring the mathematical relationships involved. Some guidance has been provided regarding the need for integrals to match in order to understand the intensity distribution across frequency and wavelength.

Contextual Notes

There is an underlying assumption that the transformation from wavelength to frequency should yield corresponding maximum values, which is being questioned. Participants are also addressing potential mistakes in their previous reasoning.

Jezuz
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Wien's displacement law states that the wavelength of highest intensity in the radiation from a blackbody is something like:

\lambda_{max} = \frac{2.898*10^{-3}}{T}

in meters, where T is the temperature given in kelvins.

If you try to transform this law into frequency one would expect that we should have:

f_{max} = \frac{c}{\lambda_{max}}

but apparently this is not the case! Why is it like that?
I mean, if you have a blackbody radiation field it will have a maximum of intensity at some frequency, but shouldn't that frequency coincide with the wavelength for which it has the maximum intensity?

Please help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wein's law results from finding a maximum in the Planck distribution u \left( \lambda \right). Given u \left( \lambda \right) and \lambda \left( f \right) = c/f, a new function \tilde{u} \left( f \right) = u \left( \lambda \left( f \right) \right) of frequency can be defined, but \tilde{u} \left( f \right) is not the Planck distribution in the frequency domain. If it were, then f_{max} and \lambda_{max} would correspond.

\int_{0}^{\infty} u \left( \lambda \right) d\lambda = \int_{\infty}^{0} \tilde{u} \left( f \right) \frac{d \lambda}{df} df = - \int_{0}^{\infty} \tilde{u} \left( f \right) \frac{d \lambda}{df} df

Consequently,

- \tilde{u} \left( f \right) \frac{d \lambda}{df}

needs to be maximized to find f_{max}.

Regards,
George
 
Last edited:
Of course!
You need to have the two integrals you wrote equall so that the energy (intensity) that is radiated in a certain frequency range is the same as the intensity of the corresponding wavelength, right?
 
Jezuz said:
Of course!
You need to have the two integrals you wrote equall so that the energy (intensity) that is radiated in a certain frequency range is the same as the intensity of the corresponding wavelength, right?

Yes.

Note that I corrected a silly mistake in my previous post.

Regards,
George
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
25K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K