Can Wien's Law be derived without using Planck's formula?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Jeans
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Law
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the derivation of Wien's distribution law, emphasizing the frustration that existing derivations rely on Planck's radiation formula, which was published after Wien's law. The original paper by Wien, published in 1898, assumes an exponential form for black body radiation and integrates to derive a result proportional to T^4, leaving constants for experimental determination. It is noted that Wien's law was shown to be incorrect at long wavelengths shortly after its publication. The thread highlights the need for a historical context in understanding these derivations and suggests looking up Wien's original paper for clarity. Understanding these foundational concepts is crucial for research on blackbody radiation.
Math Jeans
Messages
347
Reaction score
0
Just for clarification, I am referring to the Wien distribution law, and not Wien's Displacement Law.

I understand the fact that the law can easily be derived by treating is as a high-frequency limit of Planck's radiation formula, however, this is incredibly frustrating to me. Why? Wien's law was derived 4 years BEFORE Planck's radiation formula, and all of the derivations of Wien's law that I can find on the internet are based off of Planck's law.

I'm currently doing a research project on Blackbody radiation, and in order to keep a coherent timeline, I really need a derivation without the use of a formula which did not exist in 1896.

Any thoughts/sources?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is old but in case anyone cares...

The original paper is "On the division of energy in the emission-spectrum of a black body", it's written in english, or was translated and is quite clear and very readable, even for modern readers. He assumes that the form black body radiation formula is an exponential, and integrates out to give something proportional T^4. Believe it or not, with not much else he derives his result, the constants are left to experiment to find. This was published june 1898 and by 1899 it was shown to be incorrect at long wavelegnths. Planck's solution is 1900. Look up the original paper.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
I passed a motorcycle on the highway going the opposite direction. I know I was doing 125/km/h. I estimated that the frequency of his motor dropped by an entire octave, so that's a doubling of the wavelength. My intuition is telling me that's extremely unlikely. I can't actually calculate how fast he was going with just that information, can I? It seems to me, I have to know the absolute frequency of one of those tones, either shifted up or down or unshifted, yes? I tried to mimic the...
Back
Top