Black body radiation and maximum spectral density

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the discrepancy between the maximum spectral energy density in Planck's black body radiation when calculated using frequency (ν) versus wavelength (λ). The mathematical derivations confirm that the maximum frequency (ν_max) and maximum wavelength (λ_max) do not correspond to the same wave, resulting in ν_max λ_max = 0.568c. This phenomenon arises due to the non-linear relationship between frequency and wavelength, which affects the distribution of energy across differential intervals. The quantity R_T(ν) is referred to as "spectral energy density," aligning with the Spanish term "Radiance" or "Emittance."

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Planck's Law of black body radiation
  • Familiarity with spectral energy density concepts
  • Basic knowledge of calculus, particularly differentiation and integration
  • Comprehension of the relationship between frequency and wavelength in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Planck's Law and its implications in thermal radiation
  • Learn about the mathematical derivation of spectral energy density
  • Explore the concept of non-linear relationships in physics
  • Investigate the implications of differential intervals in energy calculations
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, engineers, and students studying thermodynamics or quantum mechanics, particularly those interested in black body radiation and spectral analysis.

fede.na
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hi, I've got a simple question regarding the maximum of the spectral energy density in Planck's black body radiation. It turns out that if you calculate which frequency has the most power associated with it (i.e. maximize R(\nu)), then you do it with wavelength as well, and compare, they're not the same wave, meaning that \lambda \nu \neq c.

How can this happen? I suspect that it has to do with the energy density being associated with differential intervals of \nu, rather than values of \nu itself... but nevertheless, I can't figure it out. Common sense tells me \lambda \nu = c should work, because it should be the same wave that carries the maximum energy. Maximizing spectral energy density either in frequency or in wavelength should yield the same result since there's no physical meaning in the variable change, it's just math. Isn't it?

My math goes as follows. The power per unit area (and solid angle) emitted by a black body is:


$$ R_T (\nu) \operatorname{d}\!\nu = \frac{2\pi}{c^2} \frac{h\nu ^3}{e^{\frac{h\nu}{KT}} -1 }\operatorname{d}\!\nu $$

In wavelengths:

$$ R_T(\lambda)\operatorname{d}\!\lambda = 2\pi h c^2 \frac{\lambda ^{-5}}{e^{\frac{hc}{\lambda KT}}-1}\operatorname{d}\!\lambda$$


After maximization, I get:

$$ \nu _{max} = 2.821 · \frac{KT}{h} ; \lambda _{max} = \frac{hc}{4.965·KT} \rightarrow
\nu _{max} \lambda _{max} = 0.568c$$

Another suspicion I have (if it isn't the same one) is that I'm not interpreting correctly the differentials present in the expressions.

BTW if someone could tell me what you call this quantity R_T (\nu) in English it'd be great, in Spanish it's something like "Radiance" or "Emittance", just translating by how it sounds. Meanwhile I'll just say spectral energy density.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, you've done the math correctly, so you've answered your own question of "How can this happen?" I guess it just tells you that when your common sense says one thing and the math says another, you should believe the math.

Perhaps one way to see it is to divide up the function into a finite number of wavelength and frequency bins Δλ and Δnu instead of using infinitesimals. If you do this, you'll see that because of the non-linear relation between wavelength and frequency, bins of fixed width Δλ don't translate into bins of fixed width Δnu, but instead translate into bins of width c/nu^2 Δnu. So as nu gets smaller, the bins get wider and wider, and contain more spectral energy. This causes the maximum to be shifted realtive to its position when you use bins of fixed Δnu.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K