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 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top