Chemistry: Electromagnetic Wavelengths and Frequency

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the relationship between electromagnetic wavelengths and frequency in the context of thermal radiation. It establishes that the energy of electromagnetic waves is directly proportional to their frequency and inversely proportional to their wavelength, as defined by the equation E=hf=hc/λ, where h is Planck's constant and c is the speed of light. The confusion arises from misinterpretation of statements regarding the emission of radiation by heated solids, which actually depends on temperature and results in a spectrum of wavelengths. The conclusion is that both frequency and wavelength are interrelated, and understanding one provides insight into the other.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electromagnetic radiation principles
  • Familiarity with Planck's constant and its significance
  • Knowledge of the speed of light and its role in wave equations
  • Basic grasp of blackbody radiation concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of blackbody radiation in detail
  • Learn about Planck's law and its applications in thermal physics
  • Explore the relationship between temperature and electromagnetic radiation
  • Investigate the implications of wavelength and frequency in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, physicists, educators, and anyone interested in the principles of thermal radiation and electromagnetic theory.

DarylMBCP
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Hi guys, I was reading through some Chemistry papers when I came across these two lines; When solids are heated, they emit electromagnetic radiation over a wide range of wavelengths. The amount of radiation energy emitted by an object at a certain temperature depends on its wavelength. However, I remember reading elsewhere that the radiant energy of an electromagnetic wave increases as its frequency increases. If this is true, then the two statements are my understanding is contradictory with the two lines. Am I misinterpretting the two lines from the Chemistry papers or is there something else I am not realising? Any help is much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The frequency f and wavelength \lambda of light are related by \lambda f = c where c is the speed of light.
 
Thanks for the help, but how can I relate that to the question? What I mean is that the two earlier equations are contradictory since one says that the energy of wave depends in its frequency while the other says that the amount of energy of the wave depends on its wavelength. Which of these is true or is my interpretation wrong? Thanks for the help anyway.
 
Wavelength and frequency are not independent parameters. Knowing one is equivalent to knowing the other, so you can express the energy in terms of either. For example, the energy of a photon can be written

E=hf=\frac{hc}{\lambda}

where h is Planck's constant and c is the speed of light.
 
From the equation, do you mean that frequency is proportional to the energy of a type of light (like infrared of ultraviolet) while wavelength is inversely proportional so the statements that 'When solids are heated, they emit electromagnetic radiation over a wide range of wavelengths. The amount of radiation energy emitted by an object at a certain temperature depends on its wavelength' are wrong? Thanks for the help by the way.
 
The amount of blackbody radiation at a given wavelength depends on the object's temperature.

See Law[/url]

Objects at higher temperatures emit more light at a shorter wavelength (higher frequency).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DarylMBCP said:
From the equation, do you mean that frequency is proportional to the energy of a type of light (like infrared of ultraviolet) while wavelength is inversely proportional so the statements that 'When solids are heated, they emit electromagnetic radiation over a wide range of wavelengths. The amount of radiation energy emitted by an object at a certain temperature depends on its wavelength' are wrong? Thanks for the help by the way.
No. Why would what I said imply that that statement is wrong?
 
Oh I get what you guys mean. I was interpretting the statements wrongly. K, thanks for the help. It's really appreciated.
 

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K