Confused about monochromatic flux

  • Thread starter Thread starter constellation
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confused Flux
AI Thread Summary
Monochromatic flux, spectral flux density, and flux density are often used interchangeably, defined as power per area of the telescope and bandwidth, with units of W m-2 Hz-1 or W m-2 nm-1. The confusion arises in converting between monochromatic flux with respect to wavelength and frequency, as different texts provide varying equations for this conversion. One method suggests using νFν = λFλ, while another states Fν dν = -Fλ dλ, leading to Fν = Fλ (λ²/c). The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between these equations, ultimately resolving the confusion through substitution and simplification. The clarification brings peace of mind regarding the conversion process in astrophysics.
constellation
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
We're covering flux/luminosity/magnitudes etc in Astrophysics module at the moment but I'm getting myself into a bit of a muddle when it comes to flux.

We've been given monochromatic and bolometric flux equations, both with respect to wavelength and with respect to frequency.

And I'm trying to understand the relationship and conversion between the monochromatic flux wrt wavelength and wrt frequency but finding it quite confusing. It doesn't help that every textbook I look in seems to call it a different name!

Are "monochromatic flux", "spectral flux density" and "flux density" all the same thing? The two texts I'm looking at currently both quote them as the same definition, i.e power divided by area of telescope and the bandwidth. And all quote units of W m-2 Hz-1 or W m-2 nm-1. (Some texts go on to mention angles and derive new quantities but we haven't covered that yet so I'm only looking at the basic form).

The equations we have been given are:

Monochromatic flux wrt frequency,

F_{\nu} = \frac{\Delta E}{\Delta A\Delta t\Delta\nu}

and monochromatic flux wrt wavelength,

F_{\lambda} = \frac{\Delta E}{\Delta A\Delta t\Delta\lambda}

If they are one and the same, why then would one text say that in order to convert between F(lambda) and F(nu) you would use

\nu F_{\nu} = \lambda F_{\lambda} http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cc9L8QWcZWsC&pg=RA1-PA94&lpg=RA1-PA94"

but others say that you need to use

F_{\nu} d\nu = -F_{\lambda} d\lambda which then goes down to

F_{\nu} = F_{\lambda} \left(\frac{\lambda^{2}}{c} \right) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hp7vyaGvhLMC&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337"

Confused! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Okay, after spending all day trying to get this, I just did it after minutes of posting this topic, typical. Substituting c=lambda*nu into the last equation and canceling down/simplifying gets you to the result in the other textbook. Peace of mind at last :blushing:
 
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Asteroid, Data - 1.2% risk of an impact on December 22, 2032. The estimated diameter is 55 m and an impact would likely release an energy of 8 megatons of TNT equivalent, although these numbers have a large uncertainty - it could also be 1 or 100 megatons. Currently the object has level 3 on the Torino scale, the second-highest ever (after Apophis) and only the third object to exceed level 1. Most likely it will miss, and if it hits then most likely it'll hit an ocean and be harmless, but...
Back
Top