Deriving the Total Energy from Blackbody Radiation: A Mathematical Approach

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the mathematical derivation of total energy from blackbody radiation, specifically how to integrate the energy density expression. The integration involves transforming the term 1/(e^x - 1) into a geometric series, which simplifies the process. After pulling the sum out of the integral, the variable substitution y = (n+1)x is applied, leading to a new expression that includes y^3 dy/(n+1)^4. The integral can be evaluated, likely by parts, resulting in a value of 6. The complexities of evaluating the sum are acknowledged, with references to additional resources for alternative proofs.
Xyius
Messages
501
Reaction score
4
This might be more of a mathematical question than a physical one. But I am taking a Quantum Mechanics course and the book starts out by introducing the equation for the energy density of radiation from a black body. They then integrate this expression over infinity to find the total energy per unit volume.

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5189/blackbody.jpg

My question is, how did they do the integral? It looks like they turned \frac{1}{e^{x}-1} into its geometric series representation. That part I understand. But what do they do in the step after that? Where does the geometric series go? And where does the \frac{1}{(n+1)^4} come from? And for that matter, the last line in the derivation?

I know its not an incredibly crucial question in understanding the Physics, but it bugs me a lot when I cannot follow the mathematics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well when you pull the sum out to the front of the integral, you have x^3e^{-(1+n)x}. Then when you substitute y = (n+1)x, you have to use x^3 dx= y^3dy / (n+1)^4. The integral can then be evaluated, presumably by parts, to get 6. Evaluating the sum is a bit tricky. If I was working through the derivation, I'd just be satisfied with looking up the answer. This page gives a few clever ways of doing it: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/28329/nice-proofs-of-zeta4-pi4-90
 
Thank you!
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K