Finding a constant of proportionality (Astro)

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
19 replies · 3K views
lquinnl
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



OK so I'm doing a past exam paper as some revision:

The central galaxy in the Perseus cluster has an X-ray spectrum in wavelength units
which is well described by the power law

[tex]F_\lambda \propto \lambda^{-2}[/tex] .

If the spectrum in frequency units is described by

[tex]F_v \propto v^\beta[/tex],

calculate [tex]\beta[/tex] .

Homework Equations



Obviously we have [tex]v = \frac{c}{\lambda}[/tex]


The Attempt at a Solution



so if [tex]v = \frac{c}{\lambda}[/tex]

then does that mean that [tex]\beta = -3[/tex]

I feel like I am really missing the point here. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How did you get -3?
 
Because lambda is to the power of -2 and lambda is related to frequency as v = c lambda^{-1} therefore adding an extra -1

does that make sense or is it total *@~% ?
 
I really cannot follow this logic. How does this "adding" come about?
 
Because

λ-1 λ-2 = λ-3

Am I on the right lines?
 
No, you are not. You really need to think how one could go from wavelength to frequency in a formula.
 
Looking at this again I am not convinced of my reasoning. I have this:

[tex]F_\lambda \propto \lambda^{-2}[/tex] .



[tex]F_v \propto v^{-\beta}[/tex] .



[tex]F_v \propto v^{-\beta} \propto {\frac{c}{\lambda}}^{-\beta}[/tex] .

Any chance of a poke in the right direction, if you know?
 
You have a formula that contains [itex]\lambda^{-2}[/itex].

You need to express this formula via [itex]\nu[/itex]. How would you do it?
 
voko said:
You have a formula that contains [itex]\lambda^{-2}[/itex].

You need to express this formula via [itex]\nu[/itex]. How would you do it?

[tex]F_\lambda \propto \lambda^{-2} \propto (v^{-1})^{-2} \propto v^{-3}[/tex]

[tex]v \propto \lambda^{-1}[/tex]

[tex]F_v \propto v^{\beta} \propto \lambda^{-1} \propto (v^{-3})^{-1} \propto v^{-4}[/tex]

so [tex]\beta = 4[/tex]

?

P.s. Thanks for all this help.
 
Last edited:
lquinnl said:
[tex]F_\lambda \propto \lambda^{-2} \propto (v^{-1})^{-2}[/tex]

This part is correct.

But [itex](\nu^{-1})^{-2}[/itex] is NOT [itex]\nu^{-3}[/itex]. I note that you made a similar mistake in another derivation. What is the proper result of such an operation?
 
But [itex](\nu^{-1})^{-2}[/itex] is NOT [itex]\nu^{-3}[/itex]. I note that you made a similar mistake in another derivation. What is the proper result of such an operation?

OF COURSE! I feel so stupid today, really need to wake up!

[tex](v^{-1})^{-2} = v^{2}[/tex]

so

[tex]F_v \propto v^{\beta} \propto \lambda^{-1} \propto (v^{2})^{-1} \propto v^{-2}[/tex]

and

[tex]\beta = 2[/tex]

Am I Right?
 
Last edited:
Or have I messed up still, regarding a sign?
 
lquinnl said:
But [itex](\nu^{-1})^{-2}[/itex] is NOT [itex]\nu^{-3}[/itex]. I note that you made a similar mistake in another derivation. What is the proper result of such an operation?

OF COURSE! I feel so stupid today, really need to wake up!

[tex](v^{-1})^{-2} = v^{2}[/tex]

This is correct. But what you do then puzzles me. You have just proved that since

[itex]\lambda^{-2} \propto \nu^{2}[/itex]

we have

[itex]F \propto \lambda^{-2} \propto \nu ^{2}[/itex]
 
What I'm saying is that

[tex]F_\lambda \propto \lambda^{-2} \propto v^{2}[/tex]

from [tex]v = \frac{c}{\lambda}[/tex] we have [tex]v \propto \lambda^{-1}[/tex]

so

[tex]F_v \propto \lambda^{-1}[/tex]

now i think maybe this should be how i follow:so

[tex]F_v \propto v^{\beta} \propto (\lambda^{-1})\propto(v^{2})^{-1}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Again, you just got the expression in terms of [itex]v^{2}[/itex]. While you know it should be in terms of [itex]v^{\beta}[/itex]. What does this mean to you?
 
voko said:
Again, you just got the expression in terms of [itex]v^{2}[/itex]. While you know it should be in terms of [itex]v^{\beta}[/itex]. What does this mean to you?

So if [tex]F_v \propto v^{\beta} \propto v^{-2}[/tex]

[tex]\beta = -2[/tex]
 
Why is this MINUS 2? Just two messages above it was PLUS 2.
 
I thought it should be minus 2 from this statement:

[tex]F_v \propto v^{\beta} \propto (\lambda^{-1})\propto(v^{2})^{-1}[/tex][/QUOTE]
 
I think you are very confused. Let me explain the whole thing to you.

When something (A) is proportional something else (B), then A = CB, where C does not contain B in any way.

In your case, you have F proportional to [itex]\lambda^{-2}[/itex], which means [itex]F = k\lambda^{-2}[/itex]

You are asked to find out to what degree of [itex]\nu[/itex] that is proportional. This is done by expressing [itex]\lambda[/itex] via [itex]\nu[/itex], which is [itex]\lambda = c\nu^{-1}[/itex], so you end up with [itex]F = k(c\nu^{-1})^{-2} = kc^{-2}\nu^{2}[/itex], which simply means that [itex]F \propto \nu^{2}[/itex] and [itex]\beta = 2[/itex].
 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

I feel like I have done an incredible job of over-complicating this problem!

I think I was getting confused by the fact we have F_v and F_lambda.

So it was just a case of expressing wavelength as frequency and amalgamating the powers.

Seems incredibly straightforward now!

Thanks again