Frequency to wavelength question (thermal Doppler broadening)

  • Thread starter Thread starter dartingeyes
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between frequency and wavelength, particularly in the context of thermal Doppler broadening. It clarifies that the equation \(\nu = c/\lambda\) does not directly apply to small variations in frequency and wavelength. The derivation shows that the product \(\omega\lambda\) remains constant, leading to the relationship \(\Delta\lambda/\lambda \simeq -\Delta\omega/\omega\). This highlights the importance of understanding variations rather than just the static relationship between frequency and wavelength. The clarification is essential for grasping the nuances of Doppler broadening effects.
dartingeyes
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
I don't understand how to go from one equation to the other
Relevant Equations
provided in picture
I want to understand how the two equations in the picture are the same. I am confused because \nu=c/\lambda. This would mean that the term on the right side of the equation in the square root, call it x, would then become x^-1. The resulting equation being \Delta\lambda = \lambda x^-1. But somehow this is not the case?
1747768513647.webp
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What you are saying is only true for the relationship between frequency and wavelength themselves - not their small variation.

From ##\omega \propto 1/\lambda## follows that ##\Delta\omega \propto \Delta\lambda /\lambda^2 \propto \Delta\lambda (\omega/\lambda)##.
 
Orodruin said:
What you are saying is only true for the relationship between frequency and wavelength themselves - not their small variation.

From ##\omega \propto 1/\lambda## follows that ##\Delta\omega \propto \Delta\lambda /\lambda^2 \propto \Delta\lambda (\omega/\lambda)##.
Thank you. This tracks for me.
 
A somewhat cleaner derivation:

The product ##\omega\lambda## is constant so ##0=\Delta(\omega\lambda) \simeq \omega \Delta\lambda + \lambda\Delta\omega##. This directly leads to ##\Delta\lambda/\lambda \simeq - \Delta\omega/\omega##.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top