Help with Understanding Conclusions of the Planck Hypothesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Head
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Planck
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the Planck Hypothesis, particularly regarding energy distribution in blackbody radiation. It highlights confusion about the relationship between energy, frequency, and temperature, specifically how low-frequency energy approaches KT and the implications of delta E in quantization. Participants clarify that the concept of blackbody radiation applies beyond artificial cavities, as real surfaces, like that of the Sun, can still emit radiation without requiring standing waves. The conversation emphasizes that kT represents energy at a given temperature, independent of frequency, and that the average energy behavior varies with delta E. Overall, the complexities of Planck's theory and its applications to real-world scenarios are explored.
The Head
Messages
137
Reaction score
2
Let me start off by saying that I really only have a few weeks experience beyond the introductory physics courses, so I apologize in advance for any gross misconceptions I have. In trying to understand Planck's theory, I came upon a number of confusions that I am having trouble reconciling. Any help on any part is greatly appreciated!

1) The first hangup I have is with energy for low frequencies equal to KT. The way I have read about it is with an artificial blackbody with EM waves inside. I read online that each wave contributes KT to the radiation of the box. Is this the radiation absorbed by each wave? And this is regardless of the frequency of the wave--how so? Now, also Planck talks about the limit as the frequency approaches zero, the average energy approaches KT. I assume this is for the energy radiated, right? If so, is this because any oscillators that are part of the blackbody are simply radiating whatever energy that they absorb because the quantity "hf" is very low and thus easy to absorb?

2) In my text it says that Plank found that average energy is around KT when the adjacent energies delta E is small and that the average energy is about zero when delta E is large. They then show a graph of energy vs energy*probability of the energy level. It is obvious that small delta E corresponds with low frequencies, because the average energy equal KT, where large delta E seems to be for large energies, as the average is zero First of all, I may be confused about what delta E really is. Is this the quantization that Planck described, such as a large delta E is the step between energy levels? But then why is E*P(E) almost zero for large delta E-- shouldn't it depend on the frequency? One last thing, it says that delta E large is such that it is greater than KT-- what does this mean?

3) The setup for this artificial blackbody is that it is a metal cavity with a hole where EM waves can enter escape. I believe that I understand the basic setup and why this necessitates that they must be standing waves, but what about something like the Sun, which isn't made (primarily) out of metal. If it emits blackbody radiation, why don't all the previous arguments go out the door? Because it isn't a hollow metal, I don't see why it should have standing waves, and all the rest that follows.

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Head said:
3) The setup for this artificial blackbody is that it is a metal cavity with a hole where EM waves can enter escape. I believe that I understand the basic setup and why this necessitates that they must be standing waves, but what about something like the Sun, which isn't made (primarily) out of metal. If it emits blackbody radiation, why don't all the previous arguments go out the door? Because it isn't a hollow metal, I don't see why it should have standing waves, and all the rest that follows.

Thank you!

The Sun doesn't emit blackbody radiation. Instead it has a spectrum that contains useful information.
 
Concerning 3: One interesting point is that you do not need a cavity (and even in a real cavity, standing waves are not as simple as the derivation assumes) - you get the same absorption/emission on every surface, including the surface of sun (in a good approximation, if you neglect spectral lines).

1+2: Sorry, I do not understand your text at all.
kT is an energy which corresponds to a specific temperature T, this is true for all temperatures and is unrelated to any frequency (of what?).
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K