How do you convert Planck's Radiation Formula into terms of wavelength?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nadeemo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Radiation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on converting Planck's Radiation Formula from frequency terms to wavelength terms. Participants explore the mathematical transformations required for this conversion, including the implications of changing variables in integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents Planck's Law in terms of frequency and questions how to convert it to wavelength, suggesting a substitution involving the speed of light.
  • Another participant points out that a simple substitution is insufficient due to the need to account for the differential change in variables, specifically noting the importance of the term dv.
  • A further inquiry is made about how to correctly express u(v)dv in terms of u(lambda)d(lambda), with a suggestion to replace dv with negative d(lambda) and integrate.
  • A mathematical relationship is provided that connects frequency and wavelength, including the derivative of frequency with respect to wavelength, which introduces a negative factor in the conversion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conversion process, with some emphasizing the need for careful treatment of differentials while others seek clarification on the correct approach. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact steps to achieve the conversion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of integrating over the correct variables and the implications of changing from frequency to wavelength, but do not resolve the mathematical steps involved in the conversion.

nadeemo
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Okay, so I know that Planck's Law states that,

u(v) dv = 8\pi v^{}3 / c^{}3(e^{}(hc/kT)-1)

to make this formula in terms of wavelength, do you just plug in c = v\lambda, or is there more to it? because what I get is not what I find on the net to be correct.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
sry for the bad looking equation, I am new to the forum :P
 
you cannot simply substitute because you are missing the dv, in the right hand side of the formula.

sure, you can just put lambda in terms of v, but at the end, you want to integrate over u(lambda) d lambda, so you need to change dv to dlambda, and that introduces the extra factors you found on the internet.
 
so how should i change u(v)dv to u(lambda)d(lambda)

i found a relation
1.png


2.png


so i just replace dv with negative d(lambda)??
and then integrate?
 
\nu = \frac{c}{\lambda}

\frac{d \nu}{d \lambda} = - \frac{c}{\lambda^2}

Therefore

d \nu = - \frac{c}{\lambda^2} d \lambda
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
523
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K