How Does Planck's Formula Change Without Stimulated Emission?

UrbanXrisis
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
1
I am to show Planck's blackbody radiation formula without the stimulated emission:

level n is the upper energy level, level m is the lower energy level:

N_m B u(\lambda,T)=N_n A

\frac{N_n}{N_m}=\frac{B u(\lambda,T)}{A}

N_n=ce^{-E_n /kT}

N_m=ce^{-E_m /kT}

\frac{N_n}{N_m}=e^{-h \nu / kT}

e^{-h \nu / kT}=\frac{B u(\lambda,T)}{A}

as T --> infinity

\frac{B u(\lambda,T)}{A}=1

u(\lambda,T)= \frac{A}{B e^{h \nu / kT}}

this is the formula for blackbody radiation if the stimulated emission was not placed into the equation right?

should I include that \frac{A}{B}=\frac{8 \pi hc}{ \lambda^5}?

I am also to find the range of wavelengths that is almost the same as Planck's formula... since the A/B for both formulas are the same... then i should find when \frac{1}{e^{hc/ \lambda kT}-1}= \frac{1}{e^{hc/ \lambda kT}} are aprox. equal?

I am also asked who had already discovered this formula? I have no clue, but my best guess is Rayleigh?

I am also asked which modern high tech device would not work if blackbody radiation was described by this new formula? my best guess would be the laser? since it needs stimulated emission to produce light.

how is my work for these problems?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A/B must be written in terms of the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation being subject to quantization. For small T, which means large values of the exponent of "e", the formula had been previously found by W.Wien.

Daniel.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top