How Does Temperature Affect the Intensity Spectrum in Planck's Radiation Law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sanitykey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law Radiation
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around Planck's Radiation Law and its dependence on temperature and wavelength. The original poster presents the formula for the intensity of radiation emitted by a body in thermal equilibrium and seeks to understand how temperature affects the intensity spectrum. They are tasked with sketching the intensity as a function of wavelength for different temperatures and simplifying the expression for short and long wavelengths.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the meaning of "clearly label" in the context of sketching the intensity curves for different temperatures. There is an exploration of simplifying the expression for both short and long wavelengths, with some participants suggesting the use of Taylor series expansions.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the mathematical aspects of the problem, with some providing corrections and clarifications on the simplifications. There is an ongoing exploration of the differences between the intensity expressions and the implications of the differential notation in the context of integration.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the simplification process and the relevance of the differential terms in the formulas. The discussion includes attempts to clarify the relationship between the two expressions presented in the problem statement.

sanitykey
Messages
93
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The dependence on wavelength [tex]\lambda[/tex] of the intensity [tex]I(\lambda)d\lambda[/tex] of the radiation emitted by a body which is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings at temerature T is given by:

[tex]I(\lambda)d\lambda = \frac{2 \pi h c^{2}/\lambda^5}{e^{hc/kT\lambda}-1}d\lambda[/tex]

in the interval of wavelength between [tex]\lambda[/tex] and [tex]\lambda+d\lambda[/tex]. In this expression, h is Planck's constant, k is Boltzmann's constant, and c is the velocity of light.

Sketch and clearly label on one figure the dependences of [tex]I(\lambda)d\lambda[/tex] on [tex]\lambda[/tex] for three different temperatures [tex]T_{1} < T_{2} < T_{3}[/tex].

Simplify the above expression in the limit of (i) short wavelength ([tex]\lambda\rightarrow0[/tex]) and (ii) long wavelength ([tex]\lambda\rightarrow\infty[/tex]).

(The binomial expansion [tex]e^{x} = 1+x+x^{2}/2+...[/tex] may be useful.)

Homework Equations



All given in the problem i think.

The Attempt at a Solution



I found Planck's Radiation Law was almost exactly the same as this i searched for it on wikipedia for more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law

On that page is a graph which i thought was showing what the first part of the question is asking but i don't understand what the question means when it says "clearly label on one figure the dependences of [tex]I(\lambda)d\lambda[/tex] on [tex]\lambda[/tex]"?

For the second part i tried to make the formula look simpler first:

[tex]\frac{A}{\lambda^{5}(e^{B/\lambda} - 1)}[/tex]

I think as [tex]\lambda\rightarrow0[/tex], [tex]e^{B/\lambda} - 1[/tex] can be simplified to [tex]e^{B/\lambda}[/tex] because the latter expression will be very large giving:

[tex]\frac{A}{\lambda^{5}e^{B/\lambda}}[/tex]

I'm having some trouble posting the rest of my thread but i thought for the last part as lambda goes to infinity the expression would simplify to A/lambda^5 but I'm not sure how to work these out for definite i think this is probably wrong.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For large [itex]\lambda[/itex], you can expand [itex]e^{B/ \lambda }[/itex] to first order, using the Taylor series provided to you. You will get a different answer than [itex]A/ \lambda ^5[/itex]. Your answer for the short wavelength limit is correct.

As for "labeling", I believe that is asking you to make it clear which curve represents which temperature (T1,T2,T3).
 
Thanks for the help this is what I've got so far:

[tex]\lambda^{5}(e^{B/\lambda} - 1) = \lambda^{5}(1 + \frac{B}{\lambda} + \frac{B^2}{2 \lambda^2} + \frac{B^3}{6 \lambda^3}... -1)[/tex]

[tex]\frac{A}{\lambda^{5}(\frac{B}{\lambda} + \frac{B^2}{2 \lambda^2} + \frac{B^3}{6 \lambda^3}... )}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{A}{B \lambda^4 + 1/2 B^2 \lambda^3 + 1/6 B^3 \lambda^2 + 1/24 B^4 \lambda + 1/120 B^5}[/tex]

I think all the other terms in the expansion would tend to 0 so they can be ignored, if this is right it's as far as i can get though i can't see how to simplify any further although this makes it look longer and maybe even more complicated?
 
Actually, it's better than that!

[itex]B/ \lambda <<1 \implies B^2 \lambda^3 << B \lambda ^4[/itex], etc. So feel free to throw away all terms after the first one.
 
Thanks for the help again :)

I was wondering i can see the difference between this:

[tex]I(\lambda)d\lambda = \frac{2 \pi h c^{2}/\lambda^5}{e^{hc/kT\lambda}-1}d\lambda[/tex]

and Planck's radiation formula:

[tex]I(\lambda)= \frac{2 h c^{2}/\lambda^5}{e^{hc/kT\lambda}-1}[/tex]

is [tex]d\lambda[/tex] and [tex]\pi[/tex]. How do you transform one into the other? What does it mean to write it like the question did with [tex]d\lambda[/tex] either side or more specifically what does the [tex]d\lambda[/tex] mean in that context?

If you integrated both sides to get rid of the [tex]d\lambda[/tex] s would the [tex]\pi[/tex] dissapear? I really should try and integrate it myself rather than just asking but it looks complicated :S i'll give it a shot though.
 
sanitykey said:
Thanks for the help again :)

I was wondering i can see the difference between this:

[tex]I(\lambda)d\lambda = \frac{2 \pi h c^{2}/\lambda^5}{e^{hc/kT\lambda}-1}d\lambda[/tex]

and Planck's radiation formula:

[tex]I(\lambda)= \frac{2 h c^{2}/\lambda^5}{e^{hc/kT\lambda}-1}[/tex]

There' a [itex]\pi[/itex] difference. But only because you forgot to put it in the second formula. The difference between the 2 formulas is important only when you try to change the variable from wavelength to frequency [itex]\nu[/itex] or angular frequency [itex]\omega[/itex]. In that case, the formula involving differentials should be used.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K