How to calculate the number of photons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Buzz Bloom
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photons
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on calculating the number of photons in a spherical container of hydrogen gas at thermal equilibrium with photons at 300 Kelvin. The primary formula used is the Planck blackbody function, specifically the photon density per unit volume per unit wavelength, expressed as ## n(\lambda) = \frac{2 \pi hc^2}{(\lambda^5)(e^{\frac{hc}{\lambda k T}}-1)} ##. The estimated photon density is approximately ## n \approx 6 \cdot 10^{14} ## photons/m3. Additionally, a numerical integration tool from dcode.fr is suggested for more accurate calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Planck blackbody radiation formula
  • Familiarity with photon gas concepts
  • Basic knowledge of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics
  • Experience with numerical integration techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the derivation of the Planck blackbody function in detail
  • Learn about photon gas properties and their implications in cosmology
  • Investigate numerical integration methods for physics applications
  • Study the relationship between entropy and photon gas in expanding universes
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in thermodynamics, and students studying statistical mechanics who are interested in the properties of photon gases and their calculations.

Buzz Bloom
Gold Member
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
465
An issue arose in another thread about photons and gas in equilibrium. I made an effort to find an answer searching the internet, but my researching skills are not up to the task. The following is one example of the question for which I would like to learn how to calculate the answer.

Given one mole of H2 gas in a spherical container of radius one meter with a perfect insulation boundary, and the gas is in equilibrium with photons at a temperature of 300 kelvin, how many photons (approximately) are in the container with the gas?
 
Science news on Phys.org
The Planck blackbody function, radiation per unit area per unit wavelength ## M(\lambda, T)=\frac{2 \pi hc^2}{(\lambda^5)(e^{\frac{hc}{\lambda k T}}-1)} =n(\lambda) \, (\frac{c}{4})( \frac{hc}{\lambda} ) ## where ## n(\lambda) ## is the photon density per unit volume per unit wavelength. To get the photon density per unit volume ## n =\int\limits_{0}^{+\infty} n(\lambda) \, d \lambda ## . This is the easiest way I know of computing it. ## \\ ## Basically I worked backwards from a step in the derivation of ## M(\lambda, T) ##, where the photon density per unit volume per unit wavelength ## n(\lambda) ## has already been computed, and the next (final) step in getting ## M(\lambda, T) ## is to use the effusion rate formula ## R=\frac{n \bar{v}}{4} ## with ## \bar{v}=c ##, and ## n ## is made to be ## n(\lambda) ## because we are working with a spectral density here. This gets multiplied by ## E_p=\frac{hc}{\lambda} ## to give ## M(\lambda, T)=n(\lambda) (\frac{c}{4})(\frac{hc}{\lambda}) ##. The ## M(\lambda, T) ## in the form above (first line) is a very well-known result. This is easier than repeating the steps of the Planck function derivation where ## n(\lambda) ## gets computed after about 9 or 10 steps. ## \\ ## For a rough estimate, we can use ## \int\limits_{0}^{+\infty} M(\lambda, T) \, d \lambda=\sigma T^4 ##,(which is exact), where ## \sigma=5.67 \cdot 10^{-8} ## watts/(m^2 K^4), along with Wien's law, ## \lambda_p T=2.898 \cdot 10^{-3} ## m K, and a good estimate for ## \bar{\lambda} \approx 2 \lambda_p ##. This would get us an estimate for ## n ## without doing the integral of ## n=\int\limits_{0}^{+\infty} n(\lambda) \, d \lambda \approx \frac{\big{(}\int\limits_{0}^{+\infty} M(\lambda,T) \, d \lambda \big{)}\,(4) (2 \lambda_p)}{hc^2}=\frac{(\sigma T^4)(4)(2)(\frac{2.898 \cdot 10^{-3}}{T})}{hc^2} ##. My arithmetic (which I need to check) gets that ## n \approx 6 \cdot 10^{14} ## photons/m^3 . ## \\ ## A numerical (speadsheet) integration of ## n=\int\limits_{0}^{+\infty} n(\lambda) \, d \lambda ## would be more accurate, but I expect it would get a similar result.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dale and Buzz Bloom
Charles Link said:
A numerical (speadsheet) integration of n=+∞∫0n(λ)dλ n=\int\limits_{0}^{+\infty} n(\lambda) \, d \lambda would be more accurate, but I expect it would get a similar result.
Hi Charles:

Thank you very much for your post. I plan to use an online tool
to do the numerical integration. It has been very helpful to me in the past.

Regards,
Buzz
 
Buzz Bloom said:
Hi Charles:

Thank you very much for your post. I plan to use an online tool
to do the numerical integration. It has been very helpful to me in the past.

Regards,
Buzz
You are welcome. I'd be very much interested in seeing what you get for an answer. I anticipate my estimate is reasonably good.
 
@Buzz Bloom I decided to google it, and it appears the answer can be written in closed form. See the formula for ## N ## in the table, which is proportional to ## V ##: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas ## \\ ## Edit: This result is giving me an answer about a factor of 250 smaller than what I computed above. I wonder if perhaps their ## h ## should be a ## \hbar=\frac{h}{2 \pi} ##.## \\ ## Additional edit: Comparing with what Reif has on p.375 of Statistical and Thermal Physics, it appears that indeed should be a ## \hbar ## in their formula. Yes, also see their footnote: Others have already pointed out this same error. (Just above the table in the fine print: see the words "disputed" in blue). It appears with the added factor of ## (2 \pi)^3 ## , they are now in agreement with my estimate above.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Buzz Bloom
Hi @Charles Link:

Thanks again very much for your help. When I tried to search the Internet for the information, I did not know to use the phrase photon gas. The formula for N is actually quite helpful since it makes clear that in an expanding universe the average number of photons does not change. The formula for S also makes clear that the entropy of the photon gas does not change. These points are relevant to the discussion on the thread

Regards,
Buzz
 
  • Like
Likes Charles Link

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
39
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
2K