Is the Divisor (2π)^3 Necessary in Photon Gas Equations?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sky Darmos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Density Gases Photon
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the necessity of the divisor (2π)^3 in the photon gas equation presented in a Wikipedia article, which contrasts with the equation in Steven Weinberg's book "The First Three Minutes." The Wikipedia equation features 16πk³ζ(3)T³ in the numerator and c³h³(2π)³ in the denominator, while Weinberg's version omits the (2π)³ term. The consensus among participants indicates that the discrepancy arises from a misunderstanding between the constants h and ℏ (h-bar), suggesting that replacing h with ℏ in the Wikipedia equation resolves the inconsistency, thereby supporting Weinberg's formulation as the correct one.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of photon gas equations
  • Familiarity with constants h and ℏ (h-bar)
  • Knowledge of LaTeX for equation formatting
  • Basic grasp of statistical mechanics concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of photon gas equations in "The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg
  • Study the differences between Planck's constant (h) and reduced Planck's constant (ℏ)
  • Learn how to properly format equations using LaTeX
  • Investigate the implications of using natural units in physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone involved in the study of statistical mechanics and photon gas behavior will benefit from this discussion.

Sky Darmos
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Hello everybody,

In this Wikipedia article we find an equation for a photon gas which contradicts an equation given by Stefan Weinberg in his book "The first three minutes":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas
The equation given here has 16 π k^3 ζ(3) T^3 in the numerator and c^3 h^3 (2 π)^3 in the denominator.
In Weinberg's version of this "(2 π)^3" is missing. Obviously "h^3 (2 π)^3" is "h_quer".
The difference between the two equations is significant.
There is a discussion going on on this Wikipedia page about if this divisor "(2 π)^3" is necessary or not.
I don't understand how this has been noticed since 2011, but nobody made the afford to correct or clarify.

I hope you can help me to end this confusion.

Thanks in advance.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Please don’t write parts of an equation separately and ask people to put the pieces together. Write out the actual equations (both of them!)
 
Here are the equations as picture files:
 

Attachments

  • 57387447_10158727002448079_4407002557298245632_n.jpg
    57387447_10158727002448079_4407002557298245632_n.jpg
    68.6 KB · Views: 351
  • 57059807_10158727019213079_3037507215121448960_n.jpg
    57059807_10158727019213079_3037507215121448960_n.jpg
    83.4 KB · Views: 347
  • 56887120_10158727019463079_7551317676266618880_n.jpg
    56887120_10158727019463079_7551317676266618880_n.jpg
    86.9 KB · Views: 377
You can use LaTeX in this forum - see the link below the reply box. Your formula is $$\frac{16 \pi k^3 \zeta(3) T^3}{ c^3 h^3 (2 \pi)^3}$$and you say the ##(2\pi)^3## is not present in Weinberg's version.
 
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: Sky Darmos
A simple way to approach the issue is to recognize that this problem is likely all about confusion of the use of ##\hbar## vs. ##h##. If you replace ##h## with ##\hbar## in one of the two equations, they will agree with one another. Only one choice will work correctly.

Which means it looks like Weinberg's version is probably the right one. You'd have to check the derivation to be sure, however.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Sky Darmos and Ibix
I think it is pretty clear that someone just forgot to change the ##h## to an ##\hbar## in Wikipedia. All other equations in that table are using ##\hbar## and not ##h##.

Kolb-Turner, which I trust, has
$$
n = \frac{\zeta(3) gT^3}{\pi^2}
$$
in natural units (##k = c = \hbar = 1##), which agrees with the Wikipedia entry if you take ##h \to \hbar## there.

See kids, this is why you should not take Wikipedia on face value.
 
Oh, I see, they tried to use ℏ everywhere, that is why they had to add the (2π)^3 here.
Makes sense, thank you Orodruin.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K