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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the necessity of the divisor \((2\pi)^3\) in the equations describing a photon gas, as presented in a Wikipedia article compared to a version by Stefan Weinberg. Participants explore the implications of using Planck's constant \(h\) versus the reduced Planck's constant \(\hbar\) in these equations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes a discrepancy between the Wikipedia equation for a photon gas and the equation in Weinberg's book, specifically regarding the presence of \((2\pi)^3\) in the denominator.
  • Another participant requests the full equations to facilitate understanding, indicating that parts of equations should not be presented separately.
  • A later reply suggests that the confusion may stem from the use of \(h\) versus \(\hbar\), proposing that substituting \(h\) with \(\hbar\) in one of the equations could resolve the discrepancy.
  • Another participant expresses confidence that the Wikipedia entry likely contains an error, suggesting that it should consistently use \(\hbar\) instead of \(h\), as indicated by other equations in the same table.
  • One participant concludes that the addition of \((2\pi)^3\) in the Wikipedia entry makes sense if \(\hbar\) is used throughout, implying a potential rationale for its inclusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of \((2\pi)^3\) in the equations, with some suggesting it is an error in the Wikipedia entry while others propose it may be justified depending on the constants used. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correctness of either equation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of consistent notation when discussing physical constants, particularly in the context of equations involving photon gases. The discussion also reflects on the reliability of Wikipedia as a source for scientific information.

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: 362
  • 57059807_10158727019213079_3037507215121448960_n.jpg
    57059807_10158727019213079_3037507215121448960_n.jpg
    83.4 KB · Views: 356
  • 56887120_10158727019463079_7551317676266618880_n.jpg
    56887120_10158727019463079_7551317676266618880_n.jpg
    86.9 KB · Views: 386
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
9K
  • · 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
4K