Obtaining the Rayleigh-Jeans formula - what am I doing wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar_4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the Rayleigh-Jeans formula from the spectral energy density of blackbody radiation. The user struggles with substituting frequency for wavelength and obtaining the correct form of the energy density equation. It is clarified that while substituting \(\nu = \frac{c}{\lambda}\) is valid, one must also account for the change in units between frequency and wavelength, which affects the energy density calculations. The correct relationship between the two forms is highlighted, emphasizing that the negative sign from the derivative must be omitted in the context of energy equations. The conversation concludes with a consensus on the importance of careful unit handling in deriving physical formulas.
quasar_4
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
Obtaining the Rayleigh-Jeans formula - what am I doing wrong??

Homework Statement



Spectral energy density = u(\nu, T) = {\[\displaystyle \,8\,\pi \,h{\nu}^{3}{c}^{-3} \left( {{\rm e}^{{\frac {h\nu}{kT}}}}-1 \right) ^{-1}\]}
where h is Planck's constant and k is Bolzmann's constant.

Using the relation \lambda = \frac{c}{\nu} express the spectral energy density as a function of the wavelength and determine the energy du of a blackbody radiation per unit volume, in a narrow range of wavelength \lambda + d\lambda. Using an expansion of the exponential factor obtain the Rayleigh-Jeans formula,
du = \frac{8 \pi k T}{\lambda^4} d\lambda

Homework Equations



Given some function f(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n),

df = \left(\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{x_1}}\right) dx_1 + ... + \left(\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{x_n}}\right) dx_n.

Also, e^{x} \approx 1+x+\frac{x^2}{2!} + ...

The Attempt at a Solution



It seems like it should be easy, but I can't get the equation to come out right. Substituting in lambda, I get

{\[\displaystyle {\it u}\, = \,8\,\pi \,h{\lambda}^{-3} \left( {{\rm e}^{{\frac {hc}{\lambda\,kT}}}}-1 \right) ^{-1}\]}

Then from my equation in part b, we should have that

du = \frac{\partial{u}}{\partial{\lambda}} d\lambda

But I get

\frac{\partial{u}}{\partial{\lambda}} = {\[\displaystyle \,-8\,\pi \,h \left( 3\,\lambda\,kT{{\rm e}^{{\frac {hc}{\lambda\,kT}}}}-3\,\lambda\,kT-hc{{\rm e}^{{\frac {hc}{\lambda\,kT}}}} \right) {\lambda}^{-5} \left( {{\rm e}^{{\frac {hc}{\lambda\,kT}}}}-1 \right) ^{-2}{k}^{-1}{T}^{-1}\]}

Upon using my expansion for the exp. term (expanding around nu = 0, then substituting in nu = c/lambda) the most I can simplify this is to:

du ={\[\displaystyle \,8\,\pi \, \left( -2\,ckT+{\frac {h{c}^{2}}{\lambda}} \right) {\lambda}^{-3}{c}^{-2}\]}d\lambda

so... what am I doing wrong?? It could have something to do with the \lambda + d\lambda (though I just thought that meant I could neglect higher than 2nd order terms in my expansion)...
 
Physics news on Phys.org


A quick check of the units of your original equation, u(\nu,T)=8h\pi\nu^3 c^{-3} \left(e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT} }-1\right)^{-1} suggests that the problem lies there, not with your method.

If you are having doubts about whether or not using du=\frac{\partial u}{\partial\lambda}d\lambda makes sense, another way to look at it is to realize that the spread in energy over the interval \lambda to \lambda+ d\lambda is defined as du=u(\lambda+d\lambda)-u(\lambda). And for infinitesimal d\lambda, a quick Taylor expansion gives u(\lambda+d\lambda)=u(\lambda)+\frac{\partial u}{\partial \lambda}d\lambda, from which the result follows.
 


Interesting. This is an exam problem (from a previous year) at my school, so maybe the question has a typo. I can't see what else one would do to solve for this equation.
 


I must apologize, I was thinking u was just an energy density (units of Joules/m3), not a spectral energy density. Your original equation is just fine. However, you can't simply substitute \nu=\frac{c}{\lambda} into your frequency spectral energy density equation and get a wavelength spectral energy density out of it.

In terms of frequency, the spectral energy density has units of Joule-seconds/m3. While in terms of wavelength, the spectral energy density has units of Joules/m4. The first is defined as an energy density per unit frequency, while the latter is defined as an energy density per unit wavelength. For this reason, u(\lambda,T)d\lambda=u(\nu,T)d\nu. Or, u(\lambda,T)=u(\nu,T)\frac{d\nu}{d\lambda}=u(\nu,T)\times\frac{-c}{\lambda^2}
 


When we substitute d\nu/d\lambda = - c / \lambda^2 in Plancks law of Black body radiation (in frequency), we would get an equation that is same as Plancks law of black body radiation (in wavelength) EXCEPT for a negative sign.

Because it is an ENERGY equation, the negative sign would be omitted.

Is this correct
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K