Planck formula and density of photons

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Planck formula and the density of photons emitted by a system of atoms with two energy levels in thermal equilibrium. Participants explore the differences between two expressions for photon density, one derived by a participant and another found in a reference document, while considering implications related to the refractive index of materials.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Emily presents a derivation of the number of photons emitted per unit frequency and questions why the reference document uses \( h^3 \) in the denominator instead of \( h^2 \).
  • Emily also inquires about the relationship of the refractive index to the material properties, suggesting it may relate to the material being a semiconductor.
  • One participant suggests that the equation from the document may have incorrect units, while Emily's derivation has the correct units, proposing it could be a typo.
  • Another participant clarifies that both formulas are correct but represent different quantities: one for photons per volume per unit frequency and the other for photons per volume per unit energy, explaining the role of Planck's constant in this distinction.
  • The refractive index is noted to affect the density of states for photons in a material, with agreement that the book's formula is derived for a solid material rather than a vacuum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the reference document's equation, with some suggesting it may be a typo while others assert both formulas are valid but represent different quantities. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific implications of the refractive index.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the clarity of terms used in the reference document, particularly the term "density," which was not specified. This may lead to confusion about the context in which the formulas apply.

EmilyRuck
Messages
134
Reaction score
6
Hello!
Let's consider again a system of atoms with only two permitted energy levels E_1 and E_2 > E_1. When electrons decay from E_2 level to E_1, they generate a photon of energy E_{21} = E_2 - E_1 = h \nu. The number of photons (per unit frequency, per unit volume) emitted by such a system in thermal equilibrium at a temperature T can be determined dividing its black body radiation \rho (\nu) by h \nu:

<br /> n_{ph} (E_{21}) = \rho (\nu) \displaystyle \frac{1}{h \nu} = \displaystyle \frac{8 \pi h \nu^3}{c^3 \left( e^{h \nu / (k_B T)} - 1 \right)} \frac{1}{h \nu} = \frac{8 \pi \nu^2}{c^3 \left( e^{h \nu / (k_B T)} - 1 \right)} = \frac{8 \pi E_{21}^2}{h^2 c^3 \left( e^{h \nu / (k_B T)} - 1 \right)}<br />

where h is the Planck constant, k_B is the Boltzmann constant, c is the speed of light. This computation is about spontaneous and stimulated emission in a LASER system.

In http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9784431551478-c2.pdf document (page 10, formula (2.13)), n_{ph} (E_{21}) is slightly different. It is

<br /> n_{ph} (E_{21}) = \displaystyle \frac{8 \pi n_r^3 E_{21}^2}{h^3 c^3 \left( e^{h \nu / (k_B T)} - 1 \right)}<br />

So:

1) If the above computation is correct, why in the book the denominator contains h^3 instead of h^2?

2) What can the refractive index be related to? Maybe is it due to the fact that the material is a semiconductor and not the vacuum?

Thank you anyway!

Emily
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know if I can give you definitive answers here, but it's clear that the equation from the document has the wrong units, while the equation you derive has the correct units. So maybe the one in the book is a typo?

EmilyRuck said:
What can the refractive index be related to? Maybe is it due to the fact that the material is a semiconductor and not the vacuum?
This was my thought, given that the refractive index is raised to the same power as the speed of light. The derivation of the Planck formula involves counting the number of photon modes in the interval ##\nu +d\nu##. This assumes that these modes look something like ##A \sin (kx + \omega t)##, which implicitly gives the speed ##c =\frac {\omega }{k}##. For photons, this speed is generally assumed to be the speed of light, but if you're not in a vacuum, you need to correct the wave speed by the refractive index of the medium.

Caveat: this is my best guess. I didn't specifically go back through the whole derivation of Planck's law.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: EmilyRuck
EmilyRuck,
Both formula are correct, just different quantities.
You derived number of photons per volume per unit frequency. The formula in the book is number of photons per volume per unit energy, thence the difference by a Planck's constant.

The refractive index does have to be included in the formula. It changes the density of states for photons in the material. Yes, the book formula is derived for a solid material, not vacuum.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: EmilyRuck
TeethWhitener, I agree with you, the refractive index is at the same power as c and in different media photons have different velocities.
Henryk, it was difficult because the book spoke about "density" without specifying anything else; so I thought it was per unit frequency.
Thank you both!
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K