The peak of the thermal radiation power spectrum (dR/dλ)

Andres123
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The peak of the thermal radiation power spectrum (dR/dλ) is at a wacelength of about λm=hc/5kT. Why is the peak of the same power spectrum plotted as dR/df not at fm=c/λm= 5kT/h?

Homework Equations


dR/dλ= 2πhc2/(λ5(e(hc/λkT)-1))
f=c/λ

The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello Andres, welcome to PF :smile:

The idea at PF is that you post your efforts under attempt at solution and that helps us to guide you further as best we can. After all, you don't want someone else to do the exercise for you -- you want to learn by doing the exercise. See the guidelines for more info.

In the mean time: how do you find a peak ? What is the expression for dR/df ?
 
the equation for dR/df= 2πhf3/(c2(ehf/kt-1))
I am currently trying to differentiate both equation and setting them equal to zero to see if i find a relationship or reason for this. so far no success
 
Also think about the relationship between df and d##\lambda##

I strongly advise you not to fall for this and explore by yourself. Spoilers are exactly what the name says.You are much better of thinking this over than getting the answer on a plate

Here is a thread from before you joined -- same subject. You see it's causing some confusion with others too...:wink:
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top