Urr, this doesn't seem like it should be very hard but well, good 'ol me

  • Thread starter Thread starter schattenjaeger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hard
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the fraction of visible light within the electromagnetic spectrum, specifically between 1m and 10^-3nm. Participants explore both linear and logarithmic scales for these calculations, noting that the logarithmic scale can yield negative values for wavelengths less than one. The conversation also touches on deriving Wien's displacement law, with emphasis on setting the derivative of a specific function to zero for numerical solutions. Ultimately, participants arrive at approximate percentages for visible light's fraction, with 2% for the logarithmic scale and 3x10^-5% for the linear scale. The calculations and methods discussed highlight the differences in approach between linear and logarithmic representations.
schattenjaeger
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
For this problem assume the "EM spectrum of astrophysical relevance" is between 1m and 10^-3nm. Calculate the fraction of the visible light by assuming a) a linear scale and b)a logarithmic scale. Explain the difference..

hur? I'm guessing this is one of those math skills I've either blanked on or never knew but should've, but as far as calculating the fraction goes I can only think to like divide the range of visible light(which is like 3 x 10^-7, right?)by the total range, which would be, pretty much, 1? (1-10^-12 to be exact)and then I spose that'd be pretty linear, or whatever.

So assuming that out of my ass speculation is right, I still don't know what to do with a logarithmic scale. I could take the log of that 3x10^-7 but that's a negative answer. I could piddle with the units so it wasn't negative, but that seems awfully...wrong. So primarily my question is a "what the hell am I doing?" problem.

And one quickie, it wants me to derive Wien's displacement law by setting (we'll make y be my lambda) dB/dy=0, where B is that 2hc^2etc./e^hc/kt -1 with the formatting kept poor just so you get the point. The problem only wants us to work it out to where we get something only solvable by numerical methods, then stop, so if I take the derivative of that and set it equal to 0, my next stop would be to solve for lambda*T, I guess, and it'd equal what it equals in the actual formula, would that be the step to stop at?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
hur? I'm guessing this is one of those math skills I've either blanked on or never knew but should've, but as far as calculating the fraction goes I can only think to like divide the range of visible light(which is like 3 x 10^-7, right?)by the total range, which would be, pretty much, 1? (1-10^-12 to be exact)and then I spose that'd be pretty linear, or whatever.

Yep.


So assuming that out of my ass speculation is right, I still don't know what to do with a logarithmic scale. I could take the log of that 3x10^-7 but that's a negative answer.

The logarithm of a number less than one is negative -- this is perfectly alright. Imagine I express the entire range of wavelengths in "log meter" units, meaning, for example, 1 cm is expressed as "-2" and 10-7 m is "-7". In this unit system, what is the range spanned by visible light? What is the range of the EM spectrum mentioned in the question?


And one quickie, it wants me to derive Wien's displacement law by setting (we'll make y be my lambda) dB/dy=0, where B is that 2hc^2etc./e^hc/kt -1 with the formatting kept poor just so you get the point. The problem only wants us to work it out to where we get something only solvable by numerical methods, then stop, so if I take the derivative of that and set it equal to 0, my next stop would be to solve for lambda*T, I guess, and it'd equal what it equals in the actual formula, would that be the step to stop at?

Give it a try and see what you get. I suspect you won't be able to solve for \lambda T or it wouldn't need to be done numerically.
 
Ah, ok, thanks!
 
So doing it like that for the logarithmic scale I got like 2 percent which sounds decent enough, as for the linear scale, since the length of the whole thing is just 1meter(unless I want to be just THAT accurate)is the percent 3x10^-5?(3x10^-7 *100 percent)?
 
schattenjaeger said:
So doing it like that for the logarithmic scale I got like 2 percent which sounds decent enough, as for the linear scale, since the length of the whole thing is just 1meter(unless I want to be just THAT accurate)is the percent 3x10^-5?(3x10^-7 *100 percent)?

Sounds good.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top