Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Wave theory of light

  1. Jan 27, 2007 #1
    For wave theory of light, it said that energy of light is depend only on its brightness and independent of its frequency.
    I would like to ask which equation shows that wave energy is independent of frequency..??

    thank you.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 27, 2007 #2

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You should cite this source. That is the one thing we try to make people do when they talk about something they read or heard.

    Actually, it DOES! Maybe the energy PER CYCLE or per period isn't dependent on frequency in classical wave theory of light, but energy in a unit time does! Think about it. The higher the frequency, the more cycles in that unit time that you measure, the more energy you will get. So yes, even in classical wave theory of light, frequency does matter IF you are looking at it per unit time.

    Zz.
     
  4. Jan 27, 2007 #3
    Then energy of light actually is dependant on frequency by the relation [tex]E=hf[/tex] where h is Planck's constant.
     
  5. Jan 27, 2007 #4

    ranger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That can be restated:

    The energy of a photon is dependant on the frequency. I think its incorrect to say the energy of light with respect to that equation.
     
  6. Jan 27, 2007 #5

    But the light is made up of photons. The only way this dependancy couldn't be extended to light frequencies in general is if there were less photons in high frequency light than in low frequency light. Is this true?
     
  7. Jan 27, 2007 #6
    the equation of light intensity

    the equation of average intensity
    I = .5 nceεo sqr(E)
    n refractive index of medium
    c velocity of light
    εo permativity of medium
    E max value of Electric filed
    as we know that light is an electromagnetic wave has 2 perpendicular fields electric and magnetic
     
  8. Jan 27, 2007 #7

    ranger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It doesnt mean less or more photons, it means photons with lower/higher energy levels.
     
  9. Jan 27, 2007 #8
    ranger, that wasn't what he said. He's saying that the only way kkmans' scenario would work is if the numbers of photons were intrinsically related to the frequency of the light 'beam'/ray/whatever. This is quite obviously not true.
     
  10. Jan 27, 2007 #9

    ranger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Sojourner01, I thought thats what I said in my previous reply.
     
  11. Jan 27, 2007 #10
    You said exactly opposite that:

     
  12. Jan 27, 2007 #11
    Does one not measure brightness/intensity in units of power per area?

    The intensity is proportional to the square of the amplitude, not dependent on the wave frequency.

    When one later discovers light quantised in packets of energy proportional to frequency, one must infer (to avoid contradiction) that for a red and blue light source of equal measured brightness there will be a higher rate of photons received from the lower frequency source.
     
  13. Jan 27, 2007 #12

    This is what I was trying to say in my earlier post, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
     
  14. Jan 28, 2007 #13
    >You should cite this source. That is the one thing we try to make people do when they talk about something they read or heard.
    oops, I read this from wikipedia.

    let's forget about the light, what about other waves like sound and water ?
    If we consider wave as the particles performing SHM, their energy is depends on the frequency.
    Is there anything wrong with my concept..??

    thank you.
     
  15. Jan 28, 2007 #14

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Why did you quoted one part of my response while ignore the rest that would have answered your question here?

    Doesn't THAT address what you just asked?

    Zz.
     
  16. Jan 28, 2007 #15
    hmm..I understand if I consider it per unit time, the intensity is directly proportional to the energy, not the frequecy.
    My problem is that is the expression of "energy" include frequency ?
    Like other waves, the particles are performing SHM, and their energy is proportional to the square of the frequceny.
     
  17. Jan 28, 2007 #16
    No. No no no. The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency. Not the square. Linear dependence. No question about it.

    Review your ideas of what 'intensity' is. I sense some confusion of concepts creeping in here.
     
  18. Jan 28, 2007 #17
    Do you have a reference to support that?
     
  19. Jan 28, 2007 #18
    >energy is proportional to the square of the frequceny
    If we consider waves as particle performing SHM, then their energy
    = 1/2m ω^2 A^2, where ω = 2πf

    Can I use this concept in wave theory of light ?
     
  20. Jan 28, 2007 #19

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    No I don't. Rather, look at a mass-spring system. Find the energy per second of the system at a particular amplitude. Now replace the spring so that you have a system that doubles the natural frequency. Now measure again the amount of energy of the system per second with the SAME amplitude. Are you telling me you need a "reference" to figure out that the amount of energy in that unit time has increased?

    Zz.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2007
  21. Jan 28, 2007 #20
    The thing I consider confusing in this thread is the way frequency is being thought of. It simply is a number of an event in an amount of time. In this case we are talking about waves. Therefore, the number of oscillations per unit time, be it light waves or mechanical waves the same principals apply. The relation to energy in the quantum mechanical formula E=hf i think is being miss interpreted. Here the frequency is just a multiplier where as Planck's constant is a number related to the most discrete quantisation of energy. Remember where this formula was derived from.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Wave theory of light
  1. Light wave theory (Replies: 6)

  2. Wave theory of light (Replies: 8)

  3. Wave theory of light (Replies: 7)

Loading...