Wavelength for highest radiation per unit wavelength

skate_nerd
Messages
174
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


At what wavelength does a cavity at 6000 degrees Kelvin radiate most per unit wavelength?


Homework Equations


$$\rho_T(\lambda)d\lambda=\frac{8\pi{hc}}{\lambda^5}\frac{d\lambda}{e^{{hc}/{\lambda{kT}}}-1}$$


The Attempt at a Solution


I'm pretty new to this whole topic, so don't judge me if I'm totally off...
First off can't the $$d\lambda$$'s cancel each other out? I'm not sure why the book I am using writes this equation like they did if they could cancel out that easily, but anyways I got rid of them because it seems to just make this more confusing for me otherwise.
So I figured if it wants the wavelength for highest radiation (per unit wavelength), I should take the derivative of $$\rho_T(\lambda)d\lambda$$ with respect to the wavelength, and set that expression equal to zero.
However now I am at an impasse, seeing as how solving for lambda would probably be really difficult, and I am not even sure if I am working in the correct direction. Any help would be appreciated much. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
skate_nerd said:

Homework Statement


At what wavelength does a cavity at 6000 degrees Kelvin radiate most per unit wavelength?

Homework Equations


$$\rho_T(\lambda)d\lambda=\frac{8\pi{hc}}{\lambda^5}\frac{d\lambda}{e^{{hc}/{\lambda{kT}}}-1}$$

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm pretty new to this whole topic, so don't judge me if I'm totally off...
First off can't the $$d\lambda$$'s cancel each other out? I'm not sure why the book I am using writes this equation like they did if they could cancel out that easily, but anyways I got rid of them because it seems to just make this more confusing for me otherwise.
So I figured if it wants the wavelength for highest radiation (per unit wavelength), I should take the derivative of $$\rho_T(\lambda)d\lambda$$ with respect to the wavelength, and set that expression equal to zero.
However now I am at an impasse, seeing as how solving for lambda would probably be really difficult, and I am not even sure if I am working in the correct direction. Any help would be appreciated much. Thanks

You are working in the correct direction. Differentiate ##\rho_T(\lambda)## and set it equal to zero. It is hard to solve. But if you set ##x=\frac{hc}{\lambda{kT}}## and express the whole expression in terms of the dimensionless variable x you'll get a single equation for x you can solve numerically. See Wien's Displacement Law.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
I actually did all that a bit ago and solved to get a wavelength of 4798 angstroms, aka blue light. Sounds about right. Then about 20 seconds ago I just realized I could have avoided that whole mess and simply used Wien's Displacement Law. Got me the same exact answer. -_- oh well
 
By the way, I am not new to LaTeX but how do you write an equation on this site without using the double dollar signs? Obviously "\(___\)" doesn't work...
 
Last edited:
skate_nerd said:
By the way, I am not new to LaTeX but how do you write an equation on this site without using the double dollar signs? Obviously "\(___\)" doesn't work...

Use double '#' signs if you want the math to stay on the same line.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
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