What Are the Differences Between Black Body Radiation Formulas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sss1
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between various formulas related to black body radiation, particularly focusing on spectral radiance and its representation in terms of wavelength and frequency. Participants are exploring the implications of integrating these formulas and how they relate to the total intensity of radiation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to understand the relationship between spectral radiance, wavelength, and frequency, questioning how different formulas yield varying results. They are also exploring the significance of delta lambda in the context of radiated power and the integration of formulas to derive total power.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing their calculations and observations. Some have provided references to external resources, such as Wikipedia, to aid understanding. There is an ongoing exploration of the differences in results when using frequency versus wavelength, indicating a productive line of inquiry.

Contextual Notes

Participants have noted issues with the clarity of posted images and the need for accessible links to the original content. There is also a mention of specific values used in calculations, which may influence the discussion on the formulas.

sss1
Messages
50
Reaction score
2
Homework Statement
Below
Relevant Equations
In the pictures
Im getting confused between the differences of all of these formulas.
I googled spectral radiance black body and all of the first four pictures came up. They represent the intensity of radiation at a particular wavelength right, or the y-axis of the black body radiation curve? So if I integrate this formula I should get the total intensity? Or the total area under the black body radiation curve? One of the pictures has frequency as the variable instead of wavelength tho? Is it finding the same thing but for when I'm given frequency instead of wavelength? And somehow the rest of the three pictures all have different numerators...?
And the last formula, which finds the radiated power for a specific wavelength, why does it have a delta lambda in it? Kinda confused on where it comes about. I understand that spectral radiancy has units Watts/m^3, so it makes sense to have A and delta lambda, because that has units m^3. But why not have lambda instead of delta lambda? And also if i integrated that formula it will give me Stefan Boltzmann's law? The total power radiated?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0764.jpg
    IMG_0764.jpg
    11.1 KB · Views: 122
  • IMG_0765.jpg
    IMG_0765.jpg
    9.6 KB · Views: 121
  • IMG_0763.jpg
    IMG_0763.jpg
    5.9 KB · Views: 116
  • IMG_0762.jpg
    IMG_0762.jpg
    12.6 KB · Views: 151
  • Screen Shot 2023-11-02 at 20.16.08.png
    Screen Shot 2023-11-02 at 20.16.08.png
    7 KB · Views: 121
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
sss1 said:
Homework Statement: Below
Relevant Equations: In the pictures

Im getting confused between the differences of all of these formulas.
I googled spectral radiance black body and all of the first four pictures came up. They represent the intensity of radiation at a particular wavelength right, or the y-axis of the black body radiation curve? So if I integrate this formula I should get the total intensity? Or the total area under the black body radiation curve? One of the pictures has frequency as the variable instead of wavelength tho? Is it finding the same thing but for when I'm given frequency instead of wavelength? And somehow the rest of the three pictures all have different numerators...?
And the last formula, which finds the radiated power for a specific wavelength, why does it have a delta lambda in it? Kinda confused on where it comes about. I understand that spectral radiancy has units Watts/m^3, so it makes sense to have A and delta lambda, because that has units m^3. But why not have lambda instead of delta lambda? And also if i integrated that formula it will give me Stefan Boltzmann's law? The total power radiated?

View attachment 334681

View attachment 334682

View attachment 334683

View attachment 334684

View attachment 334685
Unfortunately, the way you have posted those images they cannot be clicked to reveal the whole text. If you cannot figure out how to do it, post the links.
 
haruspex said:
Unfortunately, the way you have posted those images they cannot be clicked to reveal the whole text. If you cannot figure out how to do it, post the links.
Does it work now?
 
haruspex said:
I had a look at the table and tried calculating the spectral radiancy using both frequency and wavelength, but got different answers?
I used these two formulas.
The wavelength I used was 966e-9m, and so the frequency should be (3e8)/(966e-9) Hz?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2023-11-03 at 12.37.20.png
    Screen Shot 2023-11-03 at 12.37.20.png
    8.3 KB · Views: 105
sss1 said:
I had a look at the table and tried calculating the spectral radiancy using both frequency and wavelength, but got different answers?
I used these two formulas.
The wavelength I used was 966e-9m, and so the frequency should be (3e8)/(966e-9) Hz?
##B_\nu## is the spectral emissive power per unit area, per unit solid angle and per unit frequency. ##B_\lambda## is per unit wavelength.
I.e. ##B_\nu d\nu## is the total spectral emissive power per unit area, per unit solid angle for the frequency range ##(\nu,\nu+d\nu)##, etc.
Hence ##B_\nu =B_\lambda|\frac{d\lambda}{d\nu}|=B_\lambda\frac{c}{\nu^2}##.
If you make that substitution, and ##\nu=\frac c{\lambda}##, you should see one equation turn into the other.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sss1

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K