What Are the Differences Between Black Body Radiation Formulas?

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

This discussion clarifies the differences between various formulas for black body radiation, specifically focusing on spectral radiance. The key formulas discussed include Planck's law in terms of wavelength (Bλ) and frequency (Bν). The integration of these formulas yields the total intensity or area under the black body radiation curve, with the inclusion of delta lambda (Δλ) in the formula for radiated power indicating a specific wavelength range. The confusion arises from the different numerators in the formulas and the relationship between frequency and wavelength, which can be reconciled through substitution.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Planck's law for black body radiation
  • Familiarity with spectral radiance and its units (Watts/m3)
  • Basic knowledge of integration in physics
  • Concept of frequency-wavelength relationship in electromagnetic radiation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Planck's law for both frequency and wavelength forms
  • Learn about the Stefan-Boltzmann law and its application in thermal radiation
  • Explore the relationship between spectral emissive power and solid angles
  • Investigate the implications of integrating spectral radiance over wavelength and frequency
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying thermodynamics and electromagnetic radiation, as well as researchers and educators seeking to clarify the principles of black body radiation and its mathematical formulations.

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: 116
  • IMG_0765.jpg
    IMG_0765.jpg
    9.6 KB · Views: 118
  • IMG_0763.jpg
    IMG_0763.jpg
    5.9 KB · Views: 110
  • IMG_0762.jpg
    IMG_0762.jpg
    12.6 KB · Views: 147
  • Screen Shot 2023-11-02 at 20.16.08.png
    Screen Shot 2023-11-02 at 20.16.08.png
    7 KB · Views: 118
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: 101
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
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · 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