Which Equation Correctly Represents the Planck Distribution?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mechatron
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematical
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The correct representation of the Planck distribution is given by the equation e^{\beta h f} - 1, where \beta = \frac{1}{kT}. The discussion clarifies that the expressions (e^(hf/kT)) - 1 and e^{(hf/kT) - 1} are ambiguous and not equivalent. The presence of unnecessary brackets in the original expressions led to confusion regarding their mathematical validity. The discussion also notes that the user Mechatron has been banned from the forum, which may have contributed to the ambiguity in the original post.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Planck's law and blackbody radiation
  • Familiarity with exponential functions and their notation
  • Knowledge of thermodynamic concepts, specifically temperature (T) and Boltzmann's constant (k)
  • Basic mathematical notation, including the use of brackets in equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Planck distribution in detail
  • Learn about the implications of blackbody radiation in physics
  • Explore the mathematical properties of exponential functions
  • Review common notation and conventions in mathematical expressions
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, mathematicians, and anyone interested in thermodynamics and the mathematical representation of physical laws will benefit from this discussion.

Mechatron
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Is this equation equal to:

(e^(hf/kT)) - 1

or

e^( (hf/kT) - 1 )

http://s29.postimg.org/le6iqy3rb/exp.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The former.
 
Mechatron said:
Is this equation equal to:

(e^(hf/kT)) - 1

or

e^( (hf/kT) - 1 )

http://s29.postimg.org/le6iqy3rb/exp.png
First off, what you wrote is NOT an equation. An equation always has an = symbol in it.

The image in the link is [exp(hf/kT) - 1].

What you have written is ambiguous, as what you probably meant is this:
$$e^{\frac{hf}{kT} - 1}$$

What you actually wrote, though, is this:
$$e^{\frac{hf}{k}T - 1}$$

The brackets - [] - around the entire expression are unnecessary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark44 said:
First off, what you wrote is NOT an equation. An equation always has an = symbol in it.

The image in the link is [exp(hf/kT) - 1].

What you have written is ambiguous, as what you probably meant is this:
$$e^{\frac{hf}{kT} - 1}$$

What you actually wrote, though, is this:
$$e^{\frac{hf}{k}T - 1}$$

The brackets - [] - around the entire expression are unnecessary.
Why did you put the -1 in the exponential? The parenthesis limit the argument of exp to hf/kT.

My guess is that Mechatron did not write that himself, but saw it in a book. It's most probably related to the Planck distribution (blackbody radiation). As economicsnerd said, the correct reading is
$$
e^{\beta h f} - 1 \mbox{ where } \beta = \frac{1}{kT}
$$
The additional bracket [] might be there because it is part of a greater equation.
 
Im sorry to be off topic but I'm using a i device and i can't see (what i think to be) mathematical symbols that are in this thread... They appear as dollar signs and other randoms, i was wondering if maybe I'm short of additional download or setting adjustments. All help is highly appreciated
 
DrClaude said:
Why did you put the -1 in the exponential? The parenthesis limit the argument of exp to hf/kT.
The posted image, which doesn't have the -1 term, doesn't match the expressions in the first post. In the first post Mechatron asks about these expressions:
(e^(hf/kT)) - 1

and

e^( (hf/kT) - 1 )

In any case, this is moot, as Mechatron has been banned from PF.

DrClaude said:
My guess is that Mechatron did not write that himself, but saw it in a book. It's most probably related to the Planck distribution (blackbody radiation). As economicsnerd said, the correct reading is
$$
e^{\beta h f} - 1 \mbox{ where } \beta = \frac{1}{kT}
$$
The additional bracket [] might be there because it is part of a greater equation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
869
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K