- #1
En Joy
- 16
- 0
I Wien's displacement law from Plank's formula
- I
- Thread starter En Joy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Displacement Formula Law
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the inaccuracies in a textbook regarding Wien's displacement law derived from Planck's law. Participants highlight that the book incorrectly uses radiance per unit frequency instead of radiance per unit wavelength, leading to a misrepresentation of the equation. This error results in confusion over the correct exponent in the formula, with claims that it should be a 3 instead of a 5. One contributor mentions having previously published an article addressing these issues, suggesting that the book's mistakes should be flagged to prevent further confusion. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of accurate derivations in scientific literature.
- #2
jtbell
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 16,028
- 7,716
Show us what you tried, and maybe someone can point out your mistake. Or we can verify that you did it correctly and the book has a mistake! 
- #3
lightarrow
- 1,966
- 64
The "5" does not refer to the previous equation written in the book but to the one which results from the Planck's law written in terms of the wavelenght (which is not merely the one written in terms of frequency substituting c/\lambda to the frequency).En Joy said:
--
lightarrow
Last edited:
- #4
En Joy
- 16
- 0
jtbell said:Show us what you tried, and maybe someone can point out your mistake. Or we can verify that you did it correctly and the book has a mistake!
- #5
lightarrow
- 1,966
- 64
No, x is not that, it's \hbar c/\lambda k T infact it then writes the Wien's displacement law in terms of wavelenght, but the book omits to write that then you should use the other Planck equation (with wavelenght) and it's a quite bad omission; I understand your concern.En Joy said:
--
lightarrow
- #6
Avodyne
Science Advisor
- 1,393
- 94
The book is wrong. If you follow the steps, the 5 should indeed be a 3.
The book is apparently trying to follow the "Derivation from Planck's Law",
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law
but used the wrong ##u## (radiance per unit frequency instead of radiance per unit wavelength).
What book is this?? Bad books like this one should be flagged and made known, so we can all avoid them.
The book is apparently trying to follow the "Derivation from Planck's Law",
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law
but used the wrong ##u## (radiance per unit frequency instead of radiance per unit wavelength).
What book is this?? Bad books like this one should be flagged and made known, so we can all avoid them.
- #7
Ranjan Das
- 1
- 2
I have noticed these discussions on Wien's displacement law (and number 3 vs 5). I happened to write an article trying to clarify these very issues last year in Journal of Chemical Education. Please take a look at it. Its reference is:
R. Das, Wavelength and frequency-dependent formulations of Wien's displacement
law, J. Chem. Educ. 92 (2015) 1130–1134.
R. Das, Wavelength and frequency-dependent formulations of Wien's displacement
law, J. Chem. Educ. 92 (2015) 1130–1134.