/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Q11E For small z , ez is approximat... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

For small z , ez is approximately 1+z. (a) Use this to show that Planck's spectral energy density (3-1) agrees with the result of classical wave theory in the limit of small frequencies. (b) Show that, whereas the classical formula diverges at high frequencies-the so-called ultraviolet catastrophe of this theory - Planck's formula approaches 0.

Short Answer

Expert verified

(a) Planck's spectral energy density (3-1)agrees with the result of classical wave theory in the limit of small frequencies

(b) The Planck’s formula approaches 0.

Step by step solution

01

Expression for the planck’s spectral energy density

The expression for Planck's spectral energy density is given as follows,

dUdf=hfehf/kBT-1×8πVc3f2

Here, dUis the electromagnetic energy, his the Planck’s constant, f is the frequency, kB is the Boltzmann constant, c is the speed of light, T is the temperature, andVis the volume.

02

(a) Verification of the planck’s spectral energy density agrees with the result of classical wave

For black body radiation, determine the limiting cases of Planck's formula.

Use the linear approximation of Taylor expansion for the exponential function.

dUdf=hfexphfkBT-1×8πVc3f2

It is known that exphfkTB≈1+hfkBT. So, substitute it in the above expression.

dUdf=hf1+hfkBT×8Vc3f3=kBT×8πVc3f3

Thus, Planck's spectral energy density (3-1) agrees with the result of classical wave theory in the limit of small frequencies

03

(b) Veification of the fact that Planck’s formula approaches 0 whereas the classical formula diverges at high frequencies

For f > >1 , the spectral density goes to zero at very high frequencies and as f becomes very large, classical formula diverges as it is proprional to f2.

limf→∞hfexphfkBT-1×8πVc3f3=limf→∞Cf2exphfkBT

Here, C=hf8Ï€Vc3 and the value of exponential factor is must greater than 1 so,.

exphfkBT=1

Apply all the conditions in the above expression.

d∪df→0

Thus, the Planck’s formula approaches 0.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Suppose we produce X-rays not by smashing electrons into targets but by smashing protons, which are far more massive. If the same accelerating potential difference were used for both, how would the cut off wavelengths of the two X-ray spectra compare? Explain.

Show that the laws of momentum and energy conservation forbid the complete absorption of a photon by a free electron, (Note: This is not the Photoelectric effect in the photoelectric effect, the electron is not free: the metal participates in momentum and energy conservation).

Determine the wavelength of an X-ray photon that can impart, at most 80keV of kinetic energy to a free electron.

A photon scatters off of a free electron. (a) What is the maximum possible change in wavelength? (b) Suppose a photon scatters off of a free proton. What is the maximum possible change in wavelength now? (e) Which more clearly demonstrates the particle nature of electromagnetic radiation--collision with an electron or collision with a proton?

The charge on a piece of metal can be "watched" fairly easily by connecting it to an electroscope, a device with thin leaves that repel when a net charge is present You place a large excess negative charge on a piece of metal, then separately shine light source of two pure but different colors at it. The first source is extremely bright, but the electroscope shows no change in the net change. The second source is feeble, but the charge disappears. Appealing to as few fundamental claims as possible, explain to your friend what evidence this provides for the particle nature of light.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Physics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.