Peaks different in wavelength and frequency space

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












According to high-school physics, light frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional, and their product is the speed of light. But when discussing spectral power, somehow sunlight peaks differently in these two spaces:



http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/03/what-is-the-color-of-the-sun/



How is this possible?










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Cindy Almighty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    According to high-school physics, light frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional, and their product is the speed of light. But when discussing spectral power, somehow sunlight peaks differently in these two spaces:



    http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/03/what-is-the-color-of-the-sun/



    How is this possible?










    share|cite|improve this question







    New contributor




    Cindy Almighty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      According to high-school physics, light frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional, and their product is the speed of light. But when discussing spectral power, somehow sunlight peaks differently in these two spaces:



      http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/03/what-is-the-color-of-the-sun/



      How is this possible?










      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor




      Cindy Almighty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      According to high-school physics, light frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional, and their product is the speed of light. But when discussing spectral power, somehow sunlight peaks differently in these two spaces:



      http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/03/what-is-the-color-of-the-sun/



      How is this possible?







      electromagnetic-radiation






      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor




      Cindy Almighty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor




      Cindy Almighty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question






      New contributor




      Cindy Almighty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 2 hours ago









      Cindy Almighty

      1112




      1112




      New contributor




      Cindy Almighty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Cindy Almighty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Cindy Almighty is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          The units of the y-axis quantity spectral irradience, $rm W , m^-2 , nm^-1$ and $rm W , m^-2 , THz^-1$, differ in a subtle way.



          They both are in terms of power $rm W$ per unit area $rm m^-2$ but the interval over which the power per unit area is measured is different, $rm nm^-1$ and $rm THz^-1$.

          Noting that a frequency interval of $1,rm THz$ corresponds to a wavelength interval of $300,000,rm nm$ accounts for the difference in the spectral power graphs that you are referring to.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            This is all about the difference between "a quantity Q" and "the density of that quantity per unit X" where X is some other quantity. A good way to get a feel for this is to convert statements about density to statements about amount. For example, if $u$ is "the spectral energy density per unit wavelength range" then



            (The amount of energy in the range $lambda$ to $lambda + dlambda$) = $|u , dlambda|$.



            Now let $rho$ be "the spectral energy density per unit frequency range". Then



            (The amount of energy in the range $nu$ to $nu + dnu$) = $|rho , dnu|$.



            Next we need to realise that these two amounts of energy are the same. For, when the wavelength is $lambda$ the frequency is $nu$, and when the wavelength is $lambda + dlambda$ the frequency is $nu + dnu$, so the two energies we just referred to are one and the same energy, in the sense that they are two ways of referring to the same "chunk" out of the complete spectrum. Thus we find



            $|u , dlambda| = |rho , dnu|$



            and therefore



            $ u = rho, |dnu/dlambda| = rho , c / lambda^2$



            That's the algebra, but I hope I have also given a feel for what is going on. It does take some getting used to.



            If you now take some distribution $rho$ and multiply it by the function $1/lambda^2$ you can see that any local peak in the distribution is going to be moved a bit: the long wavelength part gets reduced and the short wavelength part gets increased, so the peak moves to shorter wavelength. It is not because of any change in the relationship between frequency and wavelength, but because of the difference in "per unit frequency change" as compared to "per unit wavelength change". A similar shift will apply to a study of quantities involving other things related by an inverse, such as time and frequency, resistivity and conductivity, etc.






            share|cite|improve this answer



























              up vote
              1
              down vote













              It's an interesting question!



              If your graph is plotted as a function of wavelength,the solar irradiance is maximum in the visible and if it were plotted as a function of frequency the maximum is,interestingly,in the near infrared.




              How is this possible?




              This happens because the relationship between wavelength and frequency is not linear.



              $ vert d nuvert = vert c/ lambda^2 dlambda vert$



              Reference:



              http://www.oceanopticsbook.info/view/light_and_radiometry/level_2/a_common_misconception#fig:photons-wave-freq






              share|cite|improve this answer




















                Your Answer




                StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
                return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
                StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
                StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
                );
                );
                , "mathjax-editing");

                StackExchange.ready(function()
                var channelOptions =
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "151"
                ;
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
                createEditor();
                );

                else
                createEditor();

                );

                function createEditor()
                StackExchange.prepareEditor(
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                convertImagesToLinks: false,
                noModals: false,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: null,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                );



                );






                Cindy Almighty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                 

                draft saved


                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function ()
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f437769%2fpeaks-different-in-wavelength-and-frequency-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                );

                Post as a guest






























                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes








                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes








                up vote
                2
                down vote













                The units of the y-axis quantity spectral irradience, $rm W , m^-2 , nm^-1$ and $rm W , m^-2 , THz^-1$, differ in a subtle way.



                They both are in terms of power $rm W$ per unit area $rm m^-2$ but the interval over which the power per unit area is measured is different, $rm nm^-1$ and $rm THz^-1$.

                Noting that a frequency interval of $1,rm THz$ corresponds to a wavelength interval of $300,000,rm nm$ accounts for the difference in the spectral power graphs that you are referring to.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote













                  The units of the y-axis quantity spectral irradience, $rm W , m^-2 , nm^-1$ and $rm W , m^-2 , THz^-1$, differ in a subtle way.



                  They both are in terms of power $rm W$ per unit area $rm m^-2$ but the interval over which the power per unit area is measured is different, $rm nm^-1$ and $rm THz^-1$.

                  Noting that a frequency interval of $1,rm THz$ corresponds to a wavelength interval of $300,000,rm nm$ accounts for the difference in the spectral power graphs that you are referring to.






                  share|cite|improve this answer






















                    up vote
                    2
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    2
                    down vote









                    The units of the y-axis quantity spectral irradience, $rm W , m^-2 , nm^-1$ and $rm W , m^-2 , THz^-1$, differ in a subtle way.



                    They both are in terms of power $rm W$ per unit area $rm m^-2$ but the interval over which the power per unit area is measured is different, $rm nm^-1$ and $rm THz^-1$.

                    Noting that a frequency interval of $1,rm THz$ corresponds to a wavelength interval of $300,000,rm nm$ accounts for the difference in the spectral power graphs that you are referring to.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    The units of the y-axis quantity spectral irradience, $rm W , m^-2 , nm^-1$ and $rm W , m^-2 , THz^-1$, differ in a subtle way.



                    They both are in terms of power $rm W$ per unit area $rm m^-2$ but the interval over which the power per unit area is measured is different, $rm nm^-1$ and $rm THz^-1$.

                    Noting that a frequency interval of $1,rm THz$ corresponds to a wavelength interval of $300,000,rm nm$ accounts for the difference in the spectral power graphs that you are referring to.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered 1 hour ago









                    Farcher

                    45.6k33388




                    45.6k33388




















                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        This is all about the difference between "a quantity Q" and "the density of that quantity per unit X" where X is some other quantity. A good way to get a feel for this is to convert statements about density to statements about amount. For example, if $u$ is "the spectral energy density per unit wavelength range" then



                        (The amount of energy in the range $lambda$ to $lambda + dlambda$) = $|u , dlambda|$.



                        Now let $rho$ be "the spectral energy density per unit frequency range". Then



                        (The amount of energy in the range $nu$ to $nu + dnu$) = $|rho , dnu|$.



                        Next we need to realise that these two amounts of energy are the same. For, when the wavelength is $lambda$ the frequency is $nu$, and when the wavelength is $lambda + dlambda$ the frequency is $nu + dnu$, so the two energies we just referred to are one and the same energy, in the sense that they are two ways of referring to the same "chunk" out of the complete spectrum. Thus we find



                        $|u , dlambda| = |rho , dnu|$



                        and therefore



                        $ u = rho, |dnu/dlambda| = rho , c / lambda^2$



                        That's the algebra, but I hope I have also given a feel for what is going on. It does take some getting used to.



                        If you now take some distribution $rho$ and multiply it by the function $1/lambda^2$ you can see that any local peak in the distribution is going to be moved a bit: the long wavelength part gets reduced and the short wavelength part gets increased, so the peak moves to shorter wavelength. It is not because of any change in the relationship between frequency and wavelength, but because of the difference in "per unit frequency change" as compared to "per unit wavelength change". A similar shift will apply to a study of quantities involving other things related by an inverse, such as time and frequency, resistivity and conductivity, etc.






                        share|cite|improve this answer
























                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote













                          This is all about the difference between "a quantity Q" and "the density of that quantity per unit X" where X is some other quantity. A good way to get a feel for this is to convert statements about density to statements about amount. For example, if $u$ is "the spectral energy density per unit wavelength range" then



                          (The amount of energy in the range $lambda$ to $lambda + dlambda$) = $|u , dlambda|$.



                          Now let $rho$ be "the spectral energy density per unit frequency range". Then



                          (The amount of energy in the range $nu$ to $nu + dnu$) = $|rho , dnu|$.



                          Next we need to realise that these two amounts of energy are the same. For, when the wavelength is $lambda$ the frequency is $nu$, and when the wavelength is $lambda + dlambda$ the frequency is $nu + dnu$, so the two energies we just referred to are one and the same energy, in the sense that they are two ways of referring to the same "chunk" out of the complete spectrum. Thus we find



                          $|u , dlambda| = |rho , dnu|$



                          and therefore



                          $ u = rho, |dnu/dlambda| = rho , c / lambda^2$



                          That's the algebra, but I hope I have also given a feel for what is going on. It does take some getting used to.



                          If you now take some distribution $rho$ and multiply it by the function $1/lambda^2$ you can see that any local peak in the distribution is going to be moved a bit: the long wavelength part gets reduced and the short wavelength part gets increased, so the peak moves to shorter wavelength. It is not because of any change in the relationship between frequency and wavelength, but because of the difference in "per unit frequency change" as compared to "per unit wavelength change". A similar shift will apply to a study of quantities involving other things related by an inverse, such as time and frequency, resistivity and conductivity, etc.






                          share|cite|improve this answer






















                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote









                            This is all about the difference between "a quantity Q" and "the density of that quantity per unit X" where X is some other quantity. A good way to get a feel for this is to convert statements about density to statements about amount. For example, if $u$ is "the spectral energy density per unit wavelength range" then



                            (The amount of energy in the range $lambda$ to $lambda + dlambda$) = $|u , dlambda|$.



                            Now let $rho$ be "the spectral energy density per unit frequency range". Then



                            (The amount of energy in the range $nu$ to $nu + dnu$) = $|rho , dnu|$.



                            Next we need to realise that these two amounts of energy are the same. For, when the wavelength is $lambda$ the frequency is $nu$, and when the wavelength is $lambda + dlambda$ the frequency is $nu + dnu$, so the two energies we just referred to are one and the same energy, in the sense that they are two ways of referring to the same "chunk" out of the complete spectrum. Thus we find



                            $|u , dlambda| = |rho , dnu|$



                            and therefore



                            $ u = rho, |dnu/dlambda| = rho , c / lambda^2$



                            That's the algebra, but I hope I have also given a feel for what is going on. It does take some getting used to.



                            If you now take some distribution $rho$ and multiply it by the function $1/lambda^2$ you can see that any local peak in the distribution is going to be moved a bit: the long wavelength part gets reduced and the short wavelength part gets increased, so the peak moves to shorter wavelength. It is not because of any change in the relationship between frequency and wavelength, but because of the difference in "per unit frequency change" as compared to "per unit wavelength change". A similar shift will apply to a study of quantities involving other things related by an inverse, such as time and frequency, resistivity and conductivity, etc.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            This is all about the difference between "a quantity Q" and "the density of that quantity per unit X" where X is some other quantity. A good way to get a feel for this is to convert statements about density to statements about amount. For example, if $u$ is "the spectral energy density per unit wavelength range" then



                            (The amount of energy in the range $lambda$ to $lambda + dlambda$) = $|u , dlambda|$.



                            Now let $rho$ be "the spectral energy density per unit frequency range". Then



                            (The amount of energy in the range $nu$ to $nu + dnu$) = $|rho , dnu|$.



                            Next we need to realise that these two amounts of energy are the same. For, when the wavelength is $lambda$ the frequency is $nu$, and when the wavelength is $lambda + dlambda$ the frequency is $nu + dnu$, so the two energies we just referred to are one and the same energy, in the sense that they are two ways of referring to the same "chunk" out of the complete spectrum. Thus we find



                            $|u , dlambda| = |rho , dnu|$



                            and therefore



                            $ u = rho, |dnu/dlambda| = rho , c / lambda^2$



                            That's the algebra, but I hope I have also given a feel for what is going on. It does take some getting used to.



                            If you now take some distribution $rho$ and multiply it by the function $1/lambda^2$ you can see that any local peak in the distribution is going to be moved a bit: the long wavelength part gets reduced and the short wavelength part gets increased, so the peak moves to shorter wavelength. It is not because of any change in the relationship between frequency and wavelength, but because of the difference in "per unit frequency change" as compared to "per unit wavelength change". A similar shift will apply to a study of quantities involving other things related by an inverse, such as time and frequency, resistivity and conductivity, etc.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 48 mins ago









                            Andrew Steane

                            2005




                            2005




















                                up vote
                                1
                                down vote













                                It's an interesting question!



                                If your graph is plotted as a function of wavelength,the solar irradiance is maximum in the visible and if it were plotted as a function of frequency the maximum is,interestingly,in the near infrared.




                                How is this possible?




                                This happens because the relationship between wavelength and frequency is not linear.



                                $ vert d nuvert = vert c/ lambda^2 dlambda vert$



                                Reference:



                                http://www.oceanopticsbook.info/view/light_and_radiometry/level_2/a_common_misconception#fig:photons-wave-freq






                                share|cite|improve this answer
























                                  up vote
                                  1
                                  down vote













                                  It's an interesting question!



                                  If your graph is plotted as a function of wavelength,the solar irradiance is maximum in the visible and if it were plotted as a function of frequency the maximum is,interestingly,in the near infrared.




                                  How is this possible?




                                  This happens because the relationship between wavelength and frequency is not linear.



                                  $ vert d nuvert = vert c/ lambda^2 dlambda vert$



                                  Reference:



                                  http://www.oceanopticsbook.info/view/light_and_radiometry/level_2/a_common_misconception#fig:photons-wave-freq






                                  share|cite|improve this answer






















                                    up vote
                                    1
                                    down vote










                                    up vote
                                    1
                                    down vote









                                    It's an interesting question!



                                    If your graph is plotted as a function of wavelength,the solar irradiance is maximum in the visible and if it were plotted as a function of frequency the maximum is,interestingly,in the near infrared.




                                    How is this possible?




                                    This happens because the relationship between wavelength and frequency is not linear.



                                    $ vert d nuvert = vert c/ lambda^2 dlambda vert$



                                    Reference:



                                    http://www.oceanopticsbook.info/view/light_and_radiometry/level_2/a_common_misconception#fig:photons-wave-freq






                                    share|cite|improve this answer












                                    It's an interesting question!



                                    If your graph is plotted as a function of wavelength,the solar irradiance is maximum in the visible and if it were plotted as a function of frequency the maximum is,interestingly,in the near infrared.




                                    How is this possible?




                                    This happens because the relationship between wavelength and frequency is not linear.



                                    $ vert d nuvert = vert c/ lambda^2 dlambda vert$



                                    Reference:



                                    http://www.oceanopticsbook.info/view/light_and_radiometry/level_2/a_common_misconception#fig:photons-wave-freq







                                    share|cite|improve this answer












                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                    share|cite|improve this answer










                                    answered 22 mins ago









                                    ayc

                                    32417




                                    32417




















                                        Cindy Almighty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                                         

                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded


















                                        Cindy Almighty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                        Cindy Almighty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                                        Cindy Almighty is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                         


                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function ()
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f437769%2fpeaks-different-in-wavelength-and-frequency-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                        );

                                        Post as a guest













































































                                        Comments

                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        What does second last employer means? [closed]

                                        List of Gilmore Girls characters

                                        Confectionery