2
$\begingroup$

In some cases one can identify a substance by the color emitted as it burns in a flame. A green flame might indicate the presence of copper. So here is the question.

If we know wavelength and intensity of emission spectra for an element, isn't what we "see" as it burns simply a superposition of these? If I try to reconstruct the apparent color of copper from its spectrum as $\sum f_n \cdot i_n /\sum i_n$ in which $f_n$ and $i_n$ are the frequencies and relative intensities respectively, it seems to work. But trying this with, say, helium, using approximations because there are a lot of lines, I consistently get something in the green range.

This site gives a simplified spectrum for helium in a tube. Approximating the intensities I get something in the green range. I tried a more detailed calculation using selected NIST data and obtained a similar result. But helium is consistently shown as having a red appearance in a flame or in a tube (link).

One guess is that there are invisible emission lines, and helium has many. If these are included in the sum they might drag the apparent color toward the red.

Is my basic understanding incorrect? Any insights appreciated.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Identifying materials by flame is best done w/ a spectrometer, since your eye does 'merge' various wavelengths. But as to summing, see DumpsterDoofus' answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 27, 2014 at 15:43
  • $\begingroup$ The eyes' perception of color has more complexity than the equation you propose. For instance, if you add together red, green, and blue, the resultant "color" isn't a weighted average of the frequencies but white. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 27, 2014 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ @Joshua: For sure the question is an oversimplification in several respects and I think you hit on one of the important ones. $\endgroup$
    – daniel
    Commented Feb 27, 2014 at 15:55
  • $\begingroup$ Helium does not have many visible spectral lines, as I show in my annotated helium discharge tube spectrum here: physics.stackexchange.com/a/770049/313612. The most intense visible line is yellow, around 587.6 nm, and the discharge looks rather yellow to me, same as in the HyperPhysics link you provided. $\endgroup$
    – Ed V
    Commented Jul 2, 2023 at 23:24

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

If we know wavelength and intensity of emission spectra for an element, isn't what we "see" as it burns simply a superposition of these?

Yes.

If I try to reconstruct the apparent color of copper from its spectrum as $\sum f_n \cdot i_n /\sum i_n$ in which $f_n$ and $i_n$ are the frequencies and relative intensities respectively, it seems to work. But trying this with, say, helium, using approximations because there are a lot of lines, I consistently get something in the green range.

Actually, that's not how to interpret it. What the above is doing is adding together frequencies, but that's not what it means to have a "superposition of emission spectra". The flaw becomes obvious when you consider a flashlight. If you shine red and green light on a wall, is that the same as shining ultraviolet light on the wall? No, you just get a mixture of red and green photons hitting a wall.

Similarly, emission spectral lines do not add their frequencies to form a single frequency, but rather they coexist independently. Helium glows reddish because the dominant visible lines are red and yellow.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @daniel take one line at 200 nm and another at 800 nm with same intensity. Both are invisible for human eye. Your calculation predicts that mixing both is perceived as 500 nm - green. This is not the case, see how eye color perception works. $\endgroup$
    – gigacyan
    Commented Feb 27, 2014 at 17:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.