2
$\begingroup$

The standard theory of black body radiation that I am familiar with derive the Planck's law assuming first that we deal with a box in which the photon gas is contained. The box has a small hole in it so the light cannot escape once fallen into it - this realizes the 100% absorption property. However, the Sun or even other objects from our daily life are much more complex than that simple model and seem very distant from it. Nevertheless, the emission spectrum is well described by the same, universal Planck's law. Why? Can one derive that universal law using other model, with a different mechanism of absorption?

EDIT: Let me state my question in different, perhaps more clear way. There is nothing surprising for me in the fact that for example spectrum of the Sun do not fully agree with Planck's law, that is a typical situation for physics. When we model some physical system we always make idealizations, but in the case of black body theory the model of cavity with a hole is very simple and in microscopic sense totally different from for example stars. Without experimental verification I would not see much rational reasons for such a model to apply to more complex systems with different mechanism of absorption. But it apllies, not fully of course but it seems like photons inside a box reflect somehow thermodynamic properties of Sun - that is puzzling for me. We do not have a model of radiation of stars, we have a model for radiation of cavity with a hole, which is somehow valid for stars as well.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you think the sun is very different from a black body? The data say otherwise. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Apr 13, 2020 at 22:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I mean by that that it is totally different from box with photons in microscopic sense. Still, its radiation obey Planck's law. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 13, 2020 at 22:51

3 Answers 3

3
$\begingroup$

The key is that the blackbody spectrum does not depend on any of the microscopic details of what produces it. Only the temperature. Like the idealised hole into a box at a fixed temperature, any body that is in thermal equilibrium at some temperature and absorbs all radiation incident upon it it, will emit blackbody radiation.

The cavity with a hole is just a convenient thought (and sometimes real) experiment that enables that idealisation to be approached. The small hole ensures that all radiation incident upon it is absorbed (providing you don't clad the interior with highly reflective material!) The box itself must have achieved an equilibrium temperature in order for blackbody radiation to emerge from the hole.

The requirement that all radiation is absorbed is what ensures that the details of the absorption and emission processes are unimportant. At thermal equilibrium all absorption and emission processes will be in balance (known as the Principle of Detailed Balance). If you equate rates for emission and absorption processes, then it turns out that the radiation field needs to have the form of the Planck function at the same equilibrium temperature.

The Sun is only approximately a blackbody because, although it does absorb all radiation incident upon it, it is not in equilibrium at a single temperature. The Sun gets hotter as you go into it, and at different wavelengths we can see to different depths. The reason it even approximates to a blackbody at all is that, thanks to continuum absorption by H$^{-}$ ions, the range of depths to which we can see is quite small, only covering about 1000 km, and the temperature does not change too drastically over this range.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ The small hole ensures only that some light can enter the box. Whether it is absorbed depends on what is inside the box. If the box is perfectly reflecting, it will not be absorbed. That's why some accounts of blackbody radiation talk about small piece of soot (or any other kind of matter) inside to make the equilibration plausible. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 14, 2020 at 23:58
  • $\begingroup$ @JanLalinsky that's fair enough. In the idealised case you don't make the interior box out of 100% reflective material! For any other material, if the hole is small, then all of the incident radiation is absorbed. $\endgroup$
    – ProfRob
    Commented Apr 15, 2020 at 6:36
0
$\begingroup$

The standard theory of blackbody radiation is about thermodynamic equilibrium of quantum harmonic oscillators. It does not completely explain Planck's law, because for radiation density, it gives Planck's function plus unwanted $hf^3$ contribution, which is not observed and makes the EM energy in high frequencies diverge. So strictly speaking, the standard theory does not explain completely Planck's law - a bad term has to be excluded by hand first, and only then we get the Planck function of frequency for radiation intensity. This is related to the problem of "zero point energy" or "vacuum energy density"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem

Why does thermal radiation of Sun and cosmic microwave background behave according to Planck's law?

Because these are quite close to equilibrium radiation and Planck's law was designed to describe radiation spectral curve in equilibrium.

Historically, Planck believed thermal radiation could be in equilibrium with matter and he fitted data on such radiation with Planck's function of wavelength which bridges Rayleigh-Jeans formula (valid for low frequencies) with Wien's formula (valid for high frequencies) in the simplest of ways. After finding much agreement of his proposed function with the data, he set out to find some model of matter interacting with EM radiation that can produce that function within classical EM theory. He succeeded and published both classical and quantized model that recovers Planck's function.

Later, after quantum theory became the prevalent paradigm, his function was rederived using model of quantum harmonic oscillators (I think by Bose). Today that is the usual way to explain it - thermal radiation is due to photons in thermodynamic equilibrium. But it has the zero point energy problem and there are other explanations.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Could you give a reference for the the $f^3$ term? The Wikipedia page is about zero point energy, which is not caused by a propagating field so should not be counted as radiation. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Apr 15, 2020 at 8:32
  • $\begingroup$ The best I could find is Heitler, Quantum theory of radiation, section 7.2 Quantization of the pure radiation field. He encounters the problem with the infinite energy of radiation and proceeds to sweep it under rug by redefining Hamiltonian. This is almost universal in textbooks. It does make it easier to ignore the problem and connect to Planck's spectral curve, but 1) it is removal by hand, motivated by desire to get the unwanted thing out of sight, not by careful analysis of the problem 2) the radiation isn't changed by this formal trick, the uncertainty in the ground state remains. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 16, 2020 at 0:24
  • $\begingroup$ You are right that there is an argument to be made that zero point energy may not manifest as thermal radiation, as it has the same properties everywhere, inside and outside the analyzed region of space. But this is not done by the standard theory of blackbody radiation, it has been pursued by some people working on Stochastic Electrodynamics later. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 16, 2020 at 0:27
0
$\begingroup$

An ideal black body has oscillation strength at all frequencies. If such a body is in thermal equilibrium it will radiate the Planck spectrum. Planck's box with the small hole, reminding of the photography of those days, is a simple model of such a body.

Real objects are not perfect Planck radiators, as they cannot absorb and thus thermally radiate at all frequencies and always show some transmission, reflection and scattering. Their emissivity is not uniform. Planck's formula is nevertheless a very useful idealisation. The sun's spectrum is generated by a hot plasma and is quite close to 6000K Planck radiation. The sun is not in thermal equilibrium, so it should be no surprise that the agreement is approximate.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ What frequency of light can pass through the Sun? This is not the reason the sun isn't a perfect blackbody. $\endgroup$
    – ProfRob
    Commented Apr 14, 2020 at 23:24
  • $\begingroup$ > as they cannot absorb and thus radiate at all frequencies This is not really true, real objects can absorb and radiate at almost any frequency, only thermal emissivity can be low for some bands so the absorption/emission is weak. Phosphor in fluorescent lamp does not radiate much in optical band thermally, but it does radiate a lot if excited by UV radiation. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 15, 2020 at 0:06
  • $\begingroup$ @RobJeffries My answer is not about the relatively small deviations of the solar radiation from black body radiation. My guess is that these are caused by deviations from thermal equilibrium and by the solar corona. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Apr 15, 2020 at 8:38
  • $\begingroup$ "This is not really true, real objects can absorb and radiate at almost any frequency" That is simply not true, if you mean thermal radiation. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Apr 15, 2020 at 8:56
  • $\begingroup$ Even if we restrict ourselves to thermal radiation, after Fourier resolution, pretty much any frequency can be present with non-zero intensity. Do you have a counter-example? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 15, 2020 at 23:27

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.