Talk:Draper point

Equation Wrong Explanation[edit]

3.6 micrometers are too far away from 750nm. This is really the minimum value for a human eye to catch an object in normal conditions. But 3.6 micrometers is equivalent to 3600nm which are a range that is total invisible to human eye no matter the "leading edge" of the blackbody. That explanation is poor and clearly not valid.

Peak =/= upper limit[edit]

Is the Draper point where the peak is on the red/IR boundary (as suggested by the 2nd paragraph) or where the shortest wavelength emitted is on the red/IR boundary (as suggested by the 1st paragraph)? The two are not the same thing. --Tango (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically at all temperatures, there is blackbody radiation in the infrared and visible spectrum (and all other wavelengths too). The intensity may be very low, but it is non-zero, defined by the Planck's law equation. I'm guessing that the Draper point is the regime when the blackbody radiation in the visible spectrum is greater than the ambient visible light intensity - but I'm very curious how this can occur at a precise temperature, since it's going to vary based on so many experimental conditions. Nimur (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Won't quantum mechanics result in a cutoff at some point? At very short wavelengths emitting a single photon requires a large amount of energy. Presumably at a short enough wavelength there won't be enough energy to emit any photons. Unless... do these things work on averages so you might get one photon a year, but you do get something? Either way, it seems that the Draper point probably doesn't refer to the peak of the distribution. --Tango (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As in a photoelectric-effect style activation energy or Work function? I don't think so... let me dig out my statistical thermodynamics book and see if there's a QM treatment of blackbody radiation and get back with a citable reference. Nimur (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think furthermore that this is the point of the idealized blackbody - that it is in principle in thermal equilibrium with the electromagnetic field that represents its thermal radiation. The spectrum of the energy in the field is continuous, even if the source of the photons was originally via atomic emissions (which do have a minimum and maximum energy). After all - quantum mechanics began with the Blackbody formula - so I doubt it needs a "correction" for quantum mechanics.... I still can't find a good succinct explanation of this - I may need to dig out more textbooks... should we post this question to the main science desk to get more input? Nimur (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our Planck's law article does talk about photons being emitted once every thousand years, so being essentially zero, but technically not. I guess that is the explanation. --Tango (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

470 THz?[edit]

Substituting into that equation, I get 46.9 THz, which is obviously not right. Should 2.821 be 28.21? 24.34.94.195 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the correct formula is, but you can verify with Google calculator:

2.821 × k × 798 kelvin / h = 4.69065812e13 hertz

which is a factor of ~10 less than claimed in the article, and the peak is certainly in the infrared, not the red part of the visible spectrum. So the article's claim is, indeed, in error. However if you examine the spectral radiance in the visible range, you will find it is -60 to -80 dB from the peak; i.e. you will get some dull red light from objects at this temperature. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wrong formula[edit]

I also get wrong results when substituting the 798K to this formula. To get the correct results (83 THz) the coefficient should be 4.965 instead of 2.821 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoraxTheTutor (talk • contribs) 09:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]