While doing research for a high school report I came across the fact that WDL actually has two forms, one for peak frequency and one for peak wavelength, and that these two forms are not the same and can not be used interchangeably.  My question is why peak frequency isn't the same as peak wavelength? That is, since wavelength is directly determined by frequency (since frequency = speed of light divided by wavelength), there is a one-to-one correspondence between a given wavelength and its frequency. Therefore why doesn't a peak in frequency correspond to a peak in wavelength, and visa versa (meaning that the two forms of WDL could be used interchangeably)?   I know that this question was already posted elsewhere, but I did not understand the answers. Since I am a high school student, complicated terminology can fly right over my head, so I would greatly appreciate it if someone could take the time to explain it clearly and simply (i.e. no monster equations).
45792
I read that it makes a difference whether you calculate $\frac{dE(\lambda) }{d \lambda}=0$ or $\frac{dE(\omega)}{d \omega}=0$ in the sense that the maximum energy density with respect to the wavelength does not coincide with the frequency maximum that one would assume to be at $\omega_{max} = \frac{c}{\lambda_{max}}$. Actually, I do not understand why this is so ( Now, I am only interested in a pure physical explanation, mathematically this is clear and due to the chain rule). Does anybody know how to explain this odd thing?  Somehow I feel that the core of the question has not been completely answered. Although I can easily look up wikipedia, where the need for the chain rule is explained, I am rather interested in understanding where the following argument breaks down, which seems to be why this question has caused some confusion in the past(as you can see by googling this question):  So we have $E(\omega)$ the energy radiated at a given frequency. Now this function has a maximum somewhere, so there is a frequency where a maximal amount of energy is emitted. In other words: If you add the sum of the photon's energies at each frequency that are emitted, you will notice that the maximum is reached at this frquency. Now $E(\lambda)$ tells you basically the same for the wavelength, but again: We know where at which frequency the maximal amount of energy is radiated, so we know the corresponding wavelength.   I think there is a need to explain this.   If anything is unclear, please let me know.
32900
I just came across a course name: Geometric and Theoretical Optics. The mismatched endings bug me. Why do we have both -ical and -ic endings?   Is there any difference in meaning between, say, theoretic and theoretical? I know that acoustic and acoustical mean slightly different things, but is this difference inherent in the words, or is it just usage&nbsp;— we happen to use the former for sound, and the latter for ceilings?
28455
Does a photon having superimposed frequencies exist?  (wrt frequency detected by prism or other detectors, not wrt human eye as only rod-cells can detect one photon falling in the detectable (visible) frequency band and the single photon is perceived by eye+brain as grey irrespective of frequency).  Also, with white here, I do not wish to restrict the question implying all VIBGYOR frequencies or only RGB as each color is also a range of frequencies and white to trichromatic-sensor human eye is just output from three frequencies RGB.  Or can it be that materials which slow light down cause a photon of some single frequency and higher energy to split into VIBGYOR? || and the entire spectrum of human eye's detection range is VIBGYOR+W (as monochromatic light of high intensity can also be perceived white by human eye and it is not related to individual color sensors of human eye at all but that above a certain energy per unit volume (referring to detector area of eye cells), we perceive it white, (somewhat but not exactly) similar to combination of red and green which human eye+brain calls yellow.  I have added the additional description to make the question more precise. If my description causes confusion, please stay with the original question and use description just to get an idea of the intent of the question.
41458
When a light wave enters a medium with a higher refractive index (e.g. from air to standard glass) and its speed decreases, why does that make it refract/bend?  I understand that wavelength decreases and frequency stays the same and therefore its speed decreases, but I can't find anywhere whatsoever why the speed decrease cause the wave to refract. So could someone please explain this?
119162
Are any of these verb phrases grammatical?        allows the user of modeling and resolving     allows the user to model and resolve      Which version of the following sentence is correct/better?        In particular, it allows to acquire a signal using a sample rate significantly lower than the one dictated by the Nyquist criterion.   In particular, it allows acquiring a signal using a sample rate   significantly lower than the one dictated by the Nyquist criterion.      I searched Google Scholar for "" and "", and it seems people use both more or less with the same frequency.
22810
I am drawing a blank when it comes to equation transformation. Wikipedia  for the spectral radiance of black body:   First as a function of frequency $\nu$: $$I(\nu, T) = \frac{2 h \nu^3}{c^2}\cdot\frac{1}{e^\frac{h \nu}{k T} - 1}$$ Then as a function of wavelength $\lambda$ : $$I&#39;(\lambda, T) = \frac{2hc^2}{\lambda^5}\cdot\frac{1}{e^\frac{h c}{\lambda k T}-1}$$   And I don't see how they get $\lambda^5$ term. I'm assuming that the transformation is just $\nu \rightarrow c/\lambda$, but that gives $$ \frac{2 h \nu^3}{c^2} \Rightarrow \frac{2 hc}{\lambda^3} \neq \frac{2hc^2}{\lambda^5} $$  Similar transformation happens at other parts in the article also. I'm obviously missing something, likely completely trivial.
44038
I've read that light travels in a straight line and has a wavelength of 400nm to 700nm. But I don't understand why does it have a wavelength and what creates its wavelength? I agree with the concept of sound which also has wavelength, thus called sound waves which are created by the vibrational movement in air. I'm not aware of calling light a wave. Does the light vibrate too? If so, then how?
12641
Consider 3 waves of frequency 101, 103, 106 hz, and of same intensity. What should be the beat frequencies?     Now I can calc it for 2 waves, and i know how to write the combined equation of the two. But the addition of a third causes lots of problems...the equation is getting cumbersome. Can you please help me here? I dug around online, and some responses were neglecting the third wave as it was too close to one of the waves. If I want to avoid that, is there any other solution?
5842
I was surprised to see that the Fresnel equations for reflection depends on refractive index and angle of incidence, but they do not depend on frequency. Why is this case? Are they restricted to regions that do not show frequency dependence?
96193
I don't understand how frequencies are defined in images/photographs. As far as I understand it now, high frequencies are like sharp things in images, like edges or so, and low frequencies are kind of the opposite?  I also would like to understand the outcome of Discrete Fourier Transformations, like how to read them properly.   It would be cool if somebody could explain to me the following:   What are frequencies in pictures and how are they defined? How do you read the outcome of a Discrete Fourier Transformation?
34694
Two fundamental equations regarding  are: $$ \lambda = \frac{h}{p}, \\ \nu = E/h .$$  We talk about , is it meaningful to talk about de Broglie frequency ($\nu$ above) and de Broglie velocity ($\nu \lambda$)? Are these two equations independent or can one derive one from the other? Or mid-way, does one impose constraint on other? In case of light or photons we can relate frequency and wave, is there similar interpretation in case frequency and wavelengths in above equations? Comparing with that of light, if we multiple $\lambda$ and $\nu$ we get velocity, what does this velocity mean here?  If we do the above calculation for an average human, what would be the meaning of $\nu$ and $\nu \lambda$? Are we jiggling with that $\nu$?
37234
Maybe an illegal question. Sorry.  Having read that a photon has both wave and a light characteristics it is natural for a novice like myself to wonder "what is the amplitude? "  Naturally I have looked on wiki and other sources and there are a number of answers some of which appear not so much to contradict one another of varying opinions of which is the most meaningful in physics.   I seem to get a higher number of physics sources saying the amplitude depends on how many photons you have and if you have one the question has no meaning.  Of course I have not idea if this is accurate or how one would even test this.   Maybe there are some physics teachers in the audience that can give me a layman's intuition with a little math tossed in.
54455
I read in a book about optical fibers that the different spectral components of a light pulse transmitted in the fiber propagate with different velocities due to a wavelength dependent refractive index. Can someone explain that? Why is that silica refractive index depends on the wavelength/frequency of the wave?
61910
I understand the equation explaining angles of refraction related to wavelengths. But I'm looking for a more intuitive approach/visual explanation? Perhaps related to QM?
116036
So my physics examinations are coming up and I was going through my notes on waves, but I realized that there were some discrepancies.   In my notes, the energy of a wave is directly proportional to the square of the amplitude, ie. $E \propto A^2$  However, I recalled that, in one of my physics lessons, our physics teacher told us that the energy of a wave can be calculated using $E=hf$, where $h$ is the Planck constant and $f$ the frequency.  Hence I was rather confused and tried searching google for answers but couldn't find any suitable ones. To the best extent of that research, what I found out was (apparently) (for visible light), the frequency of the wave could be used to calculate the energy of the wave, while the amplitude was used to determine the intensity of the wave.  So I was wondering, firstly, whether the above statement was correct, and secondly, in the event it is correct, whether it would be applicable to all kinds of waves, (ie. Sound waves, water waves, other EM waves, etc.), and thirdly, back to the original question, how do we calculate the energy of a wave?  Thanks. :)
27218
When light passes from one medium to another its velocity and wavelength change. Why doesn't frequency change in this phenomenon?
118354
I was wondering why a laser beam diverges. If all the photons are in the same direction, I would imagine that it would stay that way over a long distance. I am aware that a perfectly collimated beam with no divergence cannot be created due to diffraction, but I am looking for an explanation based on  photons rather than wave physics.