Jump to content

Talk:Emission spectrum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Am I supposed to see [hyper]fine gaps in these spectra, or are those interpixel artefacts?? lysdexia 23:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does each line represent? I know it is the individual frequencies of what hydrogen emits when heated, but do these lines represent energy levels as well? and WHY are these the only frequencies being emitted?

Hydrogen spectral series or Bohr model may be able to help. OrangeDog (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of Atomic Emission Spectrum into Emission spectrum

[edit]

Seems like a good idea to me - Atomic Emission Spectrum mostly duplicates material in Emission spectrum ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

definitely dump any extra bits from here into the atomic emission article, this article (I think) should be about molecular emission spectra - flouresence, phosphorescence etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.12 (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, merge to Atomic emission spectrum, and make Emission spectrum a disambig to that and Molecular radiation (and possibly Hydrogen spectral series. I've also just noticed Atomic spectral line, which may need merging or something else. OrangeDog (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an Emission spectrum (fluorescence spectroscopy). This topic is a bit of a mess. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Atomic emission spectroscopy, Fluorescence spectroscopy, Electromagnetic spectroscopy, Emission (electromagnetic radiation), Spectrum analysis, etc. Lots of room for cleanup; merging redundant articles is a good start. --Kkmurray (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposed merger - it looks like it was first proposed over a year ago! As a first step, I would suggest merging both Atomic emission spectrum and Molecular radiation into Emission spectrum. (The article can cover things which apply both to atomic and molecular emission.) Most of the other articles are either more detail about particular sub-topics, or about the practicalities of measuring spectra, so could be included as links while keeping this article at quite a simple level. Djr32 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged Atomic emission spectrum and Molecular radiation into this article. As others noted above, there are a lot of articles in this general area, but not really any overall organisational principle, so I think there's more work to do! Djr32 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absorption Spectra

[edit]

It is highly misleading to call the absorption spectra the "inverse" of the emission spectra. In many mathematical applications the inverse is 1/x, which is certainly not the case with absorption and emission spectra. It would be more appropriate to call this the "Mirror-Image Rule" as it is termed in Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy by JR Lakowicz page 7 (yes, it's that early in the book). However it should be noted that the mirror-image rule is much more of a guideline than a rule. The absorption and emission spectra can differ for a large number of reasons, many of which are listed (with examples) in the Lakowicz text. Some examples are proton dissociation and the formation of charge-transfer complexes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.196.176 (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the correct term is "complementary," in use since the 18th century to denote two parts of a spectrum that, when combined produce "white" light (the solar continuous spectrum). the emission spectral lines are *approximately* complementary to the absorption lines observed in a continuous spectrum; they are created by the same orbital changes in electron energy. with respect to professor lakowicz, there is enormous benefit to look for terms in common usage to describe the same phenomenon. "mirror-image rule" is incoherent, not only because the mirror image has the same topology as the original of the image (whereas emission lines are defined by darkness and absorption lines by a continuous source spectrum), but also because mirror images are reversed in one dimension, but both emission and absorption lines follow the same left-to-right spectral dispersion. Drollere (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Types of emission

[edit]

This article is highly geared towards atomic emission spectra. I think there should be a section added that discusses the types of emission, as noted in another comment: atomic, fluorescence, phosphorescence and any others I'm not thinking of right now. We should also consider adding various factors that can affect measuring the emission spectrum (mostly for fluorescence). Discussion should be given about technical emission spectra. A great starting point for this would be NBS 260-64, a document describing Standard Reference Material (SRM) 936 - Quinine Sulfate Dihydrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwagers (talk • contribs) 02:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page organization

[edit]

It seems very strange that the 'Emission' section (and subject) is a subset of the 'Emission spectrum' page. Shouldn't these be reversed? (Make 'emission spectrum' a section of an 'emission' article) All Clues Key (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section called "Energy spectrum"

[edit]

This section, as I found it, was a mishmash of two or three notions of "energy spectrum" with a fumbled attempt in the first paragraph at some kind of general thing they have in common.

It's still pretty bad, even after I dropped the most distracting parts, namely (1) the repetition here of the standard definition of the "spectrum" of the Hamiltonian operator in quantum mechanics (a different beast than an observed distribution of energies) (2) the relation E=hω from quantum mechanics (which was tossed out, but never used).

I would recommend tightening up the phraseology of the first paragraph to focus on whatever specific kind of power spectrum or energy spectrum is really intended in the current article -- perhaps a power spectrum of electromagnetic radiation as a function of wavelength, like with black body radiation? -- so that this section fits in with the rest of the article.

I left the example of sea waves, but it seems sort of detached from what's interesting in the context of this article. 178.38.183.80 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing attention to this section. Because its topic has no particular significance for an Emission Spectrum, I have removed it. ronningt (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emission spectrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emission spectrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schematic diagram of spontaneous emission

[edit]

The Schematic diagram of spontaneous emission use h bar and ν which generally represents frecuency, instead it should use either ω for the angular frecuency or switch to h and keep de ν — Preceding unsigned comment added by LULZ308 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emission_spectrum&oldid=1194439013"