<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law" rel="noreferrer">Planck spectrum</a> of a blackbody is given by
<span class="math-container">$$B(\nu, T) = \frac{2h\nu^3}{c^2} \left( \exp[h\nu/k_BT] - 1\right)^{-1} \ , $$</span>
where <span class="math-container">$\nu$</span> is the frequency, <span class="math-container">$T$</span> is the temperature and <span class="math-container">$h$</span> and <span class="math-container">$k_B$</span> are the usual Planck and Boltzmann constants and <span class="math-container">$c$</span> is the speed of light in vacuum.</p>
<p>If you transform the frequencies of light by applying a redshift <span class="math-container">$z$</span>, then the frequencies decrease by a factor of <span class="math-container">$1+z$</span>
<span class="math-container">$$ \nu' = \nu/(1+z)\ .$$</span></p>
<p>In which case, the Planck function just becomes
<span class="math-container">$$B' = \frac{2h\nu'^3(1+z)^3}{c^2} \left( \exp[h\nu'(1+z)/k_BT] - 1\right)^{-1} \ , $$</span>
which can just be rewritten as
<span class="math-container">$$B' = (1+z)^3\ \frac{2h\nu'^3}{c^2} \left( \exp[h\nu'/k_BT'] - 1\right)^{-1} = (1+z)^3 B(\nu', T') \ , $$</span>
where <span class="math-container">$T' = T/(1+z)$</span>.</p>
<p>i.e. This has just been transformed into a new Planck function at a lower temperature and with a different normalisation.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-28T19:21:02.920Z
Impressive equations, but am still struggling.  Forget the CMB. The graph of intensity vs wavelength for 6000 K is very steep, whereas the graph at 3000 K has a low profile.  If 6000 K black-body EM had wavelengths stretched 2x, how could the graph become like 3000 K's graph?
GulbenkianD
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-28T19:57:50.817Z
@GulbenkianD not sure what you mean by low profile. Or what you mean by the graph of intensity versus wavelength is steep. If a 6000K blackbody spectrum had all its wavelengths stretched by 2 it would have exactly the same *shape* as a 3000K blackbody.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-28T20:00:15.990Z
If you are worried about the intensity, remember that the energy density is also being decreased by the expansion of the universe. @GulbenkianD
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-28T21:06:19.930Z
By steep I mean that, for 6000 K the peak intensity looks to be at least 10 or 15x greater than the intensity at long wavelengths.  For 3000 K, it's maybe only 2x.  So if the wavelengths of that 6000 K emission were all stretched, the graph would still show more EM at shorter wavelengths than from an unstretched 3000 K black-body
GulbenkianD
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-29T13:43:40.740Z
@GulbenkianD at long wavelengths the intensity goes to zero - there's no one value you can point to and say that the maximum is 10x greater. You're comparing apples to oranges. This answer shows that the graph does have the same shape, but squeezed in the vertical direction and stretched in the horizontal one.
Javier
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-29T16:04:39.633Z
@GulbenkianD Your impression that the shape changes is only an optical illusion when you plot the Planck curve in a linear fashion. If you plot it logarithmically, you can see that a temperature change only results in a upward/downward and sideways displacement of the curve. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Planck_law_log_log_scale.png . This also follows algebraically from the Planck formula as shown in my answer below.
Thomas
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-28T16:38:47.787Z
2023-01-28T16:47:00.193Z
2023-01-28T16:47:00.193Z
ProfRob
<p>According to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law" rel="noreferrer">Hubble law</a> all radiation is progressively red-shifted with distance traveled, with the wavelength changing from <span class="math-container">$\lambda$</span> to <span class="math-container">$\lambda(1+z)$</span> (with <span class="math-container">$z&gt;0$</span>). Now the formula for the Planck black body curve is</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$$ B_\lambda=\frac{2hc^2}{\lambda^5}\frac{1}{e^{hc/(\lambda kT)}-1}$$</span></p>
<p>You can see that if you replace <span class="math-container">$\lambda$</span> with <span class="math-container">$\lambda(1+z)$</span> in the exponential factor, the original shape is retained by replacing <span class="math-container">$T$</span> with <span class="math-container">$T/(1+z)$</span>. So the original temperature <em>appears</em> to have been reduced by a factor <span class="math-container">$1/(1+z)$</span> by the red-shifting of the spectrum. In addition, the absolute intensity has dropped because you also get a factor <span class="math-container">$1/(1+z)^5$</span> due to the red-shift.</p>
<p>From the double-logarithmic plot below you can see that a temperature change (be it real or apparent due to the redshift) does not change the shape of the Planck curve but only displaces it upwards/downwards and sideways. Your impression that the shape changes is only an optical illusion when you plot the curve linearly (as it is usually done).</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/lBlGd.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/lBlGd.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-28T16:22:29.153Z
2023-01-29T17:53:21.973Z
2023-01-29T17:53:21.973Z
Thomas
<p>Physicist Chad Orzel in &quot;Einstein's Legacy&quot; discusses Planck's Black-Body formula, stating that it fits perfectly to everything we see, from toasters to stars.  Fine. Then he says it perfectly describes the radiation curve of the CMB as belonging to a black body at 2.71 degrees. I'm confused, since the CMB was not EMITTED at that temp, but at one with a very different shaped curve.  How would stretching those original frequencies out by a factor or a thousand (or whatever it is) result in a curve representative of 2.7 degrees?</p>

<cosmic-microwave-background><radiation><black-body>
Why does the CMB conform to black-body formula for 2.71 degrees, when it's the stretched emission at a far hotter temp?
GulbenkianD
# Why does the CMB conform to black-body formula for 2.71 degrees, when it's the stretched emission at a far hotter temp?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-01-28)

Physicist Chad Orzel in "Einstein's Legacy" discusses Planck's Black-Body formula, stating that it fits perfectly to everything we see, from toasters to stars. Fine. Then he says it perfectly describes the radiation curve of the CMB as belonging to a black body at 2.71 degrees. I'm confused, since the CMB was not EMITTED at that temp, but at one with a very different shaped curve. How would stretching those original frequencies out by a factor or a thousand (or whatever it is) result in a curve representative of 2.7 degrees?

**Tags:** cosmic-microwave-background, radiation, black-body


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2023-01-28. Score: 23

The [Planck spectrum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law) of a blackbody is given by
$$B(\nu, T) = \frac{2h\nu^3}{c^2} \left( \exp[h\nu/k\_BT] - 1\right)^{-1} \ , $$
where $\nu$ is the frequency, $T$ is the temperature and $h$ and $k\_B$ are the usual Planck and Boltzmann constants and $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum.

If you transform the frequencies of light by applying a redshift $z$, then the frequencies decrease by a factor of $1+z$
$$ \nu' = \nu/(1+z)\ .$$

In which case, the Planck function just becomes
$$B' = \frac{2h\nu'^3(1+z)^3}{c^2} \left( \exp[h\nu'(1+z)/k\_BT] - 1\right)^{-1} \ , $$
which can just be rewritten as
$$B' = (1+z)^3\ \frac{2h\nu'^3}{c^2} \left( \exp[h\nu'/k\_BT'] - 1\right)^{-1} = (1+z)^3 B(\nu', T') \ , $$
where $T' = T/(1+z)$.

i.e. This has just been transformed into a new Planck function at a lower temperature and with a different normalisation.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Impressive equations, but am still struggling.  Forget the CMB. The graph of intensity vs wavelength for 6000 K is very steep, whereas the graph at 3000 K has a low profile.  If 6000 K black-body EM had wavelengths stretched 2x, how could the graph become like 3000 K's graph?  
> **username_1**: @username_0 not sure what you mean by low profile. Or what you mean by the graph of intensity versus wavelength is steep. If a 6000K blackbody spectrum had all its wavelengths stretched by 2 it would have exactly the same *shape* as a 3000K blackbody.  
> **username_1**: If you are worried about the intensity, remember that the energy density is also being decreased by the expansion of the universe. @username_0  
> **username_0**: By steep I mean that, for 6000 K the peak intensity looks to be at least 10 or 15x greater than the intensity at long wavelengths.  For 3000 K, it's maybe only 2x.  So if the wavelengths of that 6000 K emission were all stretched, the graph would still show more EM at shorter wavelengths than from an unstretched 3000 K black-body  
> **username_2**: @username_0 at long wavelengths the intensity goes to zero - there's no one value you can point to and say that the maximum is 10x greater. You're comparing apples to oranges. This answer shows that the graph does have the same shape, but squeezed in the vertical direction and stretched in the horizontal one.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 Your impression that the shape changes is only an optical illusion when you plot the Planck curve in a linear fashion. If you plot it logarithmically, you can see that a temperature change only results in a upward/downward and sideways displacement of the curve. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Planck_law_log_log_scale.png . This also follows algebraically from the Planck formula as shown in my answer below.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2023-01-28. Score: 15

According to the [Hubble law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law) all radiation is progressively red-shifted with distance traveled, with the wavelength changing from $\lambda$ to $\lambda(1+z)$ (with $z>0$). Now the formula for the Planck black body curve is

$$ B\_\lambda=\frac{2hc^2}{\lambda^5}\frac{1}{e^{hc/(\lambda kT)}-1}$$

You can see that if you replace $\lambda$ with $\lambda(1+z)$ in the exponential factor, the original shape is retained by replacing $T$ with $T/(1+z)$. So the original temperature *appears* to have been reduced by a factor $1/(1+z)$ by the red-shifting of the spectrum. In addition, the absolute intensity has dropped because you also get a factor $1/(1+z)^5$ due to the red-shift.

From the double-logarithmic plot below you can see that a temperature change (be it real or apparent due to the redshift) does not change the shape of the Planck curve but only displaces it upwards/downwards and sideways. Your impression that the shape changes is only an optical illusion when you plot the curve linearly (as it is usually done).

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/lBlGd.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/lBlGd.png)


---

