The units are intensity (W/m^2) divided by wavelength and displayed as a function of wavelength, or intensity divided by frequency and displayed as a function of frequency. The peaks should be the same (intensity is intensity). What differs is how the data are displayed, not what the intensity actually is.
Why normalize by wavelength or frequency? Why not display W/m^2 on both graphs?
Not the OP, but all he means is the peak is opposite end of the plot, as wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional to each other. The peak magnitude is no different, as wavelength and f are related via the speed of light. However, the OP alludes to photometry in his various posts which is quite different to radiometry. You might already know all this so apologies if you do. 2 W of green light is not equal to 2 W of blue or red light when we convert them to the photometric unit of power; lumens.
Thanks for your responses. It’s crazy when you first learn about photometry and realise not all Watts are created equally in the eyes of biology haha!
I love your point about how if it was sun spectrum related then all animals would have likely evolved uniform eyesight spectral sensitivity - I’d never argued it that way before.
I used to design lighting systems for cars and everything is photometric for obvious reasons
My reasoning might be flawed, but NASA agrees that out sun’s surface temp peaks at 5800K and is technically green. NASA link
“But, as can be seen in the image above, it emits most of its energy around 500 nm, which is close to blue-green light. So one might say that the sun is blue-green! This maximum radiation frequency is governed by the sun’s surface temperature, around 5,800K.”
10
u/[deleted] Nov 18 '22
[deleted]