Black Bodies, the UV Catastrophe, and Plank's Quantum assertion

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshgreaves332
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    bodies Quantum Uv
joshgreaves332
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
What exactly did Max Planck assert regarding the discrete quantum nature of energy that was so significant to the observations obtained of black bodies, which contradicted the classical predictions of the time? i.e. the UV catastrophe?


My overall understanding is flawed I wonder if you could right me:

Incident radiation of a range of frequencies heats up the black body to thermal eq with the environment.

A given atom inside the box will begin to emit radiation energy at a range of frequencies.

At 1 given frequency, there could be a number of standing waves (or modes) and this number of possible modes increases quadratically with frequency? (correct?, why is this?)

The energy radiated is stored in these modes/standing waves, why? By this I mean to say, why was it concluded from classical physics that the energy should be proportional to the frequency?

This was theorized to increase constantly leading to the UV catastrophe; why is this not the case exactly? I understand there is only a certain amount of energy that can be emitted so, is it just that it follows a probability distribution, falling off at the higher frequencies? (Why?)


Many thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From what I said: "why was it concluded from classical physics that the energy should be proportional to the frequency?"

What I am struggling with is why was it ever postulated that infinite energy would be released at higher frequencies? Why wasnt it said that 'In order to emit higher frequencies, a higher energy would be required'. I don't understand the classical physics assertion and why the UV Catastrophe was ever considered. What am I missing?!
 
Have you seen a derivation of the Rayleigh-Jeans law? (the "classical" blackbody radiation formula)

for example, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html#c6

(and the links from that page)

It would help to indicate what level of math you know.
 
joshgreaves332 said:
"why was it concluded from classical physics that the energy should be proportional to the frequency?"

It wasn't; that was what Planck's quantum hypothesis said. See below.

joshgreaves332 said:
What I am struggling with is why was it ever postulated that infinite energy would be released at higher frequencies?

That's not quite what classical physics said. What classical physics said was this: a black body will, on average, radiate an equal amount of energy in every available frequency. But there are an infinity of available frequencies, so according to classical physics, a black body should radiate an infinite amount of energy (the infinite number of frequences times the amount of energy per frequency, which is the same for all frequencies). Of course, the black body doesn't have an infinite amount of energy to radiate, so what this is actually telling us is that classical physics has *no* consistent way of describing radiation from a black body.

Planck's hypothesis was that a black body will *not* radiate an equal amount of energy in every available frequency. Instead, he hypothesized that a black body radiates energy in "quanta" which have finite energy, and the energy of a quantum goes up with the frequency. This makes it less likely that a black body can radiate energy at higher frequencies, because it has to radiate the energy a full quantum at a time (whereas, according to classical physics, energy at any frequency can be radiated in arbitrarily small amounts). That allows the total energy radiated by the black body to be finite.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Back
Top