How did Max Planck derive his constant H?

AI Thread Summary
Max Planck derived his constant, known as 'h', in response to discrepancies between theoretical predictions and experimental observations, particularly related to blackbody radiation, leading to the formulation of Planck's Law. The discussion highlights the significance of understanding the ultraviolet catastrophe and suggests Darrigol's work, "From C-numbers to Q-numbers," as a comprehensive resource on the topic. Participants emphasize the importance of a strong background in electrodynamics and statistical mechanics to fully grasp Planck's contributions. Additionally, there is mention of a lecture on Zero Point Energy, which discusses the experimental data indicating a potential decrease in the speed of light and its implications for the value of 'h'. The conversation reflects a deep engagement with theoretical physics and its evolving understanding.
Robert Miller
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I listened to a lecture the other day that some anomalies in observations compared to theory caused Max Plank to derive his famous Constant.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can somebody point me to a English summary of Max Plancks 1906 paper?

[Post moved to this thread by moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's easy: google ultraviolet catastrophe or Planck's Law

[edit] this was in reply to post #1. Since then posts #2 and #4 urged me to look into this some more. See #5.
 
Last edited:
The best complete source on this can be found in Darrigol (I will check spelling if this is incorrect.): From C-numbers to Q-numbers. Prepare yourself for a complete exposition of blackbody radiation. Your strengths better be in electrodynamics and statistical Mechanics. After you read this you will regard Planck to be mentioned in the same breath as Einstein, Newton or Boltzmann. If you have a hard time with the citation of the reference above, I will write back if necessary.
 
Well, you are really digging in. I suppose you found this one by Gearhart already ? I was impressed - both by the article that goes in depth and by the fact that it can be found so easily; Google really is a miracle.
 
I'm listening to a lecture by Barry Satterfield. It's long and painful to listen to due to so much background noise. The lecture is on Zero Point Energy. I don't have the math background, but I have a good head for the theoretical concepts. I've read this kind of stuff for many years. 20 years ago the ZPE seemed like fiction to me or at least not real. Now it seems to be on it's way to being a well developed field. I can't wait to see what the next 20 years uncovers in this field.

One major topic of this lecture was the experimental data that shows the speed of light is slowing, and that 'h' is needed so that (h*C) remains a constant. The value of 'h' increases as 'C' decreases at the same rate.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top