Mathematica Mathematical transition from classical to quantum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on David Bohm's 1951 text "Quantum Theory," specifically his analysis of Wien's Law and its parameters, which include Planck's constant (h) and Boltzmann's constant (k). Bohm argues that Wien's Law accurately represents empirical data, supporting quantum mechanics, unlike the Rayleigh-Jeans Law, which fails to do so. A key question raised is whether the mathematical transition from quantum mechanics to classical physics occurs when the equation hv = kT holds true, suggesting a relationship between the two theories. Additionally, participants are encouraged to explore T.H. Boyer's paper on classical statistical thermodynamics and electromagnetic zero-point radiation, as well as an update on stochastic electrodynamics as an alternative to quantum mechanics.
Rade
I have a question--in D. Bohm 1951 text Quantum Theory, on p. 6 he discusses what he calls Wien's Law formula, which contains two parameters hv/kT; where h is Planck's constant and k is Boltzmann's constant. He argues that the Wien formula fits empirical [experimental] data and thus supports theory of quantum mechanics, in contrast to the Rayleigh-Jeans Law, which does not fit empirical data.

Now my question--if we view Wien's Law formula as an approximation for QM as explains equilibrium distribution of electromagnetic radiation in a hollow cavity, and Rayleigh-Jeans Law as an approximation for classical explanation, would it be correct to say that the "mathematical transition" between QM and classical occurs when hv = kT.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rade said:
I have a question--in D. Bohm 1951 text Quantum Theory, on p. 6 he discusses what he calls Wien's Law formula, which contains two parameters hv/kT; where h is Planck's constant and k is Boltzmann's constant. He argues that the Wien formula fits empirical [experimental] data and thus supports theory of quantum mechanics, in contrast to the Rayleigh-Jeans Law, which does not fit empirical data.

Now my question--if we view Wien's Law formula as an approximation for QM as explains equilibrium distribution of electromagnetic radiation in a hollow cavity, and Rayleigh-Jeans Law as an approximation for classical explanation, would it be correct to say that the "mathematical transition" between QM and classical occurs when hv = kT.

You might want to study the thoughtful paper:
``Classical statistical thermodynamics and EM zero point radiation''
by T.H. Boyer, Physical review, vol 186, number 5 (1969)
 
Careful said:
You might want to study the thoughtful paper:
``Classical statistical thermodynamics and EM zero point radiation''
by T.H. Boyer, Physical review, vol 186, number 5 (1969)
Thank you. Here is an update to Boyer paper concerning stochastic electrodynamics (SED) as alternative to QM:
http://www.bu.edu/simulation/publications/dcole/PDF/DCColePhysicsLettA.pdf
 
Back
Top