Planck's Derivation of Quantization: Summation vs Integrand

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ENDLESSYOU
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Summation
ENDLESSYOU
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
When Planck first derived the concept of quantization, he treated the integrand for average energy =$\int_{0}^{\infty} \epsilon*P(\epsilon) d\mu$ , where $P(\epsilon)$ is the Boltzmann distribution as a summation nh\mu, and derived the Planck law. While when we use it to derived the Stefan-Boltzmann law, we integrate the variable \mu. I'm puzzled about why we use integrand here. It just like we treat frequency to be continuous in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.( But I do a summation here and find that the summation for the Stefan-Boltzmann law is almost the same as what we obtained by integrating. )
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try ## instead of $. More information (about LaTeX at PF) here.
 
When Planck first derived the concept of quantization, he treated the integrand for average energy [itex]\bar{\varepsilon}=\int_{0}^{\infty} \varepsilon P(\varepsilon) d\varepsilon[/itex] , where [itex]P(\varepsilon)[/itex] is the Boltzmann distribution as a summation [itex]nh \nu[/itex], and derived the Planck law. While when we use it to derived the Stefan-Boltzmann law, we integrate the variable [itex]\nu[/itex]. I'm puzzled about why we use integrand here. It just like we treat frequency to be continuous in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.( But I do a summation here and find that the summation for the Stefan-Boltzmann law is almost the same as what we obtained by integrating. )
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K