Planck's Derivation of Quantization: Summation vs Integrand

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ENDLESSYOU
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Summation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Planck's derivation of quantization involved treating the average energy integrand, represented as $\int_{0}^{\infty} \epsilon P(\epsilon) d\mu$, where $P(\epsilon)$ is the Boltzmann distribution, as a summation nh$\mu$. This approach successfully led to the formulation of the Planck law. In contrast, the Stefan-Boltzmann law utilizes integration over the variable $\mu$, raising questions about the necessity of using an integrand in this context. Notably, the summation method yields results nearly identical to those obtained through integration for the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Planck's law and its derivation
  • Familiarity with the Boltzmann distribution
  • Knowledge of integrals and summations in physics
  • Basic concepts of quantization in thermodynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the derivation of Planck's law in detail
  • Study the implications of the Boltzmann distribution in statistical mechanics
  • Investigate the mathematical foundations of the Stefan-Boltzmann law
  • Learn about the differences between discrete and continuous variables in physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of thermodynamics, and anyone interested in the principles of quantum mechanics and statistical physics will benefit from this discussion.

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 \bar{\varepsilon}=\int_{0}^{\infty} \varepsilon P(\varepsilon) d\varepsilon , where P(\varepsilon) is the Boltzmann distribution as a summation nh \nu, and derived the Planck law. While when we use it to derived the Stefan-Boltzmann law, we integrate the variable \nu. 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
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · 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