Planck's Derivation of Quantization: Summation vs Integrand

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ENDLESSYOU
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Summation
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
2 replies · 2K views
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
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: