Planck's Derivation of Quantization: Summation vs Integrand

  • Thread starter ENDLESSYOU
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Summation
In summary: Try ## instead of $.In summary, Planck derived the concept of quantization by treating the integrand for average energy as a summation and derived the Planck law using the Boltzmann distribution. When applying this to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the variable is integrated instead of being treated as a sum. There is confusion about why the integrand is used in this case, as it seems similar to treating frequency as continuous. However, a summation was also attempted and found to be almost the same as the result obtained by integration. It is suggested to use ## instead of $ for proper formatting.
  • #1
ENDLESSYOU
29
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
  • #2
Try ## instead of $. More information (about LaTeX at PF) here.
 
  • #3
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:

1. What is Planck's Derivation of Quantization?

Planck's Derivation of Quantization is a mathematical formula derived by physicist Max Planck in 1900 to explain the behavior of energy at the atomic level. It is based on the idea that energy is not continuous, but instead exists in discrete packets called quanta.

2. What is the difference between Summation and Integrand in Planck's Derivation of Quantization?

In Planck's Derivation of Quantization, summation refers to adding together a series of discrete energy values, while the integrand involves finding the area under a curve representing the distribution of energy. Summation is used for discrete systems, while the integrand is used for continuous systems.

3. Why is Planck's Derivation of Quantization important?

Planck's Derivation of Quantization is important because it helped to explain the behavior of energy at the atomic level, which was previously not understood. It also laid the foundation for the development of quantum mechanics, a branch of physics that has led to many important discoveries and technologies.

4. Can Planck's Derivation of Quantization be applied to all forms of energy?

No, Planck's Derivation of Quantization is specifically applicable to the behavior of energy at the atomic level. It does not apply to all forms of energy, such as mechanical or thermal energy, which behave differently.

5. What are some practical applications of Planck's Derivation of Quantization?

Planck's Derivation of Quantization has led to many practical applications, including the development of semiconductors, transistors, and lasers. It has also helped to explain the behavior of electrons in electrical circuits, leading to advancements in electronics and computing.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
581
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
790
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
637
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top