Why Can't Stefan-Boltzmann Law Be Explained in Classical Mechanics?

Lavace
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
I've looked all over the internet, and can't find a decent explanation.

Could someone please explain why the stefan-boltzmann radiation law of I = oT^4 be explained in classical mechanics rather then quantum?

It's urgent, sorry to be pushy.

Cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lavace said:
I've looked all over the internet, and can't find a decent explanation.

Could someone please explain why the stefan-boltzmann radiation law of I = oT^4 (can't) be explained in classical mechanics rather then quantum?
It can and was. Stefan deduced the rule in 1879 and Boltzmann provided a formal derivation a few years later. This was long before quantum physics.

AM
 
Lavace said:
I've looked all over the internet, and can't find a decent explanation.

Could someone please explain why the stefan-boltzmann radiation law of I = oT^4 be explained in classical mechanics rather then quantum?

It's urgent, sorry to be pushy.

Cheers.

This sounds like a reference to the "ultraviolet catastrophe".

As Andrew points out, the proportionality with T4 was derived in classical physics; but there was a problem in trying to find the energy at different frequencies, and this was resolved by having quantized energy. The link above may help.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top