Max Planck Solves the Ultraviolet Catastrophe for Blackbody Radiation | Doc Physics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.พ. 2025
- We continue our investigation into the historical development of quantum physics. Max Planck had four children, and ALL of them died before he did.
I think what most people get confused with and what I got confused with as well is what a 'packet' or 'quanta' of energy actually means. Let's say you have a planck of wood (no pun intended) with a pivot in the centre and you try to balance both sides, one with water and one with bricks. You can add as small amounts of water as you like, whereas you can only add 1 brick at a time. If each brick weighs 2kg, then the smallest 'packet' of mass you can add is 2kg. There is a MINIMUM amount of weight you can add at a time with the bricks, but not with the water. The water represents radiation or light as continuous, meaning you can have any amount, whereas bricks represent light as packets of energy. This is the concept of a 'quanta' of energy. Now let's use an example of an actual quanta of energy; the photon. The light emitted by a black body is made up of lots of photons. If each photon has an energy of, say, 6.63x10^-19 J (it is a very small amount of energy because it is merely one of many photons that make up a beam of light), then the smallest amount of energy that can be emitted at a time is 6.63x10^-19 J, meaning the energy comes in small 'packets'. There is usually many of these packets (photons), which is why the n in the formula n=nhf is so large. You have to remember that the formula e=hf describes ONE photon and the energy in the formula e=nhf describes a whole beam of light, where n is how many photons the light emitted. The radiation comes in DISCRETE quantities because you cannot have half a photon of energy (It simply doesn't make any sense). You can 1000 photons, but not 1000.5, so packets come as integers, in this case 1000.
Now relating this to the graph, at high frequencies there is a lot of energy in a single photon according to the formula e=hf. There is so much that the oscillators on the walls of the black body cannot shake fast enough to match that frequency since they emit radiation based on how fast they shake, and they don't have enough energy to emit the energy in a photon (Remember you can't emit half or a quarter etc of a photon). Since there are no oscillators vibrating at these frequencies, they cannot emit ANY light at these frequencies, so the graph dips down as the wavelength approaches zero. Higher temperatures give the oscillators more energy and can hence emit light at higher frequencies.
I call pun intended. You can't spell "plank" as "planck" unintentionally when you understand all this KNOWLEDGE
So...is radiation emitted based on how fast the oscillators shake or based on electrons moving from one orbital to another? I think I need to learn about oscillators to understand
Thank you so much :”)
I have been going through lot of articles, videos, etc etc...nothing made sense. But this comment of yours...was all i needed to see. Thank you so much.
At last, I now understand! Thank you.
The story goes like this:
Plank presented a mathematical model that accurately accounted for the observed data. That is, a model that fitted the actual graphs of Wavelength vs. Intensity. He actually proposed the model because he knew which mathematical formula produced the appropriate graph....BUUUT...he needed to justify the formula somehow. So, the first step was to justify with some physical argument the mathematical model. Thus, to explain it, he analysed how the radiation from the Black Body was being produced. To do this, Plank considered what he knew about radiation, which was that every form of radiation known at the time required oscillating currents. Therefore, he simply proposed, that the Black body had to be composed of some kind of microscopic oscillating currents (YOU WERE GOING TO SAY THIS BUT YOU DECIDED NOT TO), each one collaborating to produce the observed radiation. He then noticed that the mathematical model could not be explained without the following (unjustified) assumption: that the microscopic oscillators could only oscillate at discrete multiples of each frequency... and this would imply that the radiated energy would also come in the same discrete multiples. You see, his reasoning was consistent with the experience at the time. Whenever you wanted to produce radiation of frequency *f*, you needed an oscillating current of frequency *f*, so this is why he associated the restriction with the oscillators to the restriction of the radiated energy. HOWEVER, later Einstein proposed a different but associated assumption, he said: it is not that the oscillators are restricted to oscillate at discrete frequencies, it is that the radiated energy itself is BY NATURE restricted to discrete values. This meant that the oscillators could actually oscillate at any possible frequency, but the radiated energy that they produce would be inevitably restricted to come in discrete packets. A simple way to confirm that this was the correct assumption (and actually the motivation to discover it in the first place) was the photoelectric effect experiment.
is it me or he sounds like deadpool?
nadillia sahputra omg finally someone said it!
and Kuzco, too lol
This makes it even more entertaining
Fundamental lesson from this lecture: 4:34 "The universe is really deeply weird now. You're just gonna have to deal with that."
Great question. Exactly! Classically, there's no limit to the frequency. Yes, more power at higher frequency, and more power still at still higher frequencies. This goes on forever until you have a very formidable flavor of infinity on your hands. I think it's at least infinity squared! So you can see why this would be troubling.
Planck's approach was to analyze the entropy of blackbody radiation as a function of energy. To make both high-frequency and low-frequency data consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he included an additional "guess" term proportional to the frequency (hf); this results in Planck's Law. Planck's application of Boltzmann's Statistical Mechanics to justify his guess then led to his revolutionary conclusion that the material of the walls emit and absorb radiation in discrete quanta.
A paper titled "Planck’s Route to the Black Body Radiation Formula and Quantization" by Michael Fowler (7/25/08) gives a nice discussion.
My sister is going to be devastated man....thanks for ruining her swing time!
THANKS, very well explained indeed.
I would mention that Plank was inspired by standing waves. Standing waves on a violin are quantum. Only multiple frequencies are allowed.
"I am sorry, she just can't"-LOL
Gemechu Bekele lol
waaahh
The example at the end is excellent
i finally get it, no one else explains why the classical curve is impossible, thankyou
Good. That's the crux of the whole thing. It's quantization of the SOURCE of the radiation. If radiation results from ONE OSCILLATOR, its energy must be finite. It also must be interacting with its surrounding oscillators, so they collectively must obey some statistical distribution of energies that depends on temperature.
Actually not depending on Temperature, but on Frequency.
I mean, Temperature does not appear in the formula explaining the phenomenon.
thanks...! Actually, when I explain this I bring a small Hawaiian guitar and show the standing waves, make them notice that the allowed frequencies are "quantum", 1, 2,3... then I even ask them to pull the strings and notice that frequency increases. The idea is: I give energy to the string (pull), the string vibrates at higher frequency, I remove energy (relax the string) and frequency is lower, thus E=hw (!). Of course, the concept is a little bit stretched, but it helps students to remember.
You're right. I am being deliberately sensationalistic and unfair! I have tremendous respect for him, and I am in awe of the pain he suffered during his life.
are your comments really off the cuff? dude you are the best. i couldn't imagine anybody teaching this stuff in any remotely interesting way but you do it.
Thanks! I'm not actually funny in person, but I try to pretend I am on the internet. You are helping me to preserve the illusion for myself! The best part of it is that no one else will know that I paid you for this comment as long as I delete these before I hit r
One of my favourite encapsulations of UV catastrophe.
NB. Later Robert Millikan showed that the electric charge is ‘quantised’, that there is a non-divisible unit ė of electric charge and that all electricity is made up of multiples of ė. His bitter opponent, the theoretically more gifted Felix Ehrenhaft believed and tried to show experimentally that an electric charge is infinitely divisible. Millikan was a far superior experimental physicist. As a theoretical physicist he taught graduate classes!
We can now state planck's constant with complete precision since 2018 when they redefined the kg in terms of h, s, and the ratio of space to time. It's now precisely 6.62607015x10^-34 Js - the ratio between fundamental action and our inherited human-scale measures! It's amazing!
The latter. There's a skewed, normalish distribution of oscillators, so called because they shake back and forth. Their strong coupling to their neighbors generates the well-behaved frequency distribution. Great questions!
...stretched! Indeed.
That sounds excellent. I'm on it. Thanks for sharing.
dude! i have never understood this! But you have it explained it so well now i do! thanks
Thank you so much for this! You're so enthusiastic, I kinda wish you were my physics teacher... :)
This is great and interesting tutoring.Very helpful.Thanks
absolutely revolutionised my life rn
My conception of the ultraviolet light catastrophe is that - in classical theory - light that is absorbed by a blackbody does not necessarily result in the emission of light of the same wavelength. In fact, classical theory predicts that as light of progressively shorter wavelengths are absorbed by a blackbody, then a higher and higher proportion of light waves of even shorter wavelengths are emitted (as long as the total energy absorbed and emitted are equal) . The math apparently predicts this. However, this is not what happens in reality. There is some of that going on especially at shorter and shorter wavelengths, but not in the extravagant and even explosive amounts/magnitude that classical theory predicts. Max Planck's intuition was that light waves are indeed waves but not waves that are continuous, but rather, discontinuous, i.e., packets of waves with a discrete amount of energy depending on their wavelength/frequency. In his mind, there was no way to explain the discrepancy between theory and reality otherwise. Furthermore, it is my understanding that his formulation for describing blackbody radiation is not mathematically rigorous although it does seem to match experimental results quite nicely.
This is awesome! Thanks for the great explanation
You just helped me with my Physics 321 homework; thanks!
+Amee Bird Amee! How are you?!?
+Doc Schuster I'm doing great! How are you?! Hopefully soon, I will be able to come back and visit everyone at WG; it's been a while. Oh, and I did find a way to incorporate Physics into my one of my majors and my minor...Loving Physics like a boss!
+Amee Bird Awesome! Do stop by.
Nice video and presentation.
Ty and Jean gave us a curve fitting solution is mathematics but science. His model tells us that intensity rise up to infinity with increase. And that marks the uv catastrophe started.
On the other hand Planck offer a final curve fitting solution is also mathematics but science.
The catastrophe came out of our ignorance, selective learning and inability of connecting dots so to speak. Essentially, at the time the instrument’s sensor was sealed inside a glass container and we all know that glass attenuates infrared and ultraviolet that masked off real response, in the end we saw a distorted view on page 1:25 which we mistaken for real. That means we still don’t know the real characteristics is until we have found a new material but glass to preserve the real information in the signal, light.
We have PhD everywhere today but they offer us D and not Ph. Without philosophy science is soulless.
Quantisation- therefore only occurs with regards to matter being locked into energy blocks within in space but not a general statement of any energy in space including space itself or vacuum energy .
literally the best! THANKS LOADSSSSSS
"Maybe he should buy LED's" So, Planck eventually did solve the lightbulb problem, by finding the root of quantum mechanics that decades later leads to LED's. What a story!
This was SOOOO helpful... Thank you very much.
plus the explanation was fun
Why should we break our filament bulbs? When we use light we mostly also need heat which these provide. They provide nothing else so for the task of providing light and partially solving our heating needs they do a fantastically efficient job! In my current flat I have no thermostat which is incompatible but not having a thermostat means I have to open the windows a lot even in the winter and a thermostat solves the whole heat production control problem regardless of the type of light source because the heat from light sources is a tiny drop of what I need to produce at home and doesn't come close to producing enough on its own.
A derivation of Planck's constant would be awesome
oooooooooh - fun! Thanks!
You too not explaining why the graph tumbles!
Great video! Thanks for sharing bro! :D
Safety factor, it was engineered!🛠
In other places, I've heard people refer to the "Sun" as a nearly perfect "black body." Besides being completely confusing in the terms of common vernacular (Sun & Black being essentially opposites) - The Sun does emit so much of its energy in the Ultraviolet spectrum, that you will burn your eyes out looking at it...But further as Wavelength goes to zero its interactions with matter go to zero (X-rays, Gamma Rays, etc.)
So, for a given temperature, you have a peak frequency and the intensity tails off either side. You say multiple osscilators (I've no intuition about these) reflect the statistical distribution. But why? Is this at all analogous to the concept of resonant frequency of a system so it 'accepts' energy in the central resonant frequency more? Or is it an average energy of osscilators so you dont have many at low frequency and at high but a normalish distribution? What's osscilating?
FINALLY THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS
Thanks for the video! I don't fully understand how classical theory could make a single prediction that was the UV catastrophe. Equipartition says energy would be shared equally among the modes in thermal equilibrium. So why wouldn't each frequency be emitted at the same intensity, and at a value of 0? As a separate question, was there any physical interpretation of the Rayleigh-Jeans law classical prediction? Did physicists back then have a picture in their minds of what was happening to the tiny oscillators when they were busy obeying the Rayleigh-Jeans law?
Here's the thought behind an emission of 0 J at every frequency: the energy that's radiated (maybe classical theory would predict a max of ~NkT?) would be split evenly among an infinite number of vibrational modes.
What were the classical equations for blackbody radiation?
How did Planck derive Planck's constant?
How did Planck get the math to work out?
I'd be interested in seeing the actual math.
Dan Hillman I'm thinking of making a series based on original scientific papers - this would be fun to look into!
Doc Schuster I'm wondering - Doesn't the classical equations for blackbody radiation violate the conservation of energy principle? I've never actually studied this in any kind of depth.
Dan Hillman to answer some of your questions:- You can get the classical equation if you surf it as Rayleigh-Jeans law(quite difficult to write it here). Planck derived Planck's constant in order to make his black body radiation equation to fit experimental data. It was empirical.
YOU ARE AWESOME!!
One one hand he says that you can't have high intensity at high frequency because there's not enough energy and then says its because of quabtization. How does the limited energy explain the frequency distribution shape? What's that got too do with quantisation? Quanisation could still look continuous on a graph. Why the shape? Why can't n just get bigger?
I understood the relations of frequency and intensity and that a black body with Temperatur 0K doesn't emit black radiation, so it isn't a black body anymore. But what happens when a black bodies temperature is given a infinite value?
+MGSHistory Well, questions about infinity often have silly answers. You'd get infinite energy out! At arbitrarily large frequencies.
+Doc Schuster I just wonder if there is a maximal point at an infinite curve. Otherwise it would be like a raleigh-curve i guess :S
+MGSHistory ...so, you're right, there must be. Wein's displacement law, and everything. But the peak would be at infinite frequency, and there would be infinite frequency above it that has LESS intensity than the peak also. Are we having fun or what?
I'm fascinated by the quantum (period).
Doc Schuster - I hope you still check out your TH-cam Channel because I appreciated your intro to "black bodies" because referring to them as "black bodies" already assumes the listener has some base level understanding of the physics at hand and is otherwise a confusing term - therefore you putting things in terms of "temperature" or the idea of an object which can be observed even though it is not reflecting light but is instead emitting its own light removes a lot of the confusion (at least for me). Having said that though, on my first take it seems like a bit (or a lot) of energy parsing is going on. An object (theoretical or actual) either has to have energy stored in it already or has to be having an energy input, in order to emit light versus reflect light. So "reflecting" light versus "emitting" light may not be mechanistically the same thing but there is still energy "input" involved (stored, absorbed, or reflected). Another way to word my objection to this line of reasoning is they are completely unrelated phenomenon unless the incoming "light" (or electromagnetic radiation) is actually imparting heat energy (like fire does to iron). But in this case the light emitted is not simple reflected color light but is instead "reflected energy" light. The first light or energy seen by the observer, has the least interaction with the object (absorbing some energy and reflecting some energy). In the second case (with 100% absorption) has no reflected energy seen by the observer but instead transmuted energy seen by the observer. As an analogy, Its like punching a person, where the punch either bounces off the person, or is converted to a bone jarring scream. In either case you have conservation of energy. There is no real black body...
I am a slower learner. I think I get the idea. Your video is the only one I could come close to following fully. What if I get an x-ray machine and blast x-rays inside the blackbody? Would the box explode? Would the temperature inside your blackbody rise?
Well, in fact the ideal blackbody absorbs all radiation. So if you blast any radiation inside, it would heat up. Nowadays you take cavity radiators to come close to the BB in absorbing (99,9...%). Therefore, no explosions, just emitted radiation to measure after Planck's radiation law.
For solving questions about spectra, cannot figure out when to use which version of Planck's energy formula (E=hf=hc/wavelength). Sometimes when I'm given the wavelength, I find the frequency using "c" (speed of light) and then use E=hf to find the energy but I often get the wrong answer this way and find the right answer using E=hc/wavelength. I cannot figure out when to use which formula and what is the difference between the two?
+nancy B They say the same thing. c/wavelength=f.
Use E=hf if you know the frequency, use E=hc/wavelength if you know the wavelength. Knowing either, you could solve for the other.
Is "h" the smallest constant in physics-? I can;t seem to find any smaller in a "standard physics constants" table.
so all forms are energy quantized??
But how is energy, which is the one that you kept mentioning for the entire vide, related to the intensity of light?
석상주 That's a quick equation to look up. Intensity is power/area.
I don't get how the quantisation of energy causes the curve in the diagram to suddenly go down.
I don't understand how saying energy is quantised, means that a shorter wavlength (higher frequency) does not correspond to a higher energy/Intensity.
And also why would the curve actually decrease instead of plateau
+xx xx if each photon comes from a single oscillator, there cannot be any oscillators shakin' that fast.
The important thing--for solving the UV catastrophe--is that Planck proposed there's a MINIMUM energy that can be emitted at any given frequency. The minimum amount equals hf and thus increases with frequency. So the only way to emit ANY high frequency EM radiation is to emit the minimum amount, but the minimum amount is so high at high frequencies that an oscillator would have to vibrate at the super-high speed, like Doc explained. These high speeds are improbable (according to Boltzmann distributions). So particles rarely oscillate fast enough to meet the threshold for high-frequency EM emission, and as a result very little high-frequency EM radiation is emitted. Planck didn't really need to propose quantization to remove the UV catastrophe--he only needed to propose that energy is emitted in minimum amounts which depend on frequency. Quantization, though, offered a way of explaining why a minimum might exist (because the energy amounts are quantized) and enabled a theory that accurately described blackbody emission. And historically, the two came together (quantization and the notion of a minimum emission amount). Thanks for the video, Doc!
+jdmphys Thank you very much. Your answer has been very helpful to me. I believe this help to clarify very much a key question which maybe was not emphasized enough in the video.
*Thank you so much*
Now i finally understood it.
May i ask one single question that hinders me to fully understand the effect? You appear like you really know your stuff
Hey this might sound dumb but can you explain what exactly quantized means? From what I understand is, its trying to make something into wave like properties...I never knew what exactly it meant can't find a intuitive definition anywhere. Thanks.
Swizz Beats It's really simple at its heart - it means that a quantity can't take on any value you choose. Only certain (quantized) values are allowed. And all possible values are integer multiple of one quantum unit.
Ah, that makes a lot of sense, thank you!
Doc Schuster how do we know what those certain values are??
It depends on the system. For light, it's hf.
Great video! Thank you! Was the reason why the classical view predicted more radiated power at higher frequencies because of the fact they can store more energy? So oscillators shaking at the UV frequency have more degrees of freedom thus you would expect to find the most radiated power in the higher frequency range? But I can't understand why this would mean the radiated power is INFINITE, you would just expect to find more radiated power in higher frequencies but why an infinite amount?
Mario Rossi9 months ago
"THANKS ... Plank was inspired by standing waves. Standing waves on a violin are quantum"
YES: EINSTEIN, TOO, WAS INSPIRED BY VIOLIN-MUSIC
Great observation
Brilliant!
Sir, that's intensity versus wavelength graph, not frequency.
It is frequency in this video.. here it is 0 on your left curved upward to the right.. the vs wavelength graph is mirrored.. 0 on your right curved upward towards left.. why? Coz smaller frequency, higher wavelength.. thats why the x-axis is inverted
Nd.D Johann Lambert's Conversion to a Geometry of Space | MPIWG
Incandescent light bulbs are cool
Don’t break these bulbs , they are great heaters for those who have wells .
How did classical physicists back then make the conclusion that it should follow the classical pattern and go off into infinity? Where would they get that idea? They couldn't have just randomly made that up and assumed it. That's been confusing me like crazy... Also, how does saying that energy is discontinuous solve this problem?
violinsheetmusicblog So the classical physicists merely looked at the limits of their equation (a key physics strategy). Their understanding predicted the (obviously unreasonable) conclusion that everything radiates infinite energy. And your second question is the whole point - there are simply no oscillators shaking at higher frequencies. If each frequency has to have a particular (discrete) source, then we have an excuse for some frequencies not to be present (all the high ones).
Doc Schuster I think the problem for me is that I don't get to see the math behind it, so I feel like my understand of it all is limited. However, it's probably really complicated anyways lol. The rest makes sense, thanks!
I wonder what the people having a “wow moments “ have learned! Nobody seems able to explain how quantization solve the ultraviolet’s catastrophes, why don’t we see discrete high frequency/energy
if my understanding is correct according to equipartition theorem each atom must have the same energy at thermal equilibrium.
Einternal = N(# of degrees of freedom) 1/2 kT .where T is the temp.
now if all the atoms have same energy how they can emit different frequencies.
shouldnt it be a single frequency?
John Fince That's a nice equation, but it's KE_ave, and there must be a distribution of speeds. Can you imagine the entropy if all the atoms were doing the exact same thing?!? It'd be like North Korea! I've got a video on the kinetic theory of gases that may help out.
John Fince ok .but if you assume that the walls of blkbody is in thermal eqm that means each point on the wall is at same temp(spatially and temperally-from wikipedia defn). but u said 1/2 KT is an average.that is one atom can have 1/2 KT1 and other can have 1/2KT2. isnt this against thermal eqm condn.
one more thing.consider leftwall and right wall of blackbody box.i found in some explanation that when an EM got emitted frm right wall to left an equal freq of EM is emitted frm left to right and they form standing wave.at the wall a node is present and 0 absorption takes place.now both the walls losted energy in the form of EM wave but not gained any thing(no absorption) then how the eqm is maintained.both wall got aless energy and energy escaped to the field between them.
From this vantage point (then) it is very difficult for me to even conceptualize the idea of an "Ultraviolet Catastrophe" because the formula which yields the catastrophe is obviously just wrong from the get go and seems to be a self made up idea, so I don't know why anyone would really even cared about solving it? Reflected light or energy is completely different mechanistically to transmuted energy and the ultraviolet catastrophe seems to assume (falsely), that all energy input will be transmuted to radiant Ultraviolet Light energy versus mechanical conductive or convection heat energy.. I'm sure I'm confused but can't see my way to understand the conundrum?
But what if temperature is too high, energy will be high to emit high frequency radiation. Then how UV catastrophe is explained
Well, in our universe, there are stars much larger, denser, and hotter than the one in our solar system. In case you didn't know, stars are black body radiators too; which means if you think about it, the sun emits all sorts of particles on the spectrum, emitting electromagnetic radiation everywhere. Wein's displacement law states that the intensity at all wavelengths increases when temperature increases. Remember, higher frequencies of radiation=shorter wavelengths, which can go on to the macroscopic level. Currently though, what we've found is that the maximum temperature in the universe is about 4 trillion degrees celcius, meaning that the peak wavelength emitted by that, is seriously, seriously, microscopically macroscopic, meaning the intensity would be large beyond compare.
1:03 and why does it go like that?
amazing work (Y), thank you
Why no thermal energy?
can E = hf's f be 0.5? 0.5hz?
if f can be any small number, the universe is continuous again.
Eugene Liu Photons can indeed be any energy. However, they're still distinct objects interacting separately, so I don't think that gets you continuity, quite. And it's awfully hard to work with such a low energy photon - you'd need to be extremely close to absolute zero. Can you figure out why?
Doc Schuster Thank you for replying =), and in such timely manner too.
I think you are thinking about the serious stuff: photons getting sucked in or kicked out of electrons in an atom or a sea of electrons (like in metals) or a combination of bondage of electrons (molecules of perverted inner binding... bound... affinity... boundary conditions...and stuff)
I am just thinking about waving an electron with my arm in space, 1 hz a wave (my arm) or 0.5hz when I m tired.
and... actually no, I have no idea what absolute zero has anything to do with low photon energy. actually if I really understand this quantum thing, meaning I totally DO NOT understand this quantum thing, I would say even in absolutely zero atoms are still going to excite or absorb electrons from the highest orbit, which is not really that different from 300K. low energy photons won't get absorbed at all.
Eugene Liu Ah, yes! I think you can generate any frequency photon (tired...ha!). Anything infrared is really hard to detect at room temperature, since ALL YOUR EQUIPMENT is also blackbody radiating in that range.
So basically you have no clue either?
1:50 ...that was also my finger
"There he is.... A German."
THANK YOU!
Happy to help!
He actually got very upset with his own conclusion and kept trying to get an answer that respects classical physics to the rest of his life (but I am sure you actually knows this and just tried to give a simple story)
Harold Ford It's hard to be a reluctant revolutionary. I'm thinking out Galileo, too!
Didn’t knew Ryan reynolds knew so much physics!!
I think "n" is not member of Z, but of N... But nevermind, great video !
depends on your perspective. If you allow negative Energies (eg. the amount of work to put a charged particle towards a higher potential and therefore "putting Energy into the paricle") and positive Energies (just let the charged particle move along the electric field towards a lower potential so it can "lose its Energy").
A joke (I just invented, but tell me if you have heard this one before):
Q. How many quantum physicist you need to change a light bulb?
A. None. Max Planck tried it once, but instead of changing a light bulb, he changed modern physics forever.
Dont worry you can macroscopipally push your sister at any speed since plank's constant is so low , it like you can push her at 5.0000000000000000000000001 kmph or 5.0000000000000000000000002 kmph but not in between but we dont really see it , so anyways you can push her at any speed you want too. 😂
Sky Scholar... Dr Pierre Robitaille just blew this out of the water, are you able to comment or patch up the holes in these theories
The funny thing is ... that Planck's law of radiation is only valid for pure so called "black body" radiators. But this thesis assumes that every kind of mass or matter are perfect absorbers, which is NOT the case! So what Planck did in terms of math is just a special case (!) ... for just "black bodies"! ... so ... the consequence out of this is ... that the planck constant 'h' can ONLY be used for "black bodies"! ... source:
th-cam.com/video/h5jOAw57OXM/w-d-xo.html
...
Nice
You're so cool, honestly
I don't need to but i'm gonna put this in my electrical installation exam when the illumination questions come up. thank you!
YES! ATTACK!!!
Phew, is a good thing that that guy didn't have a LED bulb or......QM? Maybe 100years later.
She can simply have an uncertain speed instead
Wait wait wait!!!.... .... .... !!! Classical Kinetic energy is quantised at macroscopic scales.
not a good explanation. Energy is quantized from start to go, why after reaching the peak , the intensity of the light doesn't go up?
Hey however feels that planks constant value is wrong like here
from PERSIA with Passion
uv light equations
She can have certain speeds as she grows up and gets heavier :-)
Can a student of physics help out a layman trying to learn? In his book "The Black Hole War", Leonard Susskind gives the story of the UV Catastrophe, and Einstein's advances on Planck's work. Susskind specifically references Einstein's 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect.
Susskind writes "... the hypothesis that light is composed of indivisible photons whose energy is proportional to their frequency solved the problem.... Einstein found that the very short wavelengths (high frequency) have less than a single proton. Less than one, means none. So the very SHORT wavelengths carry NO energy." (Emphasis added by me.)
???????? Every single thing I have found states clearly "Short wavelength = High frequency = HIGHER energy". Isn't that what makes Gamma Rays so dangerous? Unfortunately, sources such as Wiki immediately jump to the mathematics about Black Box Radiation, and are far beyond me.
I am sure that I must be confusing separate terms, or misunderstanding the specific ways Susskind is using terms... but I can't find anything to help me. Thanks in advance to anyone who might try.
ACTUAL-LY, HE STRUGGLED + SUFFER'D FOR MANY YEARs TO SOLVE THIS CLASSIC PROBLEM, SO MUCH SO THAT SOME OF HIS COLLEAGUEs PITY'D HIM !!
Heat is light
i don't think this explained UV catastrophe clearly..
have to wade through so much colours and drawing and bullshit and I still don't get a intuitive explanation . Give us some stat mech!
I prefer incandescent bulbs.
Edison didn’t invent the light bulb swan did
ÕMĞ é PôWéŘ-PhÛľĽ Orrrsé-Strâylêan
Bolis-ef.x5B Max Plank Intiegra'ae'g.ef.5 Nd.D
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr i love this