derivation of E=hf?

eram

eram

Sciengineer
Valued Senior Member
What is the derivation for E=hf and why did experimental observation of black bodies show that quantization of light was neccessary?
 
planck combined rayleigh jeans law with wien's approx., but how did it force him to come up with quantization, and derive E=hf, which is contrary to a simple harmonic oscillator.
 
@ Tach:

You are incorrect in falsely assuming I was compelled to post a certain link. It was simply a lack of diligence. I should have selected a more appropriate result in a search of....an act of desperation/Max Planck.
 
el es said:
@ Tach:

You are incorrect in falsely assuming I was compelled to post a certain link. It was simply a lack of diligence. I should have selected a more appropriate result in a search of....an act of desperation/Max Planck.
Click to expand...

I still question your choice of posting a link to a crackpot website. Didn't you read the content?
 
eram:

Type" On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum" Max Planck in your search engine. It may have what you are looking for.

I did find what seems to be Max Planck's Derivation of the Blackbody Radiation Law on what may be a crank website, so you will have to type that in yourself.
 
unfortunately the first few links offer almost nothing on the derivation.
 
@eram,

Are you Claes Johnson or someone of like mind that doesn't think Planck was justified in determining the value of h the way he did?
 
el es said:
@eram,

Are you Claes Johnson or someone of like mind that doesn't think Planck was justified in determining the value of h the way he did?
Click to expand...

never heard of johnson before and no i don't think like that.

So the power of the exponential in wien's approximation is -hf/kT. Which was supposed to be empirically determined I guess?

Then did they compare this to a boltzmann distribution and arrive at E=hf?
 
I think your real issue is with the Planck postulate. That is a philosophy of science issue.
 
el es said:
I think your real issue is with the Planck postulate. That is a philosophy of science issue.
Click to expand...

But it's no longer just a postulate but a fact right?

Tach said it was established empirically. Did it make its first appearance in Wien's approximation, where the power of Napier's constant is -hf/kT? Then by comparing this to a Boltzmann distribution, they concluded that E=hf?

Planck said quantization was out of desperation. I know it has something to do with the probability of occupying higher frequency modes, but I'm not sure exactly how.
 
@ eram,

I think you know full well, that the genesis of h, Planck's postulate, was not derived mathematically.
 
el es said:
@ eram,

I think you know full well, that the genesis of h, Planck's postulate, was not derived mathematically.
Click to expand...

No I don't know full well, if I did I wouldn't have created this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top