To a recent question asking if it was possible to calculate constant h of equation E=hf without referring to E and f:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/H_denotes_the_constant_ratio_E_f_Ehf_is_it_possible_that_h_has_an_equation_both_without_E_and_f/2
Two mainstream physicist who regularly contribute on RG erroneously answered that no, it was not possible.
The first answered: "To answer your question, it is not possible to derive or calculate the value of h without using E and f, or some equivalent quantities that are related to them. This is because h is an empirical constant that was determined by experiments, not by theory. It was first introduced by Max Planck in 1900 to explain the blackbody radiation spectrum, which could not be explained by classical physics at that time. Planck’s constant was later confirmed by other experiments, such as the photoelectric effect and the Compton scattering.
Therefore, h is not a variable that can be expressed in terms of other physical quantities, but rather a fundamental constant that defines the relationship between energy and frequency of light. It is one of the basic constants of nature that cannot be derived from first principles, but must be measured by experiments."
The second answered: "Planck's constant can't be derived from anything else-it's a new constant. It defines the scale when quantum phenomena become relevant."
Why is it that the mainstream community is currently ignorant of the fact that Louis de Broglie calculated h from an equation related to the Bohr atom in his celebrated 1924 thesis and that it is this discovery which is at the origin of Quantum Mechanics that earned him a Nobel prize?
As a tribute to this discovery, to be put at the disposal of the upcoming generation, de Broglie's derivation and calculation of Planck's constant, that revolutionized physics 100 years ago, was reproduced and explained with all calculations provided in Section 6 of this recently published article, with reference to his original 1924 French thesis and to his recently formally translated 2021 version by the Minkowski Institute:
Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics
But there is more.
Planck's constant h was also defined in 2017 from a set of well known constants as (h=e2/2ε0αc) in Equation (4) derived from electromagnetic considerations in this formally published article, also referring to de Broglie's solution as Equation (5):
https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf
that was republished in expanded version as a book chapter in 2021 upon invitation by Dr. Jelena Purenevic:
Article The Last Challenge of Modern Physics: Perspective to concept...
The real question is why is it that mainstream physicists could be completely ignorant of the fact that such an important constant as h was calculated from theory 100 years ago already, by the famous discoverer whose discovery is at the origin of Quantum Mechanics, who earned the Nobel prize for that feat, practically upon direct recommendation from Einstein?
What does that say about the quality of transmission of knowledge to the upcoming generation in current academia?
Dear André Michaud,
Planck even earlier than de Broglie calculated the constant of his name. So what?
And how many people know that it was Boltzmann who helped Planck with its calculation? When, in a letter to Planck, he advised to consider the entropy of electromagnetic radiation to be finite in the model of a absolutely black body. That is, it was Boltzmann who was the herald of the quantum revolution, foreseeing or knowing that the transfer of energy in thermodynamic systems is carried out in discrete portions.
Dulin Mikhail.
Dear Mikhail N Dulin ,
very interesting, could you provide the reference?
Dear Mikhail N Dulin
I think that you misunderstand the difference between what Planck did and what de Broglie did.
Planck calculated from Wien's "data" in the late 1890's that h was the smallest common denominator of all frequencies emitted by the black body.
De Broglie related h from "theory" in 1924 to known classical mechanics equations, which is what nobody had succeeded in doing before.
If you read again the question asked by the original poster, you will see that this relation of h with equations other than E=hf was precisely what he was asking whether it had been done, besides having been calculated from the data.
Apparently, these two mainstream physicists did not know that h is not only a constant calculated from "data", but that it is also a constant calculated from "theory", just like c, and that this was done 100 years ago in the doctoral thesis of a discoverer that earned a Nobel prize for this accomplishment.
Given that they obviously studied in different universities, this means that de Broglie's discovery is currently unknown in academia, and that mainstream does not understand the implications.
Otherwise, please provide sources that explain this discovery, and the difference between calculating the value of h "from experimental data", and calculating it "from first principles" anywhere in academia in any current textbook, and explain why these two mainstream physicists stated that h can only be calculated from experimental data, thus severely misinforming this poster about a known historical discovery.
They obviously did not know about the historical development that h can be calculated from the classical Bohr atom model equations and that this discovery was made by de Broglie in his 1924 thesis, which is what inspired Schrödinger to develop his resonance wave equation after Einstein informed him of de Broglie's discovery.
History cannot be rewritten, given that all records are formally published.
There is a difference between discoveries being on formal record, and academia being aware of and teaching the formal discoveries that are on formal record.
Best Regards, André
Yes. Planck first calculated it from the frequencies of Wien's black body data while de Broglie calculated it 2 decades later from classical mechanics theory applied to the Bohr atom.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics