The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Non-moving objects  (Read 7103 times)

DoctorBeaver

  • Too Much Free Time Level Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 12659
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Non-moving objects
« Reply #25 on: 26/05/2005 20:58:49 »
quote:
Well, it's movement.



So is having a dump! [:p]

chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Non-moving objects
« Reply #26 on: 28/05/2005 10:02:57 »
OK, then print this and read at your next session:

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/12/8/1

I think it will clear up some of your questions and undoubtedly spark a few new ones...

DoctorBeaver

  • Too Much Free Time Level Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 12659
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Non-moving objects
« Reply #27 on: 28/05/2005 15:49:31 »
From that link - Planck regarded the energy "as made up of a completely determinate number of finite equal parts, and for this purpose I use the constant of nature h = 6.55 x 10-27 (erg sec)". Moreover, he continued, "this constant, once multiplied by the common frequency of the resonators, gives the energy element epsilon in ergs, and by division of E by epsilon we get the number P of energy elements to be distributed over the N resonators".

Do you have any idea how Planck arrived at 6.55x10-27? There must be some kind of basis for it but that text doesn't explain it.

chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Non-moving objects
« Reply #28 on: 28/05/2005 21:08:49 »
It is essentially a proportionality constant between the energy of a quantum of radiation and  the radiation frequency. It has dimensions of action and angular momentum, all of which is very important throughout any quantum theory, needless to say.

"He adduced additional evidence for the importance of his formula by using it to evaluate the constant h (his value was 6.55 10-27 erg-second, close to the modern value), as well as the so-called Boltzmann constant (the fundamental constant in kinetic theory and statistical mechanics), Avogadro's number, and the charge of the electron."

is not very helpful either, eh? I think he actually made a guess of it at first, with help of calculations to make it ever more accurate. Something quickly buried in this hagiographic 'it all came to me in a divine flash' type of scientific history-writing, we have altogether too much of these days. They are portraying these guys like some demigods, not your average dead-ordinary intelligent or even brilliant bloke full of human doubts, and at times woefully stuck, that they simply were at times.

'People we can never hope to emulate.' Hah. Hagiography, I say. Mythbuilding. Pfui.

http://uk.geocities.com/max_planck_uk/people/planck/planck.html

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)

DoctorBeaver

  • Too Much Free Time Level Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 12659
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Non-moving objects
« Reply #29 on: 28/05/2005 21:30:16 »
Was it Thomas Edison who said that inventing is "1% inspiration, 99% sweat" or words to that effect? The Planck thing sounds a bit like that with the 99% left out (yes, hagiography)

 

SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines