Two epochs: Planck's and Weinberg's.

[socratus]

Two epochs: Planck's and Weinberg's.
=.
On October 7. 1900 Heinrich Rubens told Planck that Wien's formula
did not fit the long wavelengths. That evening Planck had the correct
formula. For many – many physicists this discovery was quiet enough.
But Planck did a second step, a step farther. He asked:
why can this formula fit for all wavelengths remarkably well?

" I had to find a theoretical explanation at any cost . . . ." . . . . .
" . . . . eventually after some weeks of the hardest work of my life,
light entered the darkness, and a new inconceivable perspective
opened up before me. ..."
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Planck.html

And this " new inconceivable perspective" was "quant".
==…
Today nobody asks "why?": if calculations are right and engineering
system works - it is enough. And what is about the meaning?
Meaning?
‘ Most scientists use quantum mechanics every day in they
working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental
problem of its interpretation.
. . .they do not worry about it. A year or so ago . . . . .
our conversation turned to a young theorist who had been quite
promising as a graduate student and who had then dropped
out of sight. I asked Phil what had interfered with the
ex-student’s research. Phil shook his head sadly and said:
‘ He tried to understand quantum mechanics.’ (!)
/ Book ‘Dreams of a final theory’. Page 66. By Steven Weinberg.
The Nobel Prize winner in Physics 1979 /
Many – many (including Bonzes of Physics with Nobel Prize)
put far aside attempts to understand QM.
They say: "As long as I can calculate the engineering quantum
system and it works, I'm OK - I can live with the side-effects."
====.
Two different epochs: epoch of searching the "why" it works
(new era) and epoch of "how" to calculate an engineering
quantum system (technological progress). But what is the value
of technological progress without understanding?
But . . . on the other hand . . .
. . . . not every year History makes a new era.
===…

 

[socratus]

Planck's (h) = Einstein's (h)
a)
Planck united together two formulas ( Rayleigh–Jeansfor
for long and Wien's for short wavelengths) and then divided them.
He was himself very surprised when the result was found correct.
And after that came . . . .
: " . . . some weeks of the hardest work of my life . . ."
The result was – quantum of action (as energy multiply time: h=Et)
The coefficient (h) was not in Rayleigh–Jeansfor or Wien's formulas.
Planck took unit (h) as in some books is written:
"intuitively, instinctively, phenomenologically"
b)
In 1905 Einstein introduced unit (h) in different way.
Einstein wrote it as: h=kb
(Boltzmann coefficient multiply Wien's displacement constant)
And in 1906 Einstein wrote that Planck's and his results are equal.
But Einstein's formula explains quantum nature more clearly.
==…

 

[socratus]

c)
In 1925 Heisenberg went a step further.
He discovered "the uncertainty principle" (HUP): Et>h*
==…