History of the "quantum of action" (1900-1927) / by Socratus /

[socratus]

History of the "quantum of action" (1900-1927) / by Socratus /

=====.

a)

In 1900 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 neither in the Rayleigh–Jeansfor nor in the

Wien's formulas. Planck took unit (h) as in some books are 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.

 

For practical uses both Planck and Einstein multiplied

"quantum of action" by frequency : E=hf.

c)

In 1913 Bohr introduced "quant of action" in the hydrogen-atom.

d)

In 1916 Sommerfeld wrote that “quantum of action” took part in

the “fine structure ” ( and as result we have complete full formula

of electron’s structure: e^2=ah*c)

e)

In 1923 De Broglie wrote that "quant of action" can be "pilot-wave".

f)

In 1924 Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck wrote that "quant of action"

can work in another way as: h*(bar) = h/2pi

g)

In 1924 Pauli discovered that "the quantum of action" must obey

"the exclusion principle".

h)

In 1925 Heisenberg went a step further.

He discovered "the uncertainty principle" (HUP): Et>h*, px>h*.

i)

In the same 1925 year Schrodinger explained that

de Broglie's "pilot-wave" can work as "psi-wave function".

j)

In 1926 Schrodinger found relation between his "psi-wave

function" and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

k)

In 1926 Born showed that could be probability of finding

the "quant of action" in local place of the "psi-wave function".

l)

In1927 Dirac "put into place the last of quantum theory's

building blocks". He "playing with beautiful equations"

explained that the "quantum of action" must have one

negative anti-brother (-E=Mc^2) in "an unobserved infinite sea".

==============…

Result.

The QM interpretation doesn't fit the logical presentation.

Feynman wrote:

" The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature

as absurd from the point of view of common sense.

And it agrees fully with experiment.

So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd."

/ Book: QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matter /

 

My conclusion.

Nature is not an absurd structure.

It is our "scientific" thought of Nature can be absurd,

it is our "philosophy of science" can be abstract.

How is possible to escape philosophical absurd?

My solution.

The history of the "quantum of action" (1900-1927) shows that

"quantum of action" can be a quantum of light, and

"quantum of action" can be an electron, and

"quantum of action" has connection with an antiparticle . . . . .

In the other words,

quantum of light, electron and antiparticle can be one and the same

real particle of different actions in different conditions. This is possible

because "quantum of action" obeys “ The law of conservation and

transformation energy/mass”. "Quantum of action" has many formulas

and they can be tied together only through physical process of

"transformation" but what "transformation" means according to one

single "quantum of action" nobody explains.

The Existence begins on the quantum level and "quantum of action" is

primary particle of existence. Not from "big bang", not from "Higgs boson",

not from "string particles in 11-D", not from "meson, muon, tau . . . .

and 1000 their brothers" but only from Planck's / Einstein's

"quantum of action" creation of Nature was started.

==..

Best wishes.

Israel Sadovnik Socratus

=============…

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Is there a question you're asking here, or a topic to discuss? Posting an historical summary really isn't compatible with the format of SFN. It's more of what you might blog about.