# Quant of action: Planck and Einstein

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.
==…

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

History of the “quantum of action” (1900-1927)
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.
c)
In 1913 Bohr introduced “quant of action” in the hydrogen-atom.
d)
In1923 De Broglie wrote that “quant of action” can be “pilot-wave”.
e)
In 1924 Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck wrote that “quant of action”
can work in another way as: h/2pi (h-bar)
f)
In 1925 Heisenberg went a step further.
He discovered “the uncertainty principle” (HUP): Et>h*
g)
In the same 1925 year Schrodinger explained that
de Broglie’s “pilot-wave” can work as “psi-wave function”.
h)
In 1926 Schrodinger found relation between his “psi-wave
function” and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
i)
In 1926 Born showed that could be probability of finding
the “quant of action” in local place of the “psi-wave function”.
j)
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 in “an unobserved infinite sea”.
==…
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
page. 10. by R. Feynman /
==…

Being a fan of David Bohm I want to add his name to the credits of the Pilot Wave theory. It is properly called the “de Broglie - Bohm theory”

The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot-wave theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

Sorry, I missed one other great name: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli.
f)
In 1924 Pauli discovered that “the quantum of action” must obey
“the exclusion principle”.
==…

Sorry, I missed one other great name: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli. f) In 1924 Pauli discovered that "the quantum of action" must obey "the exclusion principle". ==…
From wiki,
An example is the neutral helium atom, which has two bound electrons, both of which can occupy the lowest-energy (1s) states by acquiring opposite spin; as spin is part of the quantum state of the electron, the two electrons are in different quantum states and do not violate the Pauli principle. However, the spin can take only two different values (eigenvalues). In a lithium atom, with three bound electrons, the third electron cannot reside in a 1s state, and must occupy one of the higher-energy 2s states instead. Similarly, successively larger elements must have shells of successively higher energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle Question: would these "higher energy states" in complex atoms contribute to their "instability"?
Sorry, I missed one other great name: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli. f) In 1924 Pauli discovered that "the quantum of action" must obey "the exclusion principle". ==…
From wiki,
An example is the neutral helium atom, which has two bound electrons, both of which can occupy the lowest-energy (1s) states by acquiring opposite spin; as spin is part of the quantum state of the electron, the two electrons are in different quantum states and do not violate the Pauli principle. However, the spin can take only two different values (eigenvalues). In a lithium atom, with three bound electrons, the third electron cannot reside in a 1s state, and must occupy one of the higher-energy 2s states instead. Similarly, successively larger elements must have shells of successively higher energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle Question: would these "higher energy states" in complex atoms contribute to their "instability"? . . these “higher energy states" are result of electrons . . . . One electron doesn't like another electron . . . . . . Many electrons on different energy levels as "quantum of actions" will not help each other . . . . And if they help each other - then must be some mechanism of their unity . . . . In my opinion the stability of complex atom with many electrons as “higher energy states" is impossible. ===
Sorry, I missed one other great name: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli. f) In 1924 Pauli discovered that "the quantum of action" must obey "the exclusion principle". ==…
From wiki,
An example is the neutral helium atom, which has two bound electrons, both of which can occupy the lowest-energy (1s) states by acquiring opposite spin; as spin is part of the quantum state of the electron, the two electrons are in different quantum states and do not violate the Pauli principle. However, the spin can take only two different values (eigenvalues). In a lithium atom, with three bound electrons, the third electron cannot reside in a 1s state, and must occupy one of the higher-energy 2s states instead. Similarly, successively larger elements must have shells of successively higher energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle Question: would these "higher energy states" in complex atoms contribute to their "instability"? . . these “higher energy states" are result of electrons . . . . One electron doesn't like another electron . . . . . . Many electrons on different energy levels as "quantum of actions" will not help each other . . . . And if they help each other - then must be some mechanism of their unity . . . . In my opinion the stability of complex atom with many electrons as “higher energy states" is impossible. === Thanks for responding to my question, which now seems poorly stated. The question was based on your statement;
In a lithium atom, with three bound electrons, the third electron cannot reside in a 1s state, and must occupy one of the higher-energy 2s states instead. Similarly, successively larger elements must have shells of successively higher energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle It brought to mind, that some complex (larger) elements also have a high decay rate ( shedding energy). This raised my question ( keeping your quote in mind), if these outer levels become less and less controlled by what keeps them in orbit and electrons can "fly" off, spontaneously reverting to a "lower state"?

# I am sure that you know that every atom sooner or later comes to the “lower state”.

I am sure that you know that every atom sooner or later comes to the "lower state". ==
Thak you for that information. I did not know that stable atoms are also subject to spontaneous, (but unpredictable) decay. But that was not the gist of my inquiry. I was addressing why unstable atoms decay at a more or less predictable rate (half life).
Radioactive decay, also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity, is the process by which a nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing radiation. A material that spontaneously emits this kind of radiation—which includes the emission of alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays—is considered radioactive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
My question was what causes unstable atoms to decay at a predictable rate. I assume that the first particles to leave are from the outermost (higher state) orbits.

Feynman wrote:
" The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature
as absurd from the point of view of common sense. "
Why our understanding QED and Nature are absurd?
My opinion, it is because:
a) We don’t know what Dirac’s “vacuum sea” (reference frame) is.
b) We don’t know the geometrical form of “quantum of action”.
c) We don’t know what impulses h and h* (bar) mean.
d) We don’t know why “quantum of action” has many formulas:
h=kb, E=hf and E=h*f, + E=Mc^2
==…

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. ==…
All the secrets of the Universe are hidden within your genetic code, as the clever manipulation of the code of life, should be able to produce a human of now unimaginable IQ. Remembering, that no math equation that is either postulated or solved, can be more important or intellectual, than the minds that both created and solved it.

It seems the Forum has been infected with a human virus (known as “coral star”), which is interrupting every thread whith incomprehensible nonsense.
Perhaps it is time to administer an anti-biotic ?

MESSAGE TO ADMIN. It seems the Forum has been infected with a human virus (known as "coral star"), which is interrupting every thread which incomprehensible nonsense. Perhaps it is time to administer an anti-biotic ?
We are aware of the issue. If you feel that a particular rule has been violated let us know. However be aware that we are usually quite lenient on policing thread drift. (In this case nonsense may be unavoidable given the OP).
MESSAGE TO ADMIN. It seems the Forum has been infected with a human virus (known as "coral star"), which is interrupting every thread which incomprehensible nonsense. Perhaps it is time to administer an anti-biotic ?
That was a personal attack on me, and was clearly a violation of the rules.

Write,
You are confusing two different parts of the atom. When it is about electrons, we talk about these 1s and 2s (and many more) states. But what happens with electrons, that ‘circle’ the atomic nucleus, matters for chemical reactions and ionisation only. That has nothing to do with radioactivity. That happens in the nucleus, mainly because the proportion between the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus has a higher energy than a nearby other nucleus: this can happen by emitting a alpha-particle (a helium nucleus, 2 protons and 2 neutrons together) and by beta radiation (electrons or anti-electrons (positrons)). Then there is some equivalent as higher energy states with electrons: the nucleus emits a gamma-photon, which has a much higher energy than the light emitted by chemical reactions.
Most virus infections go away by just negating them. Keeping quiet is the best remedy.

Write, You are confusing two different parts of the atom. When it is about electrons, we talk about these 1s and 2s (and many more) states. But what happens with electrons, that 'circle' the atomic nucleus, matters for chemical reactions and ionisation only. That has nothing to do with radioactivity. That happens in the nucleus, mainly because the proportion between the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus has a higher energy than a nearby other nucleus: this can happen by emitting a alpha-particle (a helium nucleus, 2 protons and 2 neutrons together) and by beta radiation (electrons or anti-electrons (positrons)). Then there is some equivalent as higher energy states with electrons: the nucleus emits a gamma-photon, which has a much higher energy than the light emitted by chemical reactions. Most virus infections go away by just negating them. Keeping quiet is the best remedy.
Ah, who goes there? You are neither negating, nor keeping quiet, by your obvious and intended response....... Behold the atom. http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/exp6/imagegallery/afmimages/atoms.jpg Sheeshs

Coral, I can tell you are exceedingly impressed with your own cleverness, although in this particular thread, your cleverness seems, to me, to be about equivalent to that of a yapping Chihuahua.
But kudos for posting a picture without messing up the margins.

Coral, I can tell you are exceedingly impressed with your own cleverness, although in this particular thread, your cleverness seems, to me, to be about equivalent to that of a yapping Chihuahua. But kudos for posting a picture without messing up the margins.
So can you please expand on Einstein's brilliant theory of a static universe, and tell us why this nonsense would not have been published in text books for geniuses, if Hubbell had decided to write poetry instead of becoming an astronomer? Think http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3MuMPLoQZN4/maxresdefault.jpg

Well, there go the margins. You do realize, don’t you, that there are no prizes given out for being annoying?