Simple derivation of Plancks Law

A simple derivation of plancks law used to describe black body radiation

[guenterlohnert]

This is a strange "derivation", since it uses the result of Planck from the year 1900 (E=h•f), and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relation from the year 1927, ( dp•dx > h/2•pi, ( 2•pi was "forgotten" !!) which of course depends also on h ). The author thus derives Planck's equation with Planck's equation! What nonsense ! !

[gustavoaroeira]

Makes no sense for me sorry... Also Einstein didn't come up with the E = hf, that was Planck himself

[samarthsai]

in Heisenberg uncertainty principle there should h/2pi instead of h

[ninaddholakia]

But heisenberg's uncertainty principle was in 1927 right? Didn't plank gave his theory in 1900. So three must be certain original derivation.

[NicolasSchmidMusic]

you messed up between h and h bar which is h/2*pi

[Aman-tfbt]

Thank you Sir for your kind video it is very useful :)...

[Calmarius]

Sorry this derivation is everything but simple.
I got lost right at the point you wrote up that sphere.
Where did you get that sphere? If you have cubids of constant volume the coordinates formed from the a, b and c sides of that cubid would span a hiperboloid not a sphere.

Also you used = instead of >=.

[herwichh]

there is a factor c too much? (Planks law: 2hvˆ3/cˆ2...)

[vystinculas]

Wasn't 4/3πp^3 introduced as volume of sphere? If so how can we substitute the value of p with momentum p=h√/c?

[jasonstrickland]

how did you arrive at 4/3? i think i missed something

[jimdogma]

What's a "solid angle?" :-/

[theillusionzone]

00:20 The first equation is wrong, it should have c^2 not c and the second equation should have c^2 in the denominator not c^3, also p=hbar k for momentum, not hk, there are so many mistakes that I stopped watching after the first minute. Check what you write down is correct before you publish it slave.