Planck's law desrcibes radiation from a blackbody, and what is a blackbody? Well it is a manufactured entity, a physical model and models don't necessarily correspond with the rest of reality. Come to think of it all natural law may simply be based on contrived models of reality. If we become seduced by our models, we will unconsciously design experiments (build models) which validate a physical law to nth decimal place and learn nothing new. harry
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Eric Walker > David Roberson wrote: > > If you want to find the best argument for nonlinearity in inverse power > laws, such as when geometry changes fairly unexpectedly (into a paradigm > shift), look no further than Planck’s Law (or Theory), which is/was a proven > predictor of the relationship between frequency and emitted spectral energy > for blackbody radiation. > > Max Planck, even 100 years ago suspected that his theory was breaking down > the smaller he went, but this was not easy to prove, and the later geniuses > who taught physics at University ignored his doubts and cast the whole thing > into a “law” since they did not want to teach “theory”, and since it worked > well enough. More recently, verification of the non-linearity in the power > law basis behind Planck has finally been reported at MIT, but Wiki still > calls it Planck’s Law instead of Max’s kludge. > > http://www.physorg.com/news168101848.html > > Planck’s law can be written in about a dozen different ways, with many > different variables, and has changed over time to “fix” problems, and is > considered an inverse fourth (or fifth for wavelength) power law down to the > dimensions that he was familiar with 100 years ago. We already know that at > nanometer geometry and ultraviolet wavelengths - it begins to fail, and > eventually is off by three orders of magnitude at the level of quantum dots. >
