**7. References**


**25** 

*USA* 

Constantinos Ragazas1 *The Lawrenceville School* 

**The Thermodynamics** *in* **Planck's Law** 

Quantum Physics has its historical beginnings with Planck's derivation of his formula for blackbody radiation, more than one hundred years ago. In his derivation, Planck used what latter became known as *energy quanta*. In spite of the best efforts at the time and for decades later, a more *continuous approach* to derive this formula had not been found. Along with Einstein's *Photon Hypothesis*, the *Quantization of Energy Hypothesis* thus became the foundations for much of the Physics that followed. This *physical view* has shaped our understanding of the Universe and has resulted in mathematical certainties that are counter-

Physics provides *mathematical models* that seek to describe *what is* the Universe. We believe mathematical models of *what is* -- as with past metaphysical attempts -- are a never ending search getting us deeper and deeper into the 'rabbit's hole' [Frank 2010]. We show in this Chapter that a *quantum-view* of the Universe is not necessary. We argue that *a world without quanta* is not only possible, but desirable. We do not argue, however, with the mathematical

We will present in this Chapter a mathematical derivation of *Planck's Law* that uses simple continuous processes, without needing *energy quanta* and *discrete statistics*. This *Law* is not true by Nature, but by Math. In our view, *Planck's Law* becomes a *Rosetta Stone* that enables us to translate known physics into simple and sensible formulations. To this end the quantity *eta* we introduce is fundamental. This is the time integral of energy that is used in our mathematical derivation of *Planck's Law*. In terms of this *prime physis* quantity *eta* (acronym for *e*nergy-*t*ime-*a*ction), we are able to define such physical quantities as energy, force, momentum, temperature and entropy. Planck's constant *h* (in units of energy-time) is such a quantity *eta*. Whereas currently *h* is thought as *action,* in our derivation of *Planck's Law* it is more naturally viewed as *accumulation of energy*. And while *h* is a constant, the quantity *eta* that appears in our formulation is a variable. Starting with *eta*, Basic Law can be

Is the Universe *continuous* or *discrete*? In my humble opinion this is a false dichotomy. It presents us with an impossible choice between two absolute views. And as it is always the case, making one side *absolute* leads to endless fabrications denying the opposite side. The Universe is neither *continuous* nor *discrete* because the Universe is both *continuous* and *discrete*. Our *view* of the Universe is *not* the Universe. The Universe simply *is*. In The Interaction of

**1. Introduction** 

1 cragaza@lawrenceville.org

intuitive and contrary to our experience.

formalism of Physics -- just the *physical view* attached to this.

mathematically derived and not be physically posited.

