Is K*T Equal to hv in Thermal Equilibrium?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chemist20
  • Start date Start date
Chemist20
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
...but, is it true that K*T = hv ? Being K Boltzmann constant...and v the frequency.

Because I have seen this exercise, in which they just say that a sample A in thermal equilibrium (maybe this is the bit that I'm missing out...) absorbs light at 697cm-1, so the temperature of the sample is T = hv/k.

This was done by my teacher, but I don't trust him LOL.

Any ideas please?

Thanks a lot!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top