How Can We Prove E=hf Using Basic Physics Knowledge?

Click For Summary
Proving E=hf without assumptions is challenging, as the formula is primarily based on experimental evidence rather than classical derivation. It is often treated as an axiom in quantum mechanics, with its validity established through experiments like the photoelectric effect. The relationship between energy and frequency can be derived from light wave behavior, but applying it to matter waves relies on assumptions about their similarity to light. The discussion highlights that many fundamental physics equations, including Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations, also lack derivation from first principles. Ultimately, E=hf serves as a cornerstone of quantum physics, grounded in empirical findings rather than classical derivation.
killer120
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
then i want to know how to prove E=hf without any assumption but with our basic physics knowledge to prove the formula is actually explaining quantum physics theory....i still blur about the formula for quantum physics...thanks if someone help me out!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In principle, you could "derive" it from other stuff, either using a Shrodinger-like equation, or a correspondance principle + symmetry arguments "a la Noether"... well. But I think that would not be fair. The formula was taken as an assumption, then we built a lot of stuff considering it correct, then we come up with 20-50 years of theoretical deepening, quantum gauge fields etc... and then we can come back and claim to derive E=h\nu. Looks pretty much like cheating to me... Are you researching something new in the foundation of quantum mechanics ?
 
The formula, as my understanding goes, was derived from experimentation. It is like a physics axiom. I have done this experiment myself and I found h to a good number of decimal places. I can't think of a way to derive it from classical physics though. Will have a think and probably realize it was simple all along. :biggrin:

The Bob
 
The equation E = hf can be empirically deduced for light waves with a simple photoelectric experiment. I think I even did it once back in college. In the context of quantum mechanics, this is taken as an assumption in the case of matter waves. Basically we just assume that matter waves behave like light waves. And from this, as well as the de Broglie relation, we get the Schrodinger Equation and all of quantum mechanics.
 
Simple:

E=hc/\lambda
c=\nu\lambda
so E=h\nu
 
Planck derived his constant from experiment, as described here: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_constant

Some other constants and formulae we use in physics have not yet been deduced from first priciples.
Newton's laws.
Maxwell's equations.
The Schrodinger equation.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
933
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K