Why fundamental quantization of energy is hv?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the fundamental quantization of energy expressed as E=hv, questioning why this specific relationship exists and whether alternative forms like hv^2 or h/v^2 could be valid. Participants clarify that Planck's constant (h) was empirically derived from experiments related to black body radiation and the photoelectric effect, establishing it as a proportionality factor between energy and frequency. The consensus is that while h is a constant of nature, its origin remains unexplained, and it is defined through experimental results rather than theoretical derivation. The conversation also touches on the implications of varying constants in physics and the historical context of defining such constants. Ultimately, the quantization of energy as hv is accepted as a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics, rooted in empirical evidence.
  • #31
canoe said:
That is an imaginative and fascinating thought...and I mean that in a very positive way. If it weren't late and I have to work in the AM, I would kick that can around for awhile. I might want to get back to you on that.

@canon and janakiraman

It's one answer to the question "What would happen if h were different, or if c were different?", where usually the question is pu-poohed, and the questioner is left unsatisfied?

Those who know the least physics have the best questions, in my opinion. Why?

If you have the background, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory should be an interesting place to start, under Classical Gauge Theory.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Phrak said:
@canon and janakiraman

It's one answer to the question "What would happen if h were different, or if c were different?", where usually the question is pu-poohed, and the questioner is left unsatisfied?

Those who know the least physics have the best questions, in my opinion. Why?

@Phrak

Here it is late again, and I have about 3 minutes...but if h changed as conjectured than uncertainty could likley be causal.
 
  • #33
canoe said:
...Here it is late again, and I have about 3 minutes...but if h changed as conjectured than uncertainty could likley be causal.

I'm not sure what you mean, but if h were not everywhere constant, then it would give rise to a field. What sort of field? I don't know. This is the basis of quantum field theory. The mathematic basis qft originated with the connection coefficients found in general relativity.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Borek said:
9.8 ms-2 is not a fundamental value, but I think G - gravitational constant - is, in the same way h is. Both are proportionality constants that we can't calculate, we can only measure them.
Yeah... and on that note (for completeness, since nobody's posted this yet): the gravitational acceleration g = 9.8 \mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}^2 comes from Newton's universal law of gravitation (and second law of motion),

F = G \frac{Mm}{R^2} = mg

with M as the mass of the Earth and R its radius.

g = G\frac{M}{R^2} = \left(6.67\times 10^{-11}\frac{\mathrm{m}^2}{\mathrm{kg}\cdot\mathrm{s}^2}\right)\frac{5.9736\times 10^{24}\mathrm{kg}}{(6371\mathrm{km})^2} = 9.8\frac{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{s}^2}

In general relativity, the equation is slightly different (I don't remember exactly what the higher-order corrections are) but the procedure is basically the same.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
43K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K