Why fundamental quantization of energy is hv?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The fundamental quantization of energy is defined as E = hν, where 'h' is Planck's constant and 'ν' is frequency. This relationship was established through empirical observations of black body radiation and the photoelectric effect, leading to the conclusion that Planck's constant is a fundamental constant of nature. The current precise value of Planck's constant is derived from advanced measurement techniques, including the Watt balance method, which utilizes a superconducting coil and Faraday's Law. Despite its empirical basis, the origin of Planck's constant remains unexplained within theoretical frameworks.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with Planck's constant and its historical context
  • Knowledge of black body radiation and the photoelectric effect
  • Basic grasp of measurement techniques in physics, such as the Watt balance
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of Planck's constant through black body radiation experiments
  • Study the implications of Planck's constant in quantum mechanics
  • Explore advanced measurement techniques like the Watt balance and their significance in defining SI units
  • Investigate the concept of Planck units and their role in theoretical physics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the foundational principles of energy quantization and the significance of Planck's constant in modern physics.

  • #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