Why fundamental quantization of energy is hv?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the fundamental quantization of energy, specifically questioning why it is expressed as E = hv, where h is Planck's constant and v is frequency. Participants explore the implications of this relationship, its historical context, and the possibility of alternative formulations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why energy quantization is specifically hv and not other forms like hv^2 or h/v^2, seeking a proof of its favorability.
  • Another participant argues that hv^2 or hv^3 are dimensionally incorrect and suggests that the relationship is simply a matter of how nature behaves.
  • A participant acknowledges the proportionality of energy to frequency but questions the necessity of the specific value of h, suggesting it was derived from experimental results.
  • Some participants clarify that Planck's constant is defined to make E = hv valid, and emphasize that it is an empirically derived constant.
  • Discussion includes historical context, noting that Planck's constant was initially a useful construct that later gained empirical validation through experiments like the photoelectric effect.
  • One participant mentions the relationship between energy and momentum in natural units, speculating about potential variations at high energies.
  • Another participant discusses the implications of defining Planck's constant in terms of unit consistency and conversion factors.
  • Concerns are raised about the variations in the measured value of Planck's constant and its implications for quantum mechanics and experimental results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and implications of the specific formulation E = hv. While some agree on the empirical basis of Planck's constant, others question the uniqueness of this relationship and explore alternative interpretations. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the origins of Planck's constant and its role in defining energy quantization. There are unresolved questions regarding the implications of variations in its measured value on established quantum mechanical results.

  • #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

Undergrad Electromagnetic radiation, photons, quantized energy levels
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Why is Photon Energy Quantized in Terms of Sine Wave Frequency?
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
6K
Undergrad A qualitative question about Blackbody Radiation
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Second Quantization in QFT
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Quantization of Energy: Planck's Constant & Standing Waves
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate How can energy be quantized with E=hv
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
43K
Undergrad Understanding second quantization
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad What Are the Key Questions and Challenges in Understanding Quantum Gravity?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad "Packing of energy" question related to the ultraviolet catastrophe
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Undergrad Understanding the Mistake in Dirac's Hamiltonian for Field Quantization
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K