Re: On Planck's constant

From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/11/05 

Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:36:11 -0600

Todd wrote:
> "RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34ff5fF4a7scaU1@individual.net...
>
>>
>> Todd wrote:
>
>
>>> Once the value of h = E/f is determined for a photon in one frame (by
>>> experiment, say), then SR implies that E'/f ' has the same value in
>>> any other inertial frame. But SR does not determine the value of h.
>>
>>
>> Ok, thanks again, but what I'm implying here is that the photoelectric
>> effect requires only 3 general premises in order to easily derive it:
>> 1 SR
>> 2 Work function
>> 3 quantization of energy
>>
>
> OK, see if I'm understanding your point of view. I suppose that by
> premise 3 you mean something like the statement that the energy of
> monochromatic light is quantized into equal-sized lumps of energy
> (photons). But we do not _assume_ that the energy of the photon is
> proportional to the frequency. Then we use premise 1 as follows. We
> start out in inertial frame K with light of frequency f and photon
> energy E. SR would then tell us that if we switch to another inertial
> frame K' where this same light has a frequency f ' (due to Doppler
> effect), then the photon energy would have to change to E' such that
> E'/f ' = E/f. Thus, it appears that for any photon, E = hf where h is
> some universal constant that must be determined from experiment.
>
> I don't see anything essentially wrong with this viewpoint. Maybe
> someone else will comment. One possible criticism is that Einstein in
> his SR paper showed that E/f = E'/f ' only for extended volumes of a
> plane wave. True, these extended volumes may be taken to be
> infinitesimally small, but one might still object to extrapolating this
> to photons for which the concept of volume is unclear. Anyway, it's an
> interesting way (attempt?) of 'deriving' E = hf for photons using ideas
> of SR.
>
> Todd

Yes.

As for the spherical vs. soliton wave, I'll have to object to the
soliton (point particle) interpretation on the grounds that all
photons are emitted spherically, which is much more apparent in the
field of radio transmissions, in that in order to provide
directionality, interference of spherical waves is required. I don't
see any apparent reason to segregate radio and light waves into
different camps. I've also read several articles that describe photons
as expanding spherically but collapsing instantly to a point along the
wave front. I don't strictly adhere to this view, nor even to the idea
of a photon as a discrete particle.

I'll grant the notion of discrete energy at emission, and at
absorption, but I won't grant discrete existence anywhere in between.
Nor can the photon even be accounted for in between, but is actually
excluded from existing in between when approaching the subject from a
Minkowski perspective.

Feynman's sum-over-histories applies only when there is some
intervening media, i.e. providing interference effects via absorption
emission, which in turn produces the probability pattern, which I feel
must be amended to take into account "the probabilities of
receptiveness of the absorbing media, i.e. the interference
probabilities introduced by the random/non-random phases of the
absorbing atoms". Mine is a holographic perspective; I don't believe
in the possibility of discrete em solitons that take several
simultaneous paths. Also, note that the special relativistic
relationship outlined above, when taken in conjunction with discrete
emission and absorption energies, actually requires the photon to be a
spherical wave, does it not? If you focus the wave down to a finite
spherical cross section, then the relationship E=hf would no longer
apply.

Richard Perry

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Read this one, the other is a mess! Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... photons per volume and not the energy of the photon as such. ... characteristics than a wave within a medium. ... at least for the considerations of Relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Part 1 Re: Ken, need help with this
    ... The problem is that mass is a determining factor for finding kinetic energy ... The energy must therefore be in the wave and not in the photon. ... Visualize a true bucket brigade, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • A Snapshot of a Photon
    ... A Snapshot of a Photon ... oaf a wave. ... "lumps" of energy called photons because it is noisy. ... The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity", ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: photons
    ... In what other ways do you disagree ... > Hang on this is about a photon not an electron,are you reading the correct ... > Its a wave form, it can do both as the attenuating wave still carries the ... > accumulate to quantum photon energy level to trigger an electron exchange. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • A Snapshot of a Photon
    ... A Snapshot of a Photon ... oaf a wave. ... "lumps" of energy called photons because it is noisy. ... The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity", ...
    (sci.physics)