[alancalverd]

he value of h is 6.62607015x10−34

No, it is 6.62607015x10−34 joule.second. The number would be quite different if it was expressed in BThU.hours 

energy of a single photon is h.f.
If the photon frequency is 1 Hz, then its energy is 6.62607015x10−34 Joule.
If the photon frequency is 1 GHz, then its energy is not 6.62607015x10−34 Joule.

Hardly a stunning observation, but true nonetheless.

If the photon frequency is 1 rpm, then its energy is not 6.62607015x10−34 Joule.
If the photon frequency is 1 rad/s, then its energy is not 6.62607015x10−34 Joule.

  1 rpm or 1 rad/second is not a frequency, but a speed of rotation.
I haven't seen any rotating photons.

[hamdani yusuf]

No, it is 6.62607015x10−34 joule.second. The number would be quite different if it was expressed in BThU.hours

Joule second per cycle.
If the frequency is presented in kilocycle per second, the numerical value should be adjusted by 3 order of magnitude.

[hamdani yusuf]

  1 rpm or 1 rad/second is not a frequency, but a speed of rotation.

They are angular frequency, but frequency nonetheless.

I haven't seen any rotating photons.

Haven't you learned something about circular polarization?
Even in linearly polarized light, the propagating electromagnetic wave forms a sinusoidal shape. This trigonometric function is often expressed in radian basis.

[alancalverd]

from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 18:10:22
No, it is 6.62607015x10−34 joule.second. The number would be quite different if it was expressed in BThU.hours

Joule second per cycle.

I give up.

Clearly the  International Bureau of Weights and Measures (and everyone else) have no idea what they are talking about, our concept of dimensions, and the entire SI system of units, is faulty.

I suggest that, for the benefit of all mankind, you should dispel their ignorance with a direct communication to BIPM, Sevres, France (Quantum Mechanics Division).

[hamdani yusuf]

I give up.

Clearly the  International Bureau of Weights and Measures (and everyone else) have no idea what they are talking about, our concept of dimensions, and the entire SI system of units, is faulty.

I suggest that, for the benefit of all mankind, you should dispel their ignorance with a direct communication to BIPM, Sevres, France (Quantum Mechanics Division).

Your frustration is caused by your misunderstanding of frequency. Don't blame your own mistake to someone else.

[Bored chemist]

  1 rpm or 1 rad/second is not a frequency, but a speed of rotation.

Or it's a rate of change of phase angle.
In which case  hamdani yusuf's statement makes sense.

[alancalverd]

Then why does the SI unit not mention it?

[Bored chemist]

Then why does the SI unit not mention it?

Feel free to ask them.

[hamdani yusuf]

Then why does the SI unit not mention it?

SI organization consists of people, who view the world based on their contemporary science community. They are not infallible, and they have publicly changed the standards. They may have their blind spots, just like us human beings. That's why it's important to let different ideas to compete and be discussed to reveal any residual mistakes.

[hamdani yusuf]

  1 rpm or 1 rad/second is not a frequency, but a speed of rotation.
I haven't seen any rotating photons.

1 kilocycle per second, 1 Gigacycle per second, are also frequency. They also have 1/second dimension.
If you multiply them with Planck's constant, you get the number in kiloJoule and GigaJoule, respectively.

Those who are not familiar with communication science and engineering may not be familiar with negative frequency. If Fourier transform is applied to a linearly polarized monochromatic light, the result is two lines symmetrical to the y axis. One is positive and the other is negative with the same magnitude and distance from the point of origin. When the magnitude is different, we get elliptically polarized light. When the negative part is absent, we get a circularly polarized light.

[Bored chemist]

I haven't seen any rotating photons.

Now I come to think of it, all the photons I have heard of carry angular momentum.