[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I can transmit (in principle) any rate of power I like at 1THz.
I am not restricted to sending 6.62607004 x 10-22 Joule per second i.e. 6.62607004 x 10-22 W

How would you do that?

[acsinuk]

Hamdani,
Energy has the equivalent effect of force times distance.  So  your "  kg⋅s−3 " is the equivalent inertia spin energy of the magnon which is at the heart of every photon.
 I think it is more accurate to consider the electro-magnetic energy of a photon as    Energy=  ∑ n h f Cos ϴ per second.     

[Bored chemist]

I can transmit (in principle) any rate of power I like at 1THz.
I am not restricted to sending 6.62607004 x 10-22 Joule per second i.e. 6.62607004 x 10-22 W

How would you do that?

Start with 1 watt and attenuate it.

[Bored chemist]

equivalent inertia spin energy of the magnon which is at the heart of every photon.

Why do you post  meaningless utter bollocks like that?

[Bored chemist]

You're missing the cycle part. Although it's dimensionless, it doesn't mean that it's not there.

It doesn't affect the dimensions and thus does not detract from my point.

If we try to analyze a derived unit using only its base unit equivalent, we can easily get confused of the meaning.

Royal "we"?

At a glance, the pulse doesn't have a uniform wavelength. It looks longer at beginning and shorter at the end.
But as long as it starts and finish at 0, the number of cycles must be an integer multiple of a half.

So what?
It's not got much to do with a photon, has it?

[Colin2B]

Hamdani,
Energy has the equivalent effect of force times distance.  So  your "  kg⋅s−3 " is the equivalent inertia spin energy of the magnon which is at the heart of every photon.
 I think it is more accurate to consider the electro-magnetic energy of a photon as    Energy=  ∑ n h f Cos ϴ per second.     

You have been warned that you could have your posting rights suspended if you continue to post new theories in this section. I’m being more polite that some

[alancalverd]

I can transmit (in principle) any rate of power I like at 1THz.

Just as well you didn't say that in my physics class.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I can transmit (in principle) any rate of power I like at 1THz.
I am not restricted to sending 6.62607004 x 10-22 Joule per second i.e. 6.62607004 x 10-22 W

How would you do that?

Start with 1 watt and attenuate it.

How would you attenuate it?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So what?
It's not got much to do with a photon, has it?

So,
How many photons would be needed to produce that particular chirp/pulse?
What's the frequency of each photon?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Energy has the equivalent effect of force times distance.  So  your "  kg⋅s−3 " is the equivalent inertia spin energy of the magnon which is at the heart of every photon.

That unit, kg⋅s−3, is an example I gave to BC that analyzing a derived unit using only its base unit equivalent can be confusing, because we lose the context. You can find this unit in the wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit#Examples_of_derived_quantities_and_units
watt per square metre   W/m2   heat flux density, irradiance   kg⋅s−3

[Bored chemist]

Just as well you didn't say that in my physics class.

Indeed, for such an event would imply that you were teaching physics; never a good thing if you don't understand the conservation of angular momentum.

[Bored chemist]

So what?
It's not got much to do with a photon, has it?

So,
How many photons would be needed to produce that particular chirp/pulse?
What's the frequency of each photon?

Many.
You can do the Fourier transform if you want a more precise answer.

[Bored chemist]

How would you attenuate it?

Who cares?
There's some data here
https://www.brown.edu/research/labs/mittleman/sites/brown.edu.research.labs.mittleman/files/uploads/normanElecLett.pdf
which suggests that, if I pick the correct  angle and polarisation, the fraction of a THz beam reflected by a sheet of glass is about 1/10.

So if I arrange 22 sheets of glass so that the beam is reflected from all of them I will have an attenuation of about 10^22


Why did you think that question was worth asking?

[Bored chemist]

That unit, kg⋅s−3, is an example I gave to BC that analyzing a derived unit using only its base unit equivalent can be confusing,

It seems to have confused you.

You should be aware that you can use different units.
The foot pound second system was in use and worked well for many years.

So you should realise that you don't actually resolve a unit into (for example) SI units, you resolve it into dimensions.
For example the units of energy are mass times distance per time squared.
I can choose pounds or kilograms as the unit of mass, I can pick inches as the distance and weeks as the time.
It will still work- as long as I always use those units.

What you seem to be saying is that changing from cycles per second to radians per second makes a difference to teh dimensional analysis.
It can't.
cycles and radians are both dimensionless.
Numerically, it makes about the same difference as changing from feet to yards- you multiply or divide by about 3.
But the dimensional analysis is the same.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How would you attenuate it?

Who cares?
There's some data here
https://www.brown.edu/research/labs/mittleman/sites/brown.edu.research.labs.mittleman/files/uploads/normanElecLett.pdf
which suggests that, if I pick the correct  angle and polarisation, the fraction of a THz beam reflected by a sheet of glass is about 1/10.

So if I arrange 22 sheets of glass so that the beam is reflected from all of them I will have an attenuation of about 10^22


Why did you think that question was worth asking?

Where does the excess energy go?
Have you considered Planck's law?

[Bored chemist]

Where does the excess energy go?

Who cares?

Have you considered Planck's law?

Yes, I forgot to mention that I'm using very cold pieces of glass.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That unit, kg⋅s−3, is an example I gave to BC that analyzing a derived unit using only its base unit equivalent can be confusing,

It seems to have confused you.

You should be aware that you can use different units.
The foot pound second system was in use and worked well for many years.

So you should realise that you don't actually resolve a unit into (for example) SI units, you resolve it into dimensions.
For example the units of energy are mass times distance per time squared.
I can choose pounds or kilograms as the unit of mass, I can pick inches as the distance and weeks as the time.
It will still work- as long as I always use those units.

What you seem to be saying is that changing from cycles per second to radians per second makes a difference to teh dimensional analysis.
It can't.
cycles and radians are both dimensionless.
Numerically, it makes about the same difference as changing from feet to yards- you multiply or divide by about 3.
But the dimensional analysis is the same.

I proposed to use unit analysis instead of dimensional analysis, so we get the correct number.

The symbol h is used to express the value of the Planck constant in J⋅s/cycle

Let's do some unit analysis.
The time unit as numerator there, indicates that the value is an accumulated quantity over time, which is second. It's similar to mAh in battery capacity, or kWh in energy consumption.
The cycle as denominator means that the value is the rate of a quantity, which is per cycle.
When a quantity of radiation has value of 6.62607004 x 10^-34 J. s/cycle, it means that
6.62607004 x 10^-34 Joule of energy is transfered in 1 second interval for each cycle.
If the frequency is 1 Hz, then there is 1 cycle in a second. Thus, in 1 second interval  the energy transfered is 6.62607004 x 10^-34 Joule.

If the frequency is 1 THz, there are 1 trillion cycles in a second. So the energy transfer accumulated in 1 second is 6.62607004 x 10^-22 Joule.

I'm sorry for misunderstood you. But to me, your statement below makes it look like you are being confused.

The Joule is a unit of work- i.e. force times distance and a force is a mass times an acceleration.
So Joule is  Kg m2 /sec2

So the unit of the Planck constant is
Kg m2 / sec

The "time" part is in reciprocal seconds, not seconds.
And what the hell does the product of an area with a mass mean?
Because, whatever that is, h has units of "the rate of change of whatever".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Where does the excess energy go?

Who cares?

Have you considered Planck's law?

Yes, I forgot to mention that I'm using very cold pieces of glass.

I do care, that's why I started this thread. The rest of the energy must go somehwere else, either being reflected, scattered, or absorbed.
It seems like you don't consider quantization of radiation energy. Planck didn't either.

Trying to find a physical explanation of the law
See also: Planck–Einstein relation
Once Planck had discovered the empirically fitting function, he constructed a physical derivation of this law. His thinking revolved around entropy rather than being directly about temperature. Planck considered a cavity with perfectly reflective walls; the cavity contained finitely many hypothetical well separated and recognizable but identically constituted, of definite magnitude, resonant oscillatory bodies, several such oscillators at each of finitely many characteristic frequencies. The hypothetical oscillators were for Planck purely imaginary theoretical investigative probes, and he said of them that such oscillators do not need to "really exist somewhere in nature, provided their existence and their properties are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and electrodynamics.".[89] Planck did not attribute any definite physical significance to his hypothesis of resonant oscillators, but rather proposed it as a mathematical device that enabled him to derive a single expression for the black body spectrum that matched the empirical data at all wavelengths.[90] He tentatively mentioned the possible connection of such oscillators with atoms. In a sense, the oscillators corresponded to Planck's speck of carbon; the size of the speck could be small regardless of the size of the cavity, provided the speck effectively transduced energy between radiative wavelength modes.[82]

Partly following a heuristic method of calculation pioneered by Boltzmann for gas molecules, Planck considered the possible ways of distributing electromagnetic energy over the different modes of his hypothetical charged material oscillators. This acceptance of the probabilistic approach, following Boltzmann, for Planck was a radical change from his former position, which till then had deliberately opposed such thinking proposed by Boltzmann.[91] Heuristically, Boltzmann had distributed the energy in arbitrary merely mathematical quanta ϵ, which he had proceeded to make tend to zero in magnitude, because the finite magnitude ϵ had served only to allow definite counting for the sake of mathematical calculation of probabilities, and had no physical significance. Referring to a new universal constant of nature, h,[92] Planck supposed that, in the several oscillators of each of the finitely many characteristic frequencies, the total energy was distributed to each in an integer multiple of a definite physical unit of energy, ϵ, not arbitrary as in Boltzmann's method, but now for Planck, in a new departure, characteristic of the respective characteristic frequency.[80][93][94][95] His new universal constant of nature, h, is now known as Planck's constant.

Planck explained further[80] that the respective definite unit, ϵ, of energy should be proportional to the respective characteristic oscillation frequency ν of the hypothetical oscillator, and in 1901 he expressed this with the constant of proportionality h:[96][97]

ϵ=hν .
Planck did not propose that light propagating in free space is quantized.[98][99][100] The idea of quantization of the free electromagnetic field was developed later, and eventually incorporated into what we now know as quantum field theory.[101]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law#Trying_to_find_a_physical_explanation_of_the_law

[Bored chemist]

I think we are both saying the same thing; if you reduce the units down by dimensional analysis you get very odd looking things- stuff like "area time mass over time" as the unit or h.

But it's not sensible to then say, as you did

The time unit as numerator there,

Because the actual units are
Mass Distance ^2
     Time


Time is clearly the denominator.

[Bored chemist]

I do care, that's why I started this thread. The rest of the energy must go somewhere else, either being reflected, scattered, or absorbed.

You don't seem to care much, or you would have thought for a second about this.

the fraction of a THz beam reflected by a sheet of glass is about 1/10.

I didn't pick glass at random.
The more or less defining property of glass is that it is transparent.
So, if 10% is reflected then nearly 90% is transmitted and a small fraction absorbed.

Were you not able to work that out?

In this particular thought experiment, I catch each of the reflected beams in a mirrored cavity, and gift wrap the cavities so I can give them to my brother for Christmas.

Now, you insisted that it mattered what I did with them.
Please explain why it's important that my brother gets this rather odd Xmas present.
(Alternatively, admit that what happens to the rest of the beam is not actually important)