0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Don't get too hung up on "observer". It's simply a generalised term for separating cause and effect, or source and detector. Doesn't imply any sentient beings.
There is no point in introducing any new hypotheses unless they explain something we already know but can't explain.
I am referring to the Planck Einstein relation.
If one holds frequency constant in the face of variable seconds, this will result in joules per variable second and the h constant will as a result not be a constant of quantised energy packets, but will result in a continuum.
Combining de Broglie's postulate with the Planck–Einstein relation leads to p=h*vbar
who mentioned time?
OK, so some time has elapsed but it doesn't matter how much: as long as the events are separated by space or time, we can count them. And they are, so photons are quantised.
In the physical sciences, the wavenumber (also wave number) is the spatial frequency of a wave, either in cycles per unit distance or radians per unit distance.It can be envisaged as the number of waves that exist over a specified distance (analogous to frequency being the number of cycles or radians per unit time).
When I see two spots on an x-ray film (i.e. most days) I know that there were two quantum events. Each time I hear a click from a geiger counter, I know there was a single quantum event. I can compare two radiation sources by counting the number of clicks produced by A in the time taken for B to produce 100 clicks - no time standards required, and if B is a gram of radium I have measured the activity of A in hectocuries.
: wiki linkIn 1887, Heinrich Hertz discovered that electrodes illuminated with ultraviolet light create electric sparks more easily.
And how does that measure up to the amount of time it takes for the cesium atomic clock that I'm placing in your laboratory to complete 9,192,631,770 wave cycles?
Does this per chance mean that more sparks are observed held relative to a unit of time, as compared to the amount of sparks created by electrodes illuminated with lesser energy photons when held relative to the same unit of time?
You can associate a wavenumber with a standing wave, the arches of a bridge, the teeth of a comb
You can measure distance with a standard stick, a surveyor's chain, King Edward's arm, or anything else you like - the modern definition of the meter is purely for convenience.
Not sure how you can introduce acceleration into a discussion on photons, which travel at a constant speed, both theoretically and experimentally. And note that neither the theory nor the experiment refers to any external timebase.
Not at all.
:physics.infoIn 1905, Einstein realized that light was behaving as if it was composed of tiny particles (initially called quanta and later called photons) and that the energy of each particle was proportional to the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation that it was a part of. Recall from the previous section of this book that Max Planck invented the notion of quantized electromagnetic radiation as a way to solve a technical problem with idealized sources of electromagnetic radiation called blackbodies. Recall also that Planck did not believe that radiation was actually broken up into little bits as his mathematical analysis showed. He thought the whole thing was just a contrivance that gave him the right answers. The genius of Einstein was in recognizing that Planck's contrivance was in fact a reasonable description of reality. What we perceive as a continuous wave of electromagnetic radiation is in reality a stream of discrete particles.