[yor_on]

Mxp

Don't let it rest too long, use the Internet and your mind. Physics is in someways a very personal thing, make it your own. Pmb (Pete) knows what he's talking about.

[PmbPhy]

Higher power photons have shorter wavelengths than lower power photons. This means they transfer their energy quicker. But the total amount of energy transferred is the same for all. You can fire a beam of low power photons at (say) a piece of aluminium and it will not knock any electrons from the aluminium irrespective of how intense the photon beam is. The higher power photons will knock electrons from the aluminium irrespective of the intensity of the photon beam. This fact was discovered by Einstein in his basic quantum research. ...

It's clear that he wants to be spoon fed rather then doing the work himself. Otherwise he could pick up a text such as the excellent one by French and Taylor. In that text, as in all other QM texts, the authors explain how Planck came to find E = hf. This equation quite literally means that the frequency of a photon, f, is related to its (kinetic) energy by E = hf where h = Planck's constant. If a particle has a non-zero proper mass but has momentum p and wavelength L then L = h/p, wichh also holds for photons => Different momentum -> different frequency

These have been experimentally verified. He should go to the new theory forum if he wants to prove otherwise. He's claiming something is true which cannot be experimentally verified and therefore has no place in physics. That's why I gave up on him, i.e. I don't do "new theories" since in the 20 years I've been posting I've never seen one which is reasonable. They all claim that current theory is wrong or incomplete but do not provide solid reasoning to explain the nonsense they post.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

OK, I have made a big mistake. Many humble apologies for wasting your times. The current theory works just fine. It is obvious when you fiddle around the the E=hf equation that it does exactly what physics says it does.

h = 7
 therefore
E*t = 7
 
t = 1/f
therefore
E*(1/f)= 7
therefore
E= 7f
therefore
E= hf

and, therefore

E = energy of a photon = the energy of one oscillation of the photon.

[Colin2B]

OK, I have made a big mistake. ........ the E=hf equation that it does exactly what physics says it does.

You are right about that

But totally wrong about this:

h = 7
 therefore
E*t = 7
 
t = 1/f
therefore
E*(1/f)= 7
therefore
E= 7f
therefore
E= hf

and, therefore

E = energy of a photon = the energy of one oscillation of the photon.

You claim to know maths, but get the simplest things wrong.
This is garbage.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

This is garbage.

Why?

[Bored chemist]

For  a start h really really isn't 7.
Also there's no explanation of how you even got to this "E = energy of a photon = the energy of one oscillation of the photon."
which is utterly wrong

[opportunity]

Energy is many things derived from.

Usually we have quantum jumps of electrons.

Unusually we explode things to create theory.....and then put that in, lock that in......as a process of discovery.

[yor_on]

Now I'm guessing Mxp. What I'm guessing is your foundation of physics to be more wobbling than your ability to program. That's no fault, it's just a matter of persistence. That's why you will need to check it up. To see how probability and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle define physics today. It's not simple, and it take you years to get a grasp of how people think about it. Even those highly educated from the beginning will hesitate when it comes to take the step from being very good at, let's call it 'civilengineering' here in Sweden, to take that step to becoming a physicist and researcher. It takes another amount of years and the personal benefits of it is very unclear. Don't take the criticism too hard, go back to the history of physics and try follow its timeline. That will help you see how it works.

And a merry Xmas to you and us all.

[Bill S]

OK, I have made a big mistake. Many humble apologies for wasting your times.

Possibly you didn’t get what you needed from this thread, but don’t assume you wasted everyone’s time.  I’ve not had time to read it all yet, or to follow the links, but I have already learned a few things.

As a non-scientist/mathematician, I frequently struggle with answers to my questions.  I empathise with your feeling that sometimes the experts answer questions that differ from those asked. 

I’m not equating my “hitch-hiker” position with yours, but I reason that if the experts have the patience to respond to my questions, I should have the patience to accept that they don’t always appreciate the naivety of those questions. 

[mxplxxx (OP)]

For  a start h really really isn't 7.

Obviously.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

These have been experimentally verified. He should go to the new theory forum if he wants to prove otherwise. He's claiming something is true which cannot be experimentally verified and therefore has no place in physics.

This is too simplistic an answer. Physics consists of theoretical and experimental branches. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN83u9Cpa9k. There are many theories in physics that have not been experimentally verified. Pretty much all of String Theory for example is unverified (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/#5f2c1f236524). As a lay person, what is hard science and what is speculation in Physics is often difficult to distinguish.

[Bored chemist]

As a lay person,

Then learn enough to stop being a layman.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It would seem (shockingly!) that E=hf relates only to Electromagnetic waves, not photons (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90646/what-is-the-relation-between-electromagnetic-wave-and-photon).

[yor_on]

That was a nice link Mxp, but I think that equation is about the energy of a particle, as a electron. " The h is Planck's constant, which corresponds to 1 quanta of energy, which is present in energy packets. The f is the frequency of the particle, and when you multiply the two together, you get the energy. This equation is used in basic quantum mechanics to derive equations based on the quantum energy states of electrons around the nucleus of an atom. "

The duality of light is a proved fact, nowadays defined as a 'excitation in a field'. Any model you find is just a model, the best physics can make at the current stage. Thinking of it as a field makes sense from a lot of perspectives, and thinking of a photon as a 'wavepacket' is closely related to your comment on E=hf.

But they are all models, not written in stone. Physics can't pre-define nature, not yet anyway, as far as I know :)
I agree with you, starting with the duality makes for a very good dive into physics.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-behind-E-hf-of-a-photon?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

That was a nice link Mxp, but I think that equation is about the energy of a particle, as a electron

Lots and lots of apparent contradictions and anomalies in quantum theory. The following is  a summary that has been gleaned from my extensive travels in trying to understand quantum physics and is backed up by the discussions in the following link (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90646/what-is-the-relation-between-electromagnetic-wave-and-photon).

E=hf relates to the energy of an electromagnetic wave, not a photon. This is a classical equation, not its equivalent quantum wave function. Because light is a EM wave, physics has taken the E-hf equation and applied it to get the energy of a photon, apparently without scientific evidence to back up the theory. The wave function of a photon is not known.

Apparently, the results in double slit experiment for a single photon cannot be repeated using the E=hf equation. You need the wave function for this and this is not known for a photon.

To make matters worse, an electromagnetic wave is actually two waves that operate transversely and at right angles to one another. This seems to involve 3 energies, the forward direction energy, the sideways electro wave energy and the sideways  magnetic wave energy. The implications of this for a photon seem to have been overlooked by the physics community.

I photon is supposed to have no mass. Where then does its momentum come from and what is the equation for the momentum?

The fact that an EM waver travels at the speed of light means that its transverse component exceeds the speed of light. This anomaly is not explained in physics.

What is the difference between an EM wave, a probability wave and a Wave function for a photon?

Red shift etc. seem to involve the photon losing energy, in contradiction of Newtons conservation of energy law.

Finally, it has to be noted that a photon can have any energy that is a multiple of h. This makes it not one type of particle but many. This fact is almost universally overlooked by the physics community.

[Bored chemist]

E=hf relates to the energy of an electromagnetic wave, not a photon.

Says who?
The speed of light is constant so frequency and wavelength are fundamentally linked- if you divide C by one, you get the other.

Einstein's classic work on the photoelectric effect was done with monochromatic light which had been "filtered" through a diffraction grating to select the wavelength (and thus, the frequency).
So we have photons, of a known frequency- measured by the monochromator giving electrons of known energy- measured by the stopping potential.

And, of course, they follow the  E=hf relationship.

The experiment works.
Only you see it as a contradiction.

Apparently, the results in double slit experiment for a single cannot be repeated using the E=hf equation.

Sorry, would you like to rewrite that? It doesn't make sense.

This seems to involve 3 energies, the forward direction energy, the sideways electro wave energy and the sideways  magnetic wave energy. The implications of this for a photon seem to have been overlooked by the physics community.

The interchange of energy between electric and magnetic fields  poses no more problems for physics then the exchange of potential and kinetic energy of a simple pendulum.

Again, it seem only you see it as difficult.

I photon is supposed to have no mass

No, it has no rest mass.

Where then does its momentum come from

Relativistic mass.

what is the equation for the momentum?

It was sorted out in 1924. Why are you not aware of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave

[yor_on]

" the results in double slit experiment for a single cannot be repeated using the E=hf equation "

Why?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Quote from: mxplxxx on Today at 03:15:43
Where then does its momentum come from
Relativistic mass.

Highly controversial. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Of course the biggest problem with the dual slit experiment is the quantum nature of light. How can a supposedly indivisible photon split into two?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Quote from: mxplxxx on Yesterday at 03:15:43
Apparently, the results in double slit experiment for a single cannot be repeated using the E=hf equation.
Sorry, would you like to rewrite that? It doesn't make sense

The double slit experiment has the photon existing as a wave prior to passing through the slits. Physics generally equates the wave nature of a photon with a an EM wave. But what goes through the double slit seems to be a probability wave, not an EM wave. Is it possible a photon exists in TWO wave states?