[alancalverd]

Has anyone ever measured the energy of an EM wave of frequency 3?

3 what?

If you think there is a break frequency below which E ≠ hf, please state its value, how you calculated it, and why the break occurs. I've certainly used the equation from microwaves through optical energies to x-rays with no apparent anomalies.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Has anyone ever measured the energy of an EM wave of frequency 3?

3 what?

If you think there is a break frequency below which E ≠ hf, please state its value, how you calculated it, and why the break occurs. I've certainly used the equation from microwaves through optical energies to x-rays with no apparent anomalies.

Frequency in Hz. I thought, for a little while, that h in E=hf was related to Energy/Time integration but now realize that was likely incorrect. Physics makes it incredibly hard to get a handle on what h is all about. The quote below clarifies this. So sorry for inconvenience.

E=hf is confusing because it is a shortened version of what is really happening in the calculation of E which takes place in two steps:

1. t = 1/f  where t is the time to complete one cycle of an EM wave and f is the cycles per second (frequency) of the EM wave
2. E = h/t where E is the energy of one cycle of an EM wave and h is Action (6.62607004 × 10-34 joules times seconds) which is the same for all EM waves irrespective of their frequency.

[alancalverd]

Don't get hung up on the interpretation of h. It's just a constant. Suppose we count the number of pimples on teenagers' faces, and find a universal linear relationship between age and pimples. The we write N = px where N  is the number of pimples, x is the child's age, and p is an experimental constant whose value is N/x "pimples per year". p has no "interpretation" nor any deep philosophical meaning, but its value is very important.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Don't get hung up on the interpretation of h. It's just a constant. Suppose we count the number of pimples on teenagers' faces, and find a universal linear relationship between age and pimples. The we write N = px where N  is the number of pimples, x is the child's age, and p is an experimental constant whose value is N/x "pimples per year". p has no "interpretation" nor any deep philosophical meaning, but its value is very important.

I think h is more than just a constant.

Say, for convenience, h = 9; then

9 (h) = 9 joules x 1 second (or frequency 1)
9 (h) = 18 joules x .5 second (or frequency 2)
9 (h) = 3 joules x 3 seconds (or frequency .3)
and so on.

i.e. the energy of all photons derives from the same Action h (which, incidentally,  makes Action a more fundamental value than Energy and also introduces the possibility that time is the only variable in the universe with time acting on a single value of h to produce all the variations in energy/power we experience in the universe!).

Surely this makes it more than just a constant?

My post below clarifies this.

E=hf is confusing because it is a shortened version of what is really happening in the calculation of E which takes place in two steps:

1. t = 1/f  where t is the time to complete one cycle of an EM wave and f is the cycles per second (frequency) of the EM wave
2. E = h/t where E is the energy of one cycle of an EM wave and h is Action (6.62607004 × 10-34 joules times seconds) which is the same for all EM waves irrespective of their frequency.

[Bored chemist]

It's good to see that you have spotted that planck's constant has teh same units as action.
But it's not meaningful.

I have a torque wrench which is calibrated in newton meres and energy is also measured in newton metres.
But that doesn't mean that energy is the same as torque.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It's good to see that you have spotted that planck's constant has teh same units as action.
But it's not meaningful.

I have a torque wrench which is calibrated in newton meres and energy is also measured in newton metres.
But that doesn't mean that energy is the same as torque.

Energy is commonly measured in joules, and according to Wiki is sometimes measured in Newton Metres.

One newton metre is equal to the torque resulting from a force of one newton applied perpendicularly to the end of a moment arm that is one metre long. It is also used less commonly as a unit of work, or energy, in which case it is equivalent to the more common and standard SI unit of energy, the joule.

You don't seem to have grasped the underlying consequence of h, namely that the energy of all quanta in the universe (i.e the energy of everything in the universe) is derived from the same amount of action (6.62607004 × 10-34 joules times seconds).

As a corollary to this, the energy of all quanta in the universe is tied to a particular value of time. In a computer program Energy E would be best described as a read-only variable with value h/t. It is, IMHO, extremely like the universe does something similar i.e. a quantum of energy would "contain" only the amount of time used to create it (or maybe it is just pure time i.e. a quantum of time ?). 

It seems to me that power, not energy, is what drives the universe. You need a time component in every interaction.
.

[alancalverd]

You don't seem to have grasped the underlying consequence of h, namely that the energy of all quanta in the universe (i.e the energy of everything in the universe) is derived from the same amount of action (6.62607004 × 10-34 joules times seconds).

No it isn't. The energy of a photon is hf. That is all that Planck said, and all than anyone who understands simple equations understands by that statement. And to nobody's surprise, since all photons are electromagnetic radiation, i.e. the same stuff, it's hardly surprising that h is a universal constant.

The energy of a tank of diesel fuel is E = dv where v is the volume of fuel and d is a fairly universal constant with the value 3.6 x 10⁷ joules per liter. What is the "consequence" of d? Does it apply to all substances in the universe? 

£ = r$. It doesn't matter how many dollars you have in  your pocket, I can calculate exactly how many pounds you can spend in my shop, anywhere in the universe, because the exchange rate r (pounds per dollar) is a universal constant (at least for any given day!). But what, I hear you ask, is the philosophical meaning of "pounds per dollar"?  Surely we should simplify it by expressing R in pounds, which everyone understands.....and so ad nauseam.

Just to add to your confusion, if you tighten a bolt to n newton-meters, that is indeed a measure of the energy expended in altering the dimensions of the bolt. Most of it has gone into producing a permanent deformation, or heat, but some can in principle be recovered from the rotational elasticity of the bolt. A clock spring uses the same principle but is optimised to minimise heat and deformation losses so most of the mechanical potential energy can be recovered as useful kinetic energy.     

[mxplxxx (OP)]

You don't seem to have grasped the underlying consequence of h, namely that the energy of all quanta in the universe (i.e the energy of everything in the universe) is derived from the same amount of action (6.62607004 × 10-34 joules times seconds).

No it isn't. The energy of a photon is hf. That is all that Planck said, and all than anyone who understands simple equations understands by that statement. And to nobody's surprise, since all photons are electromagnetic radiation, i.e. the same stuff, it's hardly surprising that h is a universal constant.

The energy of a tank of diesel fuel is E = dv where v is the volume of fuel and d is a fairly universal constant with the value 3.6 x 10⁷ joules per liter. What is the "consequence" of d? Does it apply to all substances in the universe? 

£ = r$. It doesn't matter how many dollars you have in  your pocket, I can calculate exactly how many pounds you can spend in my shop, anywhere in the universe, because the exchange rate r (pounds per dollar) is a universal constant (at least for any given day!). But what, I hear you ask, is the philosophical meaning of "pounds per dollar"?  Surely we should simplify it by expressing R in pounds, which everyone understands.....and so ad nauseam.

Just to add to your confusion, if you tighten a bolt to n newton-meters, that is indeed a measure of the energy expended in altering the dimensions of the bolt. Most of it has gone into producing a permanent deformation, or heat, but some can in principle be recovered from the rotational elasticity of the bolt. A clock spring uses the same principle but is optimised to minimise heat and deformation losses so most of the mechanical potential energy can be recovered as useful kinetic energy.     

Most equations in physics are best understood with a knowledge of the underlying theory. h is not just a constant, it is a constant of action with units joules times time. For the history of h, see https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Plancks-constant-called-quantum-of-action. If you don't think what I am saying makes sense, try criticizing what I am actually saying rather than supplying your alternative understanding.

[alancalverd]

The underlying theory is that the black body spectrum can be derived from Planck's hypothesis that

  a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that contained black body radiation could only change its energy in a minimal increment, E, that was proportional to the frequency of its associated electromagnetic wave.

The constant of proportionality obviously has to have the dimensions of energy x time. h is not a "quantum of action" - the phrase is meaningless - but a constant with the dimensions of action.

[Bored chemist]

It seems to me that power, not energy, is what drives the universe.

It does not seem that way to anyone else.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The constant of proportionality obviously has to have the dimensions of energy x time. h is not a "quantum of action" - the phrase is meaningless - but a constant with the dimensions of action.

I am pretty sure all quanta "contain" the same constant amount of action - h. Hence h is , quite reasonably, often referred to as the Quantum of Action (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant).

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Quote
  a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that contained black body radiation could only change its energy in a minimal increment, E, that was proportional to the frequency of its associated electromagnetic wave.

Mumbo jumbo. No h in this either.

[alancalverd]

The use of "contain" in inverted commas implies that you don't understand your own question, so I won't attempt to answer it. But you would be well advised to read the Wikipedia reference you gave: every word is significant, especially the one you left out.

Probably not a good idea to dismiss Planck's hypothesis as mumbo jumbo, since it explained the black body spectrum completely, predicted a whole lot of other experimental results, and nobody has produced a better one. A few sentences later, he gave the constant of proportionality the symbol h.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The use of "contain" in inverted commas implies that you don't understand your own question

"contain" in inverted commas means nobody knows how a photon processes energy.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

But you would be well advised to read the Wikipedia reference you gave: every word is significant, especially the one you left out.

I left out electromagnetic because it is now well know that quanta are present in all particles, not only electromagnetic waves.  I repeat,  "Quantum of Action" is often used in physics to denote h (e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjh/e2017-80041-1)

[alancalverd]

Adding drivel to, and subtracting essential words from, standard texts will not help you understand physics.

The difference between a teacher and an educationalist is that a teacher takes a subject he understands, and explains it in a way that his pupil can understand. An educationalist takes a subject he doesn't understand, and cloaks it in mystery and jargon that nobody can understand. Beware of becoming an educationalist in your own sphere of interest.

How sad that the Journal of European Physics still publishes articles on the Bohr atom, and is so slack in its editing. Please set your watch back 100 years. 

[alancalverd]

If h is in joules and E is in  joules, then f has no dimension, which is nonsense.

Can you explain y our statement?

I really think you should study dimensional analysis before confusing yourself any further. Ten minutes of humility will change your life irrevocably and for the better.

[Bored chemist]

Energy is commonly measured in joules, and according to Wiki is sometimes measured in Newton Metres.

One newton metre is equal to the torque resulting from a force of one newton applied perpendicularly to the end of a moment arm that is one metre long. It is also used less commonly as a unit of work, or energy, in which case it is equivalent to the more common and standard SI unit of energy, the joule

Yes, obviously. We all knew that. You wasted time  and bandwidth by posting it

Do you understand that torque and energy have the same units (as it happens, the unit is the kilogram metre per second per second)?

Do you understand that torque and energy  are not the same thing?

Do you understand that action and planck's constant have the same units?

Do you understand that action and planck's constant are not the same thing?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

i.e. the energy of all photons derives from the same Action h (which, incidentally,  makes Action a more fundamental value than Energy and also introduces the possibility that time is the only variable in the universe with time acting on a single value of h to produce all the variations in energy/power we experience in the universe!).

It is interesting that I cannot find an example of a photon transferring  energy to another particle. I can find plenty of examples where the momentum of a particle is changed in an interaction with a photon.  This is despite the fact that a photon has no mass and therefore no momentum (yes I know this is controversial). What if a photon transfers time (i.e. time as in E=h/t) to the particle it interacts with, thus increasing its velocity and hence its momentum? Is this what happens in practice?

[Kryptid]

yes I know this is controversial

It's not controversial. We know for a fact that electromagnetic radiation has momentum: