[hamdani yusuf]

E = hf is Planck's definition of h. How can that be controversial?

Planck's quantization of energy has a mathematical implication in relationship with Planck's law.
The minimum non-zero energy implies Emin/hf=1.
2f.f/{c.c.e^[hf/(kB.T)] -1} = 1
In the equation above, the only variables are frequency and temperature. Which means for every value of temperature, there is a corresponding frequency.

I can no longer use ASCII symbols in my post. Does anyone experience the same problem?

[Bored chemist]

E = hf is Planck's definition of h. How can that be controversial?

Ask a flat earther.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

E = hf is Planck's definition of h. How can that be controversial?

Planck's quantization of energy has a mathematical implication in relationship with Planck's law.
The minimum non-zero energy implies Emin/hf=1.
2f.f/{c.c.e^[hf/(kB.T)] -1} = 1
In the equation above, the only variables are frequency and temperature. Which means for every value of temperature, there is a corresponding frequency.

You are asking me a question about a post on 24/1/2019 by alancalverd. You then start by e=hf and end up with 2f.f/{c.c.e^[hf/(kB.T)] -1} = 1

Do I have to be a maths genius to understand this? The post is unintelligible (at least to me).

Actually, Naked Scientists, I am pretty certain you are being taken for a ride by the author of the above post.  He seems to be a pseudo-intellectual posting garbage.

[Bored chemist]

Do I have to be a maths genius to understand this?

No.

[hamdani yusuf]

The post is unintelligible (at least to me).

You can start by Planck's formula which you can find in Wikipedia. Divide both sides by hf.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The post is unintelligible (at least to me).

You can start by Planck's formula which you can find in Wikipedia. Divide both sides by hf.

I suggest you attend a course in clear expression. Your posts are much too complex. The ability to simplify complex logic is top of the list of desirable attributes for software developers. Maybe should be the same for physicists.

[Bored chemist]

The post is unintelligible (at least to me).

You can start by Planck's formula which you can find in Wikipedia. Divide both sides by hf.

I suggest you attend a course in clear expression; if you have it to think logically and rationally. The few posts of yours that I have read to date lead me to believe you are one sandwich short of a picnic.

You are the only one who is complaining that you don't understand what he said.
This suggests that the problem does not lie in his writing...

[hamdani yusuf]

The post is unintelligible (at least to me).

You can start by Planck's formula which you can find in Wikipedia. Divide both sides by hf.

B(f,T) = 2hf³/(c².(e^(hf/kT)-1))
Minimum radiation energy = E_min = hf
Substitute B(f,T) with E_min and combine both equations.
1 = 2f²/(c².(e^(hf/kT)-1))

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

I can no longer use ASCII symbols in my post. Does anyone experience the same problem?

   See this thread:    https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86297.msg704606#msg704606

I'm getting lots of problems with the forum,  especially getting mathematical notation.

Best Wishes.

[Bored chemist]

What happens when I type alt 123?
{
Alt 64 gives me
@

ASCII seems to be working for me.
What happens when I post it?

[Bored chemist]

So, what does this mean in plain English?

Is this the bit you don't understand?

You can start by Planck's formula which you can find in Wikipedia.

[Bored chemist]

Please be so kind as to elucidate me.

No.
You are beyond comprehension.
But I might be able to elucidate the problem.

How far have you got?
Do you understand what Wikipedia is?
Have you looked for Planck's formula(e) in it?
Did you find this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

[Bored chemist]

I am supposedly talking to experts. Who tell me to look at Wikipedia rather than telling me about e=hf. Give me the benefit of your expert knowledge or stop wasting my time.

BTW E=hf is discussed extensively by me in this topic. If you give me a lucid explanation of it, I will be truly amazed.

If you can't be bothered to read an explanation on Wiki, there's no reason to suppose that you will read it if we write an explanation here.


What difference does it make if you read it here or on wiki?

stop wasting my time.

If you can't understand what we or wiki write, then I'm sorry but you are wasting your time.
You just aren't cut out for science.

[Bored chemist]

I have read everything I can get my hands on on social media re e=hf.

Try reading the wiki article instead.

As far as I can see, there is no physicist, living or dead, who has a lucid explanation of what it means. This is a big chance for you to demonstrate your expertise. Promise I will read your explanation if you are game to post it

You say that you can't find an explanation that makes sense to you.
I know I'm not a miraculously good teacher.
So there's no chance of my being able to explain it to you when everyone else has failed.

If everyone else can't explain it to you, I might as well try to explain it to next door's cat.

[Bored chemist]

PS I did mention that the current topic has a lot to do with e=hf. Did you miss this?

No. But you kept on missing the point.
As Alan summed it up

Your handling of mathematical symbols is impeccable, but has nothing to do with photon physics.

And I did try to explain why you were so gravely wrong.

E = hf
P = E/t
t = 1/f
P = Ef

QED?

No
Because you are using  "t" for two different things.
One is the time period over which energy is transferred, and the other is the time between successive peaks in the em field of the photon.

It's like muddling up the reciprocal of the frequency of a car radio  and time take to get from one town to the next.

[Bored chemist]

How would you know what the point is if you can't explain e=hf?

You have leapt to a false conclusion.
It's not that I can't explain it.
The problem seems to be that you can't understand it.
Plenty of people have put forward explanations.
You say you have read them.
One more guy adding an explanation isn't going to fix that.

You seem not to recognise that the problem isn't with me, wiki, social media or physics.
The problem is you can't understand e=hf.

Is it that you don't understand energy or frequency or do you struggle with the idea that there's a  constant of proportionality?

[Bored chemist]

But you are a self-confessed bad explainer.

I "confessed" to not being a miracle worker.
You then lied about what I had said.

Are you saying that everyone on the internet who has sought to explain it is a "bad explainer", or do you realise that maybe you just aren't good at understanding explanations?

[Bored chemist]

How could I have lied when I just repeated what you said

You did not repeat what I said.
You said "you are a self-confessed bad explainer.". And that is obviously different from what I said.
You lied.
(Twice now).

Analysing something like e=hf comes easy.

Problem solved then.
You already understand it.

[Bored chemist]

(ps beware of defamation)

Was that meant to be irony?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

You say that you can't find an explanation that makes sense to you.
I know I'm not a miraculously good teacher.

So you can't explain it to me, or maybe you just don't know.