Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #599073

Re: h-bar is h over twice pi

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/1/2016 2:30 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום שישי, 30 בספטמבר 2016 בשעה 19:30:10 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
>> On 9/30/2016 11:05 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
>>> why h bar??
>>>
>>> just h as Planck used it !!
>>> why complicate simple things
>>> in his famous experiments he defined h
>>> as the slope of a slope of an experimental results of
>>> energy versus frequency
>>> just as simple as that
>>> may be even he immediately
>>> didn't  understand/thought  that that h has a physics known meaning
>>> it looked at first place as  some
>>>  just mathematical coefficient
>>>
>>> TIA
>>> Y.Porat
>>> ========================
>>
>> Just a couple of comments.
>>
>> 1.Planck did not perform any experiments here. He was a theorist, trying
>> to explain data taken by other physicists.
> ==========================
> who are those physicist "
> or else you are mumblimg !!
> and  why h f is related to Planck ??
> ---
>
>
>>
>> 2. Planck did not plot E vs f and call the slope h. That wasn't he point
>> of his exercise at all. What he was doing was considering the
>> distribution of energy emitted by oscillators of frequency f. It had
>> been assumed up until that point that light could come in ANY amount of
>> e
>
>
> eregy
> ========================================
> so
> what is new in it
> i discovered And proved that h f
> is not the formula for the smallest amount of
> the real single  photon energy !!
> remember ??!!
> ==================
>
>
>  from the oscillator (much like you do), and this continuum of
>> energies led to a distribution of frequencies from a blackbody that
>> didn't match measurements. What Planck proposed instead is that the
>> amount of energy radiated by the oscillators is in fact not continuous
>> but in smallest increments of hf.
> ----
> so ??
> h f is not the formula for net photon energy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not going to argue with you about what E=hf means. I've already 
answered your three questions definitively.

My comment above was simply that you have royally fucked up the history 
of Planck's contribution, both his role and his intent. It's plain that 
your story about what he did is something you made up, and I corrected 
what you made up and supplied the facts, which you should have looked up 
before opening your mouth.

> indeed
> did I say anything else ??
> quite the opposite
> as I Sayed  above
>
> the smallest photon energy is
> E min = h f times n
> while
> 0 > n <<<<1.000  !!
> and you opposed it  !!!!
> later I equated that n to
>
> THE ***SCALR  PART*** OF PLANCK CONSTANT
> about
> exp -34 !!!
> and got the smallest photon energy !!!
> and further by dividing it by c^2
> got
> the mass of the smallest/single  photon
> to be about
> exp - 90 kilogram !!!!!!!!
> the   only kilogram !!!!!
> ----
> not relativistic and not schmelativistic !!
> remember??
> --
> it is all recorded in Google physics
> many   years ago !!!
>
> Y.Porat
> =============================
>
>
>>
>> http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Planck%20(1900),%20Distribution%20Law.pdf
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

THE PHOTON HAS - NO MORE, NOT  LESS ENERGY -THAN  E=h f - WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ??!! poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 16:47 -0700
  Re: THE PHOTON HAS - NO MORE, NOT  LESS ENERGY -THAN  E=h f - WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ??!! "Sam Smith" <moderator@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 07:16 -0700
  h-bar is h over twice pi noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 11:04 -0700
    Re: h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-09-30 09:05 -0700
      Re: h-bar is h over twice pi Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 11:30 -0500
        ask why not, why noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 13:45 -0700
          Re: ask why not, why Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 09:52 +0200
            Re: ask why not, why poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 01:52 -0700
              Re: ask why not, why Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 11:03 +0200
                Re: ask why not, why poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 03:21 -0700
                Re: ask why not, why Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:49 +0200
                Re: ask why not, why noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 13:42 -0700
                Re: ask why not, why Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 22:55 +0200
                Re: ask why not, why rbrteline@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 13:11 -0700
        Re: h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 00:30 -0700
          Re: h-bar is h over twice pi Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
            Re: h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 00:50 -0700
              Re: h-bar is h over twice pi Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 07:31 -0500
                Re: h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 09:05 -0700
                Re: h-bar is h over twice pi Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:56 -0500
                Re: h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-06 11:11 -0700
                Re: h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-06 23:02 -0700
              (where is, isn't equality?)  h-bar is h over twice pi noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 10:41 -0700
                Re: (where is, isn't equality?)  h-bar is h over twice pi poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-10-05 23:33 -0700

csiph-web