The Quantum Flaw - The Single Photon Definition is WRONG!

Learn the problems with E=hv (or E=hf), the problem with the unit of Joule Second for Planck's Constant, and the problem with the concept of the Photon based on Einstein's Photoelectric Effect paper from 1905. Learning from these problems leads to an understanding of Wave-Particle unification, quantum energy of light, quantum mass of light, and quantum momentum of light.

#science #physics #quantum

0:00 Introduction
2:24 The One Second Equation
14:12 The Unbalanced Equation
23:24 Planck's Constant & Blackbody Radiation
31:40 Einstein & Photon
35:19 Photoelectric Effect
39:11 Then, what is h?
44:42 Light has mass
47:23 Light has momentum
49:34 High Energy PER SECOND Physics
53:23 How small is h?
54:34 What is a single photon?
56:32 Credits and More Resources

Links in the video:

Max Planck (1901) - Blackbody Radiation:

Max Planck (1900) - Blackbody Radiation:

Albert Einstein (1905) - Photoelectric Effect (Photon)

Dr. Julianna Brooks Mortenson:

Lori-anne Gardi:

[MikeLevin]

E = hv is an expression that relates the energy and frequency (or wavelength) of any quantum entity, whether it is a photon or an electron or anything else. It does not imply that cycles are a unit of measurement for frequency or wavelength. It simply means that there is a constant proportionality factor h between these quantities.

[MikeLevin]

The issue discussed here is about units and dimensions in physics. Units are symbols that represent physical quantities such as length, time, mass, energy, etc. Dimensions are categories that classify units according to their nature and relation to other units.

For example, length has dimension L (length), time has dimension T (time), mass has dimension M (mass), energy has dimension ML²/T² (mass times length squared over time squared), etc.

Units and dimensions are important for physics because they help us describe reality using mathematical models that match experimental observations. They also help us ensure that our equations are balanced and consistent with physical laws.

However, some people may try to ignore or misuse units and dimensions in their calculations. They may think that units are just labels that can be dropped or manipulated without affecting the results. They may think that dimensions are just conventions that can be ignored or changed without affecting the meaning.

They may use arguments based on misapplied axioms or rules of mathematics to justify their mistakes. For example, they may use the axiom of cancellation which says that if a/b = c/d then ad = bc for any nonzero numbers a, b, c, d.

They may apply this axiom to physical quantities with units and dimensions without considering their compatibility. For example, they may try to drop seconds from both sides of Planck's equation:

E = hv

where E is energy in joules (J), h is Planck's constant in joule seconds (J s), v is frequency in hertz (/s) and s is seconds.

They may think that since J/s = J s /s² then they can cancel out s on both sides and get:

E/s = hv/s

This equation seems to show that energy per second equals frequency times Planck's constant. It looks like a valid application of the axiom of cancellation.

But it is not. It is a false conclusion based on a false premise. The premise is that J/s = J s /s² which is not true because J/s and J s /s² have different dimensions.

J/s has dimension M/T (mass over time) while J s /s² has dimension ML²/T³ (mass times length squared over time cubed). They are incompatible quantities that cannot be equated or cancelled out.

The correct way to balance Planck's equation with respect to units and dimensions is to use angular frequency instead of frequency:

ω = 2πv

where ω is angular frequency in radians per second (rad/s), v is frequency in hertz (/s) and π is pi constant.

Then we can multiply Planck's constant by angular frequency to get energy:

E = hω

where E is energy in joules (J), h is Planck's constant in joule seconds (J s) and ω is angular frequency in radians per second (rad/s).

This equation shows that energy equals Planck's constant times angular frequency. It preserves the units and dimensions on both sides.

This issue shows us how important it is to pay attention to units and dimensions when doing physics calculations. We cannot ignore or misuse them because they represent physical reality. We cannot drop or manipulate them without affecting the results or meaning.

We also need to be careful about applying axioms or rules of mathematics blindly without considering their applicability or validity for physical quantities with units and dimensions. We need to check if our premises are true before drawing conclusions from them.

We need to beware of deceptively difficult arguments that may seem logical at first glance but actually contain hidden flaws or fallacies based on misapplied axioms or rules. We need to avoid creating blind spots by relying on our intuition or assumptions without verifying them with facts or evidence. Not just by reading Planck's paper.

[vedwards]

Dude you’re so right!!! And you’ve heard of Eric Dollard!!! Right on!!!

[ColeWimpee]

Props to the clarity, pacing, and thorough analysis articulated in this tutorial video.

[jacobnsammy]

You interpret cycles*s^-1 as cycles in 1 second and joules*cycle as joules in 1 cycle. How's that supposed to make sense?

[jimwilson]

I think some people here have been very kind to you in trying to explain your basic mistakes.
I am not that kind, you are deliberately spreading misinformation.
I suggest you take a class in basic mathematics, starting with the concept of units and how they are used.

[christ]

Is the equation unbalanced though?

In the screenshot shared for the frequency wiki page, you can see that the dimension of frequency is T^(-1), or 1/s.

If you scroll down to the section on wave propagation on the frequency wiki page, it says that f=v/lambda, or frequency = (phase velocity)/wavelength. Using dimensional analysis if v = nm / s and lambda = nm, f = (nm/s) / nm -> f = (nm/s) * (1/nm) -> f = 1/s. This matches with the dimension given on the wiki page for frequency.

Cycles aren't thrown out, they cancel out mathematically.

Substituting f=1/s for nu, you get E = hv -> E = hf -> J * (s/1) * (1/s) -> J = (1/1) J.

It's balanced. The equation is balanced.

Also, in wave space p (momentum) is modeled as p = v * (E/c^2). Despite how you the reader might feel about the constant c, momentum is modeled without mass. In other words, in the wave space, it doesn't matter what the mass is. Things without mass can and do have momentum.

Think of water waves. Yeah, they're mechanical waves but hear me out. The wave isn't pushing water molecules in an x direction, only a y direction proportional to the amplitude at that x point. The wave is massless, only the water molecules have mass. But waves can wash things ashore (push things in an x direction). This indicates that the wave (massless) has momentum that the water molecules (which have mass) do not.

[psilocyberspaceman]

You can verify that the equation is balanced if you substitute f with c/λ. Then you get E=h⋅c/λ.

E = J
h = J⋅s
c = m/s
h⋅c = J⋅m
λ = m

Thus, J = (J⋅m)/m = J

[JohnRankinFunGuy]

cycles are a dimensionless number like for example 2. Therefore dimensional analysis gives joule = joule for E = hf. Did you learn basic High School Physics?

[numbynumb]

Thank you very much for presenting these insights in a clear and even handed way. You're doing a great job with this channel. Keep it up!

[ojima]

In your "One Second" section, you make it appear as if "the second" is some almighty, universal constant that is used in physics to determine time, but it's just a unit of reference. You claim that since (I paraphrase) "the number of cycles needs to fit inside a second, Planck's constant can only be defined relative to the second", but that is simply not true - because physics works *regardless* of which base units you are using (why else would we be able to use different systems of measurement, for example cgs, Planck units, etc. if they would "break physics" this way?).
You mistakenly claim at 10:25 that the amount of energy of a photon is "captured" in the individual "cycles" of the photon over the course of one second, but again, that is simply not true. By analogy, oceanic waves are also waves, and thus, they inhibit the same wave properties as photons. By your claim, if waves can only exist with an integer number of cycles per second, it would be impossible for a wave to ever have say, a frequency of 2, 5 Hz, because they can't possibly have "half a cycle" over one second. But in physics, there is no hard meaning to the duration of the second - it's an arbitrary reference point people agreed on to use as a base unit.
In your example at 9:00, where you asked "what happens when I measure this 4 Hz frequency over only half a second?" you get exactly what physics expected - 2 events over 0, 5 seconds has a rate of 2 / 0, 5 = 4 Hz! It doesn't matter over how long you measure, because if you convert it to the same system of measurement you get the same units again.

Later in your "Unbalanced Equation" section, you abuse this incorrect interpretation of units to call the Einstein-Planck equation an "unbalanced equation" by claiming that physicists for some inexplicable, malicious reason swept the "cycles" unit under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist, but the fact is that there is a good reason why it is ignored. The cycles unit is merely a count of the number of events happening - it's a number, and thus dimensionless. This is shown when you pull up the wikipedia page around 21:22, where it (correctly) says that the dimensionality of frequency is T^-1 (inverse time).
If you had done proper dimensional analysis, you would indeed have reproduced that the dimensionality of E is [Energy], the dimensionality of Planck's constant is [Energy * Time] and the dimensionality of frequency is [Time^-1] - since "cycles" is a dimensionless quantity it doesn't add to the dimensionality of frequency. Thus we see that E = h f reproduces the correct balanced dimensionality [Energy] = [Energy * Time * Time^-1] = [Energy]. Perfectly balanced, as it should be.

[mesokosmos]

Cudos for clear articulation, and bringing up the original sources. One could argue against the deductions but we should really think how to think from basics up to more difficult levels of theories and try to keep feet firmly and continuously on the ground at that process.

You may not convince enough with dimensional analysis only. Got to get more flesh around the sceleton. Namely, what are the consequences and most important, how would you measure anything to support this Interpretation? If there is no difference on that side, usually the established models win, even if they were more clumsy, ugly, complex than alternatives. You know this from paradigm changes, how they work...

[numbynumb]

What about the scientists who claim to have devices which can emit single photons? What definition of photon are they using in that context?

The papers describing those experiments seem sketchy to me. I'm never quite certain that they're describing a physical experiment and not an elaborate thought experiment because they provide so little detail about overcoming the difficulties inherent in reliably generating and measuring such infinitesimal quantities. It almost seems like they're purposely de-emphasizing the physical aspect.

[pendaranroberts]

This is very interesting. Keep making videos like this! I've always suspected that relativity and QM were bunk, because they didn't make any sense. In order to think we must accept that if P is true, then P makes sense. This is because we must accept that if P doesn't make sense, then P is false.

[FractalWoman]

Hey, I just noticed the email you sent me where you made this public. I am going to mention it in the Community section of my YouTube channel to try to get you more views. As I told you before, you did a really good job making this video and I hope you keep going with this line of thinking. The more people that are talking about this, the better.

[D_]

have you calculated this using rate of inductance instead of momentum?

[MelekDMOM]

I've watched all your videos and am still rewatching most of them to properly absorb the all the complexity. Unfortunately, you don't have as many videos on quantum physics as other channels engaged in this topic. Why did you stop? Your UFO videos may be interesting but why did you stop doing videos debunking misconceptions in quantum physics?

[vedwards]

Bro check this, if light were a particle, you could reflect it back and forth between two mirrors and cut off the light source and you would still have some light “particles” bouncing back and forth.

But in reality when you cut the light source like a laser you immediately get darkness therefore showing that light is not a particle.

[declandux]

The lack of an explicit time component in the equation E = hν doesn't mean that time is "hardcoded" to one second; rather, the concept of time is intrinsic to the definition of frequency itself but does not directly influence the energy calculation per photon. Multiplying hv by a time component would imply that the photon's energy accumulates or changes over time, which is not correct. The photon's energy is fixed and does not vary with time; it is solely dependent on its frequency.

In short, E = hv reflects the fact that the energy value given by the equation is inherent to each photon based on its frequency, independent of the duration of observation or the time period over which it exists.

[gooseninja]

Would we be able to bring in standard electrical theory equations? With ac power we are able to calculate energy along the sine curve within one cycle. Peak power, RMS power etc...

Great video, wonderful insights.