Planck's Constant Related to Velocity of Light?

LarryS
Gold Member
357
33
A few of the formulas that I have seen for calculating Planck's constant involve, amoung other things, dividing by the velocity of light. It appears as though the finiteness of the velocity of light and that Planck's constant is not zero are related. This would imply that QM and Special Relativity are related at a fundamental level. Comments? Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
referframe said:
A few of the formulas that I have seen for calculating Planck's constant involve, amoung other things, dividing by the velocity of light.

Can you give an example or two?
 
Please see the attached PDF file describing how to measure and compute Planck's constant, h, from LED's. Does not this imply that h and c are inversely related?
 

Attachments

referframe said:
Please see the attached PDF file describing how to measure and compute Planck's constant, h, from LED's. Does not this imply that h and c are inversely related?

no, they are independent fundamental constants.
 
referframe said:
Please see the attached PDF file describing how to measure and compute Planck's constant, h, from LED's. Does not this imply that h and c are inversely related?

In the document, it is given that slope = hc/e.Then using slope,c and e we can find h.
My question is,for finding the slope itself we have to use h first.

Both h and c are just constants. we have so many equations in physics having constants in it. that doesn't mean constants are inter related or inter dependent? They don't change. That's why they are constants unless we change units.
 
The only reason c is in that equation is because in this experiment we use the wavelength of the light in the calculation, rather than its frequency. If we started out knowing or measuring the frequency of the light instead, c wouldn't appear in the calculation.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top