Recent content by QuantumCuriosity42

These two newly released videos (today) are the best I've ever seen on the topic. In the first video he ignores any other light pulse and goes with a monochromatic one without taking into account any other or explaining why. But yeah, at the end of the second video she says we still don't...

This is the best explanation I found to my question as of yet, I don't know if it is correct or if it can be improved. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/716271/why-do-we-hear-frequencies-in-the-basis-of-sine-waves?rq=1 I want an explanation like that, but for E=h*f (and light colors)...

Ok, then that is set. And could you tell me where can I find the derivation of Planck law you told me before?

I want a periodic and orthogonal basis, because if the only one satisfying both conditions are sine/cosine then that would explain why they are the fundamental frequencies.

Could you point me to the derivation please?

Does anyone know what is the other derivation "using different reasoning from the reasoning Placnk originally used" that he mentions on that screenshot?

Mathie functions are not periodic. I think Jacobi elliptic functions are not orthogonal.

So the only other basis of periodic functions apart from sines/cosines, are walsh functions? Wavelets are generic waves I think.

What do you mean by: "No periodic function case and continuity of base were already considered."? I think that as of yet nobody told another valid basis of periodic orthogonal functions with different frequencies. And what do you mean by: "If we need another parameter for quantization, it is the...

Thank you so much! Your post was insightful. (At least if Schrodinger equation was derived without supposing the premise you arrive at using it for a state of constant energy. If not it would be underwhelming.) But then, what really means an "state of constant energy"? Is that a photon? Also...

The descriptions we choose are not the descriptions we choose. The descriptions we choose are true descriptions, if not they are discarded. I already saw your comment and the Feynman On Why video like I told you previously, but I think that is unrelated to my question. In fact right now I am...

I will receive and answer when someone that knows the answer writes it. If you don't know it I don't think how your comment helps. I think you should also pursue the answer. Or make constructive criticism if my question is somewhat an unanswerable question.

Thanks, is there a proof that it is the only solution anywhere? Also, is it the same problem as the one I said in #109? Is e^+-ikx the only plane-wave solution for the wave equation?

I am not against having chosen that. I am asking if there are more basis to choose, and why the phenomena I listed is related to that frequency and not the frequency of other basis. As simply as that. I have a feeling photons don't really exist and we defined them as to have the relation E=hf...

Thanks, but I already saw that video multiple times. And I keep believing that there is an answer to my question (it is well specified, and on the framework of physics and math (in reference to what he says in that video)), even if only few people know it.