Tuesday, 3 November 2015

quantum mechanics - What is the point of the reduced Planck's constant $hbar$ (h-bar)? - Why don't we just have Planck's Constant $h$?



I know that $\hbar$ is $h / 2\pi$ - and that $h$ is the Planck Constant ($6.62606957 × 10^{-34}\:\rm J\:s$). But why don't we just use $h$ - is it that $\hbar$ is used in angular momentum calculations?



Answer



Perhaps some additional information is in order to shed additional light...


The whole discussion begs the question: If $\hbar$ is so convenient, why do we have $h$ around?


As usual, "historical reasons".


Planck originally invented $h$ as a proportionality constant. The problem he was solving was blackbody radiation, for which the experimental data came from spectroscopy people. And spectroscopy people used $\nu$ (for frequency, for that or wavelengths were what they measured). So the data was tabulated in frequency. So, when he formulated his postulate, he used $E = nh\nu$ for his quantization.


In modern theory, we prefer working with $\omega$ rather than $\nu$, because it is annoying to write $\sin (2\pi\nu t)$ rather that $\sin (\omega t)$. With angular frequencies, the quantization postulate becomes:


$E = n \frac{h}{2 \pi} \omega$


Now life sucks. So we invented the shorthand:


$E = n \hbar \omega$



We are happy (almost) everywhere. If Planck had spectroscopy data in $\omega$, we probably would not have a bar on the $h$ now...


No comments:

Post a Comment

Understanding Stagnation point in pitot fluid

What is stagnation point in fluid mechanics. At the open end of the pitot tube the velocity of the fluid becomes zero.But that should result...