Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

neuromat0n t1_jcqu1kn wrote

Reply to comment by Greyswandir in What decides which wavelength to reflect and which one to be absorbed in an object? by TheSimpleHumans

> In other words, different wavelengths of light have different energies.

Is that only because shorter wavelengths lead to more oscillations per time, thus more kinetic energy in the affected charge? Or is there another reason for higher frequency light containing more energy?

1

Greyswandir t1_jcqy10v wrote

Ok, it’s been a while since it took physics so if I’m wrong someone can correct me:

No, moving charge doesn’t have kinetic energy because it has no mass. The link between photon frequency and energy is called the Planck Relation.

1

neuromat0n t1_jcr22ep wrote

> No, moving charge doesn’t have kinetic energy because it has no mass.

I dont think there is a charge that has no mass. Light is not considered having a charge, protons and electrons are, and those have mass. Maybe I should have said 'charged particle' but it should be synonymous. Your link unfortunately does not answer the question.

1

Greyswandir t1_jcr96h8 wrote

Sorry, brain fart above and I typed the wrong thing: I means that a photon does not have kinetic energy because a photon has no mass.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge can jump in, but I don’t know that there’s an intuitive reason why Planck’s Relation is true. I think it’s a relationship derived from the Schrödinger Equation and Einstein’s work on relativity and then extensively measured and confirmed since then.

1