Sure, just one you say? In Ch. 2 §1 Mortenson, MD tries to derive the "mean energy per oscillation".
She refers to the dimensionless scalar "N" as the number of "waves" the photon is comprised of.
Not only doesn't that make any sense whatsoever, since a photon can only have a single frequency, and is hence described by a single wave. She also introduces a "unit" that doesn't exist - namely the "osc" (=oscillation), which is DIMENSIONLESS, i.e. it's doesn't have a physical representation and therefore cannot be unit...
She then continues to fail to apply the most basic dimensional analysis and I basically stopped right there.
It's a bunch of hogwash and esoteric pseudo-science, sorry.
The current interpretation of E=hf is what suggests that a photon is the elementary particle of light, and that a photon can only have a single frequency so I dont think that is a fair critique. She is trying to point out that E=hf and the current interpretation is wrong and is not assuming it's true in her analysis.
> DIMENSIONLESS
Although this is an aside to your point, can I hear your thoughts on using the dimensionless fine structure constant in equations?
Following your reasoning are we not allowed to use radians (an SI unit) in equations either?
> She is trying to point out that E=hf and the current interpretation is wrong and is not assuming it's true in her analysis.
If you want to prove an equation wrong, you cannot use it as a starting point. Let me show you the fundamental error she makes in detail:
E=hf
Dimensional analysis: J=J * s * s^-1=J * s / s=J * 1=J
So the original checks out ok.
The paper tries to argue that Js is the wrong unit for h and replaces the "1" from above with bogus "oscillations", which are never defined. The proper inverse of frequency is not "oscillations", however, it's period (singular!), which is measured in seconds.
Dividing by "oscillations" gives you the same unit you started with and changes nothing. This is independent of your interpretation of what a photon is. Since she also never specifies the relationship between "oscillations" and wavelength, I wonder how E=hc/λ follows, let alone the de Broglie wavelength...
> can I hear your thoughts on using the dimensionless fine structure constant in equations?
Using the fine structure constant in equations is equivalent to using pi in equations. Proportionality factors exist in nature.
Sure, just one you say? In Ch. 2 §1 Mortenson, MD tries to derive the "mean energy per oscillation". She refers to the dimensionless scalar "N" as the number of "waves" the photon is comprised of.
Not only doesn't that make any sense whatsoever, since a photon can only have a single frequency, and is hence described by a single wave. She also introduces a "unit" that doesn't exist - namely the "osc" (=oscillation), which is DIMENSIONLESS, i.e. it's doesn't have a physical representation and therefore cannot be unit...
She then continues to fail to apply the most basic dimensional analysis and I basically stopped right there.
It's a bunch of hogwash and esoteric pseudo-science, sorry.