Question: What factor of the initial light source does the energy of the photoelectrons depend on?

Answer: frequency

The "photoelectrons" emitted as a result of the photoelectric effect have a certain kinetic energy, which can be measured. <hl> This kinetic energy (for each photoelectron) is independent of the intensity of the light, but depends linearly on the frequency ; and if the frequency is too low (corresponding to a photon energy that is less than the work function of the material), no photoelectrons are emitted at all, unless a plurality of photons, whose energetic sum is greater than the energy of the photoelectrons, acts virtually simultaneously (multiphoton effect) <hl> Assuming the frequency is high enough to cause the photoelectric effect, a rise in intensity of the light source causes more photoelectrons to be emitted with the same kinetic energy, rather than the same number of photoelectrons to be emitted with higher kinetic energy.

The "photoelectrons" emitted as a result of the photoelectric effect have a certain kinetic energy, which can be measured. This kinetic energy (for each photoelectron) is independent of the intensity of the light, but depends linearly on the <hl> frequency <hl>; and if the frequency is too low (corresponding to a photon energy that is less than the work function of the material), no photoelectrons are emitted at all, unless a plurality of photons, whose energetic sum is greater than the energy of the photoelectrons, acts virtually simultaneously (multiphoton effect) Assuming the frequency is high enough to cause the photoelectric effect, a rise in intensity of the light source causes more photoelectrons to be emitted with the same kinetic energy, rather than the same number of photoelectrons to be emitted with higher kinetic energy.

This kinetic energy (for each photoelectron) is independent of the intensity of the light, but depends linearly on the <hl> frequency <hl> ; and if the frequency is too low (corresponding to a photon energy that is less than the work function of the material), no photoelectrons are emitted at all, unless a plurality of photons, whose energetic sum is greater than the energy of the photoelectrons, acts virtually simultaneously (multiphoton effect)

question: What factor of the initial light source does the energy of the photoelectrons depend on?, context: The "photoelectrons" emitted as a result of the photoelectric effect have a certain kinetic energy, which can be measured. This kinetic energy (for each photoelectron) is independent of the intensity of the light, but depends linearly on the frequency; and if the frequency is too low (corresponding to a photon energy that is less than the work function of the material), no photoelectrons are emitted at all, unless a plurality of photons, whose energetic sum is greater than the energy of the photoelectrons, acts virtually simultaneously (multiphoton effect) Assuming the frequency is high enough to cause the photoelectric effect, a rise in intensity of the light source causes more photoelectrons to be emitted with the same kinetic energy, rather than the same number of photoelectrons to be emitted with higher kinetic energy.


Question: When the photon energy is less than the work function of the material the light is shone upon, how many photoelectrons are emitted?

Answer: no photoelectrons are emitted at all

The "photoelectrons" emitted as a result of the photoelectric effect have a certain kinetic energy, which can be measured. <hl> This kinetic energy (for each photoelectron) is independent of the intensity of the light, but depends linearly on the frequency; and if the frequency is too low (corresponding to a photon energy that is less than the work function of the material), no photoelectrons are emitted at all , unless a plurality of photons, whose energetic sum is greater than the energy of the photoelectrons, acts virtually simultaneously (multiphoton effect) <hl> Assuming the frequency is high enough to cause the photoelectric effect, a rise in intensity of the light source causes more photoelectrons to be emitted with the same kinetic energy, rather than the same number of photoelectrons to be emitted with higher kinetic energy.

The "photoelectrons" emitted as a result of the photoelectric effect have a certain kinetic energy, which can be measured. This kinetic energy (for each photoelectron) is independent of the intensity of the light, but depends linearly on the frequency; and if the frequency is too low (corresponding to a photon energy that is less than the work function of the material), <hl> no photoelectrons are emitted at all <hl>, unless a plurality of photons, whose energetic sum is greater than the energy of the photoelectrons, acts virtually simultaneously (multiphoton effect) Assuming the frequency is high enough to cause the photoelectric effect, a rise in intensity of the light source causes more photoelectrons to be emitted with the same kinetic energy, rather than the same number of photoelectrons to be emitted with higher kinetic energy.

This kinetic energy (for each photoelectron) is independent of the intensity of the light, but depends linearly on the frequency; and if the frequency is too low (corresponding to a photon energy that is less than the work function of the material), <hl> no photoelectrons are emitted at all <hl> , unless a plurality of photons, whose energetic sum is greater than the energy of the photoelectrons, acts virtually simultaneously (multiphoton effect)

question: When the photon energy is less than the work function of the material the light is shone upon, how many photoelectrons are emitted?, context: The "photoelectrons" emitted as a result of the photoelectric effect have a certain kinetic energy, which can be measured. This kinetic energy (for each photoelectron) is independent of the intensity of the light, but depends linearly on the frequency; and if the frequency is too low (corresponding to a photon energy that is less than the work function of the material), no photoelectrons are emitted at all, unless a plurality of photons, whose energetic sum is greater than the energy of the photoelectrons, acts virtually simultaneously (multiphoton effect) Assuming the frequency is high enough to cause the photoelectric effect, a rise in intensity of the light source causes more photoelectrons to be emitted with the same kinetic energy, rather than the same number of photoelectrons to be emitted with higher kinetic energy.


Question: If the photoelectric effect is occuring, increasing the intensity of the light source causes what?

Answer: more photoelectrons to be emitted with the same kinetic energy

The "photoelectrons" emitted as a result of the photoelectric effect have a certain kinetic energy, which can be measured. This kinetic energy (for each photoelectron) is independent of the intensity of the light, but depends linearly on the frequency; and if the frequency is too low (corresponding to a photon energy that is less than the work function of the material), no photoelectrons are emitted at all, unless a plurality of photons, whose energetic sum is greater than the energy of the photoelectrons, acts virtually simultaneously (multiphoton effect) <hl> Assuming the frequency is high enough to cause the photoelectric effect, a rise in intensity of the light source causes more photoelectrons to be emitted with the same kinetic energy , rather than the same number of photoelectrons to be emitted with higher kinetic energy. <hl>

The "photoelectrons" emitted as a result of the photoelectric effect have a certain kinetic energy, which can be measured. This kinetic energy (for each photoelectron) is independent of the intensity of the light, but depends linearly on the frequency; and if the frequency is too low (corresponding to a photon energy that is less than the work function of the material), no photoelectrons are emitted at all, unless a plurality of photons, whose energetic sum is greater than the energy of the photoelectrons, acts virtually simultaneously (multiphoton effect) Assuming the frequency is high enough to cause the photoelectric effect, a rise in intensity of the light source causes <hl> more photoelectrons to be emitted with the same kinetic energy <hl>, rather than the same number of photoelectrons to be emitted with higher kinetic energy.

Assuming the frequency is high enough to cause the photoelectric effect, a rise in intensity of the light source causes <hl> more photoelectrons to be emitted with the same kinetic energy <hl> , rather than the same number of photoelectrons to be emitted with higher kinetic energy.

question: If the photoelectric effect is occuring, increasing the intensity of the light source causes what?, context: The "photoelectrons" emitted as a result of the photoelectric effect have a certain kinetic energy, which can be measured. This kinetic energy (for each photoelectron) is independent of the intensity of the light, but depends linearly on the frequency; and if the frequency is too low (corresponding to a photon energy that is less than the work function of the material), no photoelectrons are emitted at all, unless a plurality of photons, whose energetic sum is greater than the energy of the photoelectrons, acts virtually simultaneously (multiphoton effect) Assuming the frequency is high enough to cause the photoelectric effect, a rise in intensity of the light source causes more photoelectrons to be emitted with the same kinetic energy, rather than the same number of photoelectrons to be emitted with higher kinetic energy.


Question: Who introduced the first quantized model of the atom?

Answer: Niels Bohr

<hl> Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. <hl> In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En

<hl> Niels Bohr <hl> introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En

question: Who introduced the first quantized model of the atom?, context: Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En


Question: When was the first quantized model of the atom introduced?

Answer: 1913

<hl> Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913 , in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. <hl> In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En

Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in <hl> 1913 <hl>, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En

Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in <hl> 1913 <hl> , in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model.

question: When was the first quantized model of the atom introduced?, context: Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En


Question: Why was the first quantized model of the atom introduced?

Answer: to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model

<hl> Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model . <hl> In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En

Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt <hl> to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model <hl>. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En

Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt <hl> to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model <hl> .

question: Why was the first quantized model of the atom introduced?, context: Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En


Question: In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should do what?

Answer: radiate electromagnetic radiation

Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. <hl> In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation . <hl> If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En

Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should <hl> radiate electromagnetic radiation <hl>. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En

In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should <hl> radiate electromagnetic radiation <hl> .

question: In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should do what?, context: Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En


Question: Who modeled the atom in 1913, challenging Rutherford's model?

Answer: Niels Bohr

<hl> Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. <hl> In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En

<hl> Niels Bohr <hl> introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En

question: Who modeled the atom in 1913, challenging Rutherford's model?, context: Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En


Question: What was predicted to happen to a nucleus-orbiting electron under Rutherford's model?

Answer: the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus

Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. <hl> If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus . <hl> Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En

Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, <hl> the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus <hl>. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En

If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, <hl> the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus <hl> .

question: What was predicted to happen to a nucleus-orbiting electron under Rutherford's model?, context: Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En


Question: What statement did Bohr make about the electron of an atom, citing Planck's work?

Answer: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies

Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. <hl> Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En <hl>

Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: <hl> an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies <hl> En

question: What statement did Bohr make about the electron of an atom, citing Planck's work?, context: Niels Bohr introduced the first quantized model of the atom in 1913, in an attempt to overcome a major shortcoming of Rutherford's classical model. In classical electrodynamics, a charge moving in a circle should radiate electromagnetic radiation. If that charge were to be an electron orbiting a nucleus, the radiation would cause it to lose energy and spiral down into the nucleus. Bohr solved this paradox with explicit reference to Planck's work: an electron in a Bohr atom could only have certain defined energies En


Question: Who introduced the reduced Planck constant?

Answer: Bohr

<hl> Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. <hl> At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

<hl> Bohr <hl> also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

question: Who introduced the reduced Planck constant?, context: Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values


Question: What is the reduced Planck constant also known as?

Answer: the quantity

<hl> Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. <hl> At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

Bohr also introduced <hl> the quantity <hl> , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

question: What is the reduced Planck constant also known as?, context: Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values


Question: Who helped to give the correct quantization rules for electrons in 1925?

Answer: Heisenberg

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. <hl> The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg 's <hl> matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by <hl> Heisenberg <hl>'s matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by <hl> Heisenberg <hl> 's

question: Who helped to give the correct quantization rules for electrons in 1925?, context: Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values


Question: Who helped to give the correct quantization rules for electrons in 1926?

Answer: Schrödinger

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. <hl> The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. <hl> In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the <hl> Schrödinger <hl> wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

question: Who helped to give the correct quantization rules for electrons in 1926?, context: Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values


Question: According to Heisenberg and Schrödinger, the reduced Planck constant remains what?

Answer: the fundamental quantum of angular momentum

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. <hl> The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum . <hl> In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains <hl> the fundamental quantum of angular momentum <hl>. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains <hl> the fundamental quantum of angular momentum <hl> .

question: According to Heisenberg and Schrödinger, the reduced Planck constant remains what?, context: Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values


Question: Bohr introduced what value as the quantum of angular momentum?

Answer: the reduced Planck constant

<hl> Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant , as the quantum of angular momentum. <hl> At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as <hl> the reduced Planck constant <hl>, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as <hl> the reduced Planck constant <hl> , as the quantum of angular momentum.

question: Bohr introduced what value as the quantum of angular momentum?, context: Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values


Question: What incorrect belief did Bohr hold about the reduced Planck constant?

Answer: Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. <hl> At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom : this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. <hl> The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, <hl> Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom <hl>: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

At first, <hl> Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom <hl> : this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model.

question: What incorrect belief did Bohr hold about the reduced Planck constant?, context: Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values


Question: What scientist used matrix mechanics to bring electron behavior in line with the Bohr model?

Answer: Heisenberg

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. <hl> The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg 's <hl> matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by <hl> Heisenberg <hl>'s matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by <hl> Heisenberg <hl> 's

question: What scientist used matrix mechanics to bring electron behavior in line with the Bohr model?, context: Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values


Question: When was the Schrödinger wave equation proposed?

Answer: 1926

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. <hl> The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926 : the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. <hl> In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in <hl> 1926 <hl>: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values

The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in <hl> 1926 <hl> : the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum.

question: When was the Schrödinger wave equation proposed?, context: Bohr also introduced the quantity , now known as the reduced Planck constant, as the quantum of angular momentum. At first, Bohr thought that this was the angular momentum of each electron in an atom: this proved incorrect and, despite developments by Sommerfeld and others, an accurate description of the electron angular momentum proved beyond the Bohr model. The correct quantization rules for electrons – in which the energy reduces to the Bohr model equation in the case of the hydrogen atom – were given by Heisenberg's matrix mechanics in 1925 and the Schrödinger wave equation in 1926: the reduced Planck constant remains the fundamental quantum of angular momentum. In modern terms, if J is the total angular momentum of a system with rotational invariance, and Jz the angular momentum measured along any given direction, these quantities can only take on the values


Question: What measurable value obeys a similar rule of angular momentum?

Answer: time vs. energy

One example is time vs. energy .

where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. <hl> One example is time vs. energy . <hl> The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.

where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is <hl> time vs. energy <hl>. The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.

One example is <hl> time vs. energy <hl> .

question: What measurable value obeys a similar rule of angular momentum?, context: where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.


Question: What forces measurement attempts to choose between trade-offs, in quanta?

Answer: either-or nature of uncertainty

where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. <hl> The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis. <hl>

where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. The <hl> either-or nature of uncertainty <hl> forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.

question: What forces measurement attempts to choose between trade-offs, in quanta?, context: where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.


Question: What form do measurement attempt trade-offs for quanta take the form of?

Answer: either-or (as in Fourier analysis)

where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. <hl> The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis) , rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis. <hl>

where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of <hl> either-or (as in Fourier analysis) <hl>, rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.

The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of <hl> either-or (as in Fourier analysis) <hl> , rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.

question: What form do measurement attempt trade-offs for quanta take the form of?, context: where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.


Question: How is uncertainly measured in this experience?

Answer: the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value

<hl> where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value . <hl> There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.

where the uncertainty is given as <hl> the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value <hl>. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.

where the uncertainty is given as <hl> the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value <hl> .

question: How is uncertainly measured in this experience?, context: where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.


Question: What type of analysis fits the either-or nature of the uncertainty?

Answer: Fourier analysis

where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. <hl> The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis ), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis. <hl>

where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in <hl> Fourier analysis <hl>), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.

The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in <hl> Fourier analysis <hl> ), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.

question: What type of analysis fits the either-or nature of the uncertainty?, context: where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.


Question: What example is given as another paired relationship of uncertainly related to standard deviation?

Answer: time vs. energy

One example is time vs. energy .

where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. <hl> One example is time vs. energy . <hl> The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.

where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is <hl> time vs. energy <hl>. The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.

One example is <hl> time vs. energy <hl> .

question: What example is given as another paired relationship of uncertainly related to standard deviation?, context: where the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the measured value from its expected value. There are a number of other such pairs of physically measurable values which obey a similar rule. One example is time vs. energy. The either-or nature of uncertainty forces measurement attempts to choose between trade offs, and given that they are quanta, the trade offs often take the form of either-or (as in Fourier analysis), rather than the compromises and gray areas of time series analysis.


Question: What is the unit of magentic properties of the electron?

Answer: Bohr magneton

<hl> The Bohr magneton and the nuclear magneton are units which are used to describe the magnetic properties of the electron and atomic nuclei respectively. <hl> The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics. It is defined in terms of the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass, all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables.

The <hl> Bohr magneton <hl> and the nuclear magneton are units which are used to describe the magnetic properties of the electron and atomic nuclei respectively. The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics. It is defined in terms of the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass, all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables.

question: What is the unit of magentic properties of the electron?, context: The Bohr magneton and the nuclear magneton are units which are used to describe the magnetic properties of the electron and atomic nuclei respectively. The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics. It is defined in terms of the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass, all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables.


Question: What is the unit of magentic properties of atomic nuclei?

Answer: nuclear magneton

<hl> The Bohr magneton and the nuclear magneton are units which are used to describe the magnetic properties of the electron and atomic nuclei respectively. <hl> The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics. It is defined in terms of the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass, all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables.

The Bohr magneton and the <hl> nuclear magneton <hl> are units which are used to describe the magnetic properties of the electron and atomic nuclei respectively. The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics. It is defined in terms of the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass, all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables.

question: What is the unit of magentic properties of atomic nuclei?, context: The Bohr magneton and the nuclear magneton are units which are used to describe the magnetic properties of the electron and atomic nuclei respectively. The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics. It is defined in terms of the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass, all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables.


Question: The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment of an electron under what restriction?

Answer: behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics

The Bohr magneton and the nuclear magneton are units which are used to describe the magnetic properties of the electron and atomic nuclei respectively. <hl> The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics . <hl> It is defined in terms of the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass, all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables.

The Bohr magneton and the nuclear magneton are units which are used to describe the magnetic properties of the electron and atomic nuclei respectively. The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it <hl> behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics <hl>. It is defined in terms of the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass, all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables.

The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it <hl> behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics <hl> .

question: The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment of an electron under what restriction?, context: The Bohr magneton and the nuclear magneton are units which are used to describe the magnetic properties of the electron and atomic nuclei respectively. The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics. It is defined in terms of the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass, all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables.


Question: What three terms define the Bohr magneton value?

Answer: the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass

The Bohr magneton and the nuclear magneton are units which are used to describe the magnetic properties of the electron and atomic nuclei respectively. The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics. <hl> It is defined in terms of the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass , all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables. <hl>

The Bohr magneton and the nuclear magneton are units which are used to describe the magnetic properties of the electron and atomic nuclei respectively. The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics. It is defined in terms of <hl> the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass <hl>, all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables.

It is defined in terms of <hl> the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass <hl> , all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables.

question: What three terms define the Bohr magneton value?, context: The Bohr magneton and the nuclear magneton are units which are used to describe the magnetic properties of the electron and atomic nuclei respectively. The Bohr magneton is the magnetic moment which would be expected for an electron if it behaved as a spinning charge according to classical electrodynamics. It is defined in terms of the reduced Planck constant, the elementary charge and the electron mass, all of which depend on the Planck constant: the final dependence on h1/2 (r2 > 0.995) can be found by expanding the variables.


Question: How was the Planck constant calculated in the early 20th century?

Answer: the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons

<hl> In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons , and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. <hl> In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.

In principle, <hl> the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons <hl>, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.

In principle, <hl> the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons <hl> , and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century.

question: How was the Planck constant calculated in the early 20th century?, context: In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.


Question: The value quoted here for the Planck constant is based on a measurement in what year?

Answer: 2007

In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. <hl> The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). <hl> Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.

In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a <hl> 2007 <hl> watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.

question: The value quoted here for the Planck constant is based on a measurement in what year?, context: In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.


Question: Where was this measurement made?

Answer: the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. <hl> The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) . <hl> Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.

In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at <hl> the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) <hl>. Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.

The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at <hl> the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) <hl> .

question: Where was this measurement made?, context: In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.


Question: What method was was used to obtain the measurement?

Answer: watt-balance measurement

In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. <hl> The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurement s of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). <hl> Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.

In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. The CODATA value quoted here is based on three <hl> watt-balance measurement <hl>s of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.

The CODATA value quoted here is based on three <hl> watt-balance measurement <hl> s of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

question: What method was was used to obtain the measurement?, context: In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.


Question: One other measure involved the molar volume of what element?

Answer: silicon

In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. <hl> The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon , but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). <hl> Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.

In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of <hl> silicon <hl>, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.

The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of <hl> silicon <hl> , but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

question: One other measure involved the molar volume of what element?, context: In principle, the Planck constant could be determined by examining the spectrum of a black-body radiator or the kinetic energy of photoelectrons, and this is how its value was first calculated in the early twentieth century. In practice, these are no longer the most accurate methods. The CODATA value quoted here is based on three watt-balance measurements of KJ2RK and one inter-laboratory determination of the molar volume of silicon, but is mostly determined by a 2007 watt-balance measurement made at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Five other measurements by three different methods were initially considered, but not included in the final refinement as they were too imprecise to affect the result.


Question: What is a main practical difficulty in determining n?

Answer: the two most accurate methods, the watt balance and the X-ray crystal density method, do not appear to agree with one another

There are both practical and theoretical difficulties in determining h. <hl> The practical difficulties can be illustrated by the fact that the two most accurate methods, the watt balance and the X-ray crystal density method, do not appear to agree with one another . <hl> The most likely reason is that the measurement uncertainty for one (or both) of the methods has been estimated too low – it is (or they are) not as precise as is currently believed – but for the time being there is no indication which method is at fault.

There are both practical and theoretical difficulties in determining h. The practical difficulties can be illustrated by the fact that <hl> the two most accurate methods, the watt balance and the X-ray crystal density method, do not appear to agree with one another <hl>. The most likely reason is that the measurement uncertainty for one (or both) of the methods has been estimated too low – it is (or they are) not as precise as is currently believed – but for the time being there is no indication which method is at fault.

The practical difficulties can be illustrated by the fact that <hl> the two most accurate methods, the watt balance and the X-ray crystal density method, do not appear to agree with one another <hl> .

question: What is a main practical difficulty in determining n?, context: There are both practical and theoretical difficulties in determining h. The practical difficulties can be illustrated by the fact that the two most accurate methods, the watt balance and the X-ray crystal density method, do not appear to agree with one another. The most likely reason is that the measurement uncertainty for one (or both) of the methods has been estimated too low – it is (or they are) not as precise as is currently believed – but for the time being there is no indication which method is at fault.


Question: Why does this difficulty occur?

Answer: it is (or they are) not as precise as is currently believed

There are both practical and theoretical difficulties in determining h. The practical difficulties can be illustrated by the fact that the two most accurate methods, the watt balance and the X-ray crystal density method, do not appear to agree with one another. <hl> The most likely reason is that the measurement uncertainty for one (or both) of the methods has been estimated too low – it is (or they are) not as precise as is currently believed – but for the time being there is no indication which method is at fault. <hl>

There are both practical and theoretical difficulties in determining h. The practical difficulties can be illustrated by the fact that the two most accurate methods, the watt balance and the X-ray crystal density method, do not appear to agree with one another. The most likely reason is that the measurement uncertainty for one (or both) of the methods has been estimated too low – <hl> it is (or they are) not as precise as is currently believed <hl> – but for the time being there is no indication which method is at fault.

question: Why does this difficulty occur?, context: There are both practical and theoretical difficulties in determining h. The practical difficulties can be illustrated by the fact that the two most accurate methods, the watt balance and the X-ray crystal density method, do not appear to agree with one another. The most likely reason is that the measurement uncertainty for one (or both) of the methods has been estimated too low – it is (or they are) not as precise as is currently believed – but for the time being there is no indication which method is at fault.


Question: Which method is at fault or the discrepancy?

Answer: there is no indication which method is at fault

There are both practical and theoretical difficulties in determining h. The practical difficulties can be illustrated by the fact that the two most accurate methods, the watt balance and the X-ray crystal density method, do not appear to agree with one another. <hl> The most likely reason is that the measurement uncertainty for one (or both) of the methods has been estimated too low – it is (or they are) not as precise as is currently believed – but for the time being there is no indication which method is at fault . <hl>

There are both practical and theoretical difficulties in determining h. The practical difficulties can be illustrated by the fact that the two most accurate methods, the watt balance and the X-ray crystal density method, do not appear to agree with one another. The most likely reason is that the measurement uncertainty for one (or both) of the methods has been estimated too low – it is (or they are) not as precise as is currently believed – but for the time being <hl> there is no indication which method is at fault <hl>.

The most likely reason is that the measurement uncertainty for one (or both) of the methods has been estimated too low – it is (or they are) not as precise as is currently believed – but for the time being <hl> there is no indication which method is at fault <hl> .

question: Which method is at fault or the discrepancy?, context: There are both practical and theoretical difficulties in determining h. The practical difficulties can be illustrated by the fact that the two most accurate methods, the watt balance and the X-ray crystal density method, do not appear to agree with one another. The most likely reason is that the measurement uncertainty for one (or both) of the methods has been estimated too low – it is (or they are) not as precise as is currently believed – but for the time being there is no indication which method is at fault.


Question: Other than the X-ray crystal density method, other methods rely on what two effects?

Answer: the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect

<hl> The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect . <hl> If these theories are slightly inaccurate – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into a circular argument. Fortunately, there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted.

The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of <hl> the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect <hl>. If these theories are slightly inaccurate – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into a circular argument. Fortunately, there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted.

The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of <hl> the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect <hl> .

question: Other than the X-ray crystal density method, other methods rely on what two effects?, context: The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect. If these theories are slightly inaccurate – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into a circular argument. Fortunately, there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted.


Question: Why does relying on these effects create concern?

Answer: If these theories are slightly inaccurate

The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect. <hl> If these theories are slightly inaccurate – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. <hl> More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into a circular argument. Fortunately, there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted.

The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect. <hl> If these theories are slightly inaccurate <hl> – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into a circular argument. Fortunately, there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted.

question: Why does relying on these effects create concern?, context: The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect. If these theories are slightly inaccurate – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into a circular argument. Fortunately, there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted.


Question: Using Planck constant values from these effects would lead to what logical issue?

Answer: a circular argument

The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect. If these theories are slightly inaccurate – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. <hl> More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into a circular argument . <hl> Fortunately, there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted.

The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect. If these theories are slightly inaccurate – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into <hl> a circular argument <hl>. Fortunately, there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted.

More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into <hl> a circular argument <hl> .

question: Using Planck constant values from these effects would lead to what logical issue?, context: The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect. If these theories are slightly inaccurate – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into a circular argument. Fortunately, there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted.


Question: What is the saving grace of relying on these theories?

Answer: there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted.

The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect. If these theories are slightly inaccurate – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into a circular argument. <hl> Fortunately, there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted. <hl>

The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect. If these theories are slightly inaccurate – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into a circular argument. Fortunately, <hl> there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted. <hl>

question: What is the saving grace of relying on these theories?, context: The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect. If these theories are slightly inaccurate – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into a circular argument. Fortunately, there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted.


Question: What is a watt balance?

Answer: an instrument for comparing two powers, one of which is measured in SI watts and the other of which is measured in conventional electrical units

<hl> A watt balance is an instrument for comparing two powers, one of which is measured in SI watts and the other of which is measured in conventional electrical units . <hl> From the definition of the conventional watt W90, this gives a measure of the product KJ2RK in SI units, where RK is the von Klitzing constant which appears in the quantum Hall effect. If the theoretical treatments of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect are valid, and in particular assuming that RK = h/e2, the measurement of KJ2RK is a direct determination of the Planck constant.

A watt balance is <hl> an instrument for comparing two powers, one of which is measured in SI watts and the other of which is measured in conventional electrical units <hl>. From the definition of the conventional watt W90, this gives a measure of the product KJ2RK in SI units, where RK is the von Klitzing constant which appears in the quantum Hall effect. If the theoretical treatments of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect are valid, and in particular assuming that RK = h/e2, the measurement of KJ2RK is a direct determination of the Planck constant.

A watt balance is <hl> an instrument for comparing two powers, one of which is measured in SI watts and the other of which is measured in conventional electrical units <hl> .

question: What is a watt balance?, context: A watt balance is an instrument for comparing two powers, one of which is measured in SI watts and the other of which is measured in conventional electrical units. From the definition of the conventional watt W90, this gives a measure of the product KJ2RK in SI units, where RK is the von Klitzing constant which appears in the quantum Hall effect. If the theoretical treatments of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect are valid, and in particular assuming that RK = h/e2, the measurement of KJ2RK is a direct determination of the Planck constant.