Can frequency be fractional

Answer 1

I was unsure.

Originally I thought...Planck's constant is supposed to be the minimal action.

Multiplying by the frequency of electromagnetic radiation gives the energy of that

radiation which is supposed to be quantized. So it would seem to be that only

integer frequencies are allowed. Otherwise there would be continuous energy

rather than quantized. If there could be 1000.5 hertz, why not pi hertz, or a

millionth of a hertz, etc. But it seems very strange that frequencies can only be

integers. Not only that, but given that the speed of light is now defined to be an

integer, wavelengths would not be continuous either, but limited to rational

fractions of a meter. Astounding! Certainly strange (if true).

But upon further thought...It would be truly miraculous if any atom could emit

radiation in only integer frequencies PER SECOND. The second is an arbitrary

selection of time based on the cycle of our planet about our sun. To think that

this is even remotely possible is truly absurd. On the other hand, the second is

now measured by 'the natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom

(9,192,631,770 Hz)'. Another bloody integer! But only when at rest with respect to

the measurer! 'Twould seem to imply that velocities are quantized, too.

Still am unsure.

=============================================================================

I did not derive the formula. Einstein abstracted it from his experimental evidence. E = hf, h being the slope of his graph. The frequency doesn't change in steps of h, the energy changes in those steps. Which, again, implies the frequency is an integer, starting with one.

Though I readily admit to a severely limited knowledge, I have begun to think that the author who stated that energy comes only in multiples of the Planck constant, in his attempt to describe quantization of energy, was wrong on two counts. He is not wrong about quantization, but it claiming there is an energy minimum. Frequency changes in relativity, as does energy, though it still appears to be the Planck coefficient times the frequency.

Much more importantly, he referred to the Planck coefficient, as so many others do, as the Planck constant. To consider the two words equivalent leads only to unclear thinking. Coefficient is best, as it is determined by experiment, unknown to the extent of the experimental error. To call it a constant, is an act of abstraction, the act of a mathematician, a theorist, not the act of an experimental physicist whose results can be exact in only the most trivial of experiments. Constants are postulated as exact (though perhaps unknown exactly, like pi for instance); there is no error, stated or unstated, in their fundamental description (though perhaps in their limited calculation, again like pi for instance). The experimenter acknowledges that reality can never be known with infinite precision while the theorist pretends that it can. The experimenter is the ultimate arbiter.

Answer 2

No, frequency cannot be fractional. Frequency is a measure of how often something occurs in a given time period, usually represented as a whole number or a decimal.