Science > Physics > Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective.
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jan Panteltje" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2005 04:15:02 PM |
| Object: |
Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
'It is written' that this cannot (has not?) been done [1].
Before I delve deeper in the math, let us look at it from
a slightly different perspective, a 'mechanical' analogy
with waves.
Just for arguments sake imagine a surface with hollow extrusions.
A ball is sitting in each 'dip'.
--- ----------
\ O /
--------
When we excitate the surface with a sine wave, the ball gets excited
by the maxima and minima of the wave (it starts jumping up and down a bit).
ABOVE A SPECIFIC LEVEL the ball will jump over the edge and roll away, or
even jump further up.
You can envision this as shaking the container in the frequency of the wave.
When the frequency doubles, then 2 x more maxima (excitations) will occur,
and 2 x more balls will leave their hole.
Below the threshold the ball will just vibrate a bit but stay in the hole.
When we replace 'ball' by electron, and wave by light, and the threshold by
the work function for a material, we have a model that would explain the
photo electric effect from a wave point of view.
I even suspect we can find the specific values for the various elements from
their atomic structure (the container). [2]
Right or wrong?
FYI readings:
Photo electric effect:
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node3.html
[1] What not:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html#c3
[2] Materials work function
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/photoelec.html
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
25 Aug 2005 09:39:24 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
'It is written' that this cannot (has not?) been done [1].
Before I delve deeper in the math, let us look at it from
a slightly different perspective, a 'mechanical' analogy
with waves.
Jan,
Wish you luck. You're cetainly not the first person to attempt
to come up with a wave model for the photoelectric effect.
I'm a wave guy myself. Never cared for particle models, especially
modelling light ('the photon') this way.
The trick with the photoelectric effect is explaining why a
wave of a certain frequency (bandgap) is needed, and not just
amplitude. I'm certain it can be done, just no one has yet
deciphered the beast to the point of making a succinct
non-gratuitous model of it.
It would be interesting to model other effects, like a linear
lasing cavity, using a purely 'wave' model. Get rid of the
photon stuff. I'm not certain, but I believe only 'linear'
lasing may be allowed using the photon model. It may be that
'spherical coherency' is possible (using a spherical
resonator) and could be explained using a wave model. It would
also be interesting to model certain semi-conductor effects (P/N
junctions in general) using a wave model - Carver Mead would
certainly approve.
Problem is wave models do not lend themselves to reductionistic
solutions nearly as much as particle models do.
Good luck.
-Eric B
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
26 Aug 2005 12:58:09 AM |
|
|
<boo@fractalfreak.com> wrote in message
news:1125023964.686879.265610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Get rid of the
| photon stuff.
There ya go!
Put a parabolic mirror in your car headlights or household flashlight,
then turn the bulb on for t = 1/f. Leave it in for t =3/f and you have
a train of three photons.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
26 Aug 2005 07:54:48 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
<boo@fractalfreak.com> wrote in message
news:1125023964.686879.265610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Get rid of the
| photon stuff.
There ya go!
Put a parabolic mirror in your car headlights or household flashlight,
then turn the bulb on for t = 1/f. Leave it in for t =3/f and you have
a train of three photons.
Androcles.
I have no idea how Androcles got the idea that one photon is emitted
for every wave oscillation period.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "the softrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
26 Aug 2005 07:52:50 PM |
|
|
On 26 Aug 2005 05:54:48 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no idea how Androcles got the idea that one photon is emitted
for every wave oscillation period.
No one knows how Androcles gets *any* of his 'ideas'. I suspect
defective brain chemistry.
the softrat
Sometimes I get so tired of the taste of my own toes.
mailto:softrat@pobox.com
--
Not the brightest crayon in the box, now, are we?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
26 Aug 2005 07:59:32 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
'It is written' that this cannot (has not?) been done [1].
Before I delve deeper in the math, let us look at it from
a slightly different perspective, a 'mechanical' analogy
with waves.
Jan,
Wish you luck. You're cetainly not the first person to attempt
to come up with a wave model for the photoelectric effect.
I'm a wave guy myself. Never cared for particle models, especially
modelling light ('the photon') this way.
The trick with the photoelectric effect is explaining why a
wave of a certain frequency (bandgap) is needed, and not just
amplitude. I'm certain it can be done, just no one has yet
deciphered the beast to the point of making a succinct
non-gratuitous model of it.
There are actually THREE problems to wrestle with:
1. You have to show why there is a threshold frequency.
2. You have to show why increasing the amplitude of the wave does not
extend the kinetic energy of at least some of the ejected photons.
3. You have to show why electron emission is *prompt* and does not have
a delay that is proportional to wave amplitude at low intensities.
It would be interesting to model other effects, like a linear
lasing cavity, using a purely 'wave' model. Get rid of the
photon stuff. I'm not certain, but I believe only 'linear'
lasing may be allowed using the photon model. It may be that
'spherical coherency' is possible (using a spherical
resonator) and could be explained using a wave model. It would
also be interesting to model certain semi-conductor effects (P/N
junctions in general) using a wave model - Carver Mead would
certainly approve.
Problem is wave models do not lend themselves to reductionistic
solutions nearly as much as particle models do.
Good luck.
-Eric B
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
26 Aug 2005 05:29:32 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (25 Aug 2005 19:39:24 -0700) it happened
wrote in <1125023964.686879.265610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
Wish you luck. You're cetainly not the first person to attempt
to come up with a wave model for the photoelectric effect.
I'm a wave guy myself. Never cared for particle models, especially
modelling light ('the photon') this way.
The trick with the photoelectric effect is explaining why a
wave of a certain frequency (bandgap) is needed, and not just
amplitude. I'm certain it can be done, just no one has yet
deciphered the beast to the point of making a succinct
non-gratuitous model of it.
How about this where I am now? (posted as an other subject but not on google
it seems?):
I will repeat it here for you:
[More on: part 3] Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective.
I actually started to dream about this, did not happen for many
years, last time was in my school days, when I dreamt I was an electron
that traveled through all the components ... After that I
never had any problem understanding electronics....
So, then when I woke up and this problem was first on my mind, like
equations flying by... I though HEY that is the solution again.
The main problem was how to create the freak wave that expelled the
electron from orbit as a result of the incoming EM radiation,
with the right kinetic energy.
Now think you are sitting inside (small space I know ;-) ) the electron.
Also assume for the sake of argument a simple Bohr like orbit (later
we will see it also holds for more complicated ones).
) A
) e
) B N D
)
) C
In this drawing (use fixed width font) N is the nucleus of the atom.
e is you in the electron, and A, B, C and D are points on the orbit.
So think flat 2D plane for a moment.
The waves of the left are the incoming light EM radiation.
Now L. De Broglie [3] states that an electron has associated with it its
own frequency.
When you think about that a bit, you could call that its 'resonance'
frequency (or rather its resonance).
This is an important observation / understanding.
So you are in capsule e with a resonant frequency fe.
As you move at (near relativistic?) speed v from A to B (circle) you will
see the frequency of the incoming light change (Doppler).
Use relativistic formula if you like.
You have probably been in a bus, and the driver had this foot of the gas,
and everything started vibrating badly, you had to protect your notebook's
hard disk by holding it in you hand, and he would do that at every traffic
light ;-).
You are in an electron, and it is sensitive to those electromagnetic waves,
and starts moving with these.
So, anyways, you experience some vibration, and at some point between A and C
the frequency YOU see from the incoming light is the same as your resonance
frequency, your capsule starts vibrating wildly only limited
by the amplitude of the incoming light, and you are ejected from orbit,
with the kinetic energy transferred from that light.
This sets a minimum required value for the incoming light frequency.
If you are a mathematimagician and make it to Sweden with this before I
do, then you are required at least to:
1) mention Jan Panteltje as the one who came up with this solution.
2) Wear my lake on mars tshirt when receiving the prize.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/space/mars/lake2colordetail.jpg
3) Gimme all the money.
FYI readings:
Photo electric effect:
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node3.html
[1] What not:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html#c3
[2] Materials work function
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/photoelec.html
[3] L. De Broglie's 1923 Comptes rendus Note
http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/broglie/broglie.shtml
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
22 Aug 2005 08:22:26 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
'It is written' that this cannot (has not?) been done [1].
Before I delve deeper in the math, let us look at it from
a slightly different perspective, a 'mechanical' analogy
with waves.
Just for arguments sake imagine a surface with hollow extrusions.
A ball is sitting in each 'dip'.
--- ----------
\ O /
--------
When we excitate the surface with a sine wave, the ball gets excited
by the maxima and minima of the wave (it starts jumping up and down a bit).
ABOVE A SPECIFIC LEVEL the ball will jump over the edge and roll away, or
even jump further up.
You can envision this as shaking the container in the frequency of the wave.
When the frequency doubles, then 2 x more maxima (excitations) will occur,
and 2 x more balls will leave their hole.
Non sequitur.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Stefanovich" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
22 Aug 2005 05:24:10 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
'It is written' that this cannot (has not?) been done [1].
Before I delve deeper in the math, let us look at it from
a slightly different perspective, a 'mechanical' analogy
with waves.
Just for arguments sake imagine a surface with hollow extrusions.
A ball is sitting in each 'dip'.
--- ----------
\ O /
--------
When we excitate the surface with a sine wave, the ball gets excited
by the maxima and minima of the wave (it starts jumping up and down a bit).
ABOVE A SPECIFIC LEVEL the ball will jump over the edge and roll away, or
even jump further up.
You can envision this as shaking the container in the frequency of the wave.
When the frequency doubles, then 2 x more maxima (excitations) will occur,
and 2 x more balls will leave their hole.
Below the threshold the ball will just vibrate a bit but stay in the hole.
When we replace 'ball' by electron, and wave by light, and the threshold by
the work function for a material, we have a model that would explain the
photo electric effect from a wave point of view.
I even suspect we can find the specific values for the various elements from
their atomic structure (the container). [2]
Right or wrong?
How would you explain the fact that when the frequency of the wave is
below the threshold, the ball will never leave the hole no matter
how high is the amplitude of the wave? That's what happens in real
photo-electric effect.
Eugene.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
23 Aug 2005 01:56:52 AM |
|
|
"Eugene Stefanovich" <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in message
news:430A508A.2010607@synopsys.com...
|
|
| Jan Panteltje wrote:
| > 'It is written' that this cannot (has not?) been done [1].
| >
| > Before I delve deeper in the math, let us look at it from
| > a slightly different perspective, a 'mechanical' analogy
| > with waves.
| >
| > Just for arguments sake imagine a surface with hollow extrusions.
| > A ball is sitting in each 'dip'.
| >
| >
| > --- ----------
| > \ O /
| > --------
| >
| > When we excitate the surface with a sine wave, the ball gets excited
| > by the maxima and minima of the wave (it starts jumping up and down
a bit).
| >
| >
| > ABOVE A SPECIFIC LEVEL the ball will jump over the edge and roll
away, or
| > even jump further up.
| > You can envision this as shaking the container in the frequency of
the wave.
| >
| > When the frequency doubles, then 2 x more maxima (excitations) will
occur,
| > and 2 x more balls will leave their hole.
| >
| > Below the threshold the ball will just vibrate a bit but stay in the
hole.
| >
| > When we replace 'ball' by electron, and wave by light, and the
threshold by
| > the work function for a material, we have a model that would explain
the
| > photo electric effect from a wave point of view.
| >
| > I even suspect we can find the specific values for the various
elements from
| > their atomic structure (the container). [2]
| >
| > Right or wrong?
|
| How would you explain the fact that when the frequency of the wave is
| below the threshold, the ball will never leave the hole no matter
| how high is the amplitude of the wave? That's what happens in real
| photo-electric effect.
|
| Eugene.
I thought he did.
"Below the threshold the ball will just vibrate a bit but stay in the
hole."
Did he say "amplitude"?
What am I missing here?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
23 Aug 2005 02:15:33 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
I thought he did.
"Below the threshold the ball will just vibrate a bit but stay in the
hole."
Did he say "amplitude"?
What am I missing here?
An education in physics. This is 101 type stuff.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
23 Aug 2005 07:06:30 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:24:10 -0700) it happened Eugene
Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in <430A508A.2010607@synopsys.com>:
How would you explain the fact that when the frequency of the wave is
below the threshold, the ball will never leave the hole no matter
how high is the amplitude of the wave? That's what happens in real
photo-electric effect.
Eugene.
Hi, I have made a better model now, it is in an other post, marked
[More on: part 2] Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective.
But as it is actually (in my view)an electromagnetic effect, I will repeat
that text here for you.
Pleae not also that in the case of the magnet, the amplitude makes no
difference, only the speed at which it moves (frequency).
So there is your threshold.
:
yesterday, in my first post on this subject, I used the mechanical equivalent
of a plate with holes in it.
Today I will explore some other models that possibly come closer to what
I am trying to achieve.
Imagine you have a magnet and a steel ball attached to it.
You are in outer space, so no gravity influences.
Now start waving the magnet, first slowly.
The ball will remain stuck to the magnet.
Move it faster back and forward, and at some point because of the MASS
of the ball (inertia) momentarily the ball is so far away from the magnet
that the attractive force is no longer able to keep it and the ball escapes
into space.
The ball is here the electron and the waving of the magnet is caused by the
incoming light, an *electromagnetic wave*.
How and why do I try to evaluate this so much?
Because of L. De Broglie's work.
We know from De Broglie [3] that an electron can only be in a stable
orbit (so for example does not fly away) if the phase of the wave
associated with it fits exactly.
Now to the gist of this, I see the whole 'environment' of the atom
*influenced* by the *electromagnetic wave* of the incoming light.
It is not so much a local event, although phase and amplitude values
are locally defined.
So the *electro* magnet that holds the electron with mass m is periodically
changing the position of its field lines, AS IF IT IS WAVING, under
the influence of the incoming electromagnetic light wave.
So here I why I say: 'the container waves' in the analogy.
We are now a little bit closer to the math (being able to do some).
I even suspect we can find the specific values for the various elements from
their atomic structure (the container). [2]
Right or wrong?
FYI readings:
Photo electric effect:
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node3.html
[1] What not:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html#c3
[2] Materials work function
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/photoelec.html
[3] L. De Broglie's 1923 Comptes rendus Note
http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/index.shtml#cont
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Stefanovich" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
23 Aug 2005 02:39:52 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:24:10 -0700) it happened Eugene
Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in <430A508A.2010607@synopsys.com>:
How would you explain the fact that when the frequency of the wave is
below the threshold, the ball will never leave the hole no matter
how high is the amplitude of the wave? That's what happens in real
photo-electric effect.
Eugene.
Hi, I have made a better model now, it is in an other post, marked
[More on: part 2] Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective.
But as it is actually (in my view)an electromagnetic effect, I will repeat
that text here for you.
Pleae not also that in the case of the magnet, the amplitude makes no
difference, only the speed at which it moves (frequency).
So there is your threshold.
You probably wanted to say "acceleration at which it moves". Speed plays
no role here. Then please note that acceleration of periodic movement
is proportional to the amplitude b
(it is also proportional to the square of frequency f)
x(t) = b sin(ft)
v(t) = bf cos(ft)
a(t) = -bf^2 sin(ft)
So, if you keep the frequency constant and increase the amplitude
(use light of higher intensity), then at some point you should
reach the threshold acceleration and, therefore, electron emission.
This is not what happens in the photoelectric effect.
If the frequency of light is low, then no matter how high is the
amplitude (light intensity), you'll not see the electron emission.
Of course, at very high intensities you'll start to see the emission,
but this will be due to two-photon processes (electron absorbs two
photons at once) which have nothing to do with the "normal" situation
discussed here.
Eugene.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
23 Aug 2005 03:41:08 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:39:52 -0700) it happened Eugene
Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in <430B7B88.9090900@synopsys.com>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:24:10 -0700) it happened Eugene
Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in <430A508A.2010607@synopsys.com>:
How would you explain the fact that when the frequency of the wave is
below the threshold, the ball will never leave the hole no matter
how high is the amplitude of the wave? That's what happens in real
photo-electric effect.
Eugene.
Hi, I have made a better model now, it is in an other post, marked
[More on: part 2] Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective.
But as it is actually (in my view)an electromagnetic effect, I will repeat
that text here for you.
Pleae not also that in the case of the magnet, the amplitude makes no
difference, only the speed at which it moves (frequency).
So there is your threshold.
You probably wanted to say "acceleration at which it moves".
No no, I tried to convey: speed, the speed with which you wave the magnet,
so frequency.
What happens is that the ball will fly away when the change in direction of
movement happens near top or bottom wave.
And please remember this is a analogy.
Speed plays
no role here. Then please note that acceleration of periodic movement
is proportional to the amplitude b
(it is also proportional to the square of frequency f)
x(t) = b sin(ft)
v(t) = bf cos(ft)
a(t) = -bf^2 sin(ft)
So, if you keep the frequency constant and increase the amplitude
(use light of higher intensity), then at some point you should
reach the threshold acceleration and, therefore, electron emission.
No I think not, the thing will release on a speed CHANGE (direction
change) I have now just spend some moments playing with a piece
of iron stuck to a magnetic pendulum.
It is true that if you connect the ball at the bottom of the wave,
(pendulum left) then it will acellerate until all the way right the
direction change nears, and fly of (to the right).
Anyways, this is an analogy again, of cause it does not hold.
This is not what happens in the photoelectric effect.
If the frequency of light is low, then no matter how high is the
amplitude (light intensity), you'll not see the electron emission.
What I am trying to do is somehow come to some interference of
De Broglie's wave with the incoming light.
At several points today I wanted to go for help to sci.math, as it
does get really complicated.
Internet google is a great help though, plenty of info.
So, what would happen if we could cancel (by superposition) a De Broglie
(phase) wave of the electron with the incoming wave....
(at one point is enough, the electron would fly away, or distort that
wave so it is catapulted away), with the kinetic energy gained from the
incoming light EM wave energy.
A sort of tjunami freak wave effect? :-)
There seem to be both an interference (multiplication) and a addition
possibility.
In fact this is what I am trying to understand, this game of
wave patterns that happens in the atom when it is hit by the EM light wave.
For now I have a piece of paper full of values and formulas...
Of course, at very high intensities you'll start to see the emission,
but this will be due to two-photon processes (electron absorbs two
photons at once) which have nothing to do with the "normal" situation
discussed here.
Possible, but I dunno anything about that.
Eugene.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
24 Aug 2005 02:02:56 AM |
|
|
Jan, Eugene,
It seems to me that the only question left unanswered in the
photoelectric effect is why a frequency increase (increase of energy)
knocks out electrons at certain threshold levels while an increase of
magnitude (intensity) does not (except in the "abnormal" situation
noted above by Eugene).
My model gives the PE effect as an example of how light waves (lws) can
affect other particles. I contend that light waves crash through DM
particles and transform them into real photons which we see as light.
In the PE effect, it seems to me that the lws crash into the DM
particles adjacent to the electrons and the lws deposit energy into the
DM particles which in turn can knock out an electron on a one-on-one
basis. The scenario is thus: we have lws impinging on a metal which
is so full of electrons that it is easy to free them from their atoms
with lws of certain frequencies.
DM comprises space, so electrons are surrounded by it, as is all
visible matter. However, DM has negative mass so it has no positive
energy with which to affect electrons. When a lw turns a DM particle
into a photon which is closest to an electron, the energy of the photon
is enough to force the electron out of the atom as a free electron.
Being a many-photons-to-one-electron relationship (remember that the
photons surround the electrons as DM particles), at certain energy
levels electrons can be pushed out of the atom.
Higher intensity means more photons, but only so many photon particles
can surround an electron so no matter how many photons you shine on a
metal, it is the energy level and not the quantity level that pushes
out photons.
My model is hard to imagine until you have a few of its concepts in
mind, and that is because it is connected to several science concepts
by the explanations it provides to various issues in physics. My ideas
are alternatives to what is there but which is a paradox, or something
not there so it is a msytery, and to some ideas which are there but
which do not adequately explain phenomena well enough to satisfy
inquiring minds. I remain open to questions about it, but not to
stupid attempts at obfuscation, distraction, or personal attacks (which
only make me hurt you in return).
I hope I have answered Eugene's question to Jan as to why go on about
this. Jan has a point; he just does not have the background to ask the
proper question. At least, not yet. But you will, Jan, if you keep it
up. Your ideas show that your interest is such that you can tell
something is not quite right in physicsland, and you're right. You ask
the question because the answer is not there for anyone to see, just
like the child who exposes the naked emperor who claims he is wearing
the finest clothes. You can appreciate one thing, Jan, and that is
that no is flaming you today, and it has not been easy to get this ng
to this point today.
Paul's retort is not really a full-fledged flame, at least not to the
extent he is capable. Bjoern just came in and left; maybe he'll stay
gone or remain better-behaved. Others like Bilge et al are waiting for
you to come to their bridge, so you can be sure they will be along soon
to attack your post. But they are just a few trolls who have shown
everyone here that they know little about civil debate, or logical
debate for that matter, of the issues in science. So keep on asking
about what seems counter-intuitive to you, Jan, as chances are you
might get answers you can use.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
24 Aug 2005 05:52:51 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (24 Aug 2005 00:02:56 -0700) it happened "TomGee"
<lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1124866976.343898.183040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
Jan, Eugene,
So keep on asking
.......
about what seems counter-intuitive to you, Jan, as chances are you
might get answers you can use.
Thank you, nice post Tom.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
23 Aug 2005 03:46:32 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:39:52 -0700) it happened Eugene
Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in <430B7B88.9090900@synopsys.com>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:24:10 -0700) it happened Eugene
Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in <430A508A.2010607@synopsys.com>:
How would you explain the fact that when the frequency of the wave is
below the threshold, the ball will never leave the hole no matter
how high is the amplitude of the wave? That's what happens in real
photo-electric effect.
Eugene.
Hi, I have made a better model now, it is in an other post, marked
[More on: part 2] Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective.
But as it is actually (in my view)an electromagnetic effect, I will repeat
that text here for you.
Pleae not also that in the case of the magnet, the amplitude makes no
difference, only the speed at which it moves (frequency).
So there is your threshold.
You probably wanted to say "acceleration at which it moves".
No no, I tried to convey: speed, the speed with which you wave the magnet,
so frequency.
What happens is that the ball will fly away when the change in direction of
movement happens near top or bottom wave.
And please remember this is a analogy.
Speed plays
no role here. Then please note that acceleration of periodic movement
is proportional to the amplitude b
(it is also proportional to the square of frequency f)
x(t) = b sin(ft)
v(t) = bf cos(ft)
a(t) = -bf^2 sin(ft)
So, if you keep the frequency constant and increase the amplitude
(use light of higher intensity), then at some point you should
reach the threshold acceleration and, therefore, electron emission.
No I think not, the thing will release on a speed CHANGE (direction
change) I have now just spend some moments playing with a piece
of iron stuck to a magnetic pendulum.
It is true that if you connect the ball at the bottom of the wave,
(pendulum left) then it will acellerate until all the way right the
direction change nears, and fly of (to the right).
Anyways, this is an analogy again, of cause it does not hold.
This is not what happens in the photoelectric effect.
If the frequency of light is low, then no matter how high is the
amplitude (light intensity), you'll not see the electron emission.
What I am trying to do is somehow come to some interference of
De Broglie's wave with the incoming light.
At several points today I wanted to go for help to sci.math, as it
does get really complicated.
Internet google is a great help though, plenty of info.
So, what would happen if we could cancel (by superposition) a De Broglie
(phase) wave of the electron with the incoming wave....
(at one point is enough, the electron would fly away, or distort that
wave so it is catapulted away), with the kinetic energy gained from the
incoming light EM wave energy.
A sort of tjunami freak wave effect? :-)
There seem to be both an interference (multiplication) and a addition
possibility.
In fact this is what I am trying to understand, this game of
wave patterns that happens in the atom when it is hit by the EM light wave.
For now I have a piece of paper full of values and formulas...
Of course, at very high intensities you'll start to see the emission,
but this will be due to two-photon processes (electron absorbs two
photons at once) which have nothing to do with the "normal" situation
discussed here.
Possible, but I dunno anything about that.
Eugene.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Stefanovich" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
23 Aug 2005 08:56:12 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
So, if you keep the frequency constant and increase the amplitude
(use light of higher intensity), then at some point you should
reach the threshold acceleration and, therefore, electron emission.
No I think not, the thing will release on a speed CHANGE (direction
change)
speed change (direction change) = acceleration
What I am trying to do is somehow come to some interference of
De Broglie's wave with the incoming light.
I don't understand where are you trying to get with this.
The photoelectric effect has been understood by quantum mechanics
decades ago. There are theoretical formulas and numerical algorithms
that allow you to calculate anything you would like to know about
this experiment with very high accuracy.
It seems that you are not happy with these
standard approaches. You are trying to substitute them with
some "classical" explanation of photo-effect as shaking the electron
by variable electric and magnetic fields. Then don't use
"De Broglie's waves" because they belong to quantum mechanics.
Personally, I don't think you'll succeed here. This chapter of
physics has been well understood and closed.
Eugene.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
24 Aug 2005 05:09:59 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:56:12 -0700) it happened Eugene
Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in <430BD3BC.1080008@synopsys.com>:
I don't understand where are you trying to get with this.
The photoelectric effect has been understood by quantum mechanics
decades ago. There are theoretical formulas and numerical algorithms
that allow you to calculate anything you would like to know about
this experiment with very high accuracy.
It seems that you are not happy with these
standard approaches. You are trying to substitute them with
some "classical" explanation of photo-effect as shaking the electron
by variable electric and magnetic fields. Then don't use
"De Broglie's waves" because they belong to quantum mechanics.
'Belong to?'
His reasoning is very logical and based on WAVES,
and if you want to put a stamp on it feel free do do so.
However your stamps are free too.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html#c3
"photo electric effect cannot be explained in terms of waves"
Chapter closed?
For you may be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
24 Aug 2005 03:05:35 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
'It is written' that this cannot (has not?) been done [1].
Before I delve deeper in the math, let us look at it from
a slightly different perspective, a 'mechanical' analogy
with waves.
Just for arguments sake imagine a surface with hollow extrusions.
A ball is sitting in each 'dip'.
--- ----------
\ O /
--------
When we excitate the surface with a sine wave, the ball gets excited
by the maxima and minima of the wave (it starts jumping up and down a bit).
As soon as it starts moving up, it won't come back down. You will find
all such balls move vertically up.
ABOVE A SPECIFIC LEVEL the ball will jump over the edge and roll away, or
even jump further up.
You can envision this as shaking the container in the frequency of the wave.
When the frequency doubles, then 2 x more maxima (excitations) will occur,
and 2 x more balls will leave their hole.
No. You will get balls leaving with twice the velocity, but all balls
would leave vertically.
Below the threshold the ball will just vibrate a bit but stay in the hole.
When we replace 'ball' by electron, and wave by light, and the threshold by
the work function for a material, we have a model that would explain the
photo electric effect from a wave point of view.
I even suspect we can find the specific values for the various elements from
their atomic structure (the container). [2]
Right or wrong?
It's wrong.
FYI readings:
Photo electric effect:
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node3.html
[1] What not:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html#c3
[2] Materials work function
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/photoelec.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
27 Aug 2005 09:21:25 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
--- ----------
\ O /
--------
Did you get this idea from the Wendy's commercial?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
28 Aug 2005 06:02:54 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (27 Aug 2005 19:21:25 -0700) it happened "Autymn D. C."
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<1125195685.051622.239860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
--- ----------
\ O /
--------
Did you get this idea from the Wendy's commercial?
Why do you post here with you brain disorder?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
28 Aug 2005 06:40:25 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125226991.69ee228d887e1998a0dc2453fdc87412@teranews...
| On a sunny day (27 Aug 2005 19:21:25 -0700) it happened "Autymn D. C."
| <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| <1125195685.051622.239860@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
|
| >Jan Panteltje wrote:
| >> --- ----------
| >> \ O /
| >> --------
| >
| >Did you get this idea from the Wendy's commercial?
| >
| Why do you post here with you brain disorder?
Annoying, isn't it?
Having suffered such comments as
" Since you don't understand this stuff, why don't you refrain from
posting on this thread? What's your point? Anything wrong with being
decent and honest?"
and
"To me it's interesting - what are the limits of withstanding blatant
contradictions (infinite, apparently)."
I then reduced the moron to
Relativity works because:
An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero
or
something equally trivial." -- Bielawski.
It's WAY too simple-minded.-- Bielawski.
"would have been caught immediately by the AdP reviewer." -- Bielawski.
It is boring to find out how far our dishonest and indecent Jan
Bielawski
can be pushed into irrelevancies and nonsense.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
28 Aug 2005 07:15:14 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:40:25 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
<Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
<JohQe.29721$5m3.6638@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Annoying, isn't it?
Having suffered such comments as
" Since you don't understand this stuff, why don't you refrain from
posting on this thread? What's your point? Anything wrong with being
decent and honest?"
and
"To me it's interesting - what are the limits of withstanding blatant
contradictions (infinite, apparently)."
I then reduced the moron to
Relativity works because:
An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero
or
something equally trivial." -- Bielawski.
It's WAY too simple-minded.-- Bielawski.
"would have been caught immediately by the AdP reviewer." -- Bielawski.
It is boring to find out how far our dishonest and indecent Jan
Bielawski
can be pushed into irrelevancies and nonsense.
Androcles.
Yes, as this is sure the basis for a Nobel, lots of people get jealous.
They did see it is correct, and an important argument against waves falls,
in fact the ONLY and LAST argument against being able to explain everything
with waves falls, and perhaps on the horizon even the Planck constant ;-)???
No that would shake not only Rela Tiviti's tits, but for tat also
the quantum club.
I am a bit reluctant as to how much to release right now, as maybe humanity
is not quite ready, on the other hand the truth does not hurt.
!Polly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
28 Aug 2005 11:01:46 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125231324.d2d546f5f720cdb638a5fe8b18d47879@teranews...
| On a sunny day (Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:40:25 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
| <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
| <JohQe.29721$5m3.6638@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
|
| >Annoying, isn't it?
| >Having suffered such comments as
| >
| >" Since you don't understand this stuff, why don't you refrain from
| >posting on this thread? What's your point? Anything wrong with being
| >decent and honest?"
| >and
| >"To me it's interesting - what are the limits of withstanding blatant
| >contradictions (infinite, apparently)."
| >I then reduced the moron to
| >Relativity works because:
| >An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by
zero
| >or
| >something equally trivial." -- Bielawski.
| >It's WAY too simple-minded.-- Bielawski.
| >"would have been caught immediately by the AdP reviewer." --
Bielawski.
| >
| >It is boring to find out how far our dishonest and indecent Jan
| >Bielawski
| >can be pushed into irrelevancies and nonsense.
| >
| > Androcles.
| Yes, as this is sure the basis for a Nobel, lots of people get
jealous.
| They did see it is correct, and an important argument against waves
falls,
| in fact the ONLY and LAST argument against being able to explain
everything
| with waves falls, and perhaps on the horizon even the Planck constant
;-)???
| No that would shake not only Rela Tiviti's tits, but for tat also
| the quantum club.
| I am a bit reluctant as to how much to release right now, as maybe
humanity
| is not quite ready, on the other hand the truth does not hurt.
|
| !Polly
Put the kettle on, Polly. I'm on chapter 7, still writing, haven't time
to do it myself. :-)
How does "Relativity Revealed" sound as a catchy title?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
28 Aug 2005 08:34:55 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:40:25 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
<Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
<JohQe.29721$5m3.6638@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
And, as we now have a wave explanation model for everything,
now (I was just watching a movie when writing previous reply, you know
Bud Spencer (in Egypt), and he deals with nasty posters like that in a
very simple way ;-) ) we actually do not need a 'photon' anymore.
Now 'photon' is actually a mathematic construct, not so much a reality, so
can we now claim that 'photon' does not exist, is just a mathematical
construct.
Now that clears up the sky a lot.
What do you think, true or not?
PS we can see Bud Spencer as using heavy particle physics (fists), but also
as using waves (arms movement), in both cases the mass m is big and the
velocity v close to relativistic.
This tells us something about the impact to be expected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
28 Aug 2005 11:07:29 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125236103.594a0e24951f4e9991eb9df76799cbd3@teranews...
| On a sunny day (Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:40:25 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
| <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
| <JohQe.29721$5m3.6638@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
|
| And, as we now have a wave explanation model for everything,
| now (I was just watching a movie when writing previous reply, you know
| Bud Spencer (in Egypt), and he deals with nasty posters like that in a
| very simple way ;-) ) we actually do not need a 'photon' anymore.
| Now 'photon' is actually a mathematic construct, not so much a
reality, so
| can we now claim that 'photon' does not exist, is just a mathematical
| construct.
| Now that clears up the sky a lot.
| What do you think, true or not?
|
| PS we can see Bud Spencer as using heavy particle physics (fists), but
also
| as using waves (arms movement), in both cases the mass m is big and
the
| velocity v close to relativistic.
|
| This tells us something about the impact to be expected.
LOL!
Here's my clock. It's 6:15 (GMT) on an August afternoon.
http://www.amherst.edu/~ermace/sth/birdseye.jpeg
Have an FTL particle.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective. |
28 Aug 2005 08:01:00 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Why do you post here with you brain disorder?
No, I post here /against/ you brain disorder.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
