"Richard" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5su31$5d05b$1@ID-153527.news.uni-berlin.de...
|
| A couple of years back I showed quantitatively that the photoelectric
| effect is nothing more than a result of conservation of energy, and of
| the atomic orbital system of discrete "charges". IOW, the result of the
| experiment is what must occur if energy is conserved. It says absolutely
| nothing about the nature of the energy propagated, i.e. how it is
| propagated, or in what form.
|
| We have a given source of em radiation emitting monochromatic light of
| frequency f. It is an empirical observation that the atomic spectrum
| involves the relationship E = hf, or IOW, whenever we see a given
| frequency emitted due to a change in electron orbitals, that the atom
| emits an energy hf. This is an atom specific effect, and there is no
| basis to conclude that the product hf holds as an absolute rule for all
| emitted em energy.
|
| If we assume all of the energy emitted from the source is absorbed by
| the metal surface (which is a good approximation if the source energy
| propagates in the form a narrow beam, then all of this energy must show
| up at the detector. If the work function is equal to or less than an
| energy hf, then electrons will be ejected. Note that this doesn't prove,
| or even imply that the energy is propagated in discrete bundles, but
| only that in atomic matter it is emitted and absorbed in relatively
| discrete quantities. It is quite likely that a constructive node is
| providing the energy hf to the electron, which itself has an orbital
| that responds to waves of a given frequency, i.e. the orbital behaves as
| an antenna with a "high Q" (Radio terminology). The electron must be in
| phase with the incoming waves in order to gain KE by their interaction
| with them, just as a director or reflector element interacts with the
| driven element. This equally explains the phenomenon of a lower cutoff
| frequency. Actually it is a much more sensible explanation, in that we
| have a direct macroscopic test in the form of radio transmission and
| reception.
|
| By the law of conservation of energy, assuming no energy retained by any
| other components in the metal, we must have:
| n*(hf + KE_average) = E_total_incident
| n is just the number of photo electrons emitted from the metal surface.
|
| This is just conservation of energy, and though we can speculate that
| this is due to an exchange of discrete energy bundles between electrons
| in the source and target, this interpretation, OTOH, fails when
| considering VLF radiation.
| The math of QT can deal with these other systems, but it must abandon
| the absoluteness of the photon, and in so doing has simply admitted to
| their nonexistence. The math of QT is just a pixelized version of wave
| mechanics with different names applied to the terms. Make the pixels
| small enough and you can approximate analogue systems. Make the pixels
| the size of atomic radiation wavelengths and you can get an even closer
| fit when discussing atomic spectra. Conveniently at lower frequencies
| the pixelation is so great that it isn't testable.
|
| There is no level at which the analogue model breaks down:
| 1) The classical analogue model is wrong, thus the seeming discrepancies
| with quantum reality.
| 2) The quantum model is also wrong, thus the seeming discrepancies with
| analogue reality.
|
| IOW, given the correct description of the em field and em interactions
| all observations can be easily accounted for, no magic or illogic
required.
|
| Now let's bring in context. The idea of the discrete "photon" certainly
| works to describe the effect, that is, when the effect is considered
| independent of other contexts. OTOH, it was Einstein himself that had
| already provided a context with which this notion of the photon is at
| odds, namely Special Relativity, simply because this model eliminates
| light altogether as a reality. Within the context of the Minkowski
| metric, light is just an illusion caused by thinking in terms of
| Newton's absolute time-flow.
|
| Few of you will understand the above arguments, and fewer still who do
| understand them will accept them at face value, so I'll urge those fewer
| still of you to look over the electromagnetic treatise that I've work
| out, and to go back and reconsider your concepts about "motion in time".
| The electron field is a perfect inverse square "vector" field at any
| instant, regardless of its motion, when it is viewed as extending
| through 4d space-time rather than through 3d space, and thus any waving
| or pancaking of that field is a perspective-induced illusion, as
| detailed above.
|
| Richard Perry
| http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/Electromagnetism.html

Richard, learn how to use Equation Editor in MS Word and get rid of all your
ascii math. Sheesh, it only took me a couple of hours to learn how to use
Equation Editor and convert to html. Your presentation will be much cleaner
and maybe I will try to read it again.

FrediFizzx