Re: The Nature of Mass
From: Leonard Pardin (leoppard_at_MailAndNews.com)
Date: 06/24/04
- Next message: Mitchell: "Re: The making of arbitrary timerate in gravity"
- Previous message: Mitchell: "Re: The making of arbitrary timerate in gravity"
- In reply to: David McAnally: "Re: The Nature of Mass"
- Next in thread: David McAnally: "Re: The Nature of Mass"
- Reply: David McAnally: "Re: The Nature of Mass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Jun 2004 17:23:31 -0700
D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au (David McAnally) wrote in message news:<cbc3ab$vgl$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
> leoppard@MailAndNews.com (Leonard Pardin) writes:
>
> >"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<zH7Cc.76$iU6.14@fed1read03>...
> >>
> >> The photoelectric effect cannot be effectively explained by a wave model.
> >> Light seems to have a dual nature, and in fact so does any particle. Even
> >> C-60 buckyballs have been made to exhibit the self-interference pattern
> >> called "diffraction".
> >>
> >> David A. Smith
>
> > Does not the explanation for the photoelectric effect depend on
> >frequency? Frequency is a wave phenomenon. I have never fully
> >understood why a particle model must be employed in the explanation
> >for the photoelectric effect.
>
> Using waves alone, how do you account for the fact that the photoelectric
> effect works for higher frequency light but not for lower frequency light?
> There is a certain frequency associated with the substance such that
> light (no matter how dim) with frequency greater than the certain
> frequency can cause the photoelectric effect, but light (no matter how
> bright) with frequency lower than the certain frequency can never cause
> the photoelectric effect. Using waves alone, how do you explain this
> phenomenon of a cut-off frequency?
What about resonance and harmonics? A receptor set at a certain
frequency will resonate only at that frequency regardless of the
intensity of the incoming waves. Once the waves are the right
frequency and reach minimum intensity needed to overcome the inertia
of the receptor, the receptor will resonate and give off its own
waves. It seems to me that is a more sensible explanation than
claiming that matter, in the sense of some solid particle, possesses a
property resembling "frequency."
- Next message: Mitchell: "Re: The making of arbitrary timerate in gravity"
- Previous message: Mitchell: "Re: The making of arbitrary timerate in gravity"
- In reply to: David McAnally: "Re: The Nature of Mass"
- Next in thread: David McAnally: "Re: The Nature of Mass"
- Reply: David McAnally: "Re: The Nature of Mass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|