Re: Article: A Century of Einstein

From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/26/04 

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:08:48 -0500

Bill Hobba wrote:

> "RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2p264pFfgdfnU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>
>>Bill Hobba wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:2p1ml7Ffqhh3U2@uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>RP wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>robert j. kolker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>RP wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And BTW, photons are not particles. More of Einstein's stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The existence of photons has been established experimentally. See for
>>>>>>>example: P.Grangier, G. Roger and A. Aspect; Experimental Evidence
>>>>>>>for a photon anti-correlation effect on a beam splitter; Europhys
>>>>>>>Lett vol 1 pp 173-179 (1986).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For the background read -The Quantum Challange- by George Greenstein,
>>>>>>>Arhtur G. Zajonc Chapter 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They are particles. When they hit a photo plate they make a small dot
>>>>>>>indicating their localized nature. Waves would not do that.
>>>>>>>Furthermore waves cannot explain the photo electric effect within the
>>>>>>>classical Maxwellian electrodynamics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Einstein's 1905 paper on the photo electric effect (the one for
>>>>>>>which he won the Nobel Prize) shows that waves are not sufficient to
>>>>>>>explain the effect. Millikan's experiments backed up Einstein's
>>>>>>>analysis completely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think you are a hundred years behind the times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bob Kolker
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Suppose I have an emulsion that consists of rubber balls woven
>>>>>>together by fine rubber bands into a *** of rubber that is
>>>>>>fluttering randomly in a mild breeze. Now suppose I bombard this ***
>>>>>>with sound waves from a cone speaker. What you seem to be saying is
>>>>>>that it is impossible that only one of these balls be dislodged from
>>>>>>the fabric at a time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That would only be possible if the sound waves were collimated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Is that what you're saying Bob? Now suppose the tension on the balls
>>>>>>occurs in only discrete amounts, then of course, on average you'll see
>>>>>>the recoil energy of these balls vary closely around a fixed value.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How would that explain that the number of dislogded balls increases
>>>>>with the amplitude of the sound wave, whereas the amount of dislodging
>>>>>increases with the frequency of the sound wave?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Now taking into consideration that the source of photons is other
>>>>>>atoms with discrete energy levels,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Err, if you admit that photons come from discrete energy levels, then
>>>>>this implies obviously that photons themselves can have only discrete
>>>>>energies. It's quite easy to show then that they can also only have
>>>>>discrete momenta. But what is the big difference between a photon and
>>>>>a particle then???
>>>>
>>>>No photon ever laid a track in a bubble chamber.
>>>>Photons are waves, and particles are the medium.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nor do waves produce discrete counts in photon multiplier tubes.
>>
>>Apparently they do Bill.
>>
>>Richard Perry
>
>
> Only to those without a clue who can not think. No one has been able to
> produce a wave explanation where the particle properties such as individual
> counts in a photon multiplier depends on frequency.
>
> Bill

Bill, respectfully, this argument is as old as the hills, and as invalid
now as it has ever been. "We couldn't figure it out, therefore it cannot
be figured out." Idiot.

You're making an invalid assumption the then number of clicks equals the
number of emitted photons. Please tell me you counted the photons. How
did you do that Bill? By counting the number of clicks? Isn't that a bit
circular Bill?

Isn't the reality that if every photon absorbed in the detector is
accompanied by one click, and if some of the emitted photons are
absorbed outside of the detector, that the number of clicks cannot
possibly reflect the total number of photons emitted from the source?

Now take this into consideration, the atom are being actively pumped by
internal thermal activity. Thus, there will be an occasional click even
without an external light source present. The very components of the
detector are emitting photons of all colors. Now if you've devised some
method of directly counting these photons, and those of the source, then
I'm saying you couldn't be more incorrect in maintaining the logical
validity of your stance.

If a monochromatic source impinges on the metal surface, above a given
frequency, then photoelectrons are emitted. Now keep in mind that there
are already electrons evaporating out of and diving back into the
surface, thus the light only increases their numbers, and their
energies. Now take into consideration the work function. What is the
work function other than the energy required to remove the electrons
from the surface "on average".

If therefore, the energy of the emitted photons impinging on the surface
is to be conserved, then the energy of the electrons ejected must
reflect conservation of energy. We can take the number of electrons
ejected per second, multiply this by the work function per electron,
subtract this from the incident light energy and we get the average left
over KE per electron. Simple conservation of energy. Now here again you
are going to say, but there is one electron emitted per photon
impinging. Bull*** Bill.

This part is the easy part of explaining the effect in terms of waves.
The difficult part is explaining why the effect ceases below a given
frequency. I've explained this before, to wit, the electron must be
oscillated in phase with its preexisting motion, i.e. it must absorb
energy from the local changing field. Think in terms of the dipole
antenna. If two such antennae are radiating out of phase such that the
passing wave emitted by antenna 1 is out of phase with the preexisting
electron motion in antenna 2, then not only will the electrons not gain
energy from that interaction, but will lose energy, thus amplifying the
wave wrt downstream detectors. Why is it that you cannot make the
connection that electrons within atoms are the same electrons in these
antennae? Won't they both always react to changing ambient fields? Will
the electron within the atom follow different laws of physics than the
electron in the antenna? On what basis do you claim that these electrons
obey different rules?

The adept among you will have already seen where this is going, so
without further ado:
The atomic electrons, by virtue of their chaotic motions within the
metal, will either gain energy or lose energy in their interaction with
the current local changing field. The light source in addition to
increasing the skin temperature of the metal by acceleration of
electrons that weren't ejected, will on occasion interact constructively
with the locally generated fields and given the phase of motion of an
electron in that node, it will gain sufficient energy to escape the
surface. Thus the metal consists of oscillators in random phases, and
of random energies. The probabilities that Feyman spoke of are real, but
they aren't the probabilities of photons landing on electrons, but
rather of electrons being ganged up on by several sources (waves).

If I can clarify specifics of this argument for you, then ask, I'll do
my best.

Richard Perry

>>>
>>>>>>then you might just expect photoelectrons to have an energy
>>>>>>corresponding to that of the incident waves,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What does that mean, specifically?
>>>>>
>>>>>How does the energy of a photon "correspond" to that of the wave?
>>>>>What do you even *mean* with "the energy of a wave"? At least for
>>>>>plane waves, it makes only sense to talk about their energy *density*.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>whether or not they absorb perhaps only a tiny portion of that wave's
>>>>>>energy. IOW you have no proof other than proof of Einstein's
>>>
>>>ineptitude.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Explain the points above before insulting Einstein.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bye,
>>>>>Bjoern
>>>>
>>>
>
>

Loading