Re: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity

PD wrote:
On Oct 17, 4:18 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


The photoelectric effect *cannot* be explained by continuous wave theory
because continuous wave theory says that the energy spreads out evenly.
If it spreads out evenly then there is no possibility of it arriving at
a point with sufficient energy to knock an electron out of an atom. Wave
theory fails. Now Take an experiment which you would claim shows it
cannot be particles. The double slit experiment.

If the light level is reduced such that photons arrive singly at a
double slit, interference fringes are detected, it is claimed that
'interference' still takes place. I beg to differ. Not as I understand
interference at any rate. If two sine waves each amplitude unity are
interfering with each other then depending on the phase, the result is
anything from an amplitude of 2 to 0 and *any amplitude in between* e.g.
an amplitude of say 0.333 is perfectly possible.

No, this is incorrect. An interference pattern does not demand a
continuous intensity distribution.

How do you define 'interference pattern' other than a pattern which results from the process of interference. The process of interference requires that two things 'interfere' i.e. two things partially cancel/reinforce each other. What is produced in this instance may mimic interference but it is not the result of interference. What it is in this case is directional modulation not interference.

I don't know where you would have
ever gotten this idea. Yes, the interference pattern is "lumpy" at the
level of individual photon energy deposits. This indicates that the
particle nature of light is indispensable.

Light is made of particles.

However, the fact that
there is an interference pattern *at all* when the photons are emitted
one at a time is also remarkable.

Agreed.

This indicates that the wave nature
of light is indispensable.

Not at all. The physical process called interference requires that two things interfere (partially cancel or reinforce each other). This isn't happening. What you have is the directional probability being described by a wave function. If I am travelling along an undulating track shooting a machine gun at a wall the position traced by the bullets will form a wave. That doesn't mean the bullets must be considered as waves. It is the process determining the direction they travel which causes the wave phenomena.

The question is 'when a photon goes through a slit what determines the direction it will take and how does the presence of the other slit change that'.

Add to that another very important question:
'if a single photon's direction is modulated in such a way as to produce a facsimile of an interference pattern how is it that on mass photons do not produce a pattern if they are not coherent?'. Clearly there is a process which can be disrupted.


This is precisely the lesson afforded by
this real experiment -- that light exhibits *both* the qualities of
categories that up until 75 years ago, we thought were mutually
exclusive. This mutual exclusivity, it appears, was the result of
*our* categorizing phenomena known up to that point into distinct and
nonoverlapping camps, from which we concluded that things could be
waves or particles but not both. Then light revealed itself to be
something unlike anything else we had seen before and resisted this
categorization. It takes a stubborn mind to refuse to admit that light
can be something completely unlike what we had encountered up until
that point and to insist that it MUST fit into one category or the
other.

Many months ago Tom Roberts informed me that photons were point particles with no internal structure. I have just read that QED says they are standing spherical waves. That at least is a move in the right direction - photons must be dynamic to produce wavelike phenomena - although it does involve reinventing the aether for them to be waves in (not of course that anyone will call it aether and not of course that physics ever really got rid of it in the first place).

Waldron suggests that a photon contains opposite charges and that it rotates. Whatever else Maxwell's equations show, they show there is a link between charge and light, between charge and photons. Maxwell's equations relate to relationships which relate to charge and nothing else.

When such a photon passes through a slit then one variable is the position of it w.r.t the slit middle, near one side, near the other. Another is its orientation w.r.t the slit (it has a positive side and a negative side). We have the field caused by the rotating charge which can potentially affect both slits. We have the much higher numbers of photons which do not pass through the slits which may 'prime' the slits in some way, a process which can be disrupted if photons are randomly orientated as in non coherent light. It falls way short of an 'explanation' but it shows that there are a number of variables to work with.

As I say it is impossible to explain the photo electric effect using waves but no one has proved you cannot explain wavelike phenomena with a suitable particle model.
--
John Kennaugh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: how does light cause interference phenomena?
    ... Waves from a hot filament definitely interfere all the time, ... Photons of the same ray too are in different loci at an instance of ... "magnifies" the constructive interference, producing an extremely high ... > that is a noise signal. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Second Postulate Violates His First.
    ... The waves of Maxwell's theory exist. ... If by 'interference fringes' you mean that two waves 'interfere' then you are mistaken. ... If the light level is reduced such that photons arrive singly at a double slit, 'interference fringes' are built up at the detector, it is claimed that 'interference' still takes place. ... whole photon arrives at a point on the detector, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... "The principle of superposition of waves states that the resultant ... it arrived later and did interference with a later ... Light is a stream of photons falling like raindrops. ... another that>>arrives> an hour later? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Second Postulate Violates His First.
    ... >> arrives at its destination in those same quantized lumps then the waves ... If by 'interference fringes' you mean that two waves 'interfere' then ... Is it somewhere where no photons arrive or is it somewhere where photons arrive and are subsequently neutralised by other photons with an opposite phase? ... whole photon arrives at a point on the detector, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photons shapeshifting to wave prior to measurement
    ... >>some of the photons pass near enough the edges of the slit to ... >>'in constant motion'would cause even photons following ... >>Diffraction patterns can be seen with a single slit. ... >>think I remember that the edge of shadows display interference ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading