Re: The double slit experiment

PD wrote:
> You stated you could understand the behavior observed in the
> photoelectric effect by what limits the minimum energy absorbed by a
> radio antenna, which you say is a resonance effect. If you want the
> analogy to work, you have to account for a resonance effect in the
> metal where the photoelectric effect is observed.

Okay, so you're talking the photoelectric effect, not radio waves.
There are many possibilities. So my point is that it does not have to
be a photon particle. Besides, are you suggesting that only the single
photon *particle* explains the photoelectric effect and not the single
photon *wave*? I thought the big discovery was the concept of the
single photon.
To your question though. As I mentioned, my analogy was using a
receiving antenna as the atom. So it goes both ways. The atom is
liked to a complex antenna. The electron cloud has width and energy
levels from shell to shell. In radio world this is resonance relative
to the wavelength of the photon. For example, if you have a photon
that's 1000 meters long and a receive antenna that's 1 meter long then
Huston, we have a problem; i.e., the single photon just is not going to
absorb anytime soon. Similarly the electrons in an atom each have
their resonance, which depends on many factors. This is nothing new.
Take an atom that's x meters wide and consider an electron in the atom.
Now consider a photon that has a wavelength of 100,000x meters and
compare that to a photon that's x meters in wavelength. Which photon
do you think will affect the electron? As you know, the long
wavelength photon is going to slowly force the electron in one
direction, and then slowly force it in the other direction, but that
doesn't mean it's going to shoot the electron out of the atom.
Consider a bridge. Slowly apply a great deal of force on the bridge.
It would take an act of congress to push a strong bridge down by those
means. Now get a bunch of people to jump up and down at the correct
frequency and you'll see that strong bridge flexes and bend like crazy.
That is the power of resonance. As you know, what is happening is
that the energy is accumulating with each cycle. Sure, if I dropped a
1E+99 watt 1MHz frequency pulse wave bomb next to any atom then you
betcha those electrons are going to shoot out of the atoms. Similarly
if we take a strong crane and slowly apply enough force then that
bridge will snap.



> > I never said that. I clearly wrote energy is h * f. Please explain
> > what you are referring to.
>
> You said:
> > > > We
> > > > must not forget that the single photon that has twice the frequency is
> > > > also half as long; i.e., the wavelength is half the size. So we have
> > > > half the wavelength (energy is cut in half) but twice the magnetic
> > > > field intensity (energy is quadrupled). So that's 1/2 * 4 = 2.
> and I'm asking why this multiplication of 1/2 * 4 should be associated
> with h*f?

Yes, so where's the equation. I just see numbers based on relative
values. Half the size times four times the field energy equals twice
the over all net energy.


> > Please clarify. I believe that a single radio wave photon is absorbed
> > by an electron, which accelerates the electron.
>
> Yes, that's fine



> > So then why did you say that I am no longer talking about radio waves?
>
> Because a wave, by *definition*, deposits energy continuously.

No it doesn't. All waves have a transition period. So far I have
never seen a radio generate last forever.


> A single
> deposit of energy into a single electron is not a behavior of waves.
> Now you're talking about how photons behave, *by definition*.

See some of my previous text on the transition from wave to particle
like behavior.


>
> > To you it may seem that you are correcting what I said, but I clearly
> > do not see any corrections, so far. I welcome any detailed
> > corrections.
> >
> >
> > > Wave mechanics says the energy is deposited *continuously*, not in
> > > lumps.
> >
> > How can you say that? Are you suggesting that a single photon
> > continuously deposits energy in the photoelectric effect? Once the
> > photon is absorbed then it is no longer a photon. Surely we are
> > misunderstanding each other.
>
> You are clearly misunderstanding me, certainly. I am careful to make a
> distinction between wave behavior (nonlocalizability, superposition and
> interference, continuous delivery of energy and momentum) and photon
> behavior (localizability, discrete energy and momentum delivery).

That's where I disagree, at present. That is, I believe the photon is
a wave.


> When you talk about a radio *wave*, then you need to talk about its wave
> properties and wave properties only. When you talk about discrete
> deposits of energy, you are now talking about a radio *photon*.

Again, I am seeing it differently. I believe the radio wave is a
photon.


> I'm simply throwing in speed bumps when you ascribe properties of one to
> the other.

As long as they're speed bumps and not daggers. ;-)


> > A delay? You have my interest, but please clarify. Are you saying
> > there is a delay or not? In the world of radio waves and antenna I see
> > no delay. Are you referring to reactance?

I'd like to take that back if you don't mind. What's your exchange
policy, lol?


> Read the papers about the photoelectric effect or read 3 pages of a
> freshman physics or chemistry text that explains the issue here. A wave
> *theory* of light demands that there would be a delay.
> Experiment says it doesn't happen. Hence a wave representation of light is not
> complete.

No, no, no, I don't buy it. If I understand what you are saying then
it cannot be true. There has to be a transition time for the
absorption of energy. The electron simply cannot go from say 1 m/s to
10 m/s in zero seconds! That would generate a pulse wave of infinite
magnitude. Please show me a specific experiment demonstrating that
because all the photoelectric effect experiments I have read about show
no such thing.



> > I have encountered many QM scientists who believe that a photon is a
> > ball of energy,
>
> In which case, I'm not terribly impressed with your "QM scientist"
> sources.

Yes ... I guess that's message boards for you-- a smorgusborg of people.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Read this one, the other is a mess! Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... photons per volume and not the energy of the photon as such. ... characteristics than a wave within a medium. ... at least for the considerations of Relativity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Part 1 Re: Ken, need help with this
    ... The problem is that mass is a determining factor for finding kinetic energy ... The energy must therefore be in the wave and not in the photon. ... Visualize a true bucket brigade, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • A Snapshot of a Photon
    ... A Snapshot of a Photon ... oaf a wave. ... "lumps" of energy called photons because it is noisy. ... The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity", ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: photons
    ... In what other ways do you disagree ... > Hang on this is about a photon not an electron,are you reading the correct ... > Its a wave form, it can do both as the attenuating wave still carries the ... > accumulate to quantum photon energy level to trigger an electron exchange. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • A Snapshot of a Photon
    ... A Snapshot of a Photon ... oaf a wave. ... "lumps" of energy called photons because it is noisy. ... The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity", ...
    (sci.physics)