Jan, Eugene,
It seems to me that the only question left unanswered in the
photoelectric effect is why a frequency increase (increase of energy)
knocks out electrons at certain threshold levels while an increase of
magnitude (intensity) does not (except in the "abnormal" situation
noted above by Eugene).

My model gives the PE effect as an example of how light waves (lws) can
affect other particles. I contend that light waves crash through DM
particles and transform them into real photons which we see as light.
In the PE effect, it seems to me that the lws crash into the DM
particles adjacent to the electrons and the lws deposit energy into the
DM particles which in turn can knock out an electron on a one-on-one
basis. The scenario is thus: we have lws impinging on a metal which
is so full of electrons that it is easy to free them from their atoms
with lws of certain frequencies.

DM comprises space, so electrons are surrounded by it, as is all
visible matter. However, DM has negative mass so it has no positive
energy with which to affect electrons. When a lw turns a DM particle
into a photon which is closest to an electron, the energy of the photon
is enough to force the electron out of the atom as a free electron.
Being a many-photons-to-one-electron relationship (remember that the
photons surround the electrons as DM particles), at certain energy
levels electrons can be pushed out of the atom.

Higher intensity means more photons, but only so many photon particles
can surround an electron so no matter how many photons you shine on a
metal, it is the energy level and not the quantity level that pushes
out photons.

My model is hard to imagine until you have a few of its concepts in
mind, and that is because it is connected to several science concepts
by the explanations it provides to various issues in physics. My ideas
are alternatives to what is there but which is a paradox, or something
not there so it is a msytery, and to some ideas which are there but
which do not adequately explain phenomena well enough to satisfy
inquiring minds. I remain open to questions about it, but not to
stupid attempts at obfuscation, distraction, or personal attacks (which
only make me hurt you in return).

I hope I have answered Eugene's question to Jan as to why go on about
this. Jan has a point; he just does not have the background to ask the
proper question. At least, not yet. But you will, Jan, if you keep it
up. Your ideas show that your interest is such that you can tell
something is not quite right in physicsland, and you're right. You ask
the question because the answer is not there for anyone to see, just
like the child who exposes the naked emperor who claims he is wearing
the finest clothes. You can appreciate one thing, Jan, and that is
that no is flaming you today, and it has not been easy to get this ng
to this point today.

Paul's retort is not really a full-fledged flame, at least not to the
extent he is capable. Bjoern just came in and left; maybe he'll stay
gone or remain better-behaved. Others like Bilge et al are waiting for
you to come to their bridge, so you can be sure they will be along soon
to attack your post. But they are just a few trolls who have shown
everyone here that they know little about civil debate, or logical
debate for that matter, of the issues in science. So keep on asking
about what seems counter-intuitive to you, Jan, as chances are you
might get answers you can use.