'It is written' that this cannot (has not?) been done [1].

Before I delve deeper in the math, let us look at it from
a slightly different perspective, a 'mechanical' analogy
with waves.

Just for arguments sake imagine a surface with hollow extrusions.
A ball is sitting in each 'dip'.


--- ----------
\ O /
--------

When we excitate the surface with a sine wave, the ball gets excited
by the maxima and minima of the wave (it starts jumping up and down a bit).


ABOVE A SPECIFIC LEVEL the ball will jump over the edge and roll away, or
even jump further up.
You can envision this as shaking the container in the frequency of the wave.

When the frequency doubles, then 2 x more maxima (excitations) will occur,
and 2 x more balls will leave their hole.

Below the threshold the ball will just vibrate a bit but stay in the hole.

When we replace 'ball' by electron, and wave by light, and the threshold by
the work function for a material, we have a model that would explain the
photo electric effect from a wave point of view.

I even suspect we can find the specific values for the various elements from
their atomic structure (the container). [2]

Right or wrong?


FYI readings:
Photo electric effect:
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/quant/node3.html

[1] What not:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html#c3

[2] Materials work function
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...photoelec.html

Jan Panteltje wrote:
'It is written' that this cannot (has not?) been done [1].

Before I delve deeper in the math, let us look at it from
a slightly different perspective, a 'mechanical' analogy
with waves.

Just for arguments sake imagine a surface with hollow extrusions.
A ball is sitting in each 'dip'.


--- ----------
\ O /
--------

When we excitate the surface with a sine wave, the ball gets excited
by the maxima and minima of the wave (it starts jumping up and down a bit).


ABOVE A SPECIFIC LEVEL the ball will jump over the edge and roll away, or
even jump further up.
You can envision this as shaking the container in the frequency of the wave.

When the frequency doubles, then 2 x more maxima (excitations) will occur,
and 2 x more balls will leave their hole.

Below the threshold the ball will just vibrate a bit but stay in the hole.

When we replace 'ball' by electron, and wave by light, and the threshold by
the work function for a material, we have a model that would explain the
photo electric effect from a wave point of view.

I even suspect we can find the specific values for the various elements from
their atomic structure (the container). [2]

Right or wrong?

How would you explain the fact that when the frequency of the wave is
below the threshold, the ball will never leave the hole no matter
how high is the amplitude of the wave? That's what happens in real
photo-electric effect.

Eugene.

Jan Panteltje wrote:
'It is written' that this cannot (has not?) been done [1].

Before I delve deeper in the math, let us look at it from
a slightly different perspective, a 'mechanical' analogy
with waves.

Just for arguments sake imagine a surface with hollow extrusions.
A ball is sitting in each 'dip'.


--- ----------
\ O /
--------

When we excitate the surface with a sine wave, the ball gets excited
by the maxima and minima of the wave (it starts jumping up and down a bit).


ABOVE A SPECIFIC LEVEL the ball will jump over the edge and roll away, or
even jump further up.
You can envision this as shaking the container in the frequency of the wave.

When the frequency doubles, then 2 x more maxima (excitations) will occur,
and 2 x more balls will leave their hole.


Non sequitur.

"Eugene Stefanovich" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Jan Panteltje wrote:
| 'It is written' that this cannot (has not?) been done [1].
|
| Before I delve deeper in the math, let us look at it from
| a slightly different perspective, a 'mechanical' analogy
| with waves.
|
| Just for arguments sake imagine a surface with hollow extrusions.
| A ball is sitting in each 'dip'.
|
|
| --- ----------
| \ O /
| --------
|
| When we excitate the surface with a sine wave, the ball gets excited
| by the maxima and minima of the wave (it starts jumping up and down
a bit).
|
|
| ABOVE A SPECIFIC LEVEL the ball will jump over the edge and roll
away, or
| even jump further up.
| You can envision this as shaking the container in the frequency of
the wave.
|
| When the frequency doubles, then 2 x more maxima (excitations) will
occur,
| and 2 x more balls will leave their hole.
|
| Below the threshold the ball will just vibrate a bit but stay in the
hole.
|
| When we replace 'ball' by electron, and wave by light, and the
threshold by
| the work function for a material, we have a model that would explain
the
| photo electric effect from a wave point of view.
|
| I even suspect we can find the specific values for the various
elements from
| their atomic structure (the container). [2]
|
| Right or wrong?
|
| How would you explain the fact that when the frequency of the wave is
| below the threshold, the ball will never leave the hole no matter
| how high is the amplitude of the wave? That's what happens in real
| photo-electric effect.
|
| Eugene.

I thought he did.
"Below the threshold the ball will just vibrate a bit but stay in the
hole."
Did he say "amplitude"?
What am I missing here?
Androcles.

Androcles wrote:


[snip]


I thought he did.
"Below the threshold the ball will just vibrate a bit but stay in the
hole."
Did he say "amplitude"?
What am I missing here?

An education in physics. This is 101 type stuff.

Androcles.

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:24:10 -0700) it happened Eugene
Stefanovich wrote in :


How would you explain the fact that when the frequency of the wave is
below the threshold, the ball will never leave the hole no matter
how high is the amplitude of the wave? That's what happens in real
photo-electric effect.

Eugene.

Hi, I have made a better model now, it is in an other post, marked
[More on: part 2] Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective.
But as it is actually (in my view)an electromagnetic effect, I will repeat
that text here for you.
Pleae not also that in the case of the magnet, the amplitude makes no
difference, only the speed at which it moves (frequency).
So there is your threshold.

You probably wanted to say "acceleration at which it moves". Speed plays
no role here. Then please note that acceleration of periodic movement
is proportional to the amplitude b
(it is also proportional to the square of frequency f)

x(t) = b sin(ft)
v(t) = bf cos(ft)
a(t) = -bf^2 sin(ft)

So, if you keep the frequency constant and increase the amplitude
(use light of higher intensity), then at some point you should
reach the threshold acceleration and, therefore, electron emission.
This is not what happens in the photoelectric effect.
If the frequency of light is low, then no matter how high is the
amplitude (light intensity), you'll not see the electron emission.

Of course, at very high intensities you'll start to see the emission,
but this will be due to two-photon processes (electron absorbs two
photons at once) which have nothing to do with the "normal" situation
discussed here.

Eugene.

On a sunny day (Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:39:52 -0700) it happened Eugene
Stefanovich wrote in :



Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:24:10 -0700) it happened Eugene
Stefanovich wrote in :


How would you explain the fact that when the frequency of the wave is
below the threshold, the ball will never leave the hole no matter
how high is the amplitude of the wave? That's what happens in real
photo-electric effect.

Eugene.

Hi, I have made a better model now, it is in an other post, marked
[More on: part 2] Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective.
But as it is actually (in my view)an electromagnetic effect, I will repeat
that text here for you.
Pleae not also that in the case of the magnet, the amplitude makes no
difference, only the speed at which it moves (frequency).
So there is your threshold.

You probably wanted to say "acceleration at which it moves".
No no, I tried to convey: speed, the speed with which you wave the magnet,
so frequency.
What happens is that the ball will fly away when the change in direction of
movement happens near top or bottom wave.
And please remember this is a analogy.


Speed plays
no role here. Then please note that acceleration of periodic movement
is proportional to the amplitude b
(it is also proportional to the square of frequency f)

x(t) = b sin(ft)
v(t) = bf cos(ft)
a(t) = -bf^2 sin(ft)

So, if you keep the frequency constant and increase the amplitude
(use light of higher intensity), then at some point you should
reach the threshold acceleration and, therefore, electron emission.
No I think not, the thing will release on a speed CHANGE (direction
change) I have now just spend some moments playing with a piece
of iron stuck to a magnetic pendulum.
It is true that if you connect the ball at the bottom of the wave,
(pendulum left) then it will acellerate until all the way right the
direction change nears, and fly of (to the right).
Anyways, this is an analogy again, of cause it does not hold.

This is not what happens in the photoelectric effect.
If the frequency of light is low, then no matter how high is the
amplitude (light intensity), you'll not see the electron emission.


What I am trying to do is somehow come to some interference of
De Broglie's wave with the incoming light.
At several points today I wanted to go for help to sci.math, as it
does get really complicated.
Internet google is a great help though, plenty of info.

So, what would happen if we could cancel (by superposition) a De Broglie
(phase) wave of the electron with the incoming wave....
(at one point is enough, the electron would fly away, or distort that
wave so it is catapulted away), with the kinetic energy gained from the
incoming light EM wave energy.
A sort of tjunami freak wave effect? :-)
There seem to be both an interference (multiplication) and a addition
possibility.

In fact this is what I am trying to understand, this game of
wave patterns that happens in the atom when it is hit by the EM light wave.
For now I have a piece of paper full of values and formulas...


Of course, at very high intensities you'll start to see the emission,
but this will be due to two-photon processes (electron absorbs two
photons at once) which have nothing to do with the "normal" situation
discussed here.

Possible, but I dunno anything about that.

Eugene.

On a sunny day (Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:39:52 -0700) it happened Eugene
Stefanovich wrote in :



Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:24:10 -0700) it happened Eugene
Stefanovich wrote in :


How would you explain the fact that when the frequency of the wave is
below the threshold, the ball will never leave the hole no matter
how high is the amplitude of the wave? That's what happens in real
photo-electric effect.

Eugene.

Hi, I have made a better model now, it is in an other post, marked
[More on: part 2] Explaining the photo electric effect from the wave perspective.
But as it is actually (in my view)an electromagnetic effect, I will repeat
that text here for you.
Pleae not also that in the case of the magnet, the amplitude makes no
difference, only the speed at which it moves (frequency).
So there is your threshold.

You probably wanted to say "acceleration at which it moves".
No no, I tried to convey: speed, the speed with which you wave the magnet,
so frequency.
What happens is that the ball will fly away when the change in direction of
movement happens near top or bottom wave.
And please remember this is a analogy.


Speed plays
no role here. Then please note that acceleration of periodic movement
is proportional to the amplitude b
(it is also proportional to the square of frequency f)

x(t) = b sin(ft)
v(t) = bf cos(ft)
a(t) = -bf^2 sin(ft)

So, if you keep the frequency constant and increase the amplitude
(use light of higher intensity), then at some point you should
reach the threshold acceleration and, therefore, electron emission.
No I think not, the thing will release on a speed CHANGE (direction
change) I have now just spend some moments playing with a piece
of iron stuck to a magnetic pendulum.
It is true that if you connect the ball at the bottom of the wave,
(pendulum left) then it will acellerate until all the way right the
direction change nears, and fly of (to the right).
Anyways, this is an analogy again, of cause it does not hold.

This is not what happens in the photoelectric effect.
If the frequency of light is low, then no matter how high is the
amplitude (light intensity), you'll not see the electron emission.


What I am trying to do is somehow come to some interference of
De Broglie's wave with the incoming light.
At several points today I wanted to go for help to sci.math, as it
does get really complicated.
Internet google is a great help though, plenty of info.

So, what would happen if we could cancel (by superposition) a De Broglie
(phase) wave of the electron with the incoming wave....
(at one point is enough, the electron would fly away, or distort that
wave so it is catapulted away), with the kinetic energy gained from the
incoming light EM wave energy.
A sort of tjunami freak wave effect? :-)
There seem to be both an interference (multiplication) and a addition
possibility.

In fact this is what I am trying to understand, this game of
wave patterns that happens in the atom when it is hit by the EM light wave.
For now I have a piece of paper full of values and formulas...


Of course, at very high intensities you'll start to see the emission,
but this will be due to two-photon processes (electron absorbs two
photons at once) which have nothing to do with the "normal" situation
discussed here.

Possible, but I dunno anything about that.

Eugene.


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Jan Panteltje wrote:

So, if you keep the frequency constant and increase the amplitude
(use light of higher intensity), then at some point you should
reach the threshold acceleration and, therefore, electron emission.

No I think not, the thing will release on a speed CHANGE (direction
change)

speed change (direction change) = acceleration


What I am trying to do is somehow come to some interference of
De Broglie's wave with the incoming light.

I don't understand where are you trying to get with this.
The photoelectric effect has been understood by quantum mechanics
decades ago. There are theoretical formulas and numerical algorithms
that allow you to calculate anything you would like to know about
this experiment with very high accuracy.
It seems that you are not happy with these
standard approaches. You are trying to substitute them with
some "classical" explanation of photo-effect as shaking the electron
by variable electric and magnetic fields. Then don't use
"De Broglie's waves" because they belong to quantum mechanics.

Personally, I don't think you'll succeed here. This chapter of
physics has been well understood and closed.

Eugene.

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.