Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Photoelectric effect is not quantized

Photoelectric effect is not quantized - Physics Forum

Photoelectric effect is not quantized - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-25-2006, 01:24 PM
h_v_ansari@yahoo.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Photoelectric effect is not quantized



See the original text.

10 Photoelectric effect has a simple
Ed 01.12.31 ---------------------------------
classical justification
-----------------------
Abstract
--------
It is said that empirical results of the photoelectric effect have no
classical justification and then are used for deduction of the famous
relation E=h<nu> as an alternative way to Planck's deduction. We show
that these results are in fact justifiable by the classical theory of
electromagnetism and then this way can not be a valid manner for
obtaining this relation. Using the presented discussions simple
justification of the Rayleigh scattering and of the action mechanism
of laser are presented in support of the validity of the discussion.

I. Introduction
---------------
As we know the origin of the quantum physics was Planck's deduction
of the famous relation E=h<nu>. Since this deduction is done by
using some mathematical relations and the statistical mechanics (that
we
have proceeded to it in the 11th article of the book where invalidity
of
this deduction has been proven quite mathematically and in detail), it
isn't inserted in many of the elementary textbooks of modern physics or
quantum physics, instead they proceed to draw this relation from the
photoelectric effect relying on this deduction that the classical
physics
is not able to justify the empirical results of this effect, and then
the
only justification is one that results in the relation E=h<nu>. The
object of this article is to show that this is not the case that
the classical physics cannot justify the empirical results of the
photoelectric effect, and in fact it is able to justify these results
well.
In support of the discussion presented for classical justification of
the results of the photoelectric effect, we shall apply results of
the discussion to justification of the Rayleigh scattering and of the
real action of laser.

II. Electromagnetic classical theory and justification of the results
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Important empirical results of the photoelectric effect can be
categorized as follows:
(a). If an electromagnetic beam is able to release electron from the
metal surface, its intensity will be proportional to the electron
current arising from the released electrons.
(b). A monochromatic beam is not able to release electron even though
its intensity is increased arbitrarily, unless its frequency has a
definite minimum magnitude. This magnitude depends on the kind of the
metal.
(c). The curve of the kinetic energy of the released electron against
the frequency of the monochromatic beam releasing electron, is a
straight line which its slope is the same for all the metals.

We know that an electromagnetic wave consists of electric and
magnetic fields normal to each other which are alternated in time
and space. Let's see what an electromagnetic beam, descending on some
metal surface causing emission of electron from it, consists of.
Since inevitably the beam occupies some volume and on its cross-section
surface on the metal there are numerous valence electrons,
we conclude that the beam is in fact consisting of some discrete
waves each of which aiming at an electron. The intensity of the beam
is in fact a demonstration of the vector sum of the amplitudes of
these waves of the beam. In this manner the case (a) is justified
easily: the more the number of these waves each of which being able
to release an electron, the more the released electrons.

Now consider two of these waves: the first one with a frequency
sufficiently low such that it is not able to release electron, and the
second one with a frequency sufficiently high such that it is able to
release electron. We want to find the cause of this matter. This
"cause"
must be searched in the impulsive force that the second one, with its
great
frequency can exert on the electrons of the metal, while it is natural
that
the first one in a longer time interval exerts some more still force on
the
electrons which although causes some disorders and weakening of them
these are not so strong and sudden that cause freedom of the
electrons, but the momentum will be exerted on the whole atom chiefly
and causes producing of some heat which arises from the movement of
the atoms. We can imagine this impulsive force proportional to the
absolute value of the slope of the wave.

In fact this is a mechanical case that an intensive impulse in which
some definite momentum is transferred in a short time causes locally
disconnecting of the structural bonds (ie molecular bonds) of the
body under impulse; while a still impulse in which the same momentum
is transferred in a long time does not cause disconnecting of the
structural bonds but the momentum will be transferred to the whole
body.

In a more electromagnetic discussion we can find the above mentioned
"cause" as in the following: Suppose that the above mentioned first
and second waves have the same amplitude. These waves arrive at their
electronic aims with the same speed. Consider the magnetic field
vectors
of the waves. In a constant time interval the change in the magnetic
field vector is more in the second one than in the first one; eg in
a time interval equal to a quarter of the period of the second one
this vector reaches to its maximum from zero in the second one while
this is not the case in the first one. Therefore, the speed of the
displacement of the magnetic field relative to the electron which is
supposed fixed, in the second one is more than in the first one.
In simpler words the situation is like that in the second one, one of
the two poles of a magnet is moving faster than in the first one.
It is obvious that since there is a relative displacement between an
electric charge (ie the electron) and a magnetic field (ie one related
to the electromagnetic wave, likened to the field of a magnet), there
will be a force proportional to the speed of the displacement, exerted
on the electric charge, ie the electron (which is normal to the
magnetic
field vector and to the propagation direction of the wave). It is clear
that since this speed of displacement is more in the second one, the
force exerted on the electron is also more in the second one.

In this manner the case (b) is also justified: Firstly, since each of
the waves has aimed at an electron, the intensity of the totality
of the beam or in fact the existence of other waves of the beam aiming
at other electrons, cannot have any role in whether a single wave is
able to set free an electron or not. Secondly, according to the above
discussion, depending on the kind of the metal or in fact on the bond
force between the electron and the nucleus of its atom each wave must
have a minimum frequency, or in other words must have a minimum slope,
or in other words must have a minimum time rate of the field change
in order that it can exert the necessary force for releasing the
electron.

Some attention to the above electromagnetic discussion shows that if
the frequency of the second wave is more than the minimum frequency
necessary for releasing electron (ie the threshold frequency),
immediately after releasing the electron continuation of the
time-change of the magnetic field will cause exertion of the force
on the released electron magnitude of which being proportional to
the frequency magnitude, ie as the frequency is increased, because
of the increase in the speed of the change of the magnetic field
the force exerted on the released electron is also increased.

In this manner the case (c) is also justified, because we showed now
the proportion of the increase in the frequency to the increase in
the force exerted on the released electron being itself proportional
to the increase in the kinetic energy of the released electron.
But why the slope of the line mentioned in the case (c) is the same
for all the metals? Because as we said increase of frequency is
proportional to the increase in the kinetic energy of the "released"
electron and it is obvious that when an electron is released from
the metal then it will be independent of the kind of metal; in other
words photoelectrons released from each metal are the same by nature
and don't differ with each other to cause any difference among
the curve slopes of different metals.

One can put this question that how the energy transferred from an
electromagnetic wave can depend on the wave frequgency while in the
Poynting vector there is no term involving frequency. In response we
should say that as we know the Poynting vector is proportional to the
average energy carried by the wave or in other words is proportional
to the areas under the curves of the square of the above mentioned
first and second waves which is obvious that if their amplitudes are
the same, their relevant mentioned areas will be also the same. Then,
the energy which an electromagnetic wave can transfer and maybe depend
on the frequency is other than the total energy which the wave
carries and is independent of frequency (in fact the first is a part
of the second).

III. Justification of the Rayleigh scattering and action mechanism of
laser
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above manner about the classical justification of the photoelectric
effect can be utilized for the classical justification of this fact
that the scattering of light will be increased if the frequency of
light is increased (which is Lord Rayleigh's investigation): If for
simplicity we suppose that a scattering molecule is formed of a heavy
positive charge and a light negative charge which without any motion
relative to each other are resting beside each other like a dipole,
it will be obvious that it will be acceptable that we imagine that
in order that the negative charge can go a little away from the
positive charge and like a spring oscillate both sides of the positive
charge center, it needs a minimum impulse (ie a momentum sufficiently
big which is exerted on the lighter negative charge in a time
interval sufficiently small). It is obvious that, considering the above
discussion about the photoelectric effect, high frequency
electromagnetic
waves can exert this impulse better than low frequency electromagnetic
waves, and so, scattering of high frequency waves done by this dipole
is more.

Now let's see how a laser works. Consider a gas laser that the
molecules
of its gas are excited by an electric discharge in it and radiate.
Depending on the kind of the gas and the other conditions, radiation
of these molecules covers a definite part of the electromagnetic
spectrum. Considering very much smallness of the wavelengths of the
electromagnetic waves (of this part of the spectrum) compared with
the dimensions of the laser tube, certainly in this part of the
spectrum some wavelength or wavelengths will be found that considering
the fixed distance between the two mirrors of the laser will be able
to amplify itself or themselves after several successive reflections
from the mirrors and making successive constructive interferences,
while in other wavelengths we shall have destructive interference
and consequently unamplifying of the waves. Then the case is simply
as the following: Each molecule of the gas in the tube (after being
excited) starts to radiate some electromagnetic wave with a definite
wavelength (which is the same one to be amplitude) in all the
directions and in all the planes of polarization. Those beams of this
radiation which are normal to the mirrors will come back on themselves
after reflection from the mirrors causing amplification of themselves.
Considering the much excessive speed of the electromagnetic waves,
we can consider the molecule as a source which is continuously emitting
the same wavelength with the same intensity during the amplification
of the wave. So the above particular beam will be strongly amplified
during the successive going and backing and constructive interference.
Of course, different random planes of polarization of this beam are
amplified in this manner. Now, if one of the mirrors is such that
allows
this strongly amplified beam to exit from the tube, we shall have a
laser beam consisting of a particular wavelength but with different
planes of polarization outside the tube which is related to only
an excited molecule. There are, of course, numerous molecules that in
this manner will proceed to amplify this particular wavelength, and
then our real laser beam outside the tube is a beam consisting of
numerous waves like the waves making the beam in our dicussion about
the photoelectric effect each related to a particular plane of
polarization of one of the numerous gas molecules in the tube (as
sources producing electromagnetic waves). It is clear that the more
the length of the tube, the more the number of the sources producing
the waves, ie the excited molecules, will be and then consequently
the number of the waves consisting the laser beam outside the tube
(which are related to these numerous molecules) will be more, and
then the intensity of the laser beam will be more.

Hamid V. Ansari

The contents of the book "Great Mistakes of the Physicists":

0 Physics without Modern Physics
1 Geomagnetic field reason
2 Compton effect is a Doppler effect
3 Deviation of light by Sun is optical
4 Stellar aberration with ether drag
5 Stern-Gerlach experiment is not quantized
6 Electrostatics mistakes; Capacitance independence from dielectric
7 Surface tension theory; Glaring mistakes
8 Logical justification of the Hall effect
9 Actuality of the electric current
10 Photoelectric effect is not quantized
11 Wrong construing of the Boltzmann factor; E=h<nu> is wrong
12 Wavy behavior of electron beams is classical
13 Electromagnetic theory without relativity
14 Cylindrical wave, wave equation, and mistakes
15 Definitions of mass and force; A critique
16 Franck-Hertz experiment is not quantized
17 A wave-based polishing theory
18 What the electric conductor is
19 Why torque on stationary bodies is zero
A1 Solution to four-color problem
A2 A proof for Goldbach's conjecture

My email addresses: hamidvansari<at>yahoo<dot>com or
hvansari<at>gmail<dot>com
To see all the articles send an email to one of my above-mentioned
email addresses.

[Only registered users see links. ]

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-26-2006, 01:23 PM
dlzc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Photoelectric effect is not quantized

Dear h_v_ansari:

[Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

A statement completely unproved in the text. You simply accept that
the threshold energy is required, and then bury that acceptance in BS.

David A. Smith

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
effect , photoelectric , quantized


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Moving Dimensions Theory Book Due Out in Fall 05--Very Rough Draft: 4th Dimensions Expanding Relative to 3 Spatial Dimensions jollyrogership@yahoo.com Physics Forum 64 03-31-2012 10:24 AM
Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://physicsmathforums.com drelliot@gmail.com Physics Forum 0 08-29-2006 06:32 AM
Moving Dimensions Theory!! Rock On!! drelliot@gmail.com Physics Forum 1 07-06-2006 05:19 PM
DUMB Question - are PV Solar Cells using the Photoelectric effect to generate current ? unamerican Physics Forum 1 08-19-2005 01:08 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.19772 seconds with 16 queries