Photo-electric effect
A light particle moving towards a surface cannot (by collision) force an electron particle to move away from that surface.
A light wave can instead make interference with a bound electron and thereby force the electron to escape, and this process is reversible, so electrons cam also be captured by atoms and generate waves. Capturing electrons can generate X-rays.
Compton effect
This effect can be explained by light waves absorbed in an electron escape and later emitted in an electron capturing. Two processes with secondary emission of longer wavelength. Longer wave length means: not a scattering process.
Waves can explain everything and particles for light are not needed.
Einstein did not understand the photo-electric effect.
John-Erik
Preston
A light particle moving towards a surface cannot (by collision) force an electron particle to move away from that surface.
Einstein misunderstood the photoelectric effect. You could not disprove this statement. You only repeat mainstream wrong opinion.
Compton effect is change of frequency and 2 processes and not scattering.
John-Erik
He didnt. A number of German experimental physicists discovered the photoelectric effect. Unfortunately, having discovered and observed it they couldn't explain it. Einstein was able to use the data discovered by the experimental physicists and put forward a theory which was logically consistent with the data.
Bulbul Khan
Yes, the law is correct and gave him a Nobel Prize. However, he did not get the Prize for the idea that light is particles and this is correct since a particle moving towards a surface cannot deliver momentum away from that surface. However, a wave can do that in a process where waves by interference cause electrons to escape. This process is reverse in relation to how capturing of electrons can generate X-rays. The wave model is better.
The Compton effect is better explained also, since there is a change in wavelength, 2 processes are indicated. A wave causes an escape and later when this electron is captured a secondary wave is generated. The wave model is better. We do not need light particles.
John-Erik,
Yes, he did misunderstand the effect for several reasons. One that a single photon can only be seen from the line of sight of the photon and no outside observer can tell its path. Its path is independent of the ability to observe it.
One can not see the path and must "Assume" that we know where it is at any time because we think we know something that is not true about the photon.
We all know what ASSUMING does to science. The idea that we can not observe the path without being in the line of sight means that the notion of the consistency in the speed of light is irrelevant and unobservable.
There is no way to ever prove that anyone outside the line of sight of a photon can measure its speed. I only see light that is reflected off of other things that end up hitting my eye in a direct line of sight of the photon. Just because we think it is something else does not make it true.
If I see a photon traveling from top to bottom of a light clock traveling on a train as it passes me like in Einsteins' experiment, I will be observing a photon that has been redirected to my eyes and therefore is not on the path of the other observer on the train. The light Hypothesis is incorrect.
The only real thing that can be said about any specific particles of light is that in the presence of matter, it is traveling at a constant "C" and only in the direct path of its flight can it be seen or measured.
A photon is the smallest part of energy at a given frequency that exists. Any interaction will change its outcome. We must stop ASSUMING.
George E. Van Hoesen
Photoelectric effect: Light moving towards a surface can force an electron to move in opposite direction. A wave can do that, but not a particle. Light is ether waves.
John-Erik
In my opinion light is a particle with wave like properties. Just like if I shoot an arrow at you and you just see the tip of the arrow has it heads to you it looks just like a particle. If however if I through the stick end over end you see something that looks like a wave moving towards you. This is made more evident if the stick is a particle that has zero charge over all but has a dipole nature or a positive and a negative end. Overall it has not charge but when you spin it it has the look like it has charge.
It has never been a wave but has always been a particle with wave-like properties. There is no room in science for magic. Other explanations can show that what we needs a different explanation.
The photoelectric effect demonstrates light to be waves. Light waves moving towards a surface can force an electron to move in opposite direction. A particle cannot do that.
In my GEC paper, I've mathematically demonstrated quantum gravity, a zero total energy of our universe, and that all elementary particles with non-zero rest masses are standing waves ( being, in fact, illusions created by electromagnetic and/or gravitational standing waves):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377702958
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing