Algebra & Physics: When Rules Don't Apply

  • Thread starter Thread starter madah12
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra Physics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of algebra in physics, particularly in the context of the photoelectric effect. It highlights the confusion surrounding the relationship between energy (E), kinetic energy (K), and the work function (Φ), emphasizing that Φ is a constant specific to the material. The participants clarify that doubling the energy of photons does not lead to a simple doubling of kinetic energy, as the equations must account for the work function. They conclude that while algebra is applicable, the relationships between the variables must be understood correctly to avoid misinterpretations. Ultimately, the conversation reinforces the importance of accurately applying mathematical principles in physics.
madah12
Messages
326
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


When does the rules of algebra not apply in physics?
I mean in photo electric effect E = K + \Phi right?
and phi is a constant
so if we have twice the energy 2E = 2K + 2 \Phi
and then E2=K2 + \Phi2
and then \Phi2 = 2E1 - 2K1
\Phi2 /2 =E1-K1 = \Phi2/2 = \Phi1 so phi changed...
but phi is a constant right dependent only on the type of material so it won't change? (I have very little knowledge in photo electric effects this is mainly how and when algebra does not apply in physics)

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry I noticed that I didn't write everything when I made the original post so my argument made no sense I edited it .
 
It's like if you feed one puppy and one kitty on one, well, cake (!?), your puppy and kitty are full; then if you want to throw away 2 cakes in a meaningful way (:biggrin:), then you must get another puppy and another kitty, so 2 puppies and 2 kitties totally for 2 cakes :wink:
If we understand one cake as E, one kitty as K and one puppy as P (let P denote phi, I'm lazy), then actually P2 = 2 puppies. That is, puppy is still puppy, it doesn't grow bigger or smaller, just the number of puppies increases. Likewise, P2 doesn't stand for the work function; P2 is the amount of energy given up by 2 electrons, while P1 (or P) is the amount of energy given up by 1 electron. It's just that we define the work function = the amount of energy given up by 1 electron, or simply P.

EDIT: In conclusion, algebra in particular and math in general concur with physics (or is it the way around, that physics concurs with them? :rolleyes:). I mean, in this case, math does apply.
 
hikaru1221 said:
It's like if you feed one puppy and one kitty on one, well, cake (!?), your puppy and kitty are full; then if you want to throw away 2 cakes in a meaningful way (:biggrin:), then you must get another puppy and another kitty, so 2 puppies and 2 kitties totally for 2 cakes :wink:
If we understand one cake as E, one kitty as K and one puppy as P (let P denote phi, I'm lazy), then actually P2 = 2 puppies. That is, puppy is still puppy, it doesn't grow bigger or smaller, just the number of puppies increases. Likewise, P2 doesn't stand for the work function; P2 is the amount of energy given up by 2 electrons, while P1 (or P) is the amount of energy given up by 1 electron. It's just that we define the work function = the amount of energy given up by 1 electron, or simply P.

EDIT: In conclusion, algebra in particular and math in general concur with physics (or is it the way around, that physics concurs with them? :rolleyes:). I mean, in this case, math does apply.

Umm thanks for the reply. But I shamefully say that I didn't get it completely I mean let say we want the kinetic energy K2 we know where we increased the energy of the photons
we know the values of E , K , phi in the original case and we doubled E
by using another type of light
would K be doubled and phi? I mean we didn't change anything in the material it self but phi can't be doubled because it is constant so the algebriac equation won't hold right?
because unless K2=2K1 and phi2 = 2phi 1 , E2 won't be equal to 2E1
 
Ah, I see. So that really is a problem with math. I mean, your math :frown:
So first you have an electron with kinetic energy K, so you need a photon of energy E. The relation is: E = K + P. Then if you want another electron with 2K, then what you need is NOT a photon of energy 2E! That is, if you shoot a photon of energy 2E, you won't get an electron of 2K.
(1): In order to get an electron of 2K, what you need is a photon of (2K + P), which is NOT equal to 2E.
(2): If you shoot a photon of 2E, what you get is an electron of (2E - P), which is NOT equal to 2K.
And what the mathematical equation 2E = 2K + 2P means, I have already explained. That is the case when you shoot 2 photons of E and consequently, get back 2 electrons of K. This case is not the same as the two cases (1) and (2) above.
 
hikaru1221 said:
Ah, I see. So that really is a problem with math. I mean, your math :frown:
So first you have an electron with kinetic energy K, so you need a photon of energy E. The relation is: E = K + P. Then if you want another electron with 2K, then what you need is NOT a photon of energy 2E! That is, if you shoot a photon of energy 2E, you won't get an electron of 2K.
(1): In order to get an electron of 2K, what you need is a photon of (2K + P), which is NOT equal to 2E.
(2): If you shoot a photon of 2E, what you get is an electron of (2E - P), which is NOT equal to 2K.
And what the mathematical equation 2E = 2K + 2P means, I have already explained. That is the case when you shoot 2 photons of E and consequently, get back 2 electrons of K. This case is not the same as the two cases (1) and (2) above.
Ok I get it now thanks.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top