Are clicks proof of single photons?

[A. Neumaier]

I'd still like an explanation of how photo-ejection does not simply add to net energy with photons-as-spherical-waves picture. Where does cancellation of these incident photon energies ever occur?

? Energy is added continuously, while it is released erratically in bunches. What's the problem?

Sure, but in this case the energy deficit is enormous

The energy deficit is that of a single particle energy - a nothing compared to the energy floating in a detector.

 

[Q-reeus]

? Energy is added continuously, while it is released erratically in bunches. What's the problem?

Firstly, have we not previously agreed energy is not added continually (what you meant surely when saying 'No memory is needed', as in #39, or 'No storage is needed' as in #107)? You have not before challenged my view that any relatively minuscule energy absorbed at a particular hit is lost as heat in an extremely brief time scale - many orders of magnitude smaller than mean time between photon hits. Maybe you meant something else here.
Proceeding on that basis, the problem as I see it is owing to the highly statistical (ie random) relation between incident photons and photo-ejection, there no evident phase cancellation mechanism. Each incident photon in this picture simply expands forever as a spherical wavefront, with integral of ExB = constant = hf, and photo-ejection seems quite incapable of altering that. Compare that to wave interference when a classical monochromatic field interacts with classical oscillators as was related in #148 - we there have a detailed balance according to Poynting theorem.

The energy deficit is that of a single particle energy - a nothing compared to the energy floating in a detector.

So the energy reservoir is the screen/detector 'electron sea'? OK, but then why is photoelectric effect so highly sensitive to frequency, with a very sharp lower frequency cutoff? Such pickiness seems very hard to explain in the very infrequent incident photon-as-wave view.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Firstly, have we not previously agreed energy is not added continually (what you meant surely when saying 'No memory is needed', as in #39, or 'No storage is needed' as in #107)? You have not before challenged my view that any relatively minuscule energy absorbed at a particular hit is lost as heat in an extremely brief time scale - many orders of magnitude smaller than mean time between photon hits.

Even tiny amounts of energy are taken in (randomly but nonlocally) by the detector as a whole. Otherwise we couldn't have energy conservation in the mean. It is only the ionization response that happens randomly, discretely, and locally.

Each incident photon in this picture simply expands forever as a spherical wavefront.

This is a problem only if you think in a photon particle picture. In the quantum field picture, the field ends wherever there is matter (or at least, it is modeled very differently there), and the waves are only where there is room for them. Just as with classical radiation.

So the energy reservoir is the screen/detector 'electron sea'? OK, but then why is photoelectric effect so highly sensitive to frequency, with a very sharp lower frequency cutoff?

The energy reservoir is the macroscopic object in which the discrete qubits (given by weakly bound electrons or by silver bromide molecules) are located. The macroscopic object takes up the energy and distributes it randomly; the electrons jump according to the quantum probabilities, which is exactly zero when the frequency is below the ionization threshold.

 

[Q-reeus]

Even tiny amounts of energy are taken in (randomly but nonlocally) by the detector as a whole. Otherwise we couldn't have energy conservation in the mean. It is only the ionization response that happens randomly, discretely, and locally.

Well it seems we have been having a long running communication problem, despite your excellent technical grasp of English. From #107:

Originally Posted by Q-reeus:
'But that's the real sticking point as I see it. This 'best case scenario' assumes the screen is not only capable of fully absorbing all incident radiation, but losslessly accumulating each hit for perhaps hours until sufficient energy is present to eject one electron. What's more in order to reproduce the interference pattern, a memory of the incident intensity is also dissipationlessly stored. This seems utterly incredible.' Your response:

"No storage is needed. Just a rate of response. That's the nature of probability - even tiny rates accumulate to an almost sure success over a long enough time."

Perhaps you can appreciate my confusion! Can I ask you then - does the screen accumulate essentially all incident energy (perhaps from a succession of many individual photons), until releasing on a statistical basis in one go - 'single click'. Or is incident energy rapidly dissipated after each photon hit (as I believe the case)?

 

[A. Neumaier]

Well it seems we have been having a long running communication problem, despite your excellent technical grasp of English. From #107:

Originally Posted by Q-reeus:
'But that's the real sticking point as I see it. This 'best case scenario' assumes the screen is not only capable of fully absorbing all incident radiation, but losslessly accumulating each hit for perhaps hours until sufficient energy is present to eject one electron. What's more in order to reproduce the interference pattern, a memory of the incident intensity is also dissipationlessly stored. This seems utterly incredible.' Your response:

"No storage is needed. Just a rate of response. That's the nature of probability - even tiny rates accumulate to an almost sure success over a long enough time."

Perhaps you can appreciate my confusion! Can I ask you then - does the screen accumulate essentially all incident energy (perhaps from a succession of many individual photons), until releasing on a statistical basis in one go - 'single click'. Or is incident energy rapidly dissipated after each photon hit (as I believe the case)?

The confusion is between the screen as a whole and the many embedded qubits that respond. In the older mails, I had concentrated on the qubits and their behavior. These have no memory but respond locally and independently, according to a simple stochastic law. But the total energy (a nonlocal quantity) is accumulated by the screen as a whole, essentially continuously. This ensures that, on the average, the energy needed for firing the qubits equals the energy provided by the photon field. For an ideal screen, there is no dissipation of energy, only its redistribution within the screen.

 

[Q-reeus]

The confusion is between the screen as a whole and the many embedded qubits that respond. In the older mails, I had concentrated on the qubits and their behavior. These have no memory but respond locally and independently, according to a simple stochastic law. But the total energy (a nonlocal quantity) is accumulated by the screen as a whole, essentially continuously. This ensures that, on the average, the energy needed for firing the qubits equals the energy provided by the photon field. For an ideal screen, there is no dissipation of energy, only its redistribution within the screen.

Well glad you have taken the trouble to clear that issue up - thanks. This has removed to a certain level any mystery re energy balance. Still have overall serious misgivings but I'll give this topic a rest for now!