Photoelectric Effect: Calculating Electron Energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the time required for an electron to gain 1 eV of energy when exposed to sunlight with an intensity of 500 W/m², using classical physics. The calculations indicate that it would take approximately 156 nanoseconds for the electron to accumulate this energy, contrasting sharply with the instantaneous emission of electrons observed in the photoelectric effect. Participants debate the appropriateness of modeling the electron as a hemisphere versus a full sphere, considering the directionality of light and the concept of projected area. The conversation also touches on the differences between classical and quantum mechanics in energy absorption. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the limitations of classical theory in explaining phenomena like the photoelectric effect.
xiankai
Messages
31
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



3. The classical radius of an electron is 2.82 x 10^-15 m. If a material is radiated with sunlight with an intensity of 500W/m^2, calculate using classical arguments the time required for an electron to gain an energy of 1eV. How does this result compare with electron emission in the photo-electric effect?

Homework Equations



surface area of a sphere = 4 (pi) r^2
1 electron volt = 1.602 x 10^-19 V


The Attempt at a Solution



surface area of hemispheric electron (assuming the light falls on one side of the material) = 2 (pi) r^2
= 5.00 x 10^-29 m^2

power of light falling on electron = 500 x ( 5.00 x 10^-29 )
= 2.50 x 10^-26 W

time taken = ( 2.50 x 10^-26 ) / ( 1.602 x 10^-19 )
= 1.56 x 10^-7 s
= 156 ns

in the photo-electric effect, electrons are emitted instaneously, at times much less than 156 ns.

4. The thoughts

is it okay to use the hemisphere instead of the whole sphere as a model of the area where the light falls on the electron? after all I am pretty unsure of how the classical theory looks at the electron in a material.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
after all I am pretty unsure of how the classical theory looks at the electron in a material.
Think about QM vs classical. In classical physics, one could continually add energy (light) to an atom/electron until is escaped the atoms. For example, in classical theory one could add ten 0.1 ev photons to an electron to give it 1 eV. But what really happens?

Think about Lyman, Balmer and Paschen spectral lines.


is it okay to use the hemisphere instead of the whole sphere as a model of the area where the light falls on the electron?
That depends on whether the energy is incident from all directions, or one direction. Usually, if one assumes that light is from one direction (infinitely far away, or a long, long way away), then one has to use the projected area.
 
Last edited:
Think about QM vs classical. In classical physics, one could continually add energy (light) to an atom/electron until is escaped the atoms. For example, in classical theory one could add ten 0.1 ev photons to an electron to give it 1 eV. But what really happens?

Think about Lyman, Balmer and Paschen spectral lines.

classically, an electron is regarded as a sphere, and light is a wave. in that respect, light would fall evenly on the surface area of the sphere. that is what i think.

That depends on whether the energy is incident from all directions, or one direction. Usually, if one assumes that light is from one direction (infinitely far away, or a long, long way away), then one has to use the projected area.

in that case would it be better if i assumed that the light was incident on a point surface area of the electron 'sphere'? i don't get what you mean by projected area. which is a better assumption.
 
With respect to projected area, if one looks at a sphere at a distance, one does not see a sphere but rather a disc. The surface area of a hemisphere is 4 pi r2, but the projected (planar) area is just pi r2.
 
ah, thanks. it seems crystal clear now.
 
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...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top