Question about photoelectric effect equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the photoelectric effect equation and the implications of using a variable n to represent the number of photons involved in the process. Participants explore the conditions under which multiple photons may contribute to the ejection of electrons from a metal surface, focusing on theoretical interpretations and energy conservation principles.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that n represents the number of photons ejected from the metal, suggesting that the energy equation can be expressed as E=nhv.
  • Others argue that the original photoelectric effect explanation by Einstein assumes that only one photoelectron can be ejected by a single photon, implying that n should equal 1.
  • A participant questions whether it is valid to consider n greater than 1, suggesting that multiple photons could contribute to the energy needed for electron ejection.
  • Another participant clarifies that the photoelectric effect involves discrete quanta (photons) hitting electrons, and that the energy of a single photon must be sufficient to overcome the work function W for an electron to be ejected.
  • There is a challenge to the idea that multiple photons can pool their energy to eject a single electron, emphasizing that this contradicts the concept of light quanta.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether multiple photons can contribute to the photoelectric effect, with some asserting that only one photon can eject one electron, while others explore the implications of using n greater than 1. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the validity of using n in the context of the photoelectric effect.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of energy conservation in the context of the photoelectric effect, noting that the energy of the incoming photons must exceed the work function for the effect to occur. There is an ongoing debate about the assumptions underlying the photoelectric effect and the interpretation of the equations involved.

sandf
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
If I write photoelectric effect equation to nhv = 1/2mv2 + W with n = 1,
I am puzzled whether the n is larger than 1, such as 2 or 3, for which I will get the two- or three- photon absorption.
Could you give me some comments on these question?

Best regards.
sandf
 
Physics news on Phys.org
n represents the number of photons ejected from the metal. According to the frequency of the light wave & its intensity, we can obtain the no. of photons.

E=nhv
 
lawmaker said:
E=nhv
Dear lawmaker,
Thanks for your reply.
But I cannot understand what you mean.
In terms of your opinion, may I create the energy conservation equation
n1hv1 = 1/2mv2+W+n2hv2 ?

I understand the photoelectric effect that this phenomenon cannot occur when the energy of one photon is not large enough, i.e. hv < W. But I think nhv could be larger than W, i.e. nhv > W, thus the effect will occur.

What is wrong with my understanding?

Best regards.
sandf
 
The explanation of the photoelectric effect that Einstein proposed used the assumption that at most one photoelectron can be ejected from the source by a single photon. It implies n=1.
Therefore, you cannot use n>1 to calculate the energy of a single photoelectron.
The equation should look like this:

h\nu=E_k+W

If you have a beam containing n quanta of light(photons) at sufficient frequency for Ek to be >0, then they'll eject n photoelectrons from the source.

nh\nu=n(E_k+W)
 
Dear Bandersnatch,
Thanks for your help.
Bandersnatch said:
The explanation of the photoelectric effect that Einstein proposed used the assumption that at most one photoelectron can be ejected from the source by a single photon. nh\nu=n(E_k+W)

Is it also assumed that only a single photon can be absorbed?
Otherwise, could I have the equation.
nh\nu=E_k+W, which also means the emisstion of a single photon.

Best
sandf
 
sandf said:
Is it also assumed that only a single photon can be absorbed?
Yes, that's what the quantified approach means. The beam is not a continuous wave, but a collection of discrete quanta(photons) that hit the electrons in the metal surface and eject them.
One photon hits one electron. If its energy is too low, the electron does not get ejected and the energy is wasted on heating up the bulk of the material instead.

Also, it's not
sandf said:
the emisstion of a single photon
but the emission of an electron by a photon. The electron is often called "photoelectron" in this context, but it's still just your regular electron.
Perhaps you got confused by lawmaker's post. There are no photons ejected. It's the photons that do the ejecting, so to speak. hv is the energy of the photon, while Ek can be only defined for a massive particle - here, the electron.

So your equation is wrong, as it presupposes multiple photons (n) pooling their energy(hv) to eject one electron. That's exactly contrary to what the whole shebang about light quanta was about.
 
Dear Bandersnatch,
Great thanks for your help.
Best regards.
sandf
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K