The Photoelectric Effect question

[jumbogala]

now, here each photon is like a billard ball carry energy defined by its frequency. When such billard ball of enough energy strikes an electron, energy is transferred to from the photon to the e- and so the e- is liberated. The idea here is that if the photon does not carry enough energy, the e- will not gain enough to be freed. And it doesn't matter how many of such photons are around, you still can't do it.

So if you have more intense light, you have more photons striking the photoelectrons and so more are emitted. But if these photons are being sent at below the threshold frequency, they will not carry enough energy to liberate any photoelectrons, no matter how many of photons there are.

Do I have that straight?

 

[mjsd]

So if you have more intense light, you have more photons striking the photoelectrons and so more are emitted. But if these photons are being sent at below the threshold frequency, they will not carry enough energy to liberate any photoelectrons, no matter how many of photons there are.

Do I have that straight?

yes. That's why the kinetic energy of the emitted photoelectrons is a function of the light's frequency and not intensity.

 

[Peter Morgan]

So if you have more intense light, you have more photons striking the photoelectrons and so more are emitted. But if these photons are being sent at below the threshold frequency, they will not carry enough energy to liberate any photoelectrons, no matter how many of photons there are.

Do I have that straight?

With the provisos that there is no such thing as a photon and there is no such thing as a photoelectron, at least if you construe them to be anything like classical point particles, Yes. There is no more linguistically pretzeled territory than quantum mechanics.

 

[monish]

You mean other than the fact that none of the experiments that I've listed have any wave description being used? (For most people, that is a glaring enough evidence).

No, for me that's not enough. Because all my life people have told me it's a fact that Einstein's explanation of the photo-electric effect proves the particle theory. And I believed it until I learned enough quantum mechanics (and electromagnetic theory) to see how easily you could explain it with the wave theory of light. So I don't believe something just because somebody tells me it's true. I like to understand it for myself.

You say there are experiments that cannot be explained by the wave theory. You listed some papers that I don't have access to. Why don't you write up a basic description of one of these experiments and show how it disproves the wave theory of light?

Marty

 

[ZapperZ]

No, for me that's not enough. Because all my life people have told me it's a fact that Einstein's explanation of the photo-electric effect proves the particle theory. And I believed it until I learned enough quantum mechanics (and electromagnetic theory) to see how easily you could explain it with the wave theory of light. So I don't believe something just because somebody tells me it's true. I like to understand it for myself.

You say there are experiments that cannot be explained by the wave theory. You listed some papers that I don't have access to. Why don't you write up a basic description of one of these experiments and show how it disproves the wave theory of light?

Marty

This post is self-contradictory. First you said that you won't believe things that are told to you until you read and study it yourself. Then in the next breath, you want me to tell you all of these things that you are not going to buy in the first place, rather than looking and studying the references that I've given.

Given the fact that I had already explained, for example, the case for the multiphoton photoemission and why the discrete change in the photocurrent slope corresponds to the absorption number of photons, I don't think that you should expect to be schooled in the physics of angle-resolved photoemission, multiphoton photoemission, etc.. etc.. especially on a medium such as this, and especially after you were given appropriate sources to look up.

Zz.

 

[Peter Morgan]

Hi Marty,

You listed some papers that I don't have access to.

This is a serious problem for people on the edges of science. I always try to list arxiv versions of papers as well as published versions, whenever I know them to be available, and sometimes I don't post at all because I know that the papers that I consider most pertinent to a discussion are only easily available to those with access to a university library.

However, if you're serious about research, you do have access to these papers, it's just not free. That's precious, I'm afraid, because it expects you to pay, personally, for something that academics have essentially for free because of their jobs, and students too, but the articles are available.

There are also books, including Greenstein&Zajonc's book, "The Quantum Challenge: Modern Research on the Foundations of Quantum", which I cited in post #14, which gives a pretty good summary. Have you read that? Amazon delivers pretty quickly.

The impression I have is that you need to reconceptualize your objections and more fully engage with the conventional view of quantum theory before a Physicist is likely to take
your objections seriously. The discussion seems to have been too circular for anyone to benefit. To be honest, reconceptualizing a research field is a lengthy task, as you can see me discussing in recent posts with FRA in the topic I started last Friday, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=204567&page=2". Feel free to hijack my topic.

 

[monish]

Hi Marty,


The impression I have is that you need to reconceptualize your objections and more fully engage with the conventional view of quantum theory before a Physicist is likely to take
your objections seriously.

I objected to people using the photoelectric effect as proof of the particle nature of light. I especially objected to the idea that you could make this point in an honest way at the level of the OP.

I thought you and ZapperZ both agreed with me on these points. No, that's no quite right; I thought ZapperZ agreed with me that the photoelectric effect was not an adequate proof of the wave nature of light, but despite this he thought it was appropriate to use for that purpose at the intro physics level.

Is there anything I've posted that is basically out of whack with conventional quantum theory?

Marty

 

[ZapperZ]

Is there anything I've posted that is basically out of whack with conventional quantum theory?

Marty

Yes. You haven't shown where by using QM and classical E&M, you could "... easily ... explain it (the photoelectric effect) with the wave theory of light".

Zz.

 

[malawi_glenn]

The burden is yours monish to prove your statement, you started this dispute, now finish it. You said that you have shown that QM + EMF can't disprove the particle nature of light, now go ahead.

 

[monish]

This post is self-contradictory. First you said that you won't believe things that are told to you until you read and study it yourself. Then in the next breath, you want me to tell you all of these things that you are not going to buy in the first place, rather than looking and studying the references that I've given.

You're kind of misquoting me here. I didn't say I was unwilling to listen to your explanation of how something works; I just said I couldn't accept something just because you or anyone else says it's true, no matter how important or knowledgeable they are. That's why I wanted you to present your arguments for the particle theory of light. And I don't object to looking up your references, it's just not that convenient for me to find them. I didn't think you would mind picking out one of them to explain.

Given the fact that I had already explained, for example, the case for the multiphoton photoemission and why the discrete change in the photocurrent slope corresponds to the absorption number of photons...

Well, you invoked that example to back up your case but I don't think that really counts as an explanation. I'm not familiar with the experimental setup so what you said about the slope of the curve didn't really mean much to me.

I don't think that you should expect to be schooled in the physics of angle-resolved photoemission, multiphoton photoemission, etc.. etc.. especially on a medium such as this, and especially after you were given appropriate sources to look up.

Zz.

I thought I was pretty clear on this point. I don't hold you responsible for explaining every example you cited, I just asked you to pick one and give me a quick overview of it. I actually forgot that you had started on the multi-photon case because there was so much other cross-discussion that came up in the meantime.

 

[ZapperZ]

But at least, *I* gave several of my sources. You have shown nothing to back up anything that you've said so far. For someone who is skeptical at being told, you certainly expect the rest of us to simply buy what you said without justification.

Zz.

 

[Peter Morgan]

Monish, don't pay too much attention to the words, follow the mathematics. IMO, anyone who has told you that the Photoelectric effect proves that light is composed of particles has not been reading the mathematics right. Don't get upset that they led you wrong, however, as I think they have, because we haven't understood quantum theory for a century, and they were probably trying their best to figure it out for themselves and for you. I don't think anyone tries to fool us, it's just very hard to figure it out. It looks like it ought to be simple, but it isn't.

I've said before -- I suppose it's my axe -- there are neither particles nor waves simpliciter in quantum mechanics. It's a useful algebraic system of operators acting on Hilbert spaces. There are experimental situations in which thinking in terms of particles or waves will not lead you astray, but it takes significant experience to know where one or another is safe. In quantum field theory the problems with thinking in terms of either become only harder. So I suppose I'm somewhat disagreeing with everyone here.

As far as there being "simple" wave models, well maybe, it depends on what you like. There are Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) models, in which electrons are particles and the electromagnetic field has zero-point fluctuations that are distinct from thermal fluctuations, which some people have found simple enough to have spent 40 years of their life on. I don't like them much. There are Nelson-type models, which have particles embedded in a rather similar background field. Also not really simple. Attempts at de Broglie-Bohm-type field models have taken the electromagnetic field to be a field while taking fermion fields to be particles, I find most of those really pretty ugly. Still, if Physics is about what is the simplest or prettiest theory, we've lost some of our famous objectivity. Sad to say, however, empirical adequacy is not the only criterion in theory selection; engineering effectiveness, the ability to calculate, and simplicity are all significant issues.

On the other side, quantum optics descriptions are simpler in some sense, but the modeling of interactions with matter is generally rather ad-hoc, what works empirically is almost the only criterion. There are pragmatic rules for the construction of models that work, which undergraduate and graduate students learn in the course of their quantum optics/quantum computing projects/PhDs. Most optically active components are characterized as quantum mechanical effects (in the technical sense of that word) acting on Fock space states, not by modeling the components in any fundamental way. The theories of matter that we have are all effective theories. Ultimately not a satisfactory situation either, so IMO the conventional view, insofar as there is such a thing, is not worth a world of loyalty.

If it comes to this level, the OP will presumably always be reeling.

 

[monish]

As far as there being "simple" wave models, well maybe, it depends on what you like. There are Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) models, in which electrons are particles and the electromagnetic field has zero-point fluctuations that are distinct from thermal fluctuations, which some people have found simple enough to have spent 40 years of their life on. I don't like them much. There are Nelson-type models, which have particles embedded in a rather similar background field. Also not really simple. Attempts at de Broglie-Bohm-type field models have taken the electromagnetic field to be a field while taking fermion fields to be particles, I find most of those really pretty ugly.

I don't know what all those models are but it doesn't sound like what I meant. I thought you could explain the photo-electric with a basic description where the electron is given by the Schroedinger wave function and light is given by Maxwell's equations. At least to the extent which Einstein described it in 1905. That's what I meant when I said I hadn't put anything forward that was "out of whack" with standard QM. Would you say I'm wrong in holding this opinion? And if so, where does my model fail to explain the points covered by Einstein's theory?f (I'm not asking about ZapperZ's multi-photon cases here, I'm just asking about the basics that Einstein attempted to explain in 1905.)

Marty

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't know what all those models are but it doesn't sound like what I meant. I thought you could explain the photo-electric with a basic description where the electron is given by the Schroedinger wave function and light is given by Maxwell's equations.

Please show this explicitly. Note that this is the 2nd time I've asked you for this.

Zz.

 

[cesiumfrog]

I thought you could explain the photo-electric with a basic description where the electron is given by the Schroedinger wave function and light is given by Maxwell's equations.

Please show this explicitly. Note that this is the 2nd time I've asked you for this.

Mandl & Wolf - Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics - shows [that the photoelectric effect can indeed be explained using the classical wave approach to light].

ZapperZ, is the above citation sufficient?

Do you now accept or still dispute Marty's assertion? Is the truth of the assertion relevant to your argument of how the photoelectric effect should be presented (eg., in teaching about photons)?

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, is the above citation sufficient?

Do you now accept or still dispute Marty's assertion? Is the truth of the assertion relevant to your argument of how the photoelectric effect should be presented (eg., in teaching about photons)?

I'm quite familiar with that source. It has been discussed several times on PF already. But do you think that is what he is using? Look at what he has claimed. I certainly do not see what Mandl and Wolf did as being "simple".

Zz.

 

[cesiumfrog]

I haven't gone through Mandl & Wolf myself, but it is my understanding that they indeed use a straightforward quantum model for an electron, perturbed by completely classical EM waves.

Are you actually disagreeing, or are you instead claiming that any such semi-classical approach fails to satisfy some new condition of being "sufficiently simple"?

 

[ZapperZ]

I haven't gone through Mandl & Wolf myself, but it is my understanding that they indeed use a straightforward quantum model for an electron, perturbed by completely classical EM waves.

Are you actually disagreeing, or are you instead claiming that any such semi-classical approach fails to satisfy some new condition of being "sufficiently simple"?

First of all, read my post in message #6 of this thread, where I said:

While there CAN be a quasi-classical description that is consistent with the photoelectric effect (which means that the photoelectric effect is no longer the definitive "evidence" for the photon picture), we also know for certain that currently, there are no classical means of describing the observations derived from angle-resolved photoemission, resonant photoemission, core-level photoemission, multiphoton photoemission, etc... etc. All of the physics, and experimental results using those techniques, are exclusively described via the photon description. Thus, until such classical descriptions can account for everything that the photon picture can, we tend to accept that this is a more valid description of such phenomena. And within that context, it isn't unrealistic to accept the photoelectric effect as a strong evidence for the Einstein's photon picture.

This is in direct reference to Mandl/Wolf. You will note that this was a surprise to him, as it was indicated in his later post. I deduce that this is NOT what he had in mind, and that is why I am asking.

Zz.

 

[monish]

>Originally Posted by monish:
>I don't know what all those models are but it doesn't
>sound like what I meant. I thought you could explain
>the photo-electric with a basic description where the
>electron is given by the Schroedinger wave function
>and light is given by Maxwell's equations.

(haven't figured out how you do the nested quotes!)

Please show this explicitly. Note that this is the 2nd time I've asked you for this.

Zz.

Sometimes I don't reply right away because I'm distracted by other arguments. Sometimes I'm not sure if something is a question or an accusation. And sometimes people ask me to defend something that I didn't exactly say. I'm sure I pointed out at the very start of this discussion (post #4) how the frequency threshold arises in a very natural way from the Schroedinger equation. I didn't think this would be controversial, but if it is I'm quite eager to attempt to answer any objections.

For the record, I didn't get my ideas from Mandl and Wolf.

Marty

 

[monish]

I'm still trying to catch up with some points raised by ZapperZ. These two questions came up in post#15 and I've been meaning to respond to them:

And it doesn't, at least as far as our STANDARD wave theory, as practiced by the beginning of the 20th century. If this is such a common knowledge and so well-known, then why the heck couldn't they explain both the BB radiation and the Photoelectric effect phenomenon back then?

Because they didn't know the Schroedinger equation. Einstein etc. were trying to explain the photo-electric effect based on Maxwell's equations and the old JJ Thompson electron, something like a charged ping-poing ball. That doesn't work.

The ability of the "classical wave picture" to weasel out of this is by invoking, as Peter Morgan has mentioned, some 'stochastic' processes, and by also invoking the band structure of materials, which is obtained using quantum mechanics in the first place! This is not completely kosher to me.
Zz.

Not kosher?

It seems like you object in principle to taking Maxwell's equations and Schroedinger's equation and putting them together to see what happens. If it turns out that you can explain the photo-electric effect by this means, in what way are you "weaseling out" of anything?

 

[ZapperZ]

You are still avoiding answering my question. Show me how, by putting together classical E&M and the Schrödinger equation, you get explain the Photoelectric effect using the wave equation. I've checked your earlier posts, and you've shown nothing. The Photoelectric effect is MORE than just describing what happens at the threshold. You also have produce no QUANTITATIVE description for one to double-check against the experiment.

It is obvious that you are not using any of the already published references available in the literature. This tells me that this is your own personal pet theory with no valid, published references. Maybe you'd like to read the PF Rules first before you proceed any further.

This is the last time I will ask you to show such derivation.

Zz.

 

[Peter Morgan]

I don't know what all those models are but it doesn't sound like what I meant. I thought you could explain the photo-electric with a basic description where the electron is given by the Schroedinger wave function and light is given by Maxwell's equations. At least to the extent which Einstein described it in 1905. That's what I meant when I said I hadn't put anything forward that was "out of whack" with standard QM. Would you say I'm wrong in holding this opinion? And if so, where does my model fail to explain the points covered by Einstein's theory?f (I'm not asking about ZapperZ's multi-photon cases here, I'm just asking about the basics that Einstein attempted to explain in 1905.)

Hi Marty,
I think you've chosen the wrong territory, quantum optics, to have a battle. This is an area in which there is a huge amount of experiment and technology that can be adequately described to good accuracy by QM. There are lots of experiments that can be modeled semi-classically, but not all have been successfully so modeled. Semi-classical modeling is sufficiently well-developed that, knowing where it can be used, Physicists sometimes use these methods (I wouldn't be surprised if ZapperZ et al. do sometimes use these methods, even that they teach them; but I also wouldn't be surprised if they don't), but I think there is a sense in which semi-classical modeling is not a clean a way to think (sorry that's so woolly).
If you managed explicitly to model every experiment that is well-described by quantum optics using semi-classical methods, you would probably end up with a model that looks like Stochastic Electrodynamics, which is one way to accommodate a great deal of the experimental evidence. Even if your system for creating models did not look much like SED, it's unlikely, unless you are a good mathematician, that your system would look as pretty and be as good for engineering as the quantum optics formalism. Physicists and engineers also care about how easy it is to think about experiments within a formalism, and to create empirically effective models.
The complexities of SED or something like it are what you get when people who are as enthusiastic as you have been here to replace QM with something they feel they understand more attempt to engage with all the experimental evidence. The originators and developers of these models worked very hard to construct a mathematically beautiful theory, but although their approaches certainly have merits, they have been judged by Physicists (including me, for what it is worth, and insofar as I am a Physicist) ultimately to have failed.
Physicists are not defensive at all on this territory. They have huge confidence that QM works and works well. They will keep up the put up or shut up argument for a long time.

Better to pick a territory where they are less at ease (this is a terrible metaphor, but this sequence of posts has seemed so combative as to almost require it). The territory I choose is renormalization (although there is a worrying trend of Physicists claiming that the renormalization group is beautiful mathematics). Feel welcome to join me on my topic, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=204567", where I have begun a skirmish on this front. Although the mathematical and conceptual tools I use may not be to your taste, and may in the end not prove to be empirically adequate, something at least as mathematically and conceptually beautiful and powerful as I use there is necessary. IMO, again for what it is worth, is that semi-classical methods won't do.
Of course endless protagonists have pointed at one thing or another in QM and said that that one thing is QM's weak point, so I will probably join them in the dust in due course.

 

[monish]

Show me how, by putting together classical E&M and the Schrödinger equation, you get explain the Photoelectric effect using the wave equation.The Photoelectric effect is MORE than just describing what happens at the threshold.

Are you agreeing that I've correctly described what happens at the threshold?

You are still avoiding answering my question...I've checked your earlier posts, and you've shown nothing.

Well, the threshold frequency was supposed to be the big thing that the wave theory couldn't explain. So that's why I started there.

You also have produce no QUANTITATIVE description for one to double-check against the experiment.

I thought it was clear from my description that by taking the difference in energy levels between the lowest free state and the highest conduction band, you'd get the actual threshold frequency.

I agree with you that there is more to the photo-electric effect than what goes on at the threshold frequency. It's just that this is the only point that has been raised so far in opposition to the wave explanation. If you would like to raise any other points, I would be glad to try to deal with them.

It is obvious that you are not using any of the already published references available in the literature. This tells me that this is your own personal pet theory with no valid, published references. Maybe you'd like to read the PF Rules first before you proceed any further.

This is the last time I will ask you to show such derivation.

Zz.

Fair enough. Which rule am I breaking?

 

[ZapperZ]

Are you agreeing that I've correctly described what happens at the threshold?



Well, the threshold frequency was supposed to be the big thing that the wave theory couldn't explain. So that's why I started there.



I thought it was clear from my description that by taking the difference in energy levels between the lowest free state and the highest conduction band, you'd get the actual threshold frequency.

This is it?

This is well-known even BEFORE QM came in. You do not need to have QM at all to be able to obtain the work function, which is essentially what you are doing. Yet, all the brains in the world at that time couldn't use classical E&M to solve this. Show me how you apply the wave theory to actually produce a result consistent with the Photoelectric effect experiment. None of the semi-classical scenarios that claim to make such a comparison are anything like what you are claiming.

BTW, I'd like to see how you actually use "quantum mechanics" to get the different work functions for the various metals. How were you able to calculate the bandwidth of the conduction band below the vacuum level?

I agree with you that there is more to the photo-electric effect than what goes on at the threshold frequency. It's just that this is the only point that has been raised so far in opposition to the wave explanation. If you would like to raise any other points, I would be glad to try to deal with them.

Read Millikan's paper that verified the Einstein's photoelectric effect model. Did you think he only verified just ONE aspect of it?

Fair enough. Which rule am I breaking?

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Posts deleted under this rule will be accompanied by a private message from a Staff member, with an invitation to resubmit the post in accordance with our Independent Research Guidelines. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

Zz.

 

[monish]

This is it?

This is well-known even BEFORE QM came in. You do not need to have QM at all to be able to obtain the work function, which is essentially what you are doing.
Zz.

How do you get the work function without quantum mechanics?

 

[ZapperZ]

How do you get the work function without quantum mechanics?

I know how to get the work function. The question is, DO YOU? You seem to think this is a trivial exercise. It isn't. It requires a band structure calculation that is tied to how the crystal lattice is formed and the valence shell of the atoms making up the solid. It isn't trivial!

So show me how. Please do this in your next post, because this will be the last time I will entertain you avoiding a direct answer to my question.

Zz.

 

[cesiumfrog]

I know how to get the work function. The question is, DO YOU? [..] Please do this in your next post, because this will be the last time I will entertain you avoiding a direct answer to my question.

Mentor, is your purpose to demonstrate your personal superiority? You have said it is possible to obtain the work function without using QM. I'm more interested in learning how that is done, than what I am entertained by watching who can perform on cue the exercises set by the mentor.

When I briefly perused Einstein's paper, I thought he only modeled one aspect of the photoelectric effect (light frequency dependence of ejected electrons), but I'll check which aspects Millikan tested. Since you're already familiar with Mandl & Wolf's "standard semi-classical" approach (whereas, judging from post 10, Marty's "independent" approach is inspired by only your brief description), could you tell me 1) whether that approach can be correctly characterised as treating the electron according to Schroedinger's eq. and the light as a classical wave, and 2) which tests does the "standard semi-classical" model fail?

My personal idea here is that, if the answers are 1) yes and 2) none, than it cannot really be correct to argue that the PE implies anything about the nature of light. If (2) has a different answer, I hope to use aspect (2) of the PE as a simple (and honest) example (possibly preferable to Compton scattering and Feynman's observation that photodetectors click discretely) for teaching the existence of photons.

 

[ZapperZ]

Mentor, is your purpose to demonstrate your personal superiority? You have said it is possible to obtain the work function without using QM. I'm more interested in learning how that is done, than what I am entertained by watching who can perform on cue the exercises set by the mentor.

You've already misread the posts in here once. You might want to pay a closer attention before you make another accusation.

One can already get the idea of the existence of the work function without knowing any "theoretical" description. This is known before QM because one had a phenomenological description of the photoelectric effect. If you don't believe it, try it in an intro physics class. Give them the apparatus, and without teaching them the photoelectric effect, ask them to do the set of necessary experiments. They'll find for themselves the threshold value without having to invoke knowledge of QM. In fact, there are schools now that are teaching physics this way, via self-discovery before they are introduced to the theory.

When I briefly perused Einstein's paper, I thought he only modeled one aspect of the photoelectric effect (light frequency dependence of ejected electrons), but I'll check which aspects Millikan tested. Since you're already familiar with Mandl & Wolf's "standard semi-classical" approach (whereas, judging from post 10, Marty's "independent" approach is inspired by only your brief description), could you tell me 1) whether that approach can be correctly characterised as treating the electron according to Schroedinger's eq. and the light as a classical wave, and 2) which tests does the "standard semi-classical" model fail?

No, the Mandl and Wolf's approach does not not claim to be able to derive the work function via first principle. This was never the issue until monish claimed that one can simply GET the work function by looking at the conduction bandwidth, as IF that is something one can do easily via "solving the Schrödinger equation". That is what I questioned. The Schrödinger equation one learns in undergraduate QM is inadequate in its simple form to calculate such a thing because this is a many-body problem.

My personal idea here is that, if the answers are 1) yes and 2) none, than it cannot really be correct to argue that the PE implies anything about the nature of light. If (2) has a different answer, I hope to use aspect (2) of the PE as a simple (and honest) example (possibly preferable to Compton scattering and Feynman's observation that photodetectors click discretely) for teaching the existence of photons.

When I used to teach this thing, I never claim that the Photoelectric effect is the de facto evidence for photons. I did say that it presents a strong evidence for photons and historically, the impetus for considering its validity. You will notice on here that I have consistently said so. I also claim that we lose no generalities for saying this because (i) we know that this is the ONLY scenario in which many other photoemission-related phenomena are explained, with absolutely no wave-related explanation and (ii) other types of phenomena such as the which-way experiments, photon antibunching experiments, etc., clearly have no classical wave scenario.

There is very seldom just ONE experiment that is a slam dunk for one particular theoretical description in physics. Can you think of any? I certainly can't. In a superconductor, for example, one just doesn't show that the resistivity goes to zero at some temperature and expect this to be sufficient. The susceptibility measurement and the presence of an energy gap are usually also required for anyone to claim to have discovered superconductivity in any new materials. Therefore, *I* certainly would not go about doing such a thing especially with that knowledge in mind. But I don't see any problem with claiming that the PE is a very strong evidence for photons. With what we already know now, I don't see this being an issue.

Zz.

 

[monish]

Mentor, is your purpose to demonstrate your personal superiority? Since you're already familiar with Mandl & Wolf's "standard semi-classical" approach (whereas, judging from post 10, Marty's "independent" approach is inspired by only your brief description), could you tell me 1) whether that approach can be correctly characterised as treating the electron according to Schroedinger's eq. and the light as a classical wave, and 2) which tests does the "standard semi-classical" model fail?

My personal idea here is that, if the answers are 1) yes and 2) none, than it cannot really be correct to argue that the PE implies anything about the nature of light. If (2) has a different answer, I hope to use aspect (2) of the PE as a simple (and honest) example (possibly preferable to Compton scattering and Feynman's observation that photodetectors click discretely) for teaching the existence of photons.

Exactly. I keep hoping we can move the discussion forward to "aspect 2", but I'm hesitant to bring it up myself until we've got some resolution on "aspect 1".

 

[monish]

You've already misread the posts in here once. You might want to pay a closer attention before you make another accusation.

Are you sure you want to direct this at CesiumFrog? I think I was the one who misread a post earlier.

One can already get the idea of the existence of the work function without knowing any "theoretical" description...The Schrödinger equation one learns in undergraduate QM is inadequate in its simple form to calculate such a thing because this is a many-body problem.

I'm going to accept your statement that the simple form of the Schroedinger equation we learned in undergrad school is inadequate to solve for the band structure in a metal. Sometimes I use the phrase "the Schroedinger equation" as a shorthand for "standard qm calculations of the electron wave function". I think this is how they solve for band structures.

What you CAN do at the undergrad level is solve for some simple physical cases like the potential well or the hydrogen atom. Both these cases show clearly how the different energy levels have different frequencies. And when you take superpositions of states with different frequencies, the resultant charge density sometimes oscillates, giving you a classical antenna. This is certainly true for such combinations as the 1s-2p state of the hydrogen atom. Maybe you've seen the applets people have made up of this and posted on the internet? It's also true for some superpositions of bound states with free states.
You can construct some pretty good ones with the potential well. Actually, in the one I'm thinking of, you don't necessarily get oscillating charge; you get surface charge waves traveling faster than the speed of light. This of course is also a valid classical antenna; it's the same kind of charge waves you get when ordinary light falls on a metal sheet at an angle.

These theoretical cases show exactly the type of behavior characteristic of the photo-electric effect experiments. Below the threshold frequency, there is no coupling between the bound states and the free states. Above the theshold frequency, the superposition of these states interacts strongly with radiation. So one state can be driven into the other state.

I know how to get the work function. The question is, DO YOU? You seem to think this is a trivial exercise. It isn't. It requires a band structure calculation that is tied to how the crystal lattice is formed and the valence shell of the atoms making up the solid. It isn't trivial!

So show me how. Please do this in your next post, because this will be the last time I will entertain you avoiding a direct answer to my question.

Zz.

Sometimes we can't do the full-blown calculation on an actual physical system so we do our best with a simplified version. I'm sorry I wasn't able to show you how to calculate the work function. Even so, I still value your input to this discussion and hope you will continue to participate.