/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15688678
Bro why are you like this?

>>15688682

Its a wave

>>15688678
the photoelectric effect is not dependent on the intensity of to occur it is the wavelength which leads to the conclusion that the energy of light (photons) is dependent on wavelength of light. this is because the photon has to free the electrons from their current shell.

>A two-photon event captured in the ATLAS experiment at CERN. This is one of the experiments that analyse particles accelerated and collided in the Large Hadron Collider, and played a key role in the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Photo credit: CERN (CC-BY-SA 4.0)
Let me guess, it's a wave.

>>15688861

you get the same effect with a classical electromagnetic wave. intensity simply means more waves, which can interfere constructively or destructively. the average net effect is that no change occurs from increased intensity. Now the kinetic energy of a sinusoidal wave is proportional to the frequency, in any wave. Therefore higher frequency waves emit more kinetic energy and interact more strongly with charged matter. No photons needed.

>>15688879

You just posted a fantasy picture. These experiments don't actually measure photons. They measure electric current from light hitting a measuring aparatus.

>>15688678
ever noticed that far away mountains/shadows looks paler than what is close to you?
photons bumps into molecules in the atmosphere and there is a lost of information(photons) reaching your eyes.
/ic/fag to the rescue!

>>15688678
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-visualizing-mysterious-quantum-entanglement-photons.amp

>>15688678
>hmm what else is zero mass but carries momentum. sound waves.
"sound waves" are the oscillation of regular matter, retard, they're not a thing on their own

>>15688996
then I am confused what you are arguing a photon is a EM wave? quantization means that you explain (usually either energy or position) with eigenvalues which you can think of as levels and not existing between the levels. are you arguing that quantization doesn't exist? your argument is that photons don't exist. Are you instead arguing on the subject of particle or wave not the particle wave duality approach all of us physicists use?

>>15689205

This is better explained through destructive interference with the EM wave

>>15689206

That paper sounds extremely pseud. Also the effect they measured is just a form of photoelectric effect.

>>15689217

That's my point good sir

>>15689232

I'm claiming that the particle nature of light is more towards an assumption than something which has been conclusively proven.

>>15690188
so are you claiming that light is a particle or a wave you are not being strait forward with your claim because I can explain why it is both/

>>15690236

Its just a wave

>>15690595
it's a longitudinal disturbance in the ether

Take a laser and reduce its intensity until it emits single packets of light. There's your proof.

>>15690614

If i rhythmically tap the water with my finger, am I ejecting watertons?

>>15690612

Finally someone who gets it

>>15690188
>is more towards an assumption
Everything is

>>15688678
nice bate glowniggerH88XKR

>>15688678
The photoelectric effect is what you said, but the experiment did something different.
You take a single-frequency, known 'intensity' light source, point it at some alkali metal, and measure the current and maximum kinetic energy of the emitted electrons.
A wave model of light would predict that the max kinetic energy of the electrons would increase as intensity increased, and that the current would increase as frequency increased.
However, in the experiment, as frequency decreases, so does max KE. And as intensity decreases, so does current. The wave model doesn't predict this behaviour.
Furthermore, if you lower the light enough below the 'threshold frequency', no electrons will be emitted, regardless of how intense you make the light. The wave model doesn't predict this; the wave model would predict that no matter how low-frequency the light is, you would still get some electrons being emitted.

The max KE of the electrons can be found by applying a voltage across some electrodes, so that the electrons are attracted backwards towards the metal and adjusting the voltage until the current is touching zero.

>>15693343
The photoelectric effect can be explained with wave light and quantum atoms, so it doesn't imply particle light at all.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19680009569/downloads/19680009569.pdf