Photoelectric effect and absurdities in modern physics
sorin
Photoelectric effect and absurdities in modern
physics
The photoelectric effect link is improved with some new and inciting
aspects which rule out the ,,quantum hypothesis=94.
The link:
http://www.elkadot.com/magneticity/Photoelectric%20effect.htm
The difference between work function and ionization potential is
analyzed and maybe one smart theoretician will propose an ,,orthodox
explanation=94 for these concepts.
The momentum conservation is analyzed and is found that electron is
emitted in a direction which contradicts a well known law of classical
mechanics.
The Millikan experiment is analyzed and it is found in contradiction
with previous Hertz experiments. In Hertz experiment, for a plate
charged positively, there is no observed photoelectric effect. In case
of Millikan experiment a positive charged emitter is able to emit
electrons. Supplementary, these electrons presents a ,,strange
movement=94 which contradicts the well known laws of electrodynamics or
quantum theory.
In the Corpuscular nature of light book, only a qualitative
explanation of photoelectric effect is offered. A lot of experiments
already performed by other scientists will be reloaded and new
experiments are in progress in order to give a consistent and more
reliable explanation of this effect, which will be presented, in
extenso, probably, in Principles of Magnetism and Electricity
book=85..
Modern physics has become a simple tool in hands of some writer
scientists, which expose their fantasist ideas =85
Best regards,
Autymn D. C.
"classical mechanics" != "modern physics"
Autymn D. C.
a quanta -> a quantum
up -> above
unchanged -> inchanged -> switchleas
period of time -> period -> while
then -> than
correspondent -> correspondend
"For any ,,common mind both these concepts should have the same
correspondent in experimental reality, because in both cases, a
charge
separation is obtained and these charges are separated enough to not
interact between them."
Yes, your mind--but in bulk materials, their pool of charges rush in
to neutraliz any stripped el=E8ctr=F2n.
"Table 1. Work functions and ionization potential values"
Work functions and ionizations are not complex, cretin liar.
doesn't -> don't
use -> uses
"It is very strange how the actual theoreticians doesn=92t observe
these
differences and didn=92t make a quantum interpretation of this
difference."
who?
"More strange is the mechanism of electric current generation when a
photon beam with energy greater then work function hit the material.
Because there is a work function where a material is able to release
electrons and on the other hand there is an ionization potential
where
electrons are released from atomic structure. So anyone use
the ,,necessary=94 value in order to fit the results. Physics has
become
a science of tricks and arrangements to have all time the ,,expected=94
result."
Cretin liar, nobody uses the other for the one.
"It is impossible to attribute this difference to a specific type of
bond or to a band electron structure for a material. The stability of
a chemical compound is given by energy consumed to split the
considered material in parts. More energy is consumed, more stable is
the material. Speaking about metals, let=92s suppose that work
function
represent the energy to remove an electron from a bulk metal where
according to actual quantum theory a delocalization of electrons is
possible and ionization potential represents the energy necessary to
remove an electron from a ,,singular atom=94. In this case, from low
level chemistry (the discussion will be reloaded at enthalpy of
formation), the state of ,,singular atom=94 is more stable then
metallic
state. Consequently, in nature, a lot of ,,single metal atoms=94 should
be encountered. By contrary, nature contradicts the perverted ideas
of
some physicists and it is possible to find only bulk metals or
combination of metals. No single metal atom as stable state is
possible in natural conditions or as result of a chemical reaction."
You are as retarded as shit. The enthalpy between atomic state and
solid state means the latter is still more stabil. And denormalised
enthalpy has the same unit as mekanic energhy: joule.
"Does the classical laws of energy and momentum conservation are
valid
in case of photoelectric effect?"
Cretin, learn English.
cases -> case
appear -> appears
strange -> strangely
electrons -> el=E8ctr=F2ns'
"Figure 2. Incident light falling under an angle on emitter plate"
"Figure 3. Momentum conservation for photoelectrons"
By the way, the momentum carried by liht is irrespective of its slant
or lode. So your cartoons are worthless.
"If the momentum conservation is respected, the photon should push
the
electron inside material, and eventually, the electron must have an
opposite circulation inside electric circuit by comparison with
accepted one. Maybe the momentum conservation does not hold for
photoelectric effect and starts to hold for Compton effect, or maybe
one of actual epigones in physics will propose a coherent explanation
for this fact."
The emitter is a third body, of course.
"During this neutralization process, as electron jumps on different
excited states until arrives to ground state, a secondary beam of
photons, having a different energy related to incident one, must be
detected at emitter. Maybe actual theoreticians need to build an
optical device in order to observe this light generated by charge
recombination?!"
You mean fluorescense?
"In any low level text, the following description can be found:
/If the negative potential applied to collector and simultaneously,
the positive potential applied on emitter are gradually increased,
the emitted electrons are repelled until at a certain potential no
electrons arrive to collector, so the electric current in circuit is
null. This is counted as stopping potential./
It is hard to believe that this stupidity is described in any serious
book of physics.
When the emitter is charged with a positive potential, according to
previous experiments made by Hertz, no photoelectric effect should
appear. Or maybe the Hertz experiments with positive and negative
charged plates are not written in the same chapter of the book, so
actual theoreticians forgot to make a simple correlation. Even in
case
of a photoelectron ejection, the positive emitter will attract back
the electron.
It is a well known and accepted experimental reality: the movement of
electrons into an electric field. But in case of phototube, the
explanation is formulated in order to arrange the results. So,
the ,,generated electrons=94, leave a positive emitter, whose positive
potential is further increased due to this electron emission, and
travel toward a negative collector. After that, the negative
collector
turn back these electrons toward collector, a neutralization of
charge
take place, with electron passing through more excited state until
arrives to ground state, without any light emission.
Isn=92t amazing this Munchausen=92s story?"
It didn't say the terminals were netly positive and negative.
"I will present here the abstract:
/We have observed a flow of charge on illumination of low-density
polyethylene with infrared light in the wavelength range 1.6-0.7 =B5 by
using silver electrodes./"
"Of course actual epigones physicists should explain this comportment
of an insulator, because polyethylene is an insulator. How can a
polyethylene foil without free electrons becomes conductor at an IR
frequency and a metal with a lot of free electrons not? The
threshold
frequency is only a story invented for some smart guys to fit the
experiments with theory."
becomes -> become
LDPE may hav defects or holes which gather charges: http://google.com/searc=
h?q=3Delectride.
I think it's called a dangling bond. The same mekanism may be behind
activated charcoal.
"Other problems regard the partial explanation given by Einstein for
photoelectric effect, because the effect is temperature dependent and
the proposed equation does not take into account this experimental
fact."
el=E8ctric Curie temperature
week -> weak
"There is a movement of cations toward cathode, in the same time with
a movement of electrons toward anode. The cations are neutralized due
to collision with electrons or with cathode. But in this case, there
is only a local generation and extinction of electric charge, and
this
does not affect the electric current into external circuit. As
result,
the electric current into external circuit should be the same like in
case of vacuum cell (fig. 5). In this case only the yield of process
is affected due to conversion of a part of system energy into other
forms of energy."
You ouht'v stopped at "But". A gas bridges any stray charges if
there's a steady outside voltage.
"For a common sense mind, admitting as true the actual definition of
electric current, a vacuum cell should have all the time a higher
current then a filled gas one. If current is generated due to the
photon-electron knocks as principal process, a gas in the cell should
diminish the current in the cell independent on the anode potential.
In reality, the base process of photocell working and our
representation regarding gas discharge phenomena in actual orthodox
physics are completely absurd.
In the book a new interpretation of these phenomena will be provided."
For a common retard. Gas is a better conductor than vacvum, better
than diael=E8ctr=E8t. Vacvum has no charge carriers, and cannot
contribut
currend. If gas neutralizes inducten polarization, the currend will
be even more wherefore the latter raises the potential barrier. The
gas thus servs as a capacitative series voltage weall, after the
outside voltage weall.
whole -> hole
bounds -> bonds
bound -> bond
silicone -> silicon
broking -> breaking -> breakun
"A look of conductivity variation in semiconductor reveals something
incredible. An impurity in concentration express in part per millions
can improve the conductibility of material with a factor of 10^3 at
the same temperature.
The actual explanation is inconsistent with possibility
of
a donor or acceptor impurity to generate such amount of carriers for
such drastically modification of conductivity. Even in case of
generation of 10 charge carriers per atom of impurity the
conductibility modification remain unexplained. To speculate that an
impurity introduced into a lattice is able to break a lot of covalent
bounds and to permit a charge movement is nonsense."
It doesn't break covalent bonds. The extra charges are in the
conduction band, whose mekanic energhy is overlaid on the Fermi. A
good analoghy is a bit of watter or oil between two rough stones.
"It is completely nonsense to admire that for the fifth uncoupled
electron of phosphorus inserted into a lattice of silicon are
necessary only 0.01 eV in order to become free. In reality, a
phosphorus atom, independent on the number of formed covalent bound
has the same energy of ionization and this means at least 10,4 eV for
the first ionization. The actual theoreticians again present a very
short memory or they don=92t have clear the concept of ionization
energy."
Cretinism strikes again.
"Even a low level chemist is able to classify the strength of
chemical
bounds and =85 the covalent bound is in the top. Maybe it is necessary
for actual theoreticians to look after some simple data related to
energy necessary to break a covalent bound between two silicon
atoms."
At least they can tell between Si2 (g) and Si (s).
up -> above
"1. There is a repulsive force between electrons and between
holes agglomerated in the depletion region."
Cretin can't add.
"2. Why the electrons in the p region does not extinct the
positive charge of the holes and the same question to the holes for
the p region."
The junction is a gap; the depletion region is at equilibrium, and
the
outter terminals feel no further draw.
"3. A simple milivoltmeter able to count few milvolts should be
able to measure a contact potential in case of a pn junction. Why
these measurements are not able to detect this potential? It is the
first time (but not the last) when charges appear but it refuses to
be
measured and refuse to move."
Split the junction.
"4. From energetic point of view the formation of depletion
region is completely impossible."
Liar.
"It is reliable this explanation?"
No Yodas on Usenet.
thin -> shallow
"After few seconds of cell working, having in mind the concentration
of n particle, the cell stop to work because, in the n zone, there
are
no negative charges able to compensate the positive charges. Even the
energy of photon beam is increased, the new generated electron hole
does not permit the electron circulation into external circuit. It is
possible as result of photon strike, to have an generated electrons
able to liberate from its hole, but, in the n region there are other
uncompensated holes able to extinct electron wish of travelling.
Admitting this mechanism, a cell does not work for more then few
seconds with a real beam of photons."
That's what a circuit loop of wire is for, shit-wit liar. El=E8ctr=F2ns'
relaxation times are not more than milliseconds.
"There is a possibility for electron to be extinct by positive
charged
particle existent into depletion zone or if we count all effects, the
electron will move toward p doped zone where will be extinct by a
positive charge."
If the fot=F2n lacks--which is why good solar cells are multijunction
and broadband.
"Does this happen into reality?"
What the fuck does "into reality" mean?
"The up presented explanation is completely ruled out by experimental
reality.
The science of physics becomes an immense masquerade. All works fine,
until the representation finishes, and someone must pay the bill.
There is enough time to see who will be considered responsible for
this masquerade and who will be charged."
Yes, yours and you. Your yield shall be a dip in a live mercury arc
rectifier.
-Aut