Thanks for the interesting discussion!
Now, I doubt crystal orientation has much to do with electron ejection along the light wave polarization:
The resulting direction of the outgoing electrons is statistical and can depend on whether or not the electrons in the target material are moving randomly in all directions or they have a bias, as in a crystal structure,
If the crystal structure gave a bias in direction, then the poly-crystalline copper, which would have crystals aligned in all directions, would not have such a bias. But we see the same "along-the-polarization" direction of ejection from poly-crystalline copper:
So again, I doubt that it is the crystal structure giving the bias towards the polarization. So the bottom line is this: "light comes into stuff, and ejects the electrons along its polarization E field". No matter what you call it, the electrons prefer the ejection along the polarization of the light wave (here in this plot at 60o, by 8 to 1).
Now since you do not want to watch my Episode 2 video explaining why this is, let me summarize it for you.
1. The intermittent electrons in the copper are pulsating their electrical influence ON and OFF.
2. If these electrons are pulsating in such a way to be in resonance with just the peaks of a vertical light wave (ON with peaks, OFF with valleys) then they will be radically ejected upwards along the polarization E field of the light wave.
3. If these electrons are pulsating in such a way to be in resonance with just the peaks of a horizontal light wave (ON with peaks, OFF with valleys) then they will be pushed sideways along the surface of the copper (not ejected much).
4. Now as the electrons (from 2.) get accelerated upwards, they increase their intermittent pulsation rate in accordance with De Broglie. As the pulsation rate increases, eventually these electrons will come into pulsation resonance with both the peaks and valleys of the incident light wave. In other words, the acceleration is over and the electrons gain just a finite amount of energy that we see in the photoelectric effect.
That's the explanation for the bias towards polarization ejection and energy limitation of the photoelectric effect.
Now the only thing so far from the QM world that I have seen to explain this is:
This result is in accord with predictions of the wave mechanics for a spherically symmetrical atom...
An explanation in terms of non local conductivity tensor is proposed...
So let me again put you on the spot! Let us hear the explanation for the bias towards polarization ejection from poly-crystalline copper (and from the potassium vapor).
Andrew Ancel Gray
Edited by andrewgray, 28 June 2020 - 01:08 PM.