Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

7 Reasons To Abandon Quantum Mechanics-And Embrace This New Theory


  • Please log in to reply
367 replies to this topic

#358 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 25 June 2020 - 08:35 AM

So, OceanBreeze.  I am curious.  How would YOU explain the perpendicular photoelectric ejections along the polarization of the incoming light wave?  So for example, how do YOU explain that if you shine a horizontally polarized laser onto a metal, then no electrons will come out?  How do you explain that?  Wouldn't "horizontal light particles"  (oh my goodness!) still be absorbed by the electrons and get knocked out?   How are you going to bring in the wave characteristic (polarization) of the light wave if you think "particles"?  Do the "horizontal light particles" not get absorbed by the electrons for some reason?

 

I'm curious.  I am digging in here.  Since you have insulted my theory, I suppose you have a better answer.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 



#359 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts

Posted 25 June 2020 - 08:46 AM

So, OceanBreeze.  I am curious.  How would YOU explain the perpendicular photoelectric ejections along the polarization of the incoming light wave?  So for example, how do YOU explain that if you shine a horizontally polarized laser onto a metal, then no electrons will come out?  How do you explain that?  Wouldn't "horizontal light particles"  (oh my goodness!) still be absorbed by the electrons and get knocked out?   How are you going to bring in the wave characteristic (polarization) of the light wave if you think "particles"?  Do the "horizontal light particles" not get absorbed by the electrons for some reason?

 

I'm curious.  I am digging in here.  Since you have insulted my theory, I suppose you have a better answer.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

What makes you think the photons aren't reflecting off the surface and pulling electrons with them? I'm not versed on the photoelectric effect. But that would be my first guess knowing the small amount about it that I do.

 

And if that's the case then my ideas would explain it better with a strong force of attraction equal to Planck's constant.

 

PS I have yet to find angle of ejection in the articles that I read. Where are you getting this information from?


Edited by devin553344, 25 June 2020 - 09:40 AM.


#360 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1356 posts

Posted 25 June 2020 - 11:58 AM

 

 

I'm curious.  I am digging in here.  Since you have insulted my theory, I suppose you have a better answer.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

First off, there is some misunderstanding here, so let me clarify that I didn’t “insult your theory” as I haven’t watched any of your videos and I’m not really sure what your theory is.

 

My post, that you took offense to, was directed to the poster who was going by the handle “Dalton Chance” aka Polymath or Superpolymath or at least two dozen other handles. He is a banned troll and I deleted his post in your thread that’s all. I apologize for any confusion this caused.

 

 

So, OceanBreeze.  I am curious.  How would YOU explain the perpendicular photoelectric ejections along the polarization of the incoming light wave?  So for example, how do YOU explain that if you shine a horizontally polarized laser onto a metal, then no electrons will come out?  How do you explain that?  Wouldn't "horizontal light particles"  (oh my goodness!) still be absorbed by the electrons and get knocked out?   How are you going to bring in the wave characteristic (polarization) of the light wave if you think "particles"?  Do the "horizontal light particles" not get absorbed by the electrons for some reason?

 

 

Well, now that you asked, I would explain it by saying it is not established by any science I know of.

 

You are basically denying the conservation of angular momentum; not something I recommend.

 

As far as I know, experiments of the photoelectric effect with metals (you did say metals, remember) have never shown any strong anistrophy of the outgoing photoelectrons with regard to the polarization of the incident light. 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, but you specified a metal.  

 

If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it, but I am not going to watch a slew of silly videos! If you can present your evidence, with links, so that I can read up on it, that would be appreciated.

 

By the way, I did have a laugh at your boasting of having your work published in “Physics Essays” :yawn:



#361 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1356 posts

Posted 26 June 2020 - 02:35 AM

You're rude and insulting and this is just another example of that.

 When you have no other reason to enter a thread except to troll, then that is a clear rules violation. Consider this a warning if you want to continue posting here.



#362 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 26 June 2020 - 09:21 AM

Ok, OceanBreeze, sorry for the misunderstanding. And thanks for removing trolls from this thread!  I had no idea.  Now back to the understanding!

 

Yes, photoelectrons do show a big preference for ejection along the polarization of the incident light wave.

Here is the most stark evidence for that:

 

https://journals.aps...PhysRev.37.1233

The Angular Distribution of Photoelectrons Ejected by Polarized Ultraviolet Light in Potassium Vapor

 

Milton A. Chaffee Phys. Rev. 37, 1233 – Published 15 May 1931

 

...the most probable direction of ejection is that of the electric vector and that the angular distribution varies as the square of the cosine of the angle between the electric vector and the direction in question.

 

 

Another Example:

 

https://escholarship...c/item/01t182mz

Evidence of vectorial photoelectric effect on copper

2005   Pedersoli, E.
 

 

...enhancement in p polarization which can not be explained in terms of optical absorption,a phenomenon known as vectorial photoelectric effect.  

 

...enhancement is found for light with electric field perpendicular to the sample’s surface, showing a vectorial photoelectric effect.

 

 

Pedersoli.png

So you see, OceanBreeze, in the first example cos2(90o) = 0,  so no electrons come out at 90o to the polarization.  Most come out along the polarization, and it drops off as cos2.

 

In the second example, there is a clear preference for vertically polarized ejections, as can be seen in the plot!

 

Now, you should see  Episode 2 The PhotoElectric Effect  to find out why this is so!  QM is incapable of an explanation! :

 

 

E. Pedersoli:

 

...dependence on angle of incidence and light polarization is a long standing problem [4–8] that largely remains to be understood."

 

Intermittent Electrons explains both!  

 

Andrew Ancel Gray


Edited by andrewgray, 26 June 2020 - 10:05 AM.


#363 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 26 June 2020 - 09:30 AM

Devin,

 

 

the photons...  ...reflecting off the surface and pulling electrons with them

 

Now come on Devin.  "Light Particles pulling electrons out?"  By what mechanism do these fictitious light particles "pull on" electrons (oh my goodness!)???  I sure hope you start to see that "light particles" are never needed for any explanation in physics.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray



#364 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts

Posted 26 June 2020 - 09:40 AM

Ok, OceanBreeze, sorry for the misunderstanding. And thanks for removing trolls from this thread!  I had no idea.  Now back to the understanding!

 

Yes, photoelectrons do show a big preference for ejection along the polarization of the incident light wave.

Here is the most stark evidence for that:

 

https://journals.aps...PhysRev.37.1233

The Angular Distribution of Photoelectrons Ejected by Polarized Ultraviolet Light in Potassium Vapor

 

Milton A. Chaffee Phys. Rev. 37, 1233 – Published 15 May 1931

 

 

Another Example:

 

https://escholarship...c/item/01t182mz

Evidence of vectorial photoelectric effect on copper

2005   Pedersoli, E.
 

 

Pedersoli.png

So you see, OceanBreeze, in the first example cos2(90o) = 0,  so no electrons come out at 90o to the polarization.  Most come out along the polarization, and it drops off as cos2.

 

In the second example, there is a clear preference for vertically polarized ejections, as can be seen in the plot!

 

Now, you should see  Episode 2 The PhotoElectric Effect  to find out why this is so!  (QM is incapable of an explanation!)

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

And how do the papers explain the results? But their answer is "An explanation in terms of non local conductivity tensor is proposed."

 

P.S. OK I had a chance to review the paper at escholarship and it looks reflective with polarization taken into account. Although the author indicates absorption as the mechanism. Noting that the photoemission angle is connected to the incidence angle (a type of reflection). The mechanism is most likely atomic in this case for reflection, and the perpedicular to incidence plane would allow greater reflected energy increasing the chance of an emission. It really isn't that difficult to explain.


Edited by devin553344, 26 June 2020 - 01:01 PM.


#365 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts

Posted 26 June 2020 - 09:42 AM

Devin,

 

 

Now come on Devin.  "Light Particles pulling electrons out?"  By what mechanism do these fictitious light particles "pull on" electrons (oh my goodness!)???  I sure hope you start to see that "light particles" are never needed for any explanation in physics.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Have you looked at my theory? Apparently not, it's in the lineup: http://www.sciencefo...-of-the-forces/, but basically I might explain it with a strong force of attraction that matches E=hv. Noting that the wavelength for photoelectrics is around 1E-7 which could reach into several atoms before reflecting.

 

This does not take into account polarization as my calculations are raw for the total energy of Planck's constant from a Plane solution. In order to describe polarization one would have to expand on that.

 

Thanks for your time :)


Edited by devin553344, 26 June 2020 - 11:47 AM.


#366 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1356 posts

Posted 26 June 2020 - 10:41 AM

Ok, OceanBreeze, sorry for the misunderstanding. And thanks for removing trolls from this thread!  I had no idea.  Now back to the understanding!

 

Yes, photoelectrons do show a big preference for ejection along the polarization of the incident light wave.

Here is the most stark evidence for that:

 

https://journals.aps...PhysRev.37.1233

The Angular Distribution of Photoelectrons Ejected by Polarized Ultraviolet Light in Potassium Vapor

 

Milton A. Chaffee Phys. Rev. 37, 1233 – Published 15 May 1931

 

 

Another Example:

 

https://escholarship...c/item/01t182mz

Evidence of vectorial photoelectric effect on copper

2005   Pedersoli, E.
 

 

 

Pedersoli.png

So you see, OceanBreeze, in the first example cos2(90o) = 0,  so no electrons come out at 90o to the polarization.  Most come out along the polarization, and it drops off as cos2.

 

In the second example, there is a clear preference for vertically polarized ejections, as can be seen in the plot!

 

Now, you should see  Episode 2 The PhotoElectric Effect  to find out why this is so!  QM is incapable of an explanation! :

 

 

Intermittent Electrons explains both!  

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

Glad the misunderstanding is cleared up Andrew.  I will try to keep the trolls out by removing the off topic posts as well as my replies to them. My replies just make the problem worse.

 

Well, OK, back to the topic.

 

From the first paper you cited:

 

 “This result is in accord with predictions of the wave mechanics for a spherically symmetrical atom and incidentally therefore constitutes additional evidence that molecules do not play an appreciable part in the observed photo-ionization of potassium vapor”

 

Whoa! This is photo-ionization in a gas! Nothing to do with the photoelectric effect with metals. This is exactly why I stressed, in my earlier post, that your claim is “if you shine a horizontally polarized laser onto a metal, then no electrons will come out”. Now you are citing a paper on the photo-ionization of a gas to support that claim? That doesn’t work for me.

 

The second paper:

 

“Quantum Efficiency (QE) measurements of single photon photoemission from a Cu(111) single crystal and a Cu polycrystal photocathodes, irradiated by 150 fs-6.28 eV laser pulses, are reported over a broad range of incidence angle, both in s and p polarizations. The maximum QE (approx. = 4x10-4) for polycrystalline Cu is obtained in p polarization at an angle of incidence theta = 65 deg. We observe a QE enhancement in p polarization which can not be explained in terms of optical absorption, a phenomenon known as vectorial photoelectric effect”

 

Whoops, this is about photon photoemission from a crystal. In my post I already addressed this  quote: “the result is also 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, but you specified a metal”

 

It seems that neither of the papers support your claim that “if you shine a horizontally polarized laser onto a metal, then no electrons will come out”

 

I hope you can find some better sources than these to make your case.


  • devin553344 likes this

#367 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 12:58 PM

OceanBreeze,

 

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

 

Now, I doubt crystal orientation has much to do with electron ejection along the light wave polarization:

 

 

OceanBreeze:

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:

 

Pedersoli2.png

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...

 

Huh?

 

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.


#368 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 03 July 2020 - 12:04 PM

Well,

 

I guess it is time to move on from the Episode1/Episode2 videos to Episode3_TheAtom.   Let's discuss the Intermittent Electron Atom in Episode 3, please.

 

What do you think about the "New-Wisdom-Non-Radiating-Planetary-Orbits-In-The-Episode3-Atom"?

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 1)

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

https://www.youtube....h?v=I7JC31jAyXw

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 2)

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

https://www.youtube....h?v=KAG49QhwYDM

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray