my history in that respect is not good , but then it was never a part of physics courses, I think saying newton was famous for his corpuscular theory was pushing the boat out a tad too many, famous for the laws of motion , gravity etc and his work with refraction of light , prisms and the light spectrum, which is obviously the source of my misunderstanding of history. Max plank did coin the term quanta and it was albert who was credited with suggesting these were in fact real ,ok so I'm now saying albert got it wrong , great that's really going to help. But at least you now know who Max plank was ,not that any of this is relevant to my post or the science behind it. Other than of course QM was an attempt to explain the evidence as it was in the first decade of the last century, except it doesn't work now
if I try and respond to your next points i'll probably just repeat myself
in 4 I am trying to explain that waves don't turn up in random size bits ,a 21cm column of air will support a 21 cm wave and its harmonic's but not a 19 cm wave with another 2cm of another 19 cm wave tacked on the end
In my model the quanta is the minimum amount of light that is viable, a whole cycle or complete wave and that energy transfer from light to electron only occurs one whole quanta in any one event, which is entirely consistent with planck's work . It does not ,however, require the light to exist as single quanta prior to its interaction with the electron. The 'energy packet' phenonmenon is to be expected as a natural and normal effect of wave dynamics , If the electron is a wave it will be locked into orbits around the nucleus Last I heard these orbits are considered as 'energy shell's'. Your classic theory has the orbit gradually decaying which is inconsistent with observation so it's wrong, so the photoelectric effect is so far explained without the need for a wave/particle model
the wave/particle model is used to explain the fact that red light does not release electrons whereas blue light does , now i don't remember ever being told the specific frequency that is the change over point as this will be ,I suggest, the resonant frequency of the system . Albert says that there is not enough energy in a red light photon to release an electron . I say that the electron is very reluctant to absorb energy at frequencies below resonance.
You seem to refer to some system that only resonates at the resonance point, dropping off untill reaching an exact multiple . I am unaware of any system that does this, all the systems I know of (and build) are very reluctant/inefficient below resonance then a very sharp peaking at resonance which then drops off slowly as the frequency rises and no obvious peaks at the 'multiple' points (i have a picture of a graph in my head as i write this), which describes the results from the photo electric effect experiment that QM puts forward as proof of wave particle duality , everything else works when one treats everything as waves and ignore the alleged particle component of the QM model. Im not saying quanta or photons do not exist ,they do , they are just the smallest viable wave
so if we could stick to the science and the specific experiment in question I would be grateful, although my history has improved as a result of this exchange!
so my point is if resonance can explain why red light is not absorbed we don't need particles to explain the photoelectric effect, which means albert got it wrong, which even I was less than happy with, but science doesn't do gods so even albert can get it wrong, people on the other hand do do gods, and rarely do they like it when their believe system is challenged which is what i'm doing.scientists are people and it was albert that pointed out we need to include the observer in any measurement (frames of ref.) And I add also the person making the measurements and interpreting them!