Photons are massless and they have no rest mass. Photons are always travelling at light speed, a resting photon is complete nonsense. Photons are electromagnetic waves. You better speak of "light quantum" instead of "photon". "Photon" associates a particle and light definitely doesn't consist of particles.

Arthur wrote:Photons are massless and they have no rest mass. Photons are always travelling at light speed, a resting photon is complete nonsense. Photons are electromagnetic waves. You better speak of "light quantum" instead of "photon". "Photon" associates a particle and light definitely doesn't consist of particles.

Can you explain the photoelectric effect in terms of waves only?

Arthur wrote:I don't reject QM altogether, but indeed I reject probabilistic physics. Especially the probability of presence in the Schrödinger-Equation I reject. The Schrödinger-Equation is tinkered in order to describe mass. I recommend instead of taking care for the Schrödinger-Equation, you better should solve the Helmholtz-Equation(s).

This makes no sense at all.

Perhaps you could explain?

Yes, I can explain the photoelectric effect in terms of waves only.
In my previous post #236 I already tried to explain.
All our universe consists of electromagnetic fields. One can differ between exactly three sorts of electromagnetic fields:
First the "mass field". This is that electromagnetic field, out of that the elementary particle consists.
Second the "gravitational field". Every "mass field" causes an electromagnetic "gravitational field" around itself.
Third the "emission field", that is "light" or any electromagnetic emission.
So, light is an electromagnetic emission-field.
Every sort of these three electromagnetic fields is pure energy density.
For every point in space you can declare a certain energy density and therefor a certain force. In other words, the emission field of e.g. light is a force field the same like the gravitational field.
If light is a force-field, it can have enough energy or force in order to push e.g. an electron off its orbit, out of the atom.
This effect is known as photoelectric effect.
Einstein could not imagine, that a light beam, that was supposed to be a wave, is able to push a particle, so he invented or better: postulated a light-particle, so called "photon". But Einstein was wrong (not only in this point).

And of course you can demonstrate all of that, can't you?

hackenslash wrote:And of course you can demonstrate all of that, can't you?

Sounds like a branch of this nonsense; http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

Arthur wrote:Yes, I can explain the photoelectric effect in terms of waves only.
In my previous post #236 I already tried to explain.
All our universe consists of electromagnetic fields. One can differ between exactly three sorts of electromagnetic fields:
First the "mass field". This is that electromagnetic field, out of that the elementary particle consists.
Second the "gravitational field". Every "mass field" causes an electromagnetic "gravitational field" around itself.
Third the "emission field", that is "light" or any electromagnetic emission.
So, light is an electromagnetic emission-field.
Every sort of these three electromagnetic fields is pure energy density.
For every point in space you can declare a certain energy density and therefor a certain force. In other words, the emission field of e.g. light is a force field the same like the gravitational field.
If light is a force-field, it can have enough energy or force in order to push e.g. an electron off its orbit, out of the atom.
This effect is known as photoelectric effect.
Einstein could not imagine, that a light beam, that was supposed to be a wave, is able to push a particle, so he invented or better: postulated a light-particle, so called "photon". But Einstein was wrong (not only in this point).

This is not clear. Maybe the language barrier?

Perhaps you could show me the sums?

I'm particularly interested in how you can reconcile a wave model of light with the frequency dependent workfunction and KE of emitted electrons? (in the case of the photoelectric effect)

Arthur wrote:
Photons are always travelling at light speed

Photons only travel at light speed in a vacuum but are slower where there is resistance

If light speed was always constant then it would be superfluous to mention a vacuum

It is mentioned however because outside of it it is slower and even significantly so too

Light is matter so has to react to any resistance it encounters as according to Newtons Third Law

.

Wave or Particle?

Oh to be a photon
traveling at the speed of light
nothing but a wave to you
as I disappear from sight.

Kenny A. Chaffin – 5/30/2014

surreptitious57 wrote:

Arthur wrote:
Photons are always travelling at light speed

Since it is clear that photons don't exist, I avoid the word "photon" and use "light quantum" or just "quantum".
Quantums only travel in the vacuum, so the sentence above is valid. In the case a quantum meets a gravitational field of e.g. that one of an atom or molecule, the light beam is bent, so needs to travel a longer way, thus it seems to us, the light beam is slowed down and has got a slower speed. But effectively it only is bent.

Perhaps you could show me the sums?

I'm particularly interested in how you can reconcile a wave model of light with the frequency dependent workfunction and KE of emitted electrons? (in the case of the photoelectric effect)

I am not really sure, what exactly do You mean by that? What does "KE" mean?

Arthur wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Arthur wrote:
Photons are always travelling at light speed

Since it is clear that photons don't exist, I avoid the word "photon" and use "light quantum" or just "quantum".
Quantums only travel in the vacuum, so the sentence above is valid. In the case a quantum meets a gravitational field of e.g. that one of an atom or molecule, the light beam is bent, so needs to travel a longer way, thus it seems to us, the light beam is slowed down and has got a slower speed. But effectively it only is bent.

Perhaps you could show me the sums?

I'm particularly interested in how you can reconcile a wave model of light with the frequency dependent workfunction and KE of emitted electrons? (in the case of the photoelectric effect)

I am not really sure, what exactly do You mean by that? What does "KE" mean?

KE - Kinetic Energy of the emitted electron.

In a model that discounts the particulate nature of light, what mechanism prevents low frequency wavelengths from liberating electrons.

The very question that gave birth to quantum physics.

Evolving wrote:The very question that gave birth to quantum physics.

Indeed!

I look forward to reading Arthurs alternative wave based explanation. With all the sums of course!

Also: why do electrons with high kinetic energy come out almost immediately: why doesn't the pressure to emit them build up gradually?

campermon wrote:

Evolving wrote:The very question that gave birth to quantum physics.

Indeed!

I look forward to reading Arthurs alternative wave based explanation. With all the sums of course!

I bet Arthur is going to trot out the semiclassical model where you treat light as a classical wave and the electron as a bound quantum state. If you do that you can reproduce many of the statistical properties of the photoelectric effect - Poisson emission stats, threshold frequency etc. It's remarkable how much you can indeed derive this way.

Unfortunately, as far as I can remember, you can't derive anti-bunching. So I'm afraid we're stuck with photons.

twistor59 wrote:

campermon wrote:

Evolving wrote:The very question that gave birth to quantum physics.

Indeed!

I look forward to reading Arthurs alternative wave based explanation. With all the sums of course!

I bet Arthur is going to trot out the semiclassical model where you treat light as a classical wave and the electron as a bound quantum state. If you do that you can reproduce many of the statistical properties of the photoelectric effect - Poisson emission stats, threshold frequency etc. It's remarkable how much you can indeed derive this way.

Unfortunately, as far as I can remember, you can't derive anti-bunching. So I'm afraid we're stuck with photons.

I never knew that!

Not just me then.

There's tons of stuff on the net about it, e.g.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=715086

In a model that discounts the particulate nature of light, what mechanism prevents low frequency wavelengths from liberating electrons.
I look forward to reading Arthurs alternative wave based explanation. With all the sums of course!
Also: why do electrons with high kinetic energy come out almost immediately: why doesn't the pressure to emit them build up gradually?
I bet Arthur is going to trot out the semiclassical model where you treat light as a classical wave and the electron as a bound quantum state. If you do that you can reproduce many of the statistical properties of the photoelectric effect - Poisson emission stats, threshold frequency etc. It's remarkable how much you can indeed derive this way.

Unfortunately, as far as I can remember, you can't derive anti-bunching. So I'm afraid we're stuck with photons.

Dear all,
please be clear with precise questions, then there is a chance to answer it.
What do You mean with "...with all the sums of course!"?
I am sorry, but I guess You basically didn't get me. I am not talking about "a model that discounts the particulate nature of light", I am not talking about a "model", I am talking about reality.
You can call "the particulate nature of light" a "model", because it simply is not true.
I am calculating it, I have got the mathematical evidence of the fact, that light doesn't have got a particulate nature.

What he means by 'with all the sums' is that he wants to see your mathematics.