|
Post by jonbain on May 2, 2023 18:37:36 GMT
Most seem to say it has neither charge, which makes no sense if it is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Here is a good reading for this topic of the photoelectric effect:
And as the photon displaces an electron, it seems clear that this would only be feasible if they repelled each other.
So then the photon must be negative?
Or is this just another example of the science and the technology having little or nothing to do with one another?
As it is, this is often seen as a 'proof' of the 'wave-particle duality' paradigm. Which is itself blatantly wrong because a wave is a mathematical relationship between objects; or the same object changing its position over time.
Any thoughts welcome.
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Jun 8, 2023 22:20:49 GMT
Sorry, on wrong thread.
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Jun 8, 2023 22:28:36 GMT
Well this would have been a much shorter conversation had I known that I was talking to science deniers. Plus, I was unaware that there was a massive cabal of scoundrel scientists that are only in the game for the money and duping the public and other scientist. Probably because the few scientist I do know are more jazzed about the science than they are about the money. But hey! What do I know! It is kind of funny that people are arguing against science, while using a computer designed by....wait for it......scientists! How do they know what they are seeing? That is their field of study, plus, they publish the information so that you, I and others can test their results. I know, I know...they are all lying.....because of the money!
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Jun 8, 2023 23:22:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 9, 2023 16:49:36 GMT
There is no such thing as a "science denier". You either do the math, or you pretend to know on the basis that 'big money is never wrong'. The math of these algorithms here shows how sophistic the mainstream money-laundry really is: here: ^that algorithm there written on this computer here -> but hey what does Neuron420 know? he knows how to copy-paste links one finger at a time. As it is, the original particle colliders were asking honest questions. The higgs bosun is just ANOTHER money laundry. because it has yielded ZERO tangible results at all... Unless you worship the illusion of maths, like those other suckers in the rat-race. then copy-paste all you like you cannot answer the questions i initially asked because copy-paste easier
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Jun 10, 2023 18:26:50 GMT
I can't answer nonsensical questions and statements....so there is that.
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Jun 10, 2023 19:14:27 GMT
So it appears that you and I cannot have a sharp discussion without it devolving into, "Because I believe it to be so, so therefore it is so." and "I do not have to present any evidence to support my claims, but believe me, I know." And my all-time favorite, the complete dismissal of Einstein's and Planck's explanation of photoelectric principles, which are taught in the most basic college applied sciences and engineering classes.
"And as the photon displaces an electron, it seems clear that this would only be feasible if they repelled each other.
So then the photon must be negative?
Or is this just another example of the science and the technology having little or nothing to do with one another?
As it is, this is often seen as a 'proof' of the 'wave-particle duality' paradigm. Which is itself blatantly wrong because a wave is a mathematical relationship between objects; or the same object changing its position over time."
I am not going to reinvent the wheel to make my point. I will simply cut and paste an explanation that is routinely used on a daily basis. You disagreeing with it is completely okay, but without Bonafide evidence to support your thoughts, it is nothing more than a thought exercise. An interesting one, but unsupported. And as an afterthought, it is okay to say, "I don't completely understand what I think I know about something." I do it all of the time. As I have said before, the math is my stumbling block. It seems that my year of calculus 2 was not nearly enough, and I struggled with that.
"Einstein’s Explanation of Photoelectric Effect Einstein resolved this problem using Planck’s revolutionary idea that light was a particle. The energy carried by each particle of light (called quanta or photon) is dependent on the light’s frequency (ν) as shown:
E = hν
Where h = Planck’s constant = 6.6261 × 10-34 Js.
Since light is bundled up into photons, Einstein theorized that when a photon falls on the surface of a metal, the entire photon’s energy is transferred to the electron.
A part of this energy is used to remove the electron from the metal atom’s grasp and the rest is given to the ejected electron as kinetic energy. Electrons emitted from underneath the metal surface lose some kinetic energy during the collision. But the surface electrons carry all the kinetic energy imparted by the photon and have the maximum kinetic energy.
We can write this mathematically as:
Energy of photon
= energy required to eject an electron (work function) + Maximum kinetic energy of the electron
E = W + KE
hv = W + KE
KE = hv – w
At the threshold frequency, ν0 electrons are just ejected and do not have any kinetic energy. Below this frequency, there is no electron emission. Thus, the energy of a photon with this frequency must be the work function of the metal.
w = hv0
Thus, Maximum kinetic energy equation becomes:
KE = 1/2mv2max=hv–hv0
1/2mv2max=h(v−v0)
Vmax is the maximum kinetic energy of the electron. It is calculated experimentally using the stopping potential. Please read our article on Lenard’s observations to understand this part.
Stopping potential = ev0 = 1/2mv2max
Thus, Einstein explained the Photoelectric effect by using the particle nature of light.[/i]"
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 11, 2023 11:43:11 GMT
Well this would have been a much shorter conversation had I known that I was talking to science deniers. Plus, I was unaware that there was a massive cabal of scoundrel scientists that are only in the game for the money and duping the public and other scientist. Probably because the few scientist I do know are more jazzed about the science than they are about the money. But hey! What do I know! It is kind of funny that people are arguing against science, while using a computer designed by....wait for it......scientists! How do they know what they are seeing? That is their field of study, plus, they publish the information so that you, I and others can test their results. I know, I know...they are all lying.....because of the money! If we went back in time 10k years and grabbed a human from that time and came back to 5he present time and dropped that human off in the middle of the city how do you think they would handle the situation?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 12, 2023 9:30:42 GMT
So it appears that you and I cannot have a sharp discussion without it devolving into, "Because I believe it to be so, so therefore it is so." and "I do not have to present any evidence to support my claims, but believe me, I know." And my all-time favorite, the complete dismissal of Einstein's and Planck's explanation of photoelectric principles, which are taught in the most basic college applied sciences and engineering classes. "And as the photon displaces an electron, it seems clear that this would only be feasible if they repelled each other. So then the photon must be negative? Or is this just another example of the science and the technology having little or nothing to do with one another? As it is, this is often seen as a 'proof' of the 'wave-particle duality' paradigm. Which is itself blatantly wrong because a wave is a mathematical relationship between objects; or the same object changing its position over time." I am not going to reinvent the wheel to make my point. I will simply cut and paste an explanation that is routinely used on a daily basis. You disagreeing with it is completely okay, but without Bonafide evidence to support your thoughts, it is nothing more than a thought exercise. An interesting one, but unsupported. And as an afterthought, it is okay to say, "I don't completely understand what I think I know about something." I do it all of the time. As I have said before, the math is my stumbling block. It seems that my year of calculus 2 was not nearly enough, and I struggled with that. "Einstein’s Explanation of Photoelectric Effect Einstein resolved this problem using Planck’s revolutionary idea that light was a particle. The energy carried by each particle of light (called quanta or photon) is dependent on the light’s frequency (ν) as shown:
E = hν
Where h = Planck’s constant = 6.6261 × 10-34 Js.
Since light is bundled up into photons, Einstein theorized that when a photon falls on the surface of a metal, the entire photon’s energy is transferred to the electron.
A part of this energy is used to remove the electron from the metal atom’s grasp and the rest is given to the ejected electron as kinetic energy. Electrons emitted from underneath the metal surface lose some kinetic energy during the collision. But the surface electrons carry all the kinetic energy imparted by the photon and have the maximum kinetic energy.
We can write this mathematically as:
Energy of photon
= energy required to eject an electron (work function) + Maximum kinetic energy of the electron
E = W + KE
hv = W + KE
KE = hv – w
At the threshold frequency, ν0 electrons are just ejected and do not have any kinetic energy. Below this frequency, there is no electron emission. Thus, the energy of a photon with this frequency must be the work function of the metal.
w = hv0
Thus, Maximum kinetic energy equation becomes:
KE = 1/2mv2max=hv–hv0
1/2mv2max=h(v−v0)
Vmax is the maximum kinetic energy of the electron. It is calculated experimentally using the stopping potential. Please read our article on Lenard’s observations to understand this part.
Stopping potential = ev0 = 1/2mv2max Thus, Einstein explained the Photoelectric effect by using the particle nature of light.
Right. lots of sophisticated points are made, that actually say nothing more than Thats all you really had to say,
if you had read properly what you have copy-pasted.
Thus your post simply 'begs the question'.
To say "is transferred" does not in any way answer the questions I have posed. Quoting the energy equations does not in any way answer the questions, either. Quoting Planck's constant also does not answer any of the questions posed too.
So let me articulate again precisely WHAT I am asking:
How can the photon be considered as part of the electromagnetic spectrum if it does not have any electromagnetic charge?
Quoting Planck's constant, of course is besides the point, I am surprised you do not type e=mc^2, just to
'make your point seem all the more sophisticated'.
Because !
If its just a kinetic transference ONLY, then it is identical to how gravity makes a rubber ball bounce.
But when a rubber ball bounces, we do not conclude that the gravity of the ball falling is now
UNITED with the electromagnetic force !!!
Gravity is STILL a separate force. Despite them having obvious interaction.
We do not unite gravity with electromagnetism purely as a result of kinetic transference.
So why unite light with electromagnetism when its in the same energy transference context? (Kinetic transference)
Can you answer in your own words, or are you going to post entire pages of sophisticated numbers, and many more links
that AVOID THE QUESTION entirely
yet again ... ?
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Jun 13, 2023 2:29:16 GMT
"How can the photon be considered as part of the electromagnetic spectrum if it does not have any electromagnetic charge?"
Correct, photons have no electric charge, but they do possess both electric and magnetic fields that create magnetic radiation. Thus making them a part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 13, 2023 9:40:42 GMT
"How can the photon be considered as part of the electromagnetic spectrum if it does not have any electromagnetic charge?"Correct, photons have no electric charge, but they do possess both electric and magnetic fields that create magnetic radiation. Thus making them a part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
You still avoid the questions. If the electron-photon interaction is only a kinetic process, then it is no different from a ball bouncing.
When Newton got hit by the apple, kinetically, he did not unite gravity with anything. Energy exchanges between various forms and forces are commonplace. So Einstein did not unite light with electromagnetism any more than anyone else did who merely observed some electricity and light interacting somewhere.
Moreover a magnetic field has both positive and negative charge. So it can only be concluded that the photon must have both charges as the field is inseparable from the photon.
We have actually answered the question, but in so doing prove that the photon has electromagnetic charge.
Though you likely disagree.
Unless we conclude that the photon-electron process is not kinetic, and I have read elsewhere that it is not 'purely' kinetic.
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Jun 13, 2023 22:53:51 GMT
Well, I see your dilemma, and I do disagree. But having said that, it is not personal. Quite frankly, I do not have the time, energy nor inclination to reinterpret the existing information, of which there is a plethora of, that answers your questions. You did not seem to appreciate when I researched, cut & paste the information that I believe to be stated in a manner that is more precise than what I would have come up with, so I am not going to do so now. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 14, 2023 16:24:02 GMT
Well, I see your dilemma, and I do disagree. But having said that, it is not personal. Quite frankly, I do not have the time, energy nor inclination to reinterpret the existing information, of which there is a plethora of, that answers your questions. You did not seem to appreciate when I researched, cut & paste the information that I believe to be stated in a manner that is more precise than what I would have come up with, so I am not going to do so now. Cheers! I wonder how you manage to get dressed in the morning?
Do you slither out of bed, and insert one tentacle in a trouser leg, then using your suction cups, do you then pull yourself up the inside of your suit hanging onto the coat-hanger?
Because it is quite clear that you have no spine whatsoever, and thus you must have the anatomy of a common octopus.
Your statement could not be more feeble if you were trying to be as feeble as the dweebs of Feebledweebleton.
No doubt you are the sort that bemoans how the education system is so illogical as to be unable to distinguish between men and women any longer.
No doubt you also cannot even begin to realize the connections here made. That your response to commonly believed contradictions, is so cowardly and spineless, you deserve it that your sons grow up to be sodomite-whores and your daughters as cannon-fodder on the coming battlefield.
After all, you all got lots of vax to protect you from the invisible oogly-boogly-mosnter, that the 'scientists' have sold you.
Got 3 masks too!
So you should be fine.
No worries. Just shove the needle in the arm and say your prayers to the corporate media idols that you so lovingly worship.
I am trying in all earnest to bite the acerbic taste from off my tongue. But I cannot,
the ignorance and cowardice in tandem, one hiding from the other, just begs for a swift boot in the allegorical appendage.
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Jun 19, 2023 23:11:57 GMT
You sure make a lot of assumptions about me over, what I had assumed was a friendly discourse. Hmmmmm, you sound like a child. You and XXXXXX can babble at each other, because neither of you are actually interested in a true conversation, just pushing your wack ideologies. Have fun with that! I would tell you to eat a bag of dicks, but that would be rude and uncalled for.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 20, 2023 8:31:04 GMT
To be precise as to the reason for my mirth. Atoms bounce off one another from time to time, because they are surrounded by the negative charged cloud of electrons. When they do this, its called 'kinetic'. Because the negative electrons repel one another.So when an electron and a photon are said to 'interact kinetically', they are in fact logically saying (though they realize it not) that electrons and photons are ALSO surrounded by a cloud of electrons. Which is obviously impossible. So the electron and photon cannot be interacting kinetically. Simply as a matter of logic 101. We can resolve this by a photon having both a negative and positive charge. But that is still not 'kinetic'. Because a photon cannot be always surrounded by an electron. (...because the electron is obviously to heavy for that.) Or we can find a way for them to interact which cannot be called kinetic. Either way, its a theoretically open question. And its the final nail in the head of Einstein's quackery. www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htmFor those that are capable of actual logic, that is. But if you only aim i$ to milk the education $y$tem by perpetuating confu$ion, to keep people ignorant and in a $tate of war, $ubject to a petty junta mentality, ...then you are likely to continue worshiping that particular pagan idol: Einstein. I am starting to wonder if its even possible to authentically comprehend the scientific method, unless one is a Christian. But then science as a method is increasingly incompatible with science as a title, and thus a means to 'entitlement'. and thus world war is nibbling at the toes of Atlas.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 20, 2023 21:37:35 GMT
To be precise as to the reason for my mirth. Atoms bounce off one another from time to time, because they are surrounded by the negative charged cloud of electrons. When they do this, its called 'kinetic'. Because the negative electrons repel one another.So when an electron and a photon are said to 'interact kinetically', they are in fact logically saying (though they realize it not) that electrons and photons are ALSO surrounded by a cloud of electrons. Which is obviously impossible. So the electron and photon cannot be interacting kinetically. Simply as a matter of logic 101. We can resolve this by a photon having both a negative and positive charge. But that is still not 'kinetic'. Because a photon cannot be always surrounded by an electron. (...because the electron is obviously to heavy for that.) Or we can find a way for them to interact which cannot be called kinetic. Either way, its a theoretically open question. And its the final nail in the head of Einstein's quackery. www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htmFor those that are capable of actual logic, that is. But if you only aim i$ to milk the education $y$tem by perpetuating confu$ion, to keep people ignorant and in a $tate of war, $ubject to a petty junta mentality, ...then you are likely to continue worshiping that particular pagan idol: Einstein. I am starting to wonder if its even possible to authentically comprehend the scientific method, unless one is a Christian. But then science as a method is increasingly incompatible with science as a title, and thus a means to 'entitlement'. and thus world war is nibbling at the toes of Atlas. A photon is bigger then an atom and an electron is much smaller then an atom (has far as science says at least) so then I can't see the 2 being able to interact do to the size difference and then there's the elephant in the room which is atmosphere, the double slit experiment was done in a room full of oxygen and so all those models they show us of an empty space with a single photon flying across the room to go through a tiny slit is inaccurate because technically it would be a single photon swimming in a Sea underwater of oxygen molecules and other molecules fighting its way through them towards the slit because it's not empty space in between the photon gun and the wall the room is technically full to the brim with other particles of equal or larger size than the photon
|
|