The Debate on Light: Particle or Wave?

[ZapperZ]

Maybe I have studied special relativity just better and deeper than you have and have in fact a better insight and grasp of it (remember, everything is relative). But the 'mass' issue raised above is anyway only a semantic problem here. The important point is that a consequent application of the energy- and momentum conservation laws should not enable photoionization at all with the particle picture, whereas on the other hand the wave model is in fact consistent with the short times required for photoionization if one considers the wave-atom interaction properly (as shown on my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm ).

Correction: a bastardizaton of the energy-momentum conservation laws will not allow for the photon picture to work. A CORRECT application of it will. You have made ZERO reference to spicer's work, and all the subsequent advancement in photoemission spectroscopy in the study of materials. If all of these were based on the WRONG principles, there's zero reason why they work so accurately in determining the electronics properties of materials (open any photoemission text). This fact seems to be glaringly omitted in your criticism.

And please stop using your webpage as a reference. It's all "relative", remember? Having a webpage requires ZERO knowledge of physics. Just look at Crank Dot Net. If you think having webpages is how physics is done, then you've revealed an additional level of ignorance.

Zz.

 

[Thomas2]

But this is saying nothing new. The photoelectric effect is KNOWN to be a STRONG evidence for the photon picture, but it also cannot rule out completely the wave picture.

The photoelectric effect is supposed to be evidence for the particle picture and against the wave picture (see for instance http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html#c4 (Wave Particle Duality)).

But you, on the other hand, somehow thinks it rules out the photon picture because of your inability to understand what "photons" are and confusing it with the need to have mass (i.e. your lack of knowledge of Special Relativity). This is bogus.

I do not somehow think, but have shown on my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm that the photoelectric effect is in fact evidence for the wave picture rather than the particle picture. If you think it is bogus, then you should give detailed reasons why.

Emitted in the FORWARD direction? What the...?
I could shine a plane polarized light, having the polarization vector PARALLEL to the surface of the photocathode. Guess what? If I scan for photoelectrons, I get then in ALL DIRECTIONS! Not only that, this is in the BACKWARDS direction with respect to the direction of the incoming light. We see this ALL THE TIME when we do ANGLE-RESOLVED photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES).

Your photoemission work is hardly relevant in this context: is obvious that from a solid surface photoelectrons will be emitted in all directions since they suffer scattering in the material. You need individual atoms i.e. a gas as a target to show the original angular distribution of photoelectrons, and this shows that they are primarily ejected along the electric field vector (see for instance http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v37/i10/p1233_1 ). You can find this also theoretically derived in some Quantum Mechanics textbooks that deal with photoionization (e.g. Blochinzev), but most textbooks actually don't mention this.

a bastardizaton of the energy-momentum conservation laws will not allow for the photon picture to work. A CORRECT application of it will.

Exactly, that's why most people consider the photoeffect erroneously to be evidence of the particle picture.

You have made ZERO reference to spicer's work, and all the subsequent advancement in photoemission spectroscopy in the study of materials

Spicer's work is hardly relevant for having established the photoeffect as evidence for the particle nature of light, so I don't know why you keep on mentioning it . Try to argue with basic and generally known experiments.

And please stop using your webpage as a reference...Having a webpage requires ZERO knowledge of physics

So does posting in Physicsforums. But if you have done some logic in the past, then you should know that either of them is not synonymous with zero knowledge. It is suggesting that it is which shows a level of igorance or maybe even of bad intentions.

 

[Tsunami]

Without even going into QFT, let's make sure we make something very clear here:

All of the properties of light can be described by QM, and even so-called wavelike properties can be obtained using the photon description.

Now, contrary to popular beliefs, especially among students, physics instructors are not heartless masochists who will force the students to use the photon description when the classical wave picture is easier and more direct to be used. That is why the classical wave theory are still used when we describe diffraction and interference effects, especially in classical optics classes. It doesn't mean, however, a unified QM description doesn't exist for such things. It is just more involved and requires a bit more of a sophistication in knowledge to do it. The classical wave picture is simply a "short cut" to getting what we want to get.

Zz.

Ok...

so, we have light as quanta of energy... little blocks of energy. In certain situations, these little blocks of energy make up something that behaves like waves... this is especially through for blocks of energy with low frequency, or low-energy quanta. Is this correct?

Then, with all what has been said before, my puny mind only sees these options:

1) Wave-like behaviour is only true for low energy photons, while particle-like behaviour can describe all phenomena - thus, the wave-like behaviour is something like an approximation of the particle-like behaviour.
2) Wave-like behaviour can be applied to all phenomena, and particle-like behaviour can be applied to all phenomena - thus, there is a dual description, but both descriptions are always completely reconcilable (this doesn't contradict what ZapperZ said only if the unified description allows for both descriptions in every situation... the descriptions would simply be different approaches).
3) Some third option because I'm too tired to think straight at this moment.

 

[ZapperZ]

The photoelectric effect is supposed to be evidence for the particle picture and against the wave picture (see for instance http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html#c4 (Wave Particle Duality)).

I do not somehow think, but have shown on my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm that the photoelectric effect is in fact evidence for the wave picture rather than the particle picture. If you think it is bogus, then you should give detailed reasons why.

I did already! You seem to be confusing "energy" with evidence of "mass" in the photoelectric effect! I can play your game too. If you think you have any validity, send it into a peer-reviewed journal. Now THAT would determine if what you think is right is bogus or not.

Your photoemission work is hardly relevant in this context: is obvious that from a solid surface photoelectrons will be emitted in all directions since they suffer scattering in the material. You need individual atoms i.e. a gas as a target to show the original angular distribution of photoelectrons, and this shows that they are primarily ejected along the electric field vector (see for instance http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v37/i10/p1233_1 ). You can find this also theoretically derived in some Quantum Mechanics textbooks that deal with photoionization (e.g. Blochinzev), but most textbooks actually don't mention this.

And this is where you clearly show your ignorance.

The photoelectric effect as described in the Einstein model is the effect done from a SOLID surface, and in particular, a METALLIC solid surface. This is where such a model is applied to, and NOT from a gas! The excitation comes out of a continuous conduction BAND, and not from discrete energy states exhibit by gas atoms and molecules!

So in effect you are applying a description in which it wasn't MEANT to be applied to. This is consistent with what you were trying to do when you implied that light has a "small mass". This is what I call the bastardization of physics principles - you simply use something without clearly understand when and where it should apply. So OF COURSE you get nonsensical answers! But don't blame the physics or our understanding of it for your mistakes.

Spicer's work is hardly relevant for having established the photoeffect as evidence for the particle nature of light, so I don't know why you keep on mentioning it . Try to argue with basic and generally known experiments.

Then you haven't a clue what spicer has already accomplished.

So does posting in Physicsforums. But if you have done some logic in the past, then you should know that either of them is not synonymous with zero knowledge. It is suggesting that it is which shows a level of igorance or maybe even of bad intentions.

I have published several papers on the photoemission spectroscopy, including in the Physical Review journals, the same journal that you cited above. So what have YOU done to show that what you have concluded is valid?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Ok...

so, we have light as quanta of energy... little blocks of energy. In certain situations, these little blocks of energy make up something that behaves like waves... this is especially through for blocks of energy with low frequency, or low-energy quanta. Is this correct?

Then, with all what has been said before, my puny mind only sees these options:

1) Wave-like behaviour is only true for low energy photons, while particle-like behaviour can describe all phenomena - thus, the wave-like behaviour is something like an approximation of the particle-like behaviour.
2) Wave-like behaviour can be applied to all phenomena, and particle-like behaviour can be applied to all phenomena - thus, there is a dual description, but both descriptions are always completely reconcilable (this doesn't contradict what ZapperZ said only if the unified description allows for both descriptions in every situation... the descriptions would simply be different approaches).
3) Some third option because I'm too tired to think straight at this moment.

The problem here is that it isn't just a matter of the "source" here, which in this case, is light. It is also a matter of our DETECTION method, and that has nothing to do with light itself.

Again, the double slit, for example, isn't really a "test" of the light - it really is how light is reacting to the setup and the fact that it is given the ability to go through two different path equally well. Thus, if you look at the Feynman description of it, it really is the superposition of path, not the "interference of single photons", that is the origin of the interference pattern. Once we realize this, then we will notice that this isn't restricted to just light, but ANY object in which our ability to exactly track which "slit" that particle goes through is unknown.

With this in mind, look at how we handle and detect EM radiation of different wavelenths. You will notice that the longer the wavelength, our detection of it differs and goes more into the classical regime. Our instruments are now larger, something that we can start to comprehend, and begin to incorporate a lot more decoherence. So this is a function of not only the light property itself, but how we handle such properties.

Zz.

 

[Tsunami]

Ok, thanks ZapperZ, I don't think I understand all of that, but it's enough to protect me from major misconceptions.

(And to ask more explanation than you've already given me would not only be asking more than is polite, but also plain lazy.)

 

[quantumdude]

Maybe I have studied special relativity just better and deeper than you have and have in fact a better insight and grasp of it (remember, everything is relative).

Please. It's obvious to anyone who knows SR that your understanding of it contains rudimentary errors that stem from severe misconceptions that you are either unwilling or unable to let go of.

If you think it is bogus, then you should give detailed reasons why.

People do that on a daily basis here.

Thomas2, your userid has been banned. I am now going to ban your new userid, Thomas3. Do not start another one. Your contributions are no longer welcome here.