The wave solution to the Photoelectric effect

In summary: However, I am unable to find the name of this solution online.Does anyone know what this relationship is called, and a link that explains it?Thanks in advance for your help.There is no name for the relationship between the work function and threshold wavelength, but it can be expressed as: (λW)² = c/2This relationship can be found in various texts, including textbooks on physics. However, the equation is dimensionally inconsistent, so it is not always named.
  • #1
in2infinity
8
2
TL;DR Summary
(λW)² = c/2
I was recently examining the relationship between the work function of a material and its threshold wavelength. It was clear to me that the relationship is expressed as:

(λW)² = c/2

Where λ is the threshold wavelength, W is the work function, and c is the speed of light. However, I am unable to find the name of this solution online.

Does anyone know what this relationship is called, and a link that explains it?

Thanks in advance for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Not every equation has a name.
 
  • Like
Likes in2infinity
  • #3
Thanks.

But do you know where I can find the equation in the literature. As this provides a wave solution to the photoelectric effect, I am sure it must be an important concept in science, right?

I mean, regardless of the name, I just want to find out more about it.
 
  • #4
(λW)² = c/2 is dimensionally inconsistent.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman, in2infinity, Vanadium 50 and 1 other person
  • #5
Goof point: but one can replace f with c/lambda or whatever, Doesn't need a name,,
 
  • Like
Likes in2infinity
  • #6
in2infinity said:
TL;DR Summary: (λW)² = c/2

I was recently examining the relationship between the work function of a material and its threshold wavelength.
The work function would be the energy of a photon with that threshold wavelength:
W = hc/λ
 
  • Like
Likes tech99 and in2infinity
  • #7
(λW)² = (hc)2 ≠ c/2
 
  • Like
Likes in2infinity
  • #8
OK, maybe I should supply some data. here is a list of some of the elements i checked.

ElementW (Ev)λMultiplied
Cs 55 (s)212580122.9
Na 11 (s)227540122.5
Ba 56 (s)251490122.9
Mg 12 (s)346350121.1
Zn 30 (D)374330123.4
Al 14 (P)374330123.4
Pb 82 (P)402300120.6
Now the result is squared and multiplied by 2 to get the speed of light. I think that is relativly straight forward.

Can you explain what you mean by 'dimensionally inconsistent'?
 
  • #9
Basically, you had apples equal to oranges
 
  • Like
Likes in2infinity
  • #10
Right sorry, i d
gleem said:
(λW)² = (hc)2 ≠ c/2
Sorry, I didn't have that sign on my laptop. We can go with that. :-)
 
  • #11
Sorry, I am using Electronvolts, so you need to divide by 1.6 to get the work function in EVs.
Doc Al said:
The work function would be the energy of a photon with that threshold wavelength:
W = hc/λ
see that example dataset I posted
 
  • #12
in2infinity said:
Sorry, I am using Electronvolts
Use whatever units you like. The work function is an energy term, so eV is fine.
 
  • #13
This is just numerology, isn't it? If you take the quoted energies in eV and multiply them by the wavelengths in nm (post #8), divide by 1.6 because reasons (post #11), then square the result and divide by 2 you do get somewhere near the numerical value of ##c## in m/s. But that's just because OP has calculated the constant ##(hc)^2/2## in some funky units and it happens to have a numerical value near to the numerical value of ##c## in SI.
 
  • Like
Likes DrClaude
  • #14
Ibix said:
This is just numerology, isn't it? If you take the quoted energies in eV and multiply them by the wavelengths in nm (post #8), divide by 1.6 because reasons (post #11), then square the result and divide by 2 you do get somewhere near the numerical value of ##c## in m/s. But that's just because OP has calculated the constant ##(hc)^2/2## in some funky units and it happens to have a numerical value near to the numerical value of ##c## in SI.
I am sorry, by 1.6, I mean the electrical charge constant e. Those are the values I am showing in the data set. When you multiply the threshold wavelength, by the work function in EVs and square the result is very nearly is equal to half the speed of light. I don't think it's numerology.

It seems like a fairly straight forwards calculation. Although, I am not exactly sure what you mean by numerology?
 
  • #15
in2infinity said:
I am sorry, by 1.6, I mean the electrical charge constant e.
In what units? And why are you dividing by that anyway?
 
  • #16
And can you write down your exact process? Taking your first line of data for Cs you take W=212eV and ##\lambda##=580nm (I guess) how do you get the 122.9 in the last column in your table? What do you get when you square that value? When do you divide by 1.6 and when do you divide by 2? In short, please show every step of your calculation for one example. And please state in what units is your final answer.
 
  • Like
Likes in2infinity
  • #17
Sure

2.12 EV * 580nm = 1229.60

122960^2 = 1511916

1511916 x 2 = 3023832

3023832 / 299792 = 10.086434

I scaled the answer as I originally used it to make a graph.

This concept of 1.6 is because in the equation W= c*h / f provided previously need to be divided by e (roughly 1.6) to produce the work function in EVs not E.

Therefore, W = (c*h/f)/e

I wasn't expecting that this was going to be such a big deal, by the way. I just assumed this was in the litterature somewhere.

Ibix said:
And can you write down your exact process? Taking your first line of data for Cs you take W=212eV and ##\lambda##=580nm (I guess) how do you get the 122.9 in the last column in your table? What do you get when you square that value? When do you divide by 1.6 and when do you divide by 2? In short, please show every step of your calculation for one example. And please state in what units is your final answer.
 
  • #18
in2infinity said:
Sure

2.12 EV * 580nm = 1229.60

122960^2 = 1511916

1511916 x 2 = 3023832

3023832 / 299792 = 10.086434

I scaled the answer as I originally used it to make a graph.

This concept of 1.6 is because in the equation W= c*h / f provided previously need to be divided by e (roughly 1.6) to produce the work function in EVs not E.

Therefore, W = (c*h/f)/e

I wasn't expecting that this was going to be such a big deal, by the way. I just assumed this was in the litterature somewhere.
Check back on PHF, here. Post #4.

-Dan
 
  • Like
Likes in2infinity and Ibix
  • #19
So the process you've followed calculates ##2(hc)^2## in funky units. The numerical value in those funky units happens to be in the ballpark of the numerical value of ##c## in SI units (or ten times it - you don't seem to be clear). This is a meaningless coincidence (and dimensionally inconsistent as already pointed out), which is what I mean by "this is just numerology".
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark
  • #20
Ibix said:
So the process you've followed calculates ##2(hc)^2## in funky units. The numerical value in those funky units happens to be in the ballpark of the numerical value of ##c## in SI units (or ten times it - you don't seem to be clear). This is a meaningless coincidence (and dimensionally inconsistent as already pointed out), which is what I mean by "this is just numerology".
By your response, I assume then that this appears not to be in the literature. Which was actually my original question. And no, I did not use h in the calculation. I was only explaining that Doc Al's difference in expected value of E from eV.

Although that does make me think. Doesn't the value for h have no mathematical explanation. I mean, isn't it just derived from experimentation?

btw: Does anyone actually know of a proper reference for the experimental values of work function and elements?

I really appreaciate all of the view that are being presented here. Thanks
 
  • #21
in2infinity said:
I don't think it's numerology.
Thread closed for Moderation...
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark
  • #22
This is numerology: playing around with numbers until an "interesting" result is obtained. The problem is that this can be done with any set of numbers so generally doesn't lead to any real insight.

Note also that some numbers in the OP may be incorrect (see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/photoelec.html), leading to even more spurious coincidences.

This thread will remained closed.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Ibix and topsquark

FAQ: The wave solution to the Photoelectric effect

What is the wave solution to the Photoelectric effect?

The wave solution to the Photoelectric effect is a theory that explains the phenomenon of the Photoelectric effect by considering light as a wave. It suggests that when light of a certain frequency and intensity is shone on a metal surface, the energy of the light is transferred to the electrons in the metal, causing them to be emitted.

How does the wave solution differ from the classical explanation of the Photoelectric effect?

The classical explanation of the Photoelectric effect, also known as the particle theory, suggests that light is made up of particles called photons, and when these particles hit the metal surface, they transfer their energy to the electrons, causing them to be emitted. The wave solution, on the other hand, considers light as a wave and explains the Photoelectric effect through the interaction of the wave with the electrons in the metal.

What evidence supports the wave solution to the Photoelectric effect?

Several experiments have been conducted that support the wave solution to the Photoelectric effect. For example, the intensity of the light was found to have no effect on the kinetic energy of the emitted electrons, which is consistent with the wave theory. Additionally, the photoelectric effect was found to occur even when the light is below a certain frequency, known as the threshold frequency, which is also in line with the wave solution.

What are the implications of the wave solution for our understanding of light?

The wave solution to the Photoelectric effect challenges the traditional understanding of light as solely consisting of particles. It suggests that light has both wave-like and particle-like properties, known as wave-particle duality. This has significant implications for our understanding of the nature of light and its interactions with matter.

How does the wave solution to the Photoelectric effect impact modern technology?

The wave solution to the Photoelectric effect has had a significant impact on modern technology, particularly in the development of devices such as solar panels and photodetectors. These devices utilize the Photoelectric effect to convert light energy into electrical energy, and the wave solution has helped scientists better understand and improve the efficiency of these devices.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top