G'day Ray
Quote:
As I understand it, classical theory makes some completely wrong predictions about photoelectricity as follows:
1. all radiation is capable of producing photoelectrons. In experiments, there is a radiation cutoff frequency for a given material, below which there are absolutely no photoelectrons regardless of radiation intensity. Wrong prediction.
2. as the frequency increases, the number of photoelectrons will increase. In experiments, as the frequency increases, the energy of the photoelectrons increases, not their numbers. Wrong prediction.
3. as the intensity increases for a given frequency, photoelectron energies increase. In experiments, as the intensity increases, the number of photoelectrons increases, but they have the same energy. Wrong prediction.
4. there will be a delay between the start of illumination and the production of photoelectrons. Experimentally, there is no consistent delay. Wrong prediction.
ie, classical theory fails (spectacularly) to predict experimental results when dealing with photoelectricity - which is why Einstein wrote his well known paper... Your proposal above that metals may somehow incorporate a high pass filter could possibly get around point 1. but will not change the other wrong predictions. Since classical theory gets it wrong when dealing with emission and detection of light, it makes sense for us astronomers to use photon concepts when thinking about sources and detectors.
|
. . I forgot to reply to an earlier post on the photoelectric effect, Lamb as you may know is a QM, and Nobel Laureate, which make the following paper even more interesting:
.
.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9680009569.pdf
.
. . I can return to this subject, to elaborate more on a pure Maxwellian view as distinct from a classical view, surprisingly QM, and the Maxwellian view
AGREE!
.
Cheers
Ray