Neomechanical Explanation of the Photoelectric Effect

 A student of univironmental determinism writes:

“After finishing reading Universal Cycle Theory, I was left wondering how you and Puetz explain the so called photoelectric effect which the mainstream claims can only be accounted for by photons. I've done some reading on the topic concerning this and it seems that the Einsteinian parameters that most peddle as proof for the need for photons is not true in that a semi-classical wave model of light can explain such a basic version of the photo-electric effect just as well, but that it becomes increasingly difficult to describe more complex modern experimental phenomena in any other way than with quantized photons. Any response is appreciated.”

Here is Steve’s reply:

Hello Glenn,

Wikipedia says the following about the photo-electric effect: "In 1887, Heinrich Hertz discovered that electrodes illuminated with ultraviolet light create electric sparks more easily. In 1905 Albert Einstein published a paper that explained experimental data from the photoelectric effect as being the result of light energy being carried in discrete quantized packets. This discovery led to the quantum revolution. Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921 for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect."

Based on the Ten Assumptions of Science, I interpret all measurements at the atomic level (and lower) as measurements inhibited by human abilities to measure all of the significant matter involved in the interactions.  Specifically, all of the divisible forms of atomic matter (which we call aethers) go unnoticed.

Consequently, mainstream scientists describe the photoelectric effect in terms of finite forms of matter, with photons being the mainstream term for the packets of light involved in the effect.

Based on the assumption of infinity and my understanding of waves and vortices, I interpret the photoelectric effect as waves of aether being pushed from the materials bombarded by incoming light waves (also being waves of aether).


[Steve has given the basics needed for the analysis of the photoelectric effect. My take is that the “wave-packet” of SRT is merely a succession of aether waves needed to dislodge the electron. I speculate that resonance is required, just as it is needed to achieve maximum height when pushing a child in a swing. One push probably wouldn’t be enough, but properly timed pushes will do the job. Such resonance is required when sound waves from a singer ultimately break a wine glass or when seismic waves eventually knock a building down. The succession has to be the right frequency and duration. One wave may be insufficient to knock the electron or the building loose, but additional waves in proper succession each produce added acceleration (e.g., F = m(a1+a2+a3, etc). Not only that, but each wave within the medium consists of more than a billion particles, each with a tiny, but significant mass. The photon, on the other hand, is supposed to be a wave-particle without mass. This is of a piece with Einstein’s “immaterial fields,” which make him the foremost immaterialist of the 20th century.

The quantization involved in the above effects is not the quantization of matter, but of the motion of matter. A simple experiment shows what such a “quanta” is. Put a wine glass in the middle of a card table. Now shove on the side of the table. The glass will move toward the edge of the table. Repeat as necessary. Each time, the glass will move, eventually falling off the table. The “quantum” is neither your hand, the table, or the glass, but the sum total of the motions necessary to dislodge the glass. Similarly, a quantum of light is not a thing, but the motion of things. I imagine that the "more complex modern experimental phenomena" would involve the same pattern.] 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.




Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.