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).
Regards,
Steve
[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