kkris1 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Let's do away with particle/wave duality!!! See attachement Investigating_3.doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patcalhoun Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Let's do away with particle/wave duality!!!See attachement It looks like you've just ended up at the Rydberg formula. How does this do away with wave-particle duality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustStuit Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 What about the particle characteristics? Like distinct energy level, changing that changes the wavelength, and intensity changed by adding or lowering numbers of photons present. Those are particle charateristics right? (I'm not too sure) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 interesting paper, it seems you're very close to deriving wave particle duality, you might like to know that the photon is a probability wave. some criticisms of the paper however, it seems that you tried to hypothesize that the electron would slowly lose its energy over time, and then later advocated the quantum perspective that light was quantized in some unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkris1 Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 The only reason Einstein introduced photons as having dual wave-particle like characteristics was that continuos wave model of the photon couldn't explain photoelectric effect (and black body radiation) The continuos wave couldn't have its energy limited to be proportional to its frequency. I tried to show that exponentially decaying wave could have indeed total energy proportional to its frequency, therefore eliminating the need for dual characteristics of the photon It looks like you've just ended up at the Rydberg formula. How does this do away with wave-particle duality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 einstein actually fought against wave-particle duality, it was introduced by ernst schrodinger, to cover entirely different phenomena Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkris1 Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 The maximum allowable energy of the electron would be quantized (more energy would simply cause the electron to jump to different energy level or leave atom alltogether), however excited electron on certain level would loose its energy gradually, thus creating photon; if you superimpose many light "wavelets" and create sine wave, you will end up with laser beam interesting paper' date=' it seems you're very close to deriving wave particle duality, you might like to know that the photon is a probability wave. some criticisms of the paper however, it seems that you tried to hypothesize that the electron would slowly lose its energy over time, and then later advocated the quantum perspective that light was quantized in some unit.[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 that wouldn't fit the data however, because in your model the amplitude of light emited from electrons closer to the nuclei would be the same as the amplitude emited from the valence electrons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkris1 Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 No , it is not what I was trying to show. Saying that amplitude is constant I was refering to specific energy level of an electron (if you would supply more energy to increase amplitude at certain level, electron would simply jump to another level) that wouldn't fit the data however, because in your model the amplitude of light emited from electrons closer to the nuclei would be the same as the amplitude emited from the valence electrons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I was reffereing to the light emitted on the way down, the light has to come in fixed jumps, otherwise it doesn't fit the data. if light doesn't make fixed jumps on the way down than the amplitude of the emitted light will stay the same but the frequency will increase (this doesn't happen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkris1 Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 It is not the light which does jump , it is an electron. The light , according to my hypothesis, is the energy lost by the electron and emitted as a wave. It is interesting to realize the "normal" light is coherent only for a very short time, thus supporting again my hypothesis of the light as decaying wave I was reffereing to the light emitted on the way down' date=' the light has to come in fixed jumps, otherwise it doesn't fit the data. if light doesn't make fixed jumps on the way down than the amplitude of the emitted light will stay the same but the frequency will increase (this doesn't happen)[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 pardon me I suppose I should have used pulses instead of jumps, but anyway back to the discussion. when the electron jumps it emits one quick burst of light known as a photon, this photon then has its own frequency, the frequency of the photon is proportional to its energy such that E/h=f if this is really what you've been trying to say than I appologize as I misunderstood you. If it is as though ie. the electron emits light on its way down atleast semi-continuously, then you are not correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkris1 Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 It all depends what we call "short bursts". Generally speaking they(photons) are very short bursts of energy (they lasts approx 10exp-8 of a second, however considering their frequency, it still will approx 100,000 troughs and valleys till the amplitude will become insignificant pardon me I suppose I should have used pulses instead of jumps' date=' but anyway back to the discussion. when the electron jumps it emits one quick burst of light known as a photon, this photon then has its own frequency, the frequency of the photon is proportional to its energy such that E/h=f if this is really what you've been trying to say than I appologize as I misunderstood you. If it is as though ie. the electron emits light on its way down atleast semi-continuously, then you are not correct.[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Photo-electric effect is by no means the only evidence for the particle-wave duality of a photon. If a photon is not a particle, then it cannot have momentum (momentum being a value associated with particle behaviour). How do you explain the Compton effect where a photon colides with a stationary electron, where some of the momentum of the photon is transphered to the electron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 how do you explain the instantaneous jump in the electron level then? (if the light is emitted over a period of time) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkris1 Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 Photon is created when electron is excited but not jumping; it looses its energy gradually as a photon how do you explain the instantaneous jump in the electron level then? (if the light is emitted over a period of time) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Photon is created when electron is excited but not jumping; it looses its energy gradually as a photon How does this conserve energy? The photon is localized in time inversely proportional to its energy, by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now