[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Additional supported file types are: PDF
  • Use with [math] tags for inline and [eqn] tags for block equations.
  • Right-click equations to view the source.
  • There are 28 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: photon.gif (18 KB, 556x328)
18 KB
18 KB GIF
Quantization of light is bullshit. There is always assosiated orbital electrons, that of course, are numerable objects, with them. Electrons are the quanta. Treating light as a particle has no philosophical ground.

Ultraviolet catastrophe, photoelectric effect. All deals with finite amount of orbiting electrons and light with some frequency. But the light itself has no numerable particles.
>>
File: 1650314655978.jpg (41 KB, 600x600)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
nobel prize is in the mail
>>
>>14477380
Imagine: internet rightwingers couldnt even debunk the common core per se so they had to resort in photoshopping.


But I could debunk einstein by logic
>>
>>14477370
Electrons can be diffracted like light. Neither are strictly particles or waves, they are simply what they are.

>All deals with finite amount of orbiting electrons and light with some frequency.
Why would light need a specific frequency to dislodge electrons?
>>
File: brandolini.jpg (77 KB, 1024x613)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
>>14477370
>>
>>14477402
Thats the whole point of photoelectric effect. E=hf . So lets say you have some metal. You can aim very classically intense red beam to it. But it wont release electrons. Now you aim very dim ultraviolet at it. It gives electrons.


But all i say that the photon is not the single unit. The electrons are.
>>
>>14477453
>Thats the whole point of photoelectric effect.
Yes, that's why we're discussing it... I asked you why, if light is purely a wave, would it need to have a specific frequency to dislodge electrons. It should just continously impart kinetic energy to the electrons until they dislodge.
>>
>>14477469
Here comes the interesting part. I am a good swimmer. I swim in a place where are all kinds of motor boats and ships. Now, if there comes separate wave crests, even how big, i just float in top of them and then float back to base level when they have passed.

But: should some speeding motorboater make frequent waves. They come too quick in succession. It takes lot of force to keep up with them, and not to drown.
>>
>>14477481
That doesn't answer my question, it just analogizes what I'm asking you to explain. Why are electrons analogous to a swimmer and not something else?

It takes a certain amount of energy to dislodge an electron, so if I increase the intensity of light shining on the metal, it should dislodge electrons faster, since more energy is being transfered. Yet that doesn't happen. It's because only the energy of single photons matter, the amount of light doesn't.
>>
>>14477541
Why would E=hf even be true. There is no deep theory to that either. Its just "hey! this works lets keep it up".

Im trying to argue we dont have single photons. We may have single wavecrests. Wave dynamics.

I will stand with my analog too. I cleary demonstrated a time where wave amplitude means nothing.

Second demostration: you hear lound banger car. Several decibels. But it sounds nice. Like drums. Then you hear a sharp high pitch *screeeech* sound. Few decibels. But it was fucking annoying. Why?
>>
>>14477541
And actually you are wrong, as if your frequency surpasses the treshold then its linear function between electron dislodge amount and intensity. The problem was the treshold, nothing else.
>>
>>14477639
>There is no deep theory to that either
Wrong, you can derive it from Maxwell's equations by treating photons as wave packets.

>Im trying to argue we dont have single photons.
You can't explain why the energy of a photoelectron is independent from the intensity of light. But QM easily can. Your hypothesis fails.

>I cleary demonstrated a time where wave amplitude means nothing.
You didn't demonstrate that your analogy is applicable.
>>
>>14477649
>as if your frequency surpasses the treshold
That's what I'm asking you to explain. LOL, "if you ignore the part that has no explanation then my theory explains everything."
>>
>>14477769
>>14477776
Clearly you are those who reads books and absorbs without questions. The philosophical shortcoming is true: we cant actually be sure was it single photon or a group or continuum of them. All we can measure is what the electrons do
>>
>>14477769
>maxwells equations
On the Linkage between Planck's Quantum and Maxwell's Equations
Tuomo Suntola
Physics Foundations Society, www.physicsfoundations.org

So you admit its the wavecrest all along, of electric dipole. So one something is just wavecrest of something, not a particle
>>
>>14477797
You're just ignoring the evidence already given to you. You have no argument. Wave physics alone can't explain the photoelectric effect.
>>
>>14477840
But it can and will. You have no solid evidence that the photon is a single particle. Wavepacket? See, its WAVE.
>>
I think it would probably be a good idea to restrict internet access of those under 18 with this thread as some pretty compelling evidence
>>
>>14477370
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1GaTizdcb8&ab_channel=PhysicsWorld

>no philosophical ground
wtf. You remind me of a guy that once said he didn't want to talk to his gf cause "she didn't give [him] dopamine" (she broke up with him). In the same way, you remind me of a girl who tried to used the Uncertainty principle and Godel's incompleteness to justify non-binary genders.
>>
>>14477370
Heat something in an oven. Turn off the lights. Poke a hole in the oven. Put a lens in that beam of light so it diffracts.
Change the temperature, you'll notice there's a definite start and a definite end of the temperature while the refraction pattern doesn't budge.
If you put a magnet around it, nothing. If you run an electric current in it, temperature may heat up but the diffraction lines are the same.
What's happening is there's a delay between something's internal configuration, and that showing up in external properties. That is the cause of intrinsic properties like temperature. That internal configuration is also a medium of interaction.
If there's a particle discovery it would go smaller not bigger. Electrons are big compared to quarks. And there's a long way to go before you get to the smallest thing possible.
You're not going to "crack open an atom" and see little things revolving around each other. You'll see sparks as things around you gobble up whatever dumping ground you just made to make their lives easier.
>>
>>14477809
>So you admit its the wavecrest all along
What is?

>of electric dipole
What does a dipole have to do with anything.

You do know a wave can be made of particles, right?
>>
>>14477370
>Quantization of light is bullshit. There is always assosiated orbital electrons, that of course, are numerable objects, with them. Electrons are the quanta. Treating light as a particle has no philosophical ground.
I work at a company making high power lasers. I asked the lead laser engineer. Do our red, green lasers, even infrared lasers ionize? He said yes. I then reminded him that only ultraviolet and above light can ionize because E=hf. after 20 minutes of bullshit he came up with this ad hoc explanation that there's these things called quasi-states and the electron can go into any of these continuous virtual or quasi states and wait for another photon. I told him he just reinvented the idea of the wave amplitude carrying a continuous amount of energy. I doubt he understood the full consequence of deny the atom has only discrete energy levels, but you know a widwit a Ph.d
>>
>>14477869
>But it can and will
Then do it.

>You have no solid evidence that the photon is a single particle.
Already given.

>See, its WAVE.
Of photons.
>>
>>14477388
>you can "debunk" different way of describing things that have no explanation
It's like saying there's debunkable substance to what Einstein said in the first place.

>>14477370
>It's not logical to treat light like quanta
>but it is to treat this other thing that has no empirical evidence as quanta

>>14477453
>electrons are released when there is light
>no no, not "light"..."more light"
>See I described this, this explains what is happening and how.

A psychosis at best.

>>14477481
And when I splash my hands in a pond, my hands are "emitting water". Test if for yourself, look at all the quanta of water being emited from right under your nails. Just stop when it starts turning red.

>>14477943
>Fedposting

>>14478475
>You do know a wave can be made of particles, right?
A "wave" is what something does.
>>
>>14478559
OK schizo.
>>
>>14478363
You can see them. You can see bands of diffracted light. You can see the temperature on the oven. That's a photon.
When two things interact, they don't know about space. They do what's easiest and go as told.
If there were no photons and just electrons, you would think things got hot differently from electricity than conduction or convection or radiation. They don't.
Brownian motions proved atoms exist and were not some abstract concept. But they're not some cloud of debris either. They're made up of Brownian motions of interactions using internal configuration as a medium.
>>
>>14478763
Word salad
>>
>>14478767
If the voltmeter sees it, you see it.
Lagrangian conservation laws.
Temperature changes the same if an electron is interacting or not.
There's a history of atomic therapy you would need to rewrite along with sedimentation equilibrium which was solved and proven and worked with over a century ago.
>>
>>14478496
https://www.quora.com/Is-a-non-ionizing-laser-powerful-enough-to-ionize-air-If-so-how-powerful-is-it
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/683711/ionizing-a-gas-into-plasma-by-white-light
I looked at a couple sources, some mentioned here, and it looks like they CAN ionized, but not directly. Low energy light heats up the gas, and this itself (the thermal energy/collisions) leads to ionization. However, low energy light cannot directly strip electrons from the nucleus
>>
>>14478475
Yes. But the fantasy story that it is just one single particle dislodging the electron is a blatant lie.
>>
>>14477370
well photons and electrons each exist in totally different manners, where photons don't evolve over time or have electric charge. of course you come to a conflict if you try to compare them equally
>>
>>14477769
Maxwell's equations can't describe wave packets pseud. I urge you to write an electric and magnetic field for the wave packets and prove they satisfy Maxwell's equations. Protip: you can't.
>>
>>14477370
Number of interactions doesnt matter. Particle interacts with another as if the rest of the universe was empty.
>>
>>14478932
Maxwell equations imply wave equation thus is able to hold a wave packet


Single photon dislodging an electron is just as justifiable as single H2O molecule knocks off a boat im harbour
>>
>>14477769
>Maxwell's equations
bro...
>>
>>14478820
I'm sorry you have a mental illness but that doesn't mean the rest of us need to suffer by reading your incoherent babbling.
>>
>>14478887
How so? Explain why the kinetic energy of the electron is independent from intensity.
>>
>>14478932
Wrong.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.04475
>>
FACT: Single photons have never been observed

And upon futher reading it seems like all of the single photon expierments out there in the world today don't even account for the blackbody radiation of the apparatus.
>>
>>14479501
Clearly there is a correlation between EM waves frequency and its capabilityness to dislocate an electron. This of course doesnt mean that it is single point particle that do so. This fantasy story has come from 1900s most weird and schizophrenic physicists.
>>
>>14479501
This is my deepest theory:the em wave carries the electron always. Adding the same wave has no further ability to change its motion.

Also, if one quantum theory would be true, then you would see electrons, at the photoelectric effect, who gain 2hf or 1000hf energies. But you dont see them. As the theory is a lie.
>>
>>14478829
>Low energy light heats up the gas, and this itself (the thermal energy/collisions) leads to ionization.
no. the material isn't hot. it doesn't heat up. It vaporizes instantly.
>>
>>14479571
Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-photon

>it seems like all of the single photon expierments out there in the world today don't even account for the blackbody radiation of the apparatus.
How so?
>>
>>14479821
This capability, and the dependence of the kinetic energy of the photoelectron on frequency alone, cannot be explained by light as a pure wave. It can easily be explained by photons. You lose.
>>
>>14479827
>the em wave carries the electron always. Adding the same wave has no further ability to change its motion.
This is gibberish.

>Also, if one quantum theory would be true, then you would see electrons, at the photoelectric effect, who gain 2hf or 1000hf energies.
No, because higher energy photons produce direct effects like Compton scattering and pair production. You fail at basic logic.
>>
>>14479494
>sedimentation equilibrium
>disproves your entire argument
>shows you were wasting everyone's time
hurrrrrr you crazy!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>14477797
what about single photon interferometers?
>>
>>14480345
>>sedimentation equilibrium
>>disproves your entire argument
I don't think you even know what my argument is, let alone how centrifugation "disproves" it. Schizo.
>>
>>14480598
>Nigger why are you linking to a wikipedia disambiguation?
Because you have no clue what you're talking about.

>They just don't?
But they do. They're filtered and heralded. You just make up whatever shit you want and hope no one knows any better.
>>
>>14481037
you asshole. It's sedimentation on the molecular scale, where the subatomic Brownian interactions overcome gravity. That along with the photoelectric effect and special relativity made relativity a general principle. It acts everywhere.

Hey, I know. A career in science can be rough. Today the crowds don't go after the disruptors and iconoclasts. But we could always use a geeker, just temporary of course. We'll start you off and the crowds will come, I'm sure of it. And I'm sure you're ready for it.
>>
>>14481041
"One photon at a time” is a relative concept. Our eye has a resolution time of 0.1 seconds. So if photons were coming at an interval of 0.1 seconds, our eye would call it “one photon at a time”. With the advent of technology we now have detection system (including the counter-timer computer card) with nanosecond resolution time. So for this detection system, photons coming at
nanosecond intervals would still be considered as “one photon at a time”

the rigor of single photon double slit is a relative AKA hypothetical average over time, its garbage anon
>>
>>14480042
No, ylu lose, llus you have no orher proof than 1800-1900 retards word.
>>
>>14480059
Mooh comptom scattering and moooh pair production.

Holy shit you are irreversibly brain damaged due modern physics lies.

The clear result should be: we should see electrons that gain twice or trice the kinetic energy as if it can be knocked by one photon, it should be sometimes be knocked by two. This doesnt happen so off thee go
>>
>>14477370
Light is waves with quantized energy levels
thats why sometimes they look like particles, but they are fundamentally waves

The light isn't quantized, but its energy levels are. Subtle but key difference.
>>
>>14481475
>The wave-only view was first formulated by Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger in his six papers on “The theory of quantized fields”.[49] Schwinger’s theory is based on extending the discretization observed in the Stern-Gerlach experiment to include field strength, so that field strength is described by Hilbert algebra, not ordinary numbers.[50] This use of Hilbert space leads to the existence of individual units of field called quanta, that replace the two classical concepts of particles and waves.[51] The concept that quantized fields are the fundamental constituents of nature has also been stated by Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek.[52]

>According to this theory, quanta are separate entities that evolve and interact according to deterministic equations, except that when a quantum transfers its energy to an absorbing atom, it disappears from all of space.[53] What we call a particle is actually a holistic unit of field that in its totality behaves as a particle.[54][55] Even if it is spread out over many kilometers, it must disappear instantaneously, like a photon collapsing into a photoreceptor cell in the eye. You can’t have just part of a photon.[56]
>>
>>14477370
You can't have quantization of em without quantization of light. Existence of the field implies the particle and vice versa. Bohr fudged quantization in his model but that doesn't mean you can fudge it now.
>>
>>14481161
Oh, OK schizo. I'll just take your word for it. Don't bother explaining how, you'll just make another word salad and embarrass yourself.
>>
>>14481176
>So if photons were coming at an interval of 0.1 seconds, our eye would call it “one photon at a time”
That's not how single photon source experiments work. At all.

As I already knew, you have no clue what you're talking about.
>>
>>14481297
Still no explanation. Thanks for confirming you lost.
>>
>>14481305
>Mooh comptom scattering and moooh pair production.
>Holy shit you are irreversibly brain damaged due modern physics lies.
Not an argument, try again.

>The clear result should be: we should see electrons that gain twice or trice the kinetic energy as if it can be knocked by one photon, it should be sometimes be knocked by two
Yeah, that would be unlikely in most setups but is observed and is in fact the basis for TPPS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_photoelectron_spectroscopy

You BTFO yourself. What a retard.
>>
>>14481475
>Light is waves with quantized energy levels
no. light is a wave and atoms have discrete energy levels. Planks constant wasn't associated with light for centuries until people began investigating lights interaction with atoms.
>>
File: Hydrogen.pdf (112 KB, PDF)
112 KB
112 KB PDF
heres some real atomic theory fer ya. pic related. classical derivation for spetral lines of hydrogen.
>>
>>14482297
sorry youre ignorant and uneducated homie
>>
>>14482424
>>14482777
>>>/x/
>>
>>14482777
Yeah, that's not a single photon source experiment, it's single photon interference, which doesn't actually use a subtle photon source. Moron.
>>
>>14482868
point out where any mechanism in my derivation is supernatural.
>>
>>14482309
>After a time delay, a second, higher energy pulse photoemits the excited electron into free electron states above the vacuum level.

Higher energy pulse. Higher. Pulse. You just BTFO'd yourself.
>>
>>14482777
>single photon
More like: single electron knockout from the screen.
>>
>>14482962
It's not supernatural, it's just schizo nonsense.
>>
>>14482997
>Higher energy pulse. Higher. Pulse.
And?

I literally showed you the thing you said would have to be true but isn't is true. You're a complete hypocrite and are too mentally ill to accept what's right in front of your face.
>>
>>14483032
You provided no evidence for you. You used higher energy wave to boost it. Clearly just as what I said must be done. Not what you claimed.
>>
>>14477481
Now consider this: if I grab a piece of paper, then I board an aeroplane and fly high up enough, so that I can jump off the plane with the paper in my two hands, and while falling, I could fall through two or more layers of wind while also dodging any birds that happen to fly in that height. I would probably fall down.
>>
>>14483032
>the em wave carries the electron always. Adding the same wave has no further ability to change its motion.

You used higher wave to further alternates its path.

I just keep winning. You cannot find a case where you shoot f-frequency photons and the electron would gain 2hf, 3hf or 4hf energies.
>>
>>14483059
>You provided no evidence for you.
I did, I showed you exactly what you said didn't exist.

>You used higher energy wave to boost it.
Higher energy photons. You said we don't see photoelectrons with energy gained from multiple photons. We do. You lose. Cope more.
>>
>>14483071
>You used higher wave to further alternates its path.
No.

>You cannot find a case where you shoot f-frequency photons and the electron would gain 2hf, 3hf or 4hf energies.
You would never get that because some energy is used to release the electron from the material. That energy gets subtracted from the final kinetic energy. Another freshman-level mistake from the idiot who has no clue what he's talking about.
>>
>>14483082
You cant even know if they are single photon or a wave. The clean evidence for you would be 2hf photon that gains its energy from source with f frequency. This doesnt happen.
>>
>>14483109
Let me rephase, then
You cannot find a case where you shoot f-frequency photons and the electron would gain 2hf-W, 3hf-W or 4hf-W energies.
>>
>>14483121
>You cant even know if they are single photon or a wave
As I've already demonstrated, waves cannot explain the photoelectric effect.

>The clean evidence for you would be 2hf photon that gains its energy from source with f frequency.
No, that ignored the energy needed to release the electron. Learn basic physics before making up bullshit and embarrassing yourself again.
>>
>>14483126
Already did. See >>14482309

You just need to do TPPS with no delay and with the pump and probe at the same frequency.
>>
>>14483155
As I've already demonstrated, photon quanta cannot explain the photoelectric effect.
>Learn basic physics
You learn, also learn to think with your brain. I corrected your autismo work function (which is just semantics, I talked about the energy gain anyway. ITs just a matter of subtraction). Still, your fantasy model just lacks the part where two f-freq photon quanta hits single electron and causes it gain energy from both.
>>
>>14483166
>You just need to do
You just need to post me one single paper where someone has done it. One single paper.
>>
>>14483171
>As I've already demonstrated, photon quanta cannot explain the photoelectric effect.
Where?

>which is just semantics, I talked about the energy gain anyway. ITs just a matter of subtraction
If that is just semantics then so is your demand that the photons be the same frequency. Therefore TPPS displays exactly what you claimed didn't exist. You lose.

>Still, your fantasy model just lacks the part where two f-freq photon quanta hits single electron and causes it gain energy from both.
It doesn't lack that. I already showed you that it includes it and there is in fact a spectroscopy technique which depends on it occurring. It's just so unlikely to occur in most setups that it's ignored. You're a pathetic liar and you know you lost.
>>
>>14483174
I'm sure you can find plenty of papers on TPPS, it's done all the time. You lose.
>>
>>14483230
And here comes the fact: TPPS has never been done with same frequency. Case closed, quantafags BTFOd
>>
>>14483252
>And here comes the fact: TPPS has never been done with same frequency.
Why does same frequency matter?
>>
>>14483230
TPPS couldnt even work with two same freq "photons". The first one shall not be as energent it would knock the electron off completly. It just needs to excite it. Thus, if the second would have same frequency/energy, it would be insufficient to have energy to the full knock off. Case closed, logic wins, modern physics fantasy loses.
>>
>>14483269
It would proof that the quanta matters, not wave. It would be a clear demonstration that monochromatic light would come in quantas. 2f-W would be masterpiece demonstration for it.
>>
>>14482412
light is emitted from those atoms
if the atoms have discretized energy, then their light emissions will as well
>>
>>14482868
>>14482962
>calling rochester university is /x/ tier
If you're not going to say anything substantial to back up your words then you should really stop posting.
>>
>>14483618
meant to quote
>>14483022
not 14482962
>>
>>14477370
>no philosophical ground
the whole thing doesn't lmao
not that it matters outside of self-consistency, which might be what you mean.
>>
>>14483275
>TPPS couldnt even work with two same freq "photons"
Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>Thus, if the second would have same frequency/energy, it would be insufficient to have energy to the full knock off.
If they hit at the same time and each have half the energy required, it will knock out the electron.

>Case closed, logic wins
You didn't actually conclude anything.
>>
>>14483287
>It would proof that the quanta matters, not wave
How so? Either way, wave physics can't explain the photoelectric effect and photons can. You're just repeating conclusions over and over with no argument behind them.

Please explain why electrons are ejected instantly instead of taking some time as the energy from a wave would be dispersed over many electrons.

Please explain why intensity increases the number of electrons ejected but not their kinetic energy.

Please explain why frequency increases the kinetic energy of electrons but not their number.

You can't. You lose.
>>
>>14483618
I'm calling the paper /x/ tier. That's why they couldn't get it published. It's just the same derivation as QM but with extra Addington pulled out of their ass.
>>
>>14483819
>. It's just the same derivation as QM
how so?where did I invent a probability matter wave? when did I assign to it a property of collapse? it's just coulombs law and newtons laws.
>>
>>14483819
>That's why they couldn't get it published.

the reproducibility criss proves your assertion wrong, gross inaccuracy is no barrier to publication.
>>
>>14483796
No, you lose. The singe quanta doesn't explain anything. Its like saying earth rotates around sun because of quanta amount of people in it. Stupid nigger.
>>
"water is viscous because of particles are quantum"
me so wise me quantum brain
>>
>>14477370
your a dickhead. light is either a particle in some theorys or a wave in other theorys. you complain about light as a particle and then complain about light as a wave. humanitys still deciding wtf light is and how to write about describing it.
>>
>>14483819
Its literally the lab for doing the double slit experiment, its not a paper, you didn't even bother reading it.

Pseudo-scientists need to fuck off.
>>
>>14484707
Clearly the particle theories are just wrong and clearly you are a science believer, not a scientist.
>>
>>14484141
Backwards logic. That some papers in some field were indirectly accepted doesn't imply that any papers were indirectly rejected. Also, there is no reproducibility crisis in physics.
>>
>>14484682
>The singe quanta doesn't explain anything.
It explains everything, dumb schizo. It easily answers all the questions i asked you and more. You have no answers as I predicted. You have no argument and you know it. You're just repeating religious dogma over and over.
>>
>>14484708
You idiot, see >>14482878

I called the paper /x/-tier. The experiment is just irrelevant but you don't know the difference because you're a schizo.
>>
>>14484128
Just read any QM textbook and you'll see a simpler version of your derivation.
>>
>>14481041
ahahaha mods deleted my post because I said nigger, board culture doesn't apply on /sci/? What kind of retard shit is that?
>>14485262
Are you a bot? if you're not a bot and not trolling you are completely lost in this thread, try looking back at the chain. I never posted a paper homie.
>>
>>14485268
>Just read any QM textbook and you'll see a simpler version of your derivation.
no. It has never been done before. No one has every considered an electron scattering from the atom periodically. Bohr considered an orbiting electron, and bohr-schrodinger came up with a complex probability amplitude wave, but no one thought of the electron bouncing, which is leads to the best results.
>>
>>14485678
>complex probability amplitude wave
sorry, Schrodinger and Bohr came up with a complex probability amplitude density collapsing wave function subspace phaser warp borgian Q android black hole space-time vortex
>>
>>14485640
>Are you a bot? if you're not a bot and not trolling you are completely lost in this thread, try looking back at the chain. I never posted a paper homie.
Wow, you're dumb. You realize the post you were replying to is replying to two different posts, right? One has a paper and the other has an experiment.
>>
>>14485678
LOL, OK schizo. You're a genius, everyone is just too dumb to understand your paper, which is just copied from a QM textbook with some extra bullshit.
>>
>>14485803
>which is just copied from a QM textbook
give me a citation where anyone has considered a periodically scattering electron for an atomic model. remember, smooth brain, scattering isn't orbiting.
>>
>>14485256
The quanta has no philosophical value. Its all explainable by wave crests.
>>
>>14485929
>periodically scattering electron for an atomic model
Scattering from what? You're a schizo.
>>
>>14485979
>The quanta has no philosophical value.
Luckily we're talking about science, not your deluded philosphical fantasy.

>Its all explainable by wave crests.
Then do it, schizo. You haven't explained a single thing. You've proven again and again that photons exist.
>>
>>14485982
>Scattering from what?
the nucleus as was demonstrated by Rutherford more than a hundred years ago, smooth brain.
>>
>>14482424
How exactly is this a classical derivation when you have the Compton wavelength of electrons? Wave-Particle duality is not classical. Compton's paper that you cite is explicitly quantum.
>>
>>14486049
>Wave-Particle duality is not classical.
in the paper the electron is a particle and no wave property is entertained. the electron has a literal sphere around it which determines how close it can be to something before it scatters. that distance is the Compton scatters radius. To be painfully explicitly assigning a wavelength to an electron is wrong since it is not a wave.
>>
>>14486075
And you've conveniently defined the radius of that sphere by a number derived from QM. You cite that as a result, and it is derived from QM in Compton's paper. If you cannot derive this value from classical mechanics then you don't have a classical derivation.

And you do have waves, you're just very unclear about what you actually mean:
>To be in sympathy, when the electron comes back down from being scattered the Compton boundary must have the same phase it had when the electron scattered.
As soon as you introduce the Compton wavelength and start talking about phase you're just doing Bohr with extra steps.
>>
>>14486011
Scattering implies deviation from some path, aka an orbit.
>>
>>14486087
>If you cannot derive this value from classical mechanics then you don't have a classical derivation.
no. there is a radius of a real definable semi-rigid object. It must contain some thing related to Planck's constant, obviously. Anyway I don't want to play semantics with you. If you want to call it quantum g ahead, but there is no mater wave.

>>14486087
>As soon as you introduce the Compton wavelength and start talking about phase you're just doing Bohr with extra steps.
lol wut? Bohr invented phase now? for he billionth time. Nothing orbits anything. How can this be the Bohr model?
>>
>>14486105
>Scattering implies deviation from some path, aka an orbit.
lol wut? so if I bounce a ball on the ground it's actually orbiting the earth? Jesus fuck smooth brain.
>>
>>14486147
An orbit is just a curved trajectory, moron. What path is the electron taking that it would be scattered from?
>>
>>14485988
I can do all the thing quantum shitters can do just replace particle quanta with wave packet or something.
>>
>>14486161
>What path is the electron taking that it would be scattered from?
radially, smooth brain. and you call that an orbit. my fucking sides are in orbit.
>>
>>14485988
Here is the explanation. When meeting EM wave with frequency f, electron gains energy hf.


just as perfect explanation as QM.
>>
File: whip_1.jpg (50 KB, 800x533)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
Heres your QM. You are a slave nigga. Massa gives you whips. If massa makes quick move, the whip has wave with high frequency and slave go sad and hurt.
If massa is lazy, he makes slow move and slave is not hurt badly.
>>
>>14486144
>It must contain some thing related to Planck's constant, obviously.
Because it's QM. If you have to take a result from QM to make your derivation work then it is not classical.
This is not semantics, you made the grand claim that you have derived the hydrogen energy levels without quantum physics, but that is bullshit.

>lol wut? Bohr invented phase now? for he billionth time. Nothing orbits anything. How can this be the Bohr model?
Because you have the wavelength of the electron, which you want to call something else but it doesn't change where it comes from. You also have azimuthal waves which you say have to come around in phase. In Bohr these are electron matter waves. In your scenario they are oscillations in this "semi-rigid" object. Eq 8 is exactly the same constraint in both scenarios. You've just attached different words to the same derivation.
>>
I see somebody doesn't know anything about quantum optics or quantum field theory in general, then you would know that it is necessary for fields to have discrete excitation states just like atoms, and these correspond to photons.

You would also know about what kind of experiments can be performed to verify some of the predictions due to such quantization.
>>
>>14486292
And once again some bookworm comes here. Zero philosophy, 1000 books. Zero intelligence.
>>
>>14482424
>14482424
>The only way hydrogen atom could be understood is through Schrod. equation.

Nigger, did you even study physics? You can literally get energy levels just from the orbital semi classical model.
>>
>>14486242
>This is not semantics
it's 100% semantics. Plancks constant is just a dimensioned constant. How about I use the same number and the same units, but call it anons constant now. Does that make you feel better? Any ways it has no physical relevance to QM. It's just a number that pops up. It has no interpretation, it's just a number that gets the right answer.

>>14486242
>Because you have the wavelength of the electron
no. I said this before there is a radius around the electron but no wavelength. The electron is not a wave. It's a semi-rigid ball that bounced on the nucleus. This is patently not the Bohr model. How you keep trying to shove a round peg in a square hole is evidence of your smooth brain.
>>
>>14486299
Well, atleast I don't waste time on non-existing problems. If you actually cared to educate yourself, we could have had an actually fruitful discussion.
>>
>>14486306
>Nigger, did you even study physics?
Yes, I have an advanced degree in it.

>>14486306
>You can literally get energy levels just from the orbital semi classical model.
they are not discrete, so they don't match observation.
>>
>>14486292
And you can have 'excitations' of waves. Waves typically have discrete number of wave crests, even being a continous wave. Cos(pi x) has a highest and lowest point every whole x. Case closed.
>>
>>14486315
>they are not discrete.
I see you didn't pay attention in your intro QM lectures then,

from the balance of the Coulombic and centripetal force and using p = hf with the assumption that the electron waves are closed around the nucleus, which is the postulate of the Bohr model, you literally obtain discrete energy levels exactly equal to the result of Schrodinger equation.
>>
>>14486312
Pfft. I have read enough QM books to the point they just repeat their empty message.

Wavecrests and electrons are discrete things. EM wave is continous. The quanta of photons is hand waving coping mechanism, a quick fantasy story where deus ex machina quanta comes to rescue physics.
>>
>>14486317
Yes, and these excitations are discrete. Furthermore, there are other consequences, which are completely independent of "a discrete number of electrons", that are the result of the field quantization, which have been validated before you were even born.
>>
>>14486324
>from the balance of the Coulombic and centripetal force and using p = hf with the assumption that the electron waves are closed around the nucleus, which is the postulate of the Bohr model, you literally obtain discrete energy levels exactly equal to the result of Schrodinger equation.
give me a physical reason why the angular momentum would be discrete in the first place.
>>
>>14486337
The only reason I reminded you of this fact is because you claimed in your PDF that these results are only due to Schrodinger equation, which is wrong.
>>
>>14486334
The validation is made by old propeller-hat weirdos that cannot make a difference between a dead animal and a living cat if the said cat is in his litter box.

These things can of course be revalidated and they barely match todays standards. Standing wave is not then and is not now an excuse to think it is not continous.
>>
>>14486344
>Actually bringing up Schrodigner's cat
Alright, this is how I know that you've learned about QM from popsci only.
>>
File: SlitAndOne.jpg (306 KB, 1492x1242)
306 KB
306 KB JPG
>>14486351
Blah. Lets take a look of this for instance. The propeller hats see that there is white dots at the screen one by one. Does this mean one by one there has been "photons" hit? Of course not. This just mean that one by one electrons are shot off from the screen. But they and you are too stupid to think it this way. As you have never thought this.
>>
>>14486342
>The only reason I reminded you of this fact is because you claimed in your PDF that these results are only due to Schrodinger equation, which is wrong.
give me the physical reason electrons have discrete amounts of angular momentum(Bohr model) or we only consider the eigen values as valid solutions to Schrodinger's equation. You are defending it right? you must have a good explanation for your beliefs.
>>
File: Reddit.jpg (126 KB, 1024x1003)
126 KB
126 KB JPG
>>14486351
the majority of people posting on 4chan are evangelists with messiah complexes from other website who have taken it upon themselves to come to 4chan to teach le ebil 4chan nazzeees how dumb they really are for not believing the MSM narratives
>4chan doesn't even believe in racial and gender equality, im gonna teach them a thing or two, this is gonna be easy and fun.
they've been at it for more than half a decade already, with no effect other than increased amplification of 4chan's messaging. chinkmoot's power and influence is growing day by day, before long he will be big enough to compete directly with the rothschild media empire and win.
>>
>>14486370
QM is a msm narrative. QM is pure söy. QM is pure reddit.
>>
>>14486357
As indeed, you are now shutted down, NPCs. You have zero lever to disproof this. So silent you remain. You are angry. You have never thought of this. Why I am so stupid? no. It must be anon is stupid. Because...he is stupid. He is uneducated. Yes.
>>
>>14486361
I see you are lost, hopefuly we are able to clear up this confusion.

Quantization is not due to Schrödinger's equation, my friend.

It's due to boundary conditions, which is exactly the same "cardinal sin", which you are commiting with Eq. 6-8 in your PDF.

In the same manner, acoustic waves excited on a thin membranes of a drum have discrete solutions, i.e. vibrational modes. Is that unphysical too?
>>
>>14486381
Drum membrane has a discrete amount of wavecrests. Does that mean drum membrane has same amount of molecules?
>>
>>14486311
>Plancks constant is just a dimensioned constant.
The problem is the Compton wavelength, not Planck's constant. You can try and rebrand it as whatever the fuck you want. But Compton, who you cite, derived it from QM. So your derivation is not classical, because it depends on his derivation. You think it's semantics because you're focused on the name for these things, that's is irrelevant. You are missing the point.

>The electron is not a wave. It's a semi-rigid ball that bounced on the nucleus. This is patently not the Bohr model.
As I said: Different words, same derivation.
>>
>>14486381
Is the drum membrane discontinous, then? Why my drum has no holes?
>>
>>14486386
You were arguing about discreteness of solutions of wave equations (which Schrödinger's equation is), which are due to boundary conditions. The argumuent is the same for an acoustic wave of a thin membrane. Molecules which compose the membrane have absolutely nothing to do with this.
>>
>>14486398
Im OP, you were arguing with the other guy then I made my argument between your söyful duel.
>>
>>14486381
>It's due to boundary conditions, which is exactly the same "cardinal sin", which you are commiting with Eq. 6-8 in your PDF.
no. it's not. you have never solved SE. The answers to SE are actually all smooth and continuous. There is a formalism that solves for he discrete energy and that is to disregard the general solution to SE and only consider eigen values as valid solutions. so can you tell me why the general solution to SE is not valid? why are only a subset of valid solutions chosen to be the actual answers.
>>
>>14486441
It's clear that we cannot discuss your confusion, because you don't even understand why you in your "model" do exactly the same thing people do when they are solving for normal modes of a vibrating drum, and this is unfortunately the same reason why you think there is anything special about Schrödinger's equation or the discreteness of its solutions.

Try to think about more about your assumption leading to Eq. 6 - 8 and compare it to solving wave equation in a box and you may have a chance to understand yet.
>>
>>14486448
>, because you don't even understand why you in your "model" do exactly the same thing people do when they are solving for normal modes of a vibrating drum

I do. I wrote it. is it physically invalid? did I make a mistake? What is your argument here? I don't understand what I wrote? why not actually falsify the document? Or you could clear up some of the aphysical formalisms that make QM just a neat statistical model.
>>
>>14486448
>and this is unfortunately the same reason why you think there is anything special about Schrödinger's equation or the discreteness of its solutions.
there is. with SE only the eigen solutions are considered valid.
>>
>>14486458
This is my last reply to you and I hope that you gain some wisdom from it, because we are now running in circles now.

You have applied a condition that requires termination at some arbitrary value, which leads to discrete number of solutions. In the same manner, solutions to Schrödinger's equation can be demanded to be terminated at some arbitrary variable value, for example in the hydrogen model we terminate the solution at the infinity, just like you are terminating your solution at your sphere boundary.

The difference between the Schrödinger's equation is that it makes clear interpretation on what is the boundary condition being applied to - the wavefunction, while you simply use the results of some boundary condition without even declaring what is the Helmholtz equation solving for, giving zero physical explanation, but using exactly the same procedure, somehow, as the Schrödinger's equation.

This is the reason you obtain the correct energy, you are quantizing your solution to the Helmholtz equation, whatever it even is, in the same way the electron wave is demanded to be continuous over its orbital length in the Böhr model.

Think about this and you may understand yet why you are doing exactly the same thing, but unfortunately your approach is completely useless.
>>
>>14486482
>In the same manner, solutions to Schrödinger's equation can be demanded to be terminated at some arbitrary variable value, for example in the hydrogen model we terminate the solution at the infinity, just like you are terminating your solution at your sphere boundary.
no. you are not understanding SE. you need to study it harder. you are correct you do apply boundary conditions when solving SE, but that is NOT where the discrete energy levels come from. even when you choose solutions that obey a BC you have a valid solution for any linear combination of eigen solutions. For example you keep mentioning a vibrating membrane. the general solution is any linear superposition to the eigen bases of the modes. When SE is solved to get the quantized energy levels of hydrogen you have to disregard the general solution which is any linear combination of eigen solutions and only consider the eigen solutions themselves as valid solutions. It has to do with wave function collapse(formalism), but you seem like a total layman so I doubt you are familiar with hat too.
>>
>>14486494
I have news for you friend, any linear superposition of eigensolutions is a solution to any linear ordinal differential equation, which both Helmholtz or Schrödinger's equations are.

Good luck with your efforts
>>
>>14486499
>ny linear superposition of eigensolutions is a solution to any linear ordinal differential equation
no. If that were the case, then there are no discrete energies when solving SE. the energy spectrum is smooth and continuous. Do you even know what wave function collapse is?
>>
>>14486510
>Wave function collapse
Modern physics is quite a bit more in the future, I recommend you to read about quantum decoherence. And considering superposition, you may be interest to find out that there is such a thing in quantum mechanics as well, and it applies to the Hydrogen atom even, reading a bit about Rabi oscillations might help you.
>>
>>14486499
maybe wikipedia can penetrate that thick skull of yours

"In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation"."

you don't get discrete energies from SE. You have to invent WFC then discard all linear combinations of actual solutions to the ODE. this happens in no other branch of physics. there is no physical mechanism involved. it is merely a statistical frmalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
>>
>>14486521
>Modern physics is quite a bit more in the future
so you deny WFC? ironically so do I. It's bullshit. My model contains no formalisms.
>>
>>14486526
Once again, I refer you to quantum decoherence if you are not comfortable with the idea of wave function collapse, which is quite old-fashioned and even lacking in its predictive capability at this point, I might add.

Don't try to lecture me about basics of a topic you know nothing about.
>>
>>14486531
>I refer you to quantum decoherence if you are not comfortable with the idea of wave function collapse
answer the question smooth brain. What the fuck physically is WFC?
>>
>>14486541
You don't even know that wavefunction collapse is not necessary for Quantum Mechanics?

Ah, sweet summer child... Add the topic of Consistent Histories into your evergrowing list of topics which you need to educate yourself on.
>>
>>14486546
you failed to answer the question for like the tenth time. Please try again.
>>
>>14486551
Once you actually understand the topics I listed, we may proceed with your growth. Until then, I am afraid you are left pondering the veracity and physicality of wave function collapse. I'll give you a hint - it is hidden in my previous posts, which you failed to understand.
>>
>>14486556
>Once you actually understand the topics I listed
you've dodged my question with a fallacy again. its really quite simple. explain the physical mechanism behind WFC.
>>
>>14486560
The wave function collapse is literally an umbrella terms for undergrads which are unprepared to understand, like you it seems, a modern perspective, which is literally what I'm spoonfeeding you with my posts right now.

Do you want me to understand it for you too?
>>
>>14486565
so you say wave function collapse is bullshit non sense. good to know. so do i.
>>
>>14486570
No, it's not, it's just simplified. The process of collapse is just more complicated and is due to quantum decoherence, final state of which gains its satisfactory physical interpretation from the approach of consistent histories, without any invocation of Copenhagen interpretation.
>>
>>14486574
so basically Werner Heisenberg is a dumb ass and you are a brainiac?
>>
>>14486165
Sure you can schizo, you just choose not to. LOL
>>
>>14486166
>radially
From where to where? LOL
>>
>>14486357
>>14486585
I just explained the one dot per time to be the screen's property, it's electrons' property. White dots dont appear due "quantization of photon". The wave is a wave.
>>
>>14486583
Read up and you may be pleasantly surprised about the modern vision of quantum mechanics, which has grown quite a bit since the days of ol' Wernie.
>>
>>14486589
>From where to where? LOL
spherical coordinate system with origin on the nucleus. LMAO
>>
>>14486585
You cant even measure light without discrete set of electrons. So the quantization of photons can never be even measured directly. This falls in the unfalsiable theories category, thus has no value. Quantization of photons has no value.
>>
>>14486594
>Read up and you may be pleasantly surprised about the modern vision of quantum mechanics, which has grown quite a bit since the days of ol' Wernie.
I'm so delighted to meet a quantum mystic with higher order than Heisenberg. neat.
>>
>>14486174
That's not an explanation, it's what you're supposed to give an explanation for. You can't do it, you've failed throughout this thread.
>>
>>14486603
So has the QM failed. It just says photon energy is hf blah blah. Very failure too, but you accept it as its the normal NPC thing to do accept and not question
>>
>>14486174
Please explain why electrons are ejected instantly instead of taking some time as the energy from a wave would be dispersed over many electrons.

Please explain why intensity increases the number of electrons ejected but not their kinetic energy.

Please explain why frequency increases the kinetic energy of electrons but not their number.
>>
>>14486611
I tell you what:the quanta of photon doesnt explain them no more.

Your questions have no answer in quanta of photon. The wave just doesnt have the properties you say it would have.
>>
>>14486611
>Please explain why electrons are ejected instantly instead of taking some time as the energy from a wave would be dispersed over many electrons.
>Please explain why intensity increases the number of electrons ejected but not their kinetic energy.
>Please explain why frequency increases the kinetic energy of electrons but not their number.
lasers obliterate all your smug assumptions.
>>
>>14486617
This
>>
>>14486608
>It just says photon energy is hf blah blah.
That explains everything about the photoelectric effect. A wave cannot, it would disperse energy across electrons such that the timing and kinetic energy would be different from what's observed. Your religious dogma has no justification.
>>
>>14486625
>A wave cannot, it would disperse energy across electrons such that the timing and kinetic energy would be different from what's observed.

B-but w-wave c-cant do this cuz..it cant :(


What if i told you it can. You made a strawman and beat the strawman. The wave was not the strawman you beat.
>>
>>14486615
But that's wrong you retard. It's trivial. The electrons are ejected immediately because a single photon delivers the correct amount of energy immediately. Intensity increases the amount of photons but not their energy, so more electrons are hit by photons delivering the same energy. Frequency increases the energy of the photons but not their number, so the same number of elections get ejected. Your bullshit is falsified. You lose.
>>
>>14486629
I win. EM wave, when hit to electon, gives it hf energy addition. Intensity doesnt give it more energy. So what? This can be done by the wave only. There is no absolute need for cope with fantasy stories about photonic quanta.

And: if photons are separate single things, how can they even form a wave and thus have a frequency in the first place?
>>
>>14486617
How so?
>>
>>14486628
>B-but w-wave c-cant do this cuz..it cant :(
I just explained how. You have no argument. You've had no argument throughout this thread.
>>
Quanta fags btfo: if there is single particle photons, how can they form a wave and frequency? They are susposed to be separate beings?
>>
>>14486642
You did not explain shit. Your strawman is illogical. Let me give you a strawman. Photon is tiny tiny 0 radius particle. Then it cant even hit electron. Thus only wave can be explanatiom.
>>
Let strawmans continue: accelerating electron in space produces photons. Where does these photons come from? Thin nothingness?
>>
>>14486635
>EM wave, when hit to electon, gives it hf energy addition.
How? The energy is dispersed across electrons, it's not delivered in packages. Loser.

>Intensity doesnt give it more energy.
How would it not? It means more energy is being transfered to the electrons overall. Yet they somehow magically don't increase in energy.

>And: if photons are separate single things, how can they even form a wave
LOL, if water atoms are single things, how do they form a wave? You're an idiot.
>>
>>14486654
If water wave knocks a boat over, is it due single molecule? Obviously not.
>>
>>14486644
Wave-particle duality. Welcome to freshman QM.
>>
>>14486648
>You did not explain shit.
I did, you have no argument. Cope.
>>
>>14486658
Hand waving phrase that doesnt mean any more than this: inside of you are two wolfes:other is gay and other is npc.
>>
>>14486655
If photon wave knocks an electron out, is it due to a single particle? Yes.

And you didn't answer my questions. You have no answers. Loser.
>>
>>14486660
You cant even beat my boat analogy.. is it due single molecule that boat is knocked off?
>>
>>14486661
It means nothing to someone who knows nothing. Good luck getting your schizo theory that was falsified a hundred years ago published. Maybe if you post it on 4chan more it'll gain traction. I'm out. Take your meds.
>>
>>14486665
Your question is a strawman. You say a wave cant do these things. I say actually it can. Then you say noo, only particle can do this. I ask you a proof you give a hand waving. This is never ending.
>>
>>14486667
Falsified by the pedophile Schrödinger. If you enjoy your ohysics from the pedophilic kabbalistic society, then do so. But it may not be the truth.
>>
>>14486644
>>14486658
photons are neither particles or waves, but quantum states.
the particle/wave stuff is a false dichotomy that may exist on a macroscopic level, but not on scales small enough
>>
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/seismic-energy

Seismic energy:high frequencies are absorbed but lower frequencies continues in the substance.

How can this be, quanta fags? Shouldnt the wave just disperse regardless of the frequency?
>>
>>14486683
This quamta this works cuz its quanta . Learn more. Of quanta.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.