The Mystery That Led to 3 Nobel Prizes in Physics (Including Einstein's)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- The photoelectric effect was a mysterious phenomenon that, alongside blackbody radiation, led to the birth of quantum physics. Three physicists won the Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions to explaining this phenomenon: Philipp Lenard, Albert Einstein, and Robert Millikan.
One may think everything was easier back then, discovering things was easier etc but it is simply not true, they were also struggling to find good hypotheses to test. It is never easy.
I think understanding something for the first time is always extremely difficult no matter the time period. Agree completely!
Nothing was easy. But, scientists could set up cutting edge experiment on their own budget. Now though, even the most trivial experiment requires hundreds of thoisands of USD. Becoming a carrier research scientist is extremely difficult with increasingly diminishing return. To sum up, the problem today is how society does science and all the massive pay wall and official barrier put in the entrance and a complete paper mill rutt put inside. The ptoblem is societal, not scientific.
Thanks for this Amazing short Documentary about the Photoelectric Effect!!! 👍😁
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you for this excellent presentation
Excellent explanation at this level. Very well done indeed!
IMO your channel.presents excellent, clear historical explanations.
Killing it! Nice work my friend!
Recent research also indicates that the evaporation of water is photo-activated, possibly even more than by heat for the same input of energy.
Great video. I always look forward to new content on your channel!
Appreciate it! Always look forward to the comments 😁
Superb encapsulation. Thanks! This maybe a forum to tackle the following:
At 26'30" in the first video linked below (Pasco Scientific instructional about their speed of light apparatus), mention is made of the photoelectric effect and how it can now be explained using QM applied to the atomic structure without recourse to quantization of light; these guys sound like they should know what they're talking about so here's my question: "is the PEE still the sine qua non of light quantization?"
'c'apparatus demo:
ruclips.net/video/QbsxoWypeIY/видео.html
PEE apparatus demo:
ruclips.net/video/CZZZSVS6m5o/видео.html
Yes absolutely he killed it with this presentation!!! This is now one of my FAVOURITE channels!!!❤😊
The sense of self is an accumulation. It is muscular stiffness that can be gradually eased.
3:04 sounds like simple eigenvalue (self resonance).
other scientists also contributed:
Hallwachs, Elster and Geitel
7:20 those people have some magnificent moustaches
The word PHOTON is not due to Einstein. Heinrich Hertz died 1894. the first Nobel prize in physics was awarded in 1901, to Roentgen.
Shows how unique these individuals are. They deny others theory then prove them valid and yet still deny them. Some would call this crazy. Just saying.
Great content
Nobel is no longer effective. Modern physics is beyond the layman's idea.
Do Ions enter into the equation...???
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century?
In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.
.
We were colour blind: he isn't orange - he's yellow.
Wait a minute. At 2:24 the depiction of knocking electrons out of metal does not hold the principles of conservation of matter and energy. When electrons are knocked out suddenly a new set of them appear. Where do the replenished electrons come from? Something is wrong with this model because if that is exactly what happens then it can't work.
It's just a loop of the animation. It starts over again!
@@RationalThinker118 So, how does it work in an experiment? If you start knocking out electrons from a metal how does that metal replenish its contenent of electrons? And let's say you knocked all electrons out of metal what happens then? Only nuclei remain in metal? Something does not jibe with this explanation.
@@user-ky5dy5hl4d The metal becomes slightly deficient in electrons and therefore becomes positively charged. You can charge a gold leaf electroscope and it stays charged for quite a long time, in fact that is how some quartz dosimeters work. However, charge particles in the air will also interact sooner or later and the charge dissipates. Even insulators like glass will disperse a charge. Only a few electrons are "knocked out" compared to the amount present. 1 gram of copper contains 10^22 free electrons, that is ten thousand million million million electrons (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 electrons) of which only a million might be ejected in the experiment, so a drop in the ocean. Electrons are like people, ten thousand can move from one continent to another but it doesn't leave an empty wilderness behind.
Perhaps more credible, if he posted the original paper of Einstein. But that's YT😉 Einstein would have written: "Trau', schau, wem!" ☝️
@@user-ky5dy5hl4dOnly the outermost valence electrons are emitted (and presumably replace by the environment once the light is off. This is, in fact, how the “first ionization potential” is determined in the characterization of different elements.
How does a light packet capable of causing an electron to be ejected qualify the light as a particle with no mass?
The traditional intuition of classical particles doesn't apply. Its simply a unit of energy in the photon field with the correct amount of momentum required to kick the electron out. The photon has spacial momentum but the 4 dimensional vector of momentum all particles have contains a time directed component that usually corresponds to mass when the other 3 are cancelled out by lorentz boosts. However, in the case of photons it end up canceled out as well resulting the lack of a reference frame and any true sense of rest mass while still having regular 3 dimensional momentum. A better way to think of a photon would be as unit of momentum existing in the spacetime between a particle that emitted it and the future particle that absorbs it. All particles are fundamentally like this but when you involve the higgs mechanism and its interactions with other particles it causes there to be some leftover mass that isn't canceled by those lorentz transformations and whats left is a unit of mass energy with a relative frame of reference, like an electron. FTR I am not a physicist but this is what I have managed to pick up so far.
Light is an energy wave in a medium. Einstein just mistook the evidence that he plagiarized from Hertz to mean that light is the ether particles or photons being ejected from around matter. Lasers emit or eject photons, LEDs do not.
And your point is valid. Why is light massless? Yet Einstein claims it is subject to gravity and is 'bent' by gravity.
In reality light bends in the Sun's atmosphere as a refractive index not gravity. Light has momentum and energy. The particles of ether, or photons, have mass, especially when streamed in a laser beam.
Also it is not that light is particles bombarding a mass to eject the electron, it is that all atoms have a resonant frequency at which it dissociates and can reject electrons or other particles from the structured nature of the atom.
It is the vibrational frequency of the light that resonates matter to dissociate it, just like photo dissociation of molecules in the Earth's atmosphere. Tesla solved the ultra violet catastrophe long before Einstein stole Hertz' work.
@@JoeDeglman LEDs do emit photons, but they are not in phase, like laser light. Gravity bends all wavelengths equally, the refraction through the Sun's or any atmosphere is not equal for all wavelengths. You should study what is known in physics instead of making it up by yourself!
@@karhukivi you are taking about Einstein.he made it up.
The original Young's double slit performed without a laser shows no particle property to light, just electromagnetic waves.
There are several experiments including ferro lens experiments that show a particle beam is emitted by lasers but not by light itself nor LEDs.
@@karhukivi the Earth bends light in its atmosphere at sunrise, sunset, and during solar eclipse, over 1000 times that of the Sun's atmosphere. Refraction near the Sun has been shown by experiment to only occur in the plasma brim or solar atmosphere.
It is interesting to visualise the photoelectric effect. Light is quantised because that is the way it is emitted so we should think in terms of wave quanta.
We should not think of these photons as particles which “knock” the electrons from the surface.
Instead we should think of a wave quantum which is quite spread out in space which interacts with a surface electron. The wave energy if sufficient moves the electron to a higher energy state and the spread out wave of the photon is drawn in to one of the electrons on the surface.
In this excited state the electron has sufficient energy to leave the surface.
So I would set aside wave/particle duality in favour of the concept of a wave quantum.
The photoelectric effect is a resonant frequency at which matter comes apart, predicted by Nikola Telsa.
Then the ejected particle creates a quantized amount of energy as an electromagnetic wave in the ether, as confirmed by the double-slit experiment.
The Einstein version of the photelectric effect, without an evanescent ether, leads to the Ultraviolet catastrophe with Einstein's "rigid immovable solid" ether version.
@@JoeDeglman I refer you to the talk given by Einstein to the university of Leiden in 1920 titled “Ether and Relativity”. In this talk he asserted the existence of an ether and equated it to the medium of space. However, he didn’t realise that the existence of the medium for the transmission of light and electromagnetic waves was in conflict with special relativity. So general relativity is correct and special relativity is false.
The electron is a looped wave in the medium of space which will leave the surface of the metal in the photoelectric experiment when it has sufficient energy which it gained from an incoming wave quantum (photon) of a sufficient energy (frequency E=hf).
@@OpenWorldRichard I have read his lecture. Sounds like he lifted most of it from Nikola Tesla among many ideas he plagiarized. He requires a "rigid immovable solid ether" with no explanation as to how the planets and his photons move through it.
Einstein, in his photoelectric effect papers, much plagiarized from Hertz, uses fluid dynamics to describe the "cone of light," what you would expect when a ballistic projectile makes a wave in a fluid medium.
Einstein abandoned the projectile concept in his spherical wave proof in SRT and uses fluid dynamics in a medium to derive his SRT and spherical wave equations also copied verbatim from Lorentz.
However in the realm of GRT, GPS clock frequency data contradicts the Equivalence Principle and shows that clocks at a higher altitude emit a redder frequency and light does not blueshift into a gravity well. Energy and frequency of emitted light are unaffected by gravity.
GPS supports Newton's general theory not the Einstein Version.
@@OpenWorldRichard Anyone who believes that light is by photon projectile rather than an energy wave in a medium should never take an MRI else your body part would be overwhelmed by the particles hitting it to take the image.
@@OpenWorldRichard Einstein requires a "rigid immovable solid ether" but did not explain how planets nor how light "particle" moved through it.
Einstein uses fluid dynamics to explain the photelectric effect as a projectile.
The cone of light is what one would expect when a projectile energizes a fluid medium on its way through and Einstein's derivation is taken from fluid dynamics concepts and is what is to be expected with a projectile in a fluid medium
Einstein abandons the projectile nature of light in his spherical wave proof of SRT, also derived from energy waves from a point source in a fluid medium. Yet claims that his equations, copied verbatim from Lorentz, imply that light is by projectile, with no evidence other than a math equation, with substitutions which are not valid for the Special version of relativity, but maybe valid for length contraction in other versions of relativity prior to Einstein.
Imagine that iconic Copenhagen picture was all the people that siphoned off einsteins brilliance and claimed it as their own personal work
The basic mystery, why did the plagiarist get a Nobel prize?
Great video. I have to say, though, that I had a hard time following the first minute of it.
Oh, and of course, A COMMENT! 😂