Exposure of Physics Misconceptions and Beam-Split Tests of Past

Transcription

1 Exposure of Physics Misconceptions and Beam-Split Tests of Past by Eric S Reiter Authors routinely state as fact the incredible distortions I list below. For more details on how our famous works of physics are distorted in modern literature see An Understanding of the Particle-Like Property of Light and Charge. 1: Most modern physics textbooks will elaborate upon how the photoelectric effect cannot be explained with classical physics. A response-time in the photoelectric effect is given as some number of nanoseconds, and the student will compare that to a classically calculated response-time. Students are not made aware that the experimental response-time data was a curve of current vs response-time, as shown in fig. 1. Each point in fig. 1 is a separate experiment with a preset delay time for which they measure the current. Students are only told the shortest response-time from this experiment. Classical theory can easily account for a rapid onset of a Fig. 1 Photoelectric currents into the collector for various times of cut-off after the beginning of the spark. Redrawn from data of Lawrence and Beams, Physical Review 32, 482 (1928). meager charge flow if a pre-loaded state is considered. If kinetic energy is stored near the threshold, it only takes a small addition of energy to set electrons off to space within an arbitrarily short loading time. By giving the student only the minimum time, instead of the average time, it misleads the student to visualize a square wave of current that rises in a few nanoseconds. Students will read the minimum time and think it is a maximum time. Here is a recent example of the trick: Electrons are emitted immediately (within 10-9 s) after light exposure begins, regardless of intensity. Classical theory cannot account for the rapid start of electron flow, as we illustrate in the following example... Light intensity I = 10 W/m2 falling on a metal surface emit electrons, each with 3 ev of energy. According to classical theory, how much time is required for an atom of radius 10 10m to receive the necessary 3 ev of energy? This is an excerpt from Physics the Nature of Things, a textbook by Lea and Burke (L&B) of San Francisco State University. I like quoting them because I studied there. Of course the answer comes out to more than nanoseconds, so the student is led to conclude that a loading theory is not possible. This treatment is typical of our textbooks which have fed the student a crippled classical theory. Students are tricked to not consider a loading theory with a pre-loaded state; they make you calculate the accumulation time starting from zero energy. 1 of 11 03/26/2012

2 Fig. 2 Eisberg, Fundamentals of Modern Physics, of 11 03/26/2012

3 Millikan seems to be the last to even consider a pre-loaded state, but he did not understand how it could work. It is in his book Electrons (+ and ) page 253: What sort of an absorbing and energy-storing mechanism an atom might have which would give it the weird property of storing up energy to the value hν, where ν is the frequency of the incident light, and then shooting it all out at once, is terribly difficult to conceive. It was easy to conceive back then, and it is easy to conceive now. I applaud Millikan on his skeptical attitude toward the dualism implied by the photoelectric effect equation. However, his rejection of the loading theory effectively biased all of mainstream physics to take the same attitude. After the 1947 date of Millikan's University of Chicago Press book, the loading theory was effectively banished by mainstream publishers. From that date to the present (2007), physics was controlled by scientist/editors invested in quantum mechanics. In my extensive literature search I found no mention of a non-crippled loading theory after the date of Millikan's book. Also, in these common textbook treatments the size taken for a single atom is smaller than necessary. An extended resonant charge-wave the size of molecules is more reasonable. Also, contrary to the picture fed by textbook writings, light of less intensity will lengthen the average response time; I measured it myself in my college lab course. Many textbooks leave out the reference from where they quote their nanosecond response time. The measurement was performed by Lawrence and Beams, Physical Review 32 pg 482 September The reference is only partially given in Eisberg's 1967 Fundamentals of Modern Physics, where it seems they were the first to use this careless textbook argument, see fig. 2. See also Halliday and Resnick's famous Physics textbook. Lawrence and Beams did not report a light intensity, so it is not fair to compare average response time from another experiment to theirs. By forcing upon the student this rejection of any form of loading theory, it forces the existence of photons. This is a very important step for a student entering physics to get right. Our physics teachers got it wrong! After you understand this mistake, you will learn to recognize their routinely biased experiment interpretations elsewhere. This physics problem should be done differently. Make a fast blinking LED, attenuate it to a known intensity, detect light with a liquid nitrogen cooled PMT, measure the average loading time and calculate the size of the extended resonant charge-wave absorption complex. You immediately have something very useful by using a non-paradoxical model. 2: The Compton effect is typically taught with the emphasis "...cannot be understood if the incident x rays are regarded as an electromagnetic wave (L&B)." There is no excuse that textbook authors did not know that Compton-Allison and Schrödinger did an electromagnetic wave derivation of the Compton (and Debye) equation using Bragg scattering and the Doppler effect. It is in two sections of a famous book by Compton and Allison. See fig. 3. 3: The meaning and data from of the Bothe Geiger experiment are repeatedly garbled. See Particle Violation Spectroscopy. 4: Planck is routinely quoted for quantizing light, or that photons are necessary to produce the black body equation. For example, "we can see why photons are necessary to explain blackbody radiation by considering a special case..." (L&B). Planck clearly stated in his book 3 of 11 03/26/2012

4 Fig. 3 For #2. From Compton and Allison, X-Rays in Theory and Experiment, showing a classical derivation of the Compton effect. 4 of 11 03/26/2012

5 Fig. 4 For #6. From DeBroglie's Wave Mechanics. On his next page he writes: and consequently if λ is the wave-length of the associated wave, λ =V/ν = h/p. 5 of 11 03/26/2012

6 Fig. 5 from Feynman, QED page 15 6 of 11 03/26/2012

7 The Theory of Heat Radiation that E=hν (ν = frequency) applies to charge-oscillators, not light. Planck never intended to quantize light, and there are many ways to derive his black body equation without quantizing light. 5: There is a test of the photoelectric effect that was performed on a Milliken-oil-drop. The experiments were done in an ionizing gas that distorted the experiment and its interpretation. 6: The assumptions and equations DeBroglie used to derive his wavelength equation h = mvλ, with all its weirdness, are taught as gospel. For example: "show that the speed V = λv of a debroglie wave is c 2 /v" (L&B), where V = phase velocity and v = group velocity. They teach that the wavefunction is purely mathematical and non-physical by showing that its velocity exceeds the speed of light. DeBroglie did not show how he extracted the V = c 2 /v equation from the Lorentz transform, and he failed to factor in the (1 v 2 /c 2 ) 1/2 term. There is another error in his derivation where he used hν=mc 2 as if it is true in general. This equation is only true for light and pair production. All experiments, show that h is about kinetic energy, never about total mass-equivalent energy mc 2. So in DeBroglie's work, see fig. 4, equation (2) was an incorrect guess.. 7: Planck is routinely accused of using special assumptions and that Einstein did not do so. Assumptions are used routinely physics derivations, especially in quantum mechanics. Einstein's photoelectric derivation was full of assumptions, like using Wein's law, known to be wrong, as a starting point. 8: Prior art beam splitter experiments, and arguments associated with them, assume pulses from a photomultiplier tube detector are all the same when using monochromatic light. False. There is a wide pulse height distribution. See fig. 5 from Feynman s QED pg. 15 for an example of this error. In his Fig. 1 at the end it reads...clicks of uniform loudness are heard each time a photon of a given color hits plate A. See fig. 4 in An Understanding... for the pulse distribution graph.. 9: Schrödinger hated the probability interpretation, and his views are routinely suppressed. 10: The Milliken oil drop experiment used macroscopic matter, so it is unjustified to say microscopic charge is quantized in-general from this experiment. The conserved charge/mass ratios, and other ratios, gave the illusion that charge is quantized in other experiments. 11: The Stern-Gerlach experiment, and all writing I have found on it, ignore the loss of energy upon the atom beam entering the magnet. Why has this obvious mistake survived so many years? Fig. 6 Observing the quantum behavior of light in an undergraduate laboratory, Am J Phys 72, Sept 2004, pg of 11 03/26/2012

8 Fig. 7 Givens, Philosophical Mag, 37 (1946), pg of 11 03/26/2012

9 Fig. 8 September 1956 Nature. In top box, the commonly used chance equation is written. Beam-Split Tests of Past Fig. 6. In this AJP article they review the same beam splitter experiments I cite and try to convince students light itself is quantized. All you need to see to understand they are wrong is PBS (polarizing beam splitter). Polarized light will be routed to one detector or another and inhibit coincidences, the very thing they should be looking for. Fig. 7. This is the only beam-split test attempted using x-rays, that seems to be published. They used a source with a wide bandwidth, and detectors with no pulse amplitude resolution, which is why the test gave no coincidences past the beam splitter. Fig. 8 This beam-split test in September 1956 Nature was done with a wide bandwidth and non-single hν light source. They use the same chance equation as I do, and admit:...if such a correlation did exist it would call for a major revision of some fundamental concepts in quantum mechanics. Mr Givens' test (of fig. 7) also admitted that. Also they describe the 9 of 11 03/26/2012

10 Fig. 9 J F Clauser, Physical Review D9, (1974) experiment with "photons" in the title and throughout the paper. Since they are testing the reality of the photon, to describe the experiment in terms of photons reveals an unfair bias. Fig. 9. This is the first beam-split test using a single hν source; Clauser used visible light. No details of the discriminator thresholds are given. Clauser admits he uses a polarized beam splitter. Polarized light is emitted from a single atomic hν emission, so the majority of energy from a classical light pulse would be routed to one direction or another past the beam splitter, thereby destroying any chance of a loading effect to create coincidences. How could he and the hundreds of authors that cite this work ignore this incredibly simple understanding of light?...they were biased toward supporting the photon. Fig. 10 is yet another similar beam-split experiment with a single photon light source. Notwithstanding the polarization design errors previously mentioned, I expect that the unquantum effect will not show up with visible light anyway due to noise, low photoelectric efficiency in the detector, poor pulse height resolution, and a longer emission-time for an hν of 10 of 11 03/26/2012

11 visible light. Fig. 10 Ann NY Acad Sci 480, of 11 03/26/2012