Proof of the photon that is unambiguous?

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 03:42 AM

Care to explore the possibility that the photon as a travelling particle or wave does not in fact exist?

PixyMisa · 1st October 2008, 03:59 AM

Sure.

Without photons, how do you explain the photoelectric effect?

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Sure.

Without photons, how do you explain the photoelectric effect?

so the photon is evidenced only by it's effect I take it, or maybe you means something else?

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:02 AM

Some will say that God is evidenced by his effect but that is hardly proof of his existance is it?

fls · 1st October 2008, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

so the photon is evidenced only by it's effect I take it, or maybe you means something else?

I think that's pretty much it.

Linda

PixyMisa · 1st October 2008, 04:06 AM

That's true of everything.

We only know of the existence of anything by the way it interacts with the rest of the universe, and, directly or indirectly, with ourselves.

fls · 1st October 2008, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

Some will say that God is evidenced by his effect but that is hardly proof of his existance is it?

I think you've got it. The effects that are attributed to God can be better* explained by other processes.

Linda

*Better = necessary, sufficient and useful

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

That's true of everything.

We only know of the existence of anything by the way it interacts with the rest of the universe, and, directly or indirectly, with ourselves.

so I take it that means you have proof of god yes....nah don't bother answering I was only kidding...and off topic...

So how do we know that the photon actually exists as a travelling particle or wave? by it's effect yes?

PixyMisa · 1st October 2008, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

Some will say that God is evidenced by his effect but that is hardly proof of his existance is it?

You first have to show that he has some effect.

With light, this is easy. We use it to see. We can use it to cut steel girders.

That doesn't demonstrate that light is made up of photons, but it demonstrates that light exists. The same cannot be said for God.

The second part of the question then is how we know that light is made up of photons. And the simplest answer, the one Einstein won the Nobel Prize for, is the photoelectric effect.

The photoelectric effect is very real. Millions of people depend on it every day. And it is explained by the fact that light is made up of photons.

If you want to dispute this, you need to do two things: First, provide a reason why light cannot be made up of photons; second, provide an alternate and at least as accurate explanation for the photoelectric effect.

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

If you want to dispute this, you need to do two things: First, provide a reason why light cannot be made up of photons; second, provide an alternate and at least as accurate explanation for the photoelectric effect.

the effect as we call it is happening all the time but tell me what exactly is being effected?

Reality Check · 1st October 2008, 04:14 AM

The photoelectric effect can only be explained by light being absorbed by electrons in packets that we call photons.

Quote:

When a metallic surface is exposed to electromagnetic radiation above a certain threshold frequency, the light is absorbed and electrons are emitted. In 1902, Philipp Eduard Anton von Lenard observed that the energy of the emitted electrons increased with the frequency, or colour, of the light. This was at odds with James Clerk Maxwell's wave theory of light, which predicted that the energy would be proportional to the intensity of the radiation. In 1905, Einstein solved this paradox by describing light as composed of discrete quanta, now called photons, rather than continuous waves. Based upon Max Planck's theory of black-body radiation, Einstein theorized that the energy in each quantum of light was equal to the frequency multiplied by a constant, later called Planck's constant. A photon above a threshold frequency has the required energy to eject a single electron, creating the observed effect. This discovery led to the quantum revolution in physics and earned Einstein the Nobel Prize in 1921.

And yes we only observe photons by their effect. Just like we only observe light waves by their effect, gravity by its effect, any other physical phenomena by its effect.

Reality Check · 1st October 2008, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

the effect as we call it is happening all the time but tell me what exactly is being effected?

The answer is easy - electrons.

Mojo · 1st October 2008, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

Care to explore the possibility that the photon as a travelling particle or wave does not in fact exist?

Can you read this?

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:16 AM

say for example you wish to measure the speed of light in any ambience you choose to what must you do first to prove light is present in the first place.

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:25 AM

ok, I'll cut the crappy style ok...I apologise for being so uhmm...leading..

The obvious answer is that you have to place an object of mass for the light to reflect off for us to be aware that light is present.

do you agree?

Dave Rogers · 1st October 2008, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Sure.

Without photons, how do you explain the photoelectric effect?

And how do you resolve the ultraviolet catastrophe?

Dave

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And how do you resolve the ultraviolet catastrophe?

Dave

I am going to answer by saying I have no real idea how to explain these effects and was hoping maybe you could offer some ideas [ effect without travelling photons]

PixyMisa · 1st October 2008, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

the effect as we call it is happening all the time but tell me what exactly is being effected?

I keep linking to the Wikipedia article, which contains an excellent explanation of the effect, but okay:

The photoelectric effect was first discovered in the 19th century. At its simplest, it can be observed by putting a metal plate in a strong light source. The metal plate will gather a positive electric charge.

The reason for this is that the light is knocking electrons off the surface of the plate - ionising the atoms there.

The discovery that lead to the photon model of light is this: The brighter the light, the more electrons are knocked off the surface of the metal plate. But making the light brighter or dimmer does not change the energy of the electrons. The only thing that makes a difference is the wavelength of the light.

A long wavelength (red) light source will release low-energy electrons from the metal plate. If it's very bright, it will release lots of them, but they will all be low energy.

A short wavelength (blue) light source will release high-energy electrons from the metal plate. If it's very dim, it will only release a few of them, but they will all be high energy.

And here's the kicker: If the wavelength is too long, then no matter how bright the light is, you won't get any electrons at all.

It takes a certain minimum amount of energy to knock an electron free from an atom (depending on what element you're using in the metal plate). But a very bright red light produces no electrons, when a dim blue light - with much lower total energy output - does.

The explanation for this is that light is quantized - made up of individual packets of energy, which were later named photons. All photons of a given wavelength have the exact same energy. And red photons just don't have enough energy to knock electrons out of a metal plate (depending on the metal), while blue ones do.

The photoelectric effect is used today in solar cells, in every form of digital camera, in night vision goggles, and many other applications. It behaves exactly as Einstein described it in 1905.

And that's the first (of many) ways we know photons exist.

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:36 AM

In all instances light can only be detected in reflection.

Reality Check · 1st October 2008, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

ok, I'll cut the crappy style ok...I apologise for being so uhmm...leading..

The obvious answer is that you have to place an object of mass for the light to reflect off for us to be aware that light is present.

do you agree?

If by "object of mass" you mean something that can detect light (and so probably has mass) then I agree. Some of these things are the receptors in your retinas.

Reality Check · 1st October 2008, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

In all instances light can only be detected in reflection.

Light can also be detected in absorption. That is how your eyes work.

PixyMisa · 1st October 2008, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

ok, I'll cut the crappy style ok...I apologise for being so uhmm...leading..

The obvious answer is that you have to place an object of mass for the light to reflect off for us to be aware that light is present.

do you agree?

No. Light need not be reflected if what you are looking at emits light itself. (Which everything does, technically; it's just that most of that "light" is invisible to the human eye.)

PixyMisa · 1st October 2008, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

In all instances light can only be detected in reflection.

The photoelectric effect immediately disproves this.

Shine a light on a solar cell. Out comes electricity. Nothing needs to be reflected off anything else.

Fredrik · 1st October 2008, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

The obvious answer is that you have to place an object of mass for the light to reflect off for us to be aware that light is present.

do you agree?

No reflection is necessary. Even if you're in a room where the walls absorb all light, your eyes would still detect the light that goes directly from a lamp (or whatever light source you have in that room) into one of your eyes (or whatever you use as a detector).

...and I'm clearly much too slow.

PixyMisa · 1st October 2008, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

I am going to answer by saying I have no real idea how to explain these effects and was hoping maybe you could offer some ideas [ effect without travelling photons]

These effects are explained by photons, by the quantization of light.

If you want to claim that photons don't exist, you have to come up with a better explanation for all the things that photons already explain.

Dancing David · 1st October 2008, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

Some will say that God is evidenced by his effect but that is hardly proof of his existance is it?

Can God knock discrete energy packets off a charged plate that have discrete energy levels unrelated to the total energy of the knocking particle? (I think that is the effect)

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

I keep linking to the Wikipedia article, which contains an excellent explanation of the effect, but okay:

The photoelectric effect was first discovered in the 19th century. At its simplest, it can be observed by putting a metal plate in a strong light source. The metal plate will gather a positive electric charge.

The reason for this is that the light is knocking electrons off the surface of the plate - ionising the atoms there.

The discovery that lead to the photon model of light is this: The brighter the light, the more electrons are knocked off the surface of the metal plate. But making the light brighter or dimmer does not change the energy of the electrons. The only thing that makes a difference is the wavelength of the light.

A long wavelength (red) light source will release low-energy electrons from the metal plate. If it's very bright, it will release lots of them, but they will all be low energy.

A short wavelength (blue) light source will release high-energy electrons from the metal plate. If it's very dim, it will only release a few of them, but they will all be high energy.

And here's the kicker: If the wavelength is too long, then no matter how bright the light is, you won't get any electrons at all.

It takes a certain minimum amount of energy to knock an electron free from an atom (depending on what element you're using in the metal plate). But a very bright red light produces no electrons, when a dim blue light - with much lower total energy output - does.

The explanation for this is that light is quantized - made up of individual packets of energy, which were later named photons. All photons of a given wavelength have the exact same energy. And red photons just don't have enough energy to knock electrons out of a metal plate (depending on the metal), while blue ones do.

The photoelectric effect is used today in solar cells, in every form of digital camera, in night vision goggles, and many other applications. It behaves exactly as Einstein described it in 1905.

And that's the first (of many) ways we know photons exist.

there is no doubt that the various sources of the explanation comes from real brilliance ok..
however in all cases we can not know whether it is the reflective mass that showing light effects with out photons or whether the reflective mass is reflecting photons.

The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass.

So why do we need to use the photon model at all and not just a mass model that incorparates the same effect.
Mass has been seen and observed to exist directly however photons are simply a model and abstraction to fit the effects observed afterall.

Tubbythin · 1st October 2008, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

I am going to answer by saying I have no real idea how to explain these effects and was hoping maybe you could offer some ideas [ effect without travelling photons]

I'm confused. You ask for unambiguous proof of photons. You're given some. Then you want alternatives to the unambiguous proof?

PixyMisa · 1st October 2008, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by Fredrik

No reflection is necessary. Even if you're in a room where the walls absorb all light, your eyes would still detect the light that goes directly from a lamp (or whatever light source you have in that room) into one of your eyes (or whatever you use as a detector).

...and I'm clearly much too slow.

Don't worry. I'm down with a tummy bug at the moment, and good for nothing but browsing the web for fun arguments in between sudden dashes for the bathroom. Once I'm feeling better my latency will increase drastically.

Dancing David · 1st October 2008, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

the effect as we call it is happening all the time but tell me what exactly is being effected?

Theories (words and thoughst) are models that approximate the behavior of reality. The actual substrate is unknowable to some extent. We can only approximate, However the model of the photons has a very high predictive value.

Dancing David · 1st October 2008, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

there is no doubt that the various sources of the explanation comes from real brilliance ok..
however in all cases we can not know whether it is the reflective mass that showing light effects with out photons or whether the reflective mass is reflecting photons.

The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass.

So why do we need to use the photon model at all and not just a mass model that incorparates the same effect.
Mass has been seen and observed to exist directly however photons are simply a model and abstraction to fit the effects observed afterall.

Duuude, you can't directly observe anything man. You can no more directly observe mass than you can a photon.

PixyMisa · 1st October 2008, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

there is no doubt that the various sources of the explanation comes from real brilliance ok..
however in all cases we can not know whether it is the reflective mass that showing light effects with out photons or whether the reflective mass is reflecting photons.

Sure we can.

If you shine a light on a shiny thing, and reflect the light off that shiny thing onto a solar cell, you get an electric current again.

As we've already seen, that's explained by photons.

So the reflective surface has to be reflecting photons.

Quote:

The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass.

That makes no sense.

A photon is a photon. A shiny thing is a shiny thing. They're completely different classes of objects.

Quote:

So why do we need to use the photon model at all and not just a mass model that incorparates the same effect.

A "mass model" of light that makes provides all the correct equations for the behaviour of light would be identical to the photon model in every respect except for the name.

Quote:

Mass has been seen and observed to exist directly however photons are simply a model and abstraction to fit the effects observed afterall.

Nothing is observed directly, only by its interactions. Observation itself is an interaction.

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

These effects are explained by photons, by the quantization of light.

If you want to claim that photons don't exist, you have to come up with a better explanation for all the things that photons already explain.

I am not claiming that they do not exist, you are though, claiming that they do , and the burden of proof lies with you.

Prove the photon exists in a way that disqualifies the effect as being a mass event.

Reality Check · 1st October 2008, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

there is no doubt that the various sources of the explanation comes from real brilliance ok..
however in all cases we can not know whether it is the reflective mass that showing light effects with out photons or whether the reflective mass is reflecting photons.

The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass.

So why do we need to use the photon model at all and not just a mass model that incorparates the same effect.
Mass has been seen and observed to exist directly however photons are simply a model and abstraction to fit the effects observed afterall.

The Sun is not a "reflective mass". The light coming from it is not reflected from somewhere else. It is a light emitting mass.
We can differentiate the photons from the Sun because the Sun is a long distance from us and we can detect photons from it here.

Basically you are denying that the Sun emits light.

Also the photoelectric effect has nothing to do with the reflection of light. It is the emission of electrons from the metal when light is shone on the surface of the metal.

Reality Check · 1st October 2008, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

I am not claiming that they do not exist, you are though, claiming that they do , and the burden of proof lies with you.

Prove the photon exists in a way that disqualifies the effect as being a mass event.

We have - photoelectric effect (which is not a mass event). If you think that the photoelectric effect is a "mass event" then it is up to you to present proof since that is what you are claiming.

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:54 AM

Quote:

The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass.
That makes no sense.

A photon is a photon. A shiny thing is a shiny thing. They're completely different classes of objects.

well then you should be able to show a photon with out using the shiny thingo ok?
Show me a photon with out using a shiny thingo please....

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

We have - photoelectric effect (which is not a mass event). If you think that the photoelectric effect is a "mass event" then it is up to you to present proof since that is what you are claiming.

not claiming anything just exploring possibilites

Reality Check · 1st October 2008, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

well then you should be able to show a photon with out using the shiny thingo ok?
Show me a photon with out using a shiny thingo please....

The metals that are used in the photoelectric effect need not be shiny. Hav you looked at a solar cell - they tend to be black (and yes a bit reflective).

ozziemate · 1st October 2008, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The metals that are used in the photoelectric effect need not be shiny. Hav you looked at a solar cell - they tend to be black (and yes a bit reflective).

just using pix humor see:

Quote:

If you shine a light on a shiny thing, and reflect the light off that shiny thing onto a solar cell, you get an electric current again

Tubbythin · 1st October 2008, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

I am not claiming that they do not exist, you are though, claiming that they do , and the burden of proof lies with you.

Prove the photon exists in a way that disqualifies the effect as being a mass event.

Without photons the following would not make sense:
The gold leaf experiment.
The ultraviolet catastrophe
The entirety of gamma-ray spectroscopy and thus most of nuclear physics.
Literally billions of results from particle accelerators.
QED - the most precisely tested theory in the history of physics...

I don't know what you really mean by a mass event, but if you think you have an alternative to the photon to explain all these thing when the existence of the photon is backed up by an unbelievable amount of data, the burden of proof is entirely at your door.

1st October 2008, 03:42 AM	#1
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Proof of the photon that is unambiguous? Care to explore the possibility that the photon as a travelling particle or wave does not in fact exist?

1st October 2008, 03:59 AM	#2
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Sure. Without photons, how do you explain the photoelectric effect?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st October 2008, 04:06 AM	#6
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	That's true of everything. We only know of the existence of anything by the way it interacts with the rest of the universe, and, directly or indirectly, with ourselves.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st October 2008, 04:10 AM	#9
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate Some will say that God is evidenced by his effect but that is hardly proof of his existance is it? You first have to show that he has some effect. With light, this is easy. We use it to see. We can use it to cut steel girders. That doesn't demonstrate that light is made up of photons, but it demonstrates that light exists. The same cannot be said for God. The second part of the question then is how we know that light is made up of photons. And the simplest answer, the one Einstein won the Nobel Prize for, is the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect is very real. Millions of people depend on it every day. And it is explained by the fact that light is made up of photons. If you want to dispute this, you need to do two things: First, provide a reason why light cannot be made up of photons; second, provide an alternate and at least as accurate explanation for the photoelectric effect.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st October 2008, 04:14 AM	#11
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,732	The photoelectric effect can only be explained by light being absorbed by electrons in packets that we call photons. Quote: When a metallic surface is exposed to electromagnetic radiation above a certain threshold frequency, the light is absorbed and electrons are emitted. In 1902, Philipp Eduard Anton von Lenard observed that the energy of the emitted electrons increased with the frequency, or colour, of the light. This was at odds with James Clerk Maxwell's wave theory of light, which predicted that the energy would be proportional to the intensity of the radiation. In 1905, Einstein solved this paradox by describing light as composed of discrete quanta, now called photons, rather than continuous waves. Based upon Max Planck's theory of black-body radiation, Einstein theorized that the energy in each quantum of light was equal to the frequency multiplied by a constant, later called Planck's constant. A photon above a threshold frequency has the required energy to eject a single electron, creating the observed effect. This discovery led to the quantum revolution in physics and earned Einstein the Nobel Prize in 1921. And yes we only observe photons by their effect. Just like we only observe light waves by their effect, gravity by its effect, any other physical phenomena by its effect.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 1st October 2008 at 04:16 AM.

1st October 2008, 04:01 AM	#3
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Sure. Without photons, how do you explain the photoelectric effect? so the photon is evidenced only by it's effect I take it, or maybe you means something else?

1st October 2008, 04:02 AM	#4
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Some will say that God is evidenced by his effect but that is hardly proof of his existance is it?

1st October 2008, 04:05 AM	#5
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,226	Originally Posted by ozziemate so the photon is evidenced only by it's effect I take it, or maybe you means something else? I think that's pretty much it. Linda

1st October 2008, 04:08 AM	#7
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,226	Originally Posted by ozziemate Some will say that God is evidenced by his effect but that is hardly proof of his existance is it? I think you've got it. The effects that are attributed to God can be better* explained by other processes. Linda *Better = necessary, sufficient and useful

1st October 2008, 04:09 AM	#8
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by PixyMisa That's true of everything. We only know of the existence of anything by the way it interacts with the rest of the universe, and, directly or indirectly, with ourselves. so I take it that means you have proof of god yes....nah don't bother answering I was only kidding...and off topic... So how do we know that the photon actually exists as a travelling particle or wave? by it's effect yes?

1st October 2008, 04:13 AM	#10
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by PixyMisa If you want to dispute this, you need to do two things: First, provide a reason why light cannot be made up of photons; second, provide an alternate and at least as accurate explanation for the photoelectric effect. the effect as we call it is happening all the time but tell me what exactly is being effected?

1st October 2008, 04:15 AM	#12
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,732	Originally Posted by ozziemate the effect as we call it is happening all the time but tell me what exactly is being effected? The answer is easy - electrons.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

1st October 2008, 04:15 AM	#13
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 33,777	Originally Posted by ozziemate Care to explore the possibility that the photon as a travelling particle or wave does not in fact exist? Can you read this?
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

1st October 2008, 04:16 AM	#14
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	say for example you wish to measure the speed of light in any ambience you choose to what must you do first to prove light is present in the first place.
	Last edited by ozziemate; 1st October 2008 at 04:22 AM.

1st October 2008, 04:25 AM	#15
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	ok, I'll cut the crappy style ok...I apologise for being so uhmm...leading.. The obvious answer is that you have to place an object of mass for the light to reflect off for us to be aware that light is present. do you agree?

1st October 2008, 04:30 AM	#16
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,368	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Sure. Without photons, how do you explain the photoelectric effect? And how do you resolve the ultraviolet catastrophe? Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

1st October 2008, 04:32 AM	#17
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers And how do you resolve the ultraviolet catastrophe? Dave I am going to answer by saying I have no real idea how to explain these effects and was hoping maybe you could offer some ideas [ effect without travelling photons]

1st October 2008, 04:35 AM	#18
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate the effect as we call it is happening all the time but tell me what exactly is being effected? I keep linking to the Wikipedia article, which contains an excellent explanation of the effect, but okay: The photoelectric effect was first discovered in the 19th century. At its simplest, it can be observed by putting a metal plate in a strong light source. The metal plate will gather a positive electric charge. The reason for this is that the light is knocking electrons off the surface of the plate - ionising the atoms there. The discovery that lead to the photon model of light is this: The brighter the light, the more electrons are knocked off the surface of the metal plate. But making the light brighter or dimmer does not change the energy of the electrons. The only thing that makes a difference is the wavelength of the light. A long wavelength (red) light source will release low-energy electrons from the metal plate. If it's very bright, it will release lots of them, but they will all be low energy. A short wavelength (blue) light source will release high-energy electrons from the metal plate. If it's very dim, it will only release a few of them, but they will all be high energy. And here's the kicker: If the wavelength is too long, then no matter how bright the light is, you won't get any electrons at all. It takes a certain minimum amount of energy to knock an electron free from an atom (depending on what element you're using in the metal plate). But a very bright red light produces no electrons, when a dim blue light - with much lower total energy output - does. The explanation for this is that light is quantized - made up of individual packets of energy, which were later named photons. All photons of a given wavelength have the exact same energy. And red photons just don't have enough energy to knock electrons out of a metal plate (depending on the metal), while blue ones do. The photoelectric effect is used today in solar cells, in every form of digital camera, in night vision goggles, and many other applications. It behaves exactly as Einstein described it in 1905. And that's the first (of many) ways we know photons exist.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st October 2008, 04:36 AM	#19
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	In all instances light can only be detected in reflection.

1st October 2008, 04:36 AM	#20
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,732	Originally Posted by ozziemate ok, I'll cut the crappy style ok...I apologise for being so uhmm...leading.. The obvious answer is that you have to place an object of mass for the light to reflect off for us to be aware that light is present. do you agree? If by "object of mass" you mean something that can detect light (and so probably has mass) then I agree. Some of these things are the receptors in your retinas.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

1st October 2008, 04:37 AM	#21
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,732	Originally Posted by ozziemate In all instances light can only be detected in reflection. Light can also be detected in absorption. That is how your eyes work.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

1st October 2008, 04:39 AM	#23
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate In all instances light can only be detected in reflection. The photoelectric effect immediately disproves this. Shine a light on a solar cell. Out comes electricity. Nothing needs to be reflected off anything else.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st October 2008, 04:40 AM	#24
Fredrik Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,912	Originally Posted by ozziemate The obvious answer is that you have to place an object of mass for the light to reflect off for us to be aware that light is present. do you agree? No reflection is necessary. Even if you're in a room where the walls absorb all light, your eyes would still detect the light that goes directly from a lamp (or whatever light source you have in that room) into one of your eyes (or whatever you use as a detector). ...and I'm clearly much too slow.
Fredrik Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,912

1st October 2008, 04:41 AM	#25
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate I am going to answer by saying I have no real idea how to explain these effects and was hoping maybe you could offer some ideas [ effect without travelling photons] These effects are explained by photons, by the quantization of light. If you want to claim that photons don't exist, you have to come up with a better explanation for all the things that photons already explain.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st October 2008, 04:42 AM	#26
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: central Illinois Posts: 39,699	Originally Posted by ozziemate Some will say that God is evidenced by his effect but that is hardly proof of his existance is it? Can God knock discrete energy packets off a charged plate that have discrete energy levels unrelated to the total energy of the knocking particle? (I think that is the effect)
	__________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

1st October 2008, 04:42 AM	#27
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by PixyMisa I keep linking to the Wikipedia article, which contains an excellent explanation of the effect, but okay: The photoelectric effect was first discovered in the 19th century. At its simplest, it can be observed by putting a metal plate in a strong light source. The metal plate will gather a positive electric charge. The reason for this is that the light is knocking electrons off the surface of the plate - ionising the atoms there. The discovery that lead to the photon model of light is this: The brighter the light, the more electrons are knocked off the surface of the metal plate. But making the light brighter or dimmer does not change the energy of the electrons. The only thing that makes a difference is the wavelength of the light. A long wavelength (red) light source will release low-energy electrons from the metal plate. If it's very bright, it will release lots of them, but they will all be low energy. A short wavelength (blue) light source will release high-energy electrons from the metal plate. If it's very dim, it will only release a few of them, but they will all be high energy. And here's the kicker: If the wavelength is too long, then no matter how bright the light is, you won't get any electrons at all. It takes a certain minimum amount of energy to knock an electron free from an atom (depending on what element you're using in the metal plate). But a very bright red light produces no electrons, when a dim blue light - with much lower total energy output - does. The explanation for this is that light is quantized - made up of individual packets of energy, which were later named photons. All photons of a given wavelength have the exact same energy. And red photons just don't have enough energy to knock electrons out of a metal plate (depending on the metal), while blue ones do. The photoelectric effect is used today in solar cells, in every form of digital camera, in night vision goggles, and many other applications. It behaves exactly as Einstein described it in 1905. And that's the first (of many) ways we know photons exist. there is no doubt that the various sources of the explanation comes from real brilliance ok.. however in all cases we can not know whether it is the reflective mass that showing light effects with out photons or whether the reflective mass is reflecting photons. The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass. So why do we need to use the photon model at all and not just a mass model that incorparates the same effect. Mass has been seen and observed to exist directly however photons are simply a model and abstraction to fit the effects observed afterall.
	Last edited by ozziemate; 1st October 2008 at 04:44 AM.

1st October 2008, 04:42 AM	#28
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202	Originally Posted by ozziemate I am going to answer by saying I have no real idea how to explain these effects and was hoping maybe you could offer some ideas [ effect without travelling photons] I'm confused. You ask for unambiguous proof of photons. You're given some. Then you want alternatives to the unambiguous proof?
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202

1st October 2008, 04:44 AM	#29
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by Fredrik No reflection is necessary. Even if you're in a room where the walls absorb all light, your eyes would still detect the light that goes directly from a lamp (or whatever light source you have in that room) into one of your eyes (or whatever you use as a detector). ...and I'm clearly much too slow. Don't worry. I'm down with a tummy bug at the moment, and good for nothing but browsing the web for fun arguments in between sudden dashes for the bathroom. Once I'm feeling better my latency will increase drastically.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st October 2008, 04:47 AM	#31
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: central Illinois Posts: 39,699	Originally Posted by ozziemate there is no doubt that the various sources of the explanation comes from real brilliance ok.. however in all cases we can not know whether it is the reflective mass that showing light effects with out photons or whether the reflective mass is reflecting photons. The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass. So why do we need to use the photon model at all and not just a mass model that incorparates the same effect. Mass has been seen and observed to exist directly however photons are simply a model and abstraction to fit the effects observed afterall. Duuude, you can't directly observe anything man. You can no more directly observe mass than you can a photon.
	__________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

1st October 2008, 04:49 AM	#32
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate there is no doubt that the various sources of the explanation comes from real brilliance ok.. however in all cases we can not know whether it is the reflective mass that showing light effects with out photons or whether the reflective mass is reflecting photons. Sure we can. If you shine a light on a shiny thing, and reflect the light off that shiny thing onto a solar cell, you get an electric current again. As we've already seen, that's explained by photons. So the reflective surface has to be reflecting photons. Quote: The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass. That makes no sense. A photon is a photon. A shiny thing is a shiny thing. They're completely different classes of objects. Quote: So why do we need to use the photon model at all and not just a mass model that incorparates the same effect. A "mass model" of light that makes provides all the correct equations for the behaviour of light would be identical to the photon model in every respect except for the name. Quote: Mass has been seen and observed to exist directly however photons are simply a model and abstraction to fit the effects observed afterall. Nothing is observed directly, only by its interactions. Observation itself is an interaction.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st October 2008, 04:50 AM	#33
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by PixyMisa These effects are explained by photons, by the quantization of light. If you want to claim that photons don't exist, you have to come up with a better explanation for all the things that photons already explain. I am not claiming that they do not exist, you are though, claiming that they do , and the burden of proof lies with you. Prove the photon exists in a way that disqualifies the effect as being a mass event.

1st October 2008, 04:52 AM	#34
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,732	Originally Posted by ozziemate there is no doubt that the various sources of the explanation comes from real brilliance ok.. however in all cases we can not know whether it is the reflective mass that showing light effects with out photons or whether the reflective mass is reflecting photons. The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass. So why do we need to use the photon model at all and not just a mass model that incorparates the same effect. Mass has been seen and observed to exist directly however photons are simply a model and abstraction to fit the effects observed afterall. The Sun is not a "reflective mass". The light coming from it is not reflected from somewhere else. It is a light emitting mass. We can differentiate the photons from the Sun because the Sun is a long distance from us and we can detect photons from it here. Basically you are denying that the Sun emits light. Also the photoelectric effect has nothing to do with the reflection of light. It is the emission of electrons from the metal when light is shone on the surface of the metal.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

1st October 2008, 04:54 AM	#35
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 27,732	Originally Posted by ozziemate I am not claiming that they do not exist, you are though, claiming that they do , and the burden of proof lies with you. Prove the photon exists in a way that disqualifies the effect as being a mass event. We have - photoelectric effect (which is not a mass event). If you think that the photoelectric effect is a "mass event" then it is up to you to present proof since that is what you are claiming.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 1st October 2008 at 04:55 AM.

1st October 2008, 04:54 AM	#36
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Quote: Quote: The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass. That makes no sense. A photon is a photon. A shiny thing is a shiny thing. They're completely different classes of objects. well then you should be able to show a photon with out using the shiny thingo ok? Show me a photon with out using a shiny thingo please....

1st October 2008, 04:57 AM	#37
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by Reality Check We have - photoelectric effect (which is not a mass event). If you think that the photoelectric effect is a "mass event" then it is up to you to present proof since that is what you are claiming. not claiming anything just exploring possibilites