Tapered Harmony Primer [again -- was other stuff]
kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sun Mar 20 13:04:41 EST 2005
"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:uQf%d.423842$w62.322734 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| "kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| news:fQ5%d.154071$Th1.122483 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|| "kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
|| news:Bro_d.146778$Th1.35924 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Prologue: In this post, I'm going to change
=everything= in what's been referred to as
"the Photoelectric effect", =except= the
experimental observables. Some folks'll find
this to be "Offensive", but I mean no offense.
I mean 'just'-the-opposite stuff, so I'll both
understand the 'Difficulty' [the TD E/i(up)]
that folks, long 'familiar' with the traditional
view of the "photoelectric effect", will exper-
ience, and Appreciate folks efforts to under-
stand the 'new' view of it that I'll be discuss-
But how and why the Error on which "quan-
tum mechanics" was founded occurred must
also be Explained -- and that'll be some 'Dif-
If you're going to have-at this 'new' stuff,
then Good-for-You, and Thank You.
In the discussion that follows, everything
that's preceded by a vertical "bar" ["|"] is
material Quoted from the Reference Text.
My discussion of the 'new' stuff will not
have a "bar" in the left-most column. To
maintain the neatness of the Quoted Mater-
ial [to ease folks' reading], I'm going to re-
format it where I interrupt it to add my dis-
Note: =Nothing= I do in this post can be
'interpreted' as "negative-criticism" with
respect to folks who've adhered to the
long-standing "quantum" view of the pho-
toelectric effect. I'm just fixing an Error
that was made in the late 19th 'century',
and carried-forward to the present 'day'.
Mis-takes are for Fixing, not for being
used as "levers" of 'recrimination'.
| The Reference Text I'll use is, =Physics for
| Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics=,
| 3rd Edition, © by R. A. Serway, 1990, Saunders
| College Publishing, ISBN: 0-03-031353-8.
| Quoting from the Text on pp.1151-2:
| "Several features of the photoelectric effect
| could not be explained with classical physcs
| or with the wave theory of light.
This was only because, at the 'time' the 'photon'
theory of electromagnetic radiation became
established, folks were strongly-'familiar' with
"solar system" models that were, then, already
"burned-into" nervous systems through inter-
generational handing-down of best-understand-
This resulted in nervous systems' TD E/I-min-
imization dynamics' being literally attracted to
'force-fitting' the 'unexplainable' data into that
long-'familiar' stuff, which is literally preserved
in the "quantum" view of the photoelectric ef-
fect that I'll be Eliminating in this post.
It was an instance in which 'blindly'-automated
TD E/I-minimization 'Dictated' to folks what
they could 'see' in the experimental observables,
the results of which have been particularly-Trag-
ic, even within the realm of Science. [that's a
'constant' with respect to 'blindly'-automated
TD E/I-minimization -- it =always= inflicts
Needless Tragedy within Human Interactive
dynamics, in the present case, with respect to
folks' abilities to Do Physics.]
| The major observations that were not under-
| stood are as follows:
| 1. No electrons are emitted if the incident light
| frequency [falls below some cutoff frequency,
| [f sub c], which is characteristic of the material
| being illuminated. For example, in the case of
| sodium [f sub c] = 5.50 x 10 ^ 14 Hz. This is
| inconsistent with the wave theory, which predicts
| that the photoelectric effect should occur at any
| frequency, provided the light intensity is high
I discussed this stuff in a prior post. The state-
ment, above, is valid =only= if the receiving
surface is comprised of geometrically-"static"
'atoms', which I argued, in all of my prior dis-
cussions of Tapered Harmony's stuff, is =not=
Rather [in Tapered Harmony's view, which
stands Verified], what've been referred to as
"atoms" are spherical standing waves of energy
that are 'trapped in' harmonic compression<->
expansion interaction with a surrounding "Uni-
versal Energy Supply".
The meta-Goal of all of my discussions of
Tapered Harmony is to enable folks to See
So the stuff that's termed "inconsistent" in 1.,
above, just isn't a problem when what have
been referred to as "atoms" are seen to be
The photoelectric effect's "cutoff frequency"
just falls-right-out because the harmonics
have periodically-varying "cross sections"
that Determine the frequencies [wavelengths]
of incident radiation that can fit-into them.
Light having frequency lower than the "cut-
off frequency" just has a wavelength longer
than can fit-into the nonlinearly-accelerating-
ly nonlinear harmonics [the general case of
which was Reified in the "Compton Refrac-
tion" QBASIC[tm] apps that I posted in
The Telling thing with respect to "cutoff
frequency" is that it varies in a way that
"is characteristic of the material being
illuminated" [ibid] -- so, since the incident
light frequency and intensity can be held
'constant', yet the "work function" varies
as a function of the material that receives
the light, the "work function" can only be
correlated to properties that exist solely
within the "structures" of 'atoms'.
Since this is True, it makes no sense to
say anything about the nature of the inci-
Yet that's exactly what the traditional
approach proposes to do in asserting
that the incident light must be "discretely-
That's like saying that, if one wants to
dine on a "hamburger", one doesn't need
a meat gringer "because meat comes
already ground-up" :-]
| 2. If the light frequency exceeds the cutoff
| frequency, a photoelectric effect is observed
| and the number of photoelectrons emitted is
| proportional to the light intensity. However,
| the maximum kinetic energy of the photoelec-
| trons is independent of light intensity, a fact
| that cannot be explained by the concepts of
| classical physics.
This restatement of one facet of the long-'fam-
iliar' view is just False. It derives in the fact
that the simple wave<->wave view that's
asserted by Tapered Harmony just did not
exist when the "fact that [could not] be ex-
plained by the concepts of classical physics"
was 'explained' via the invocation of "discrete
The wave<->wave view of Tapered Harmony
is just Classical Physics with the concept of
"spherical standing waves" added to it.
Add that concept, and Classical Physics works
Beautifully. All observables are completely-
explained, no so-called "quantum weirdness"
results, and stuff that's, supposedly, "imposs-
ible in the "quantum" view becomes flat-out
Anyway, the "maximum kinetic energy of the
photoelectrons [being] independent of light
intensity" results =solely= from the fact [in
TH] that the wavelength of incident light be-
comes too long to effectively interact with
an 'atom' when its SSW<->UES harmonics
are compressed, during either "nucleation"
or "shelling", smaller than that wavelength.
And this also explains =exactly= why, al-
though there's a maximum kinetic energy,
there can also be emissions having lesser
kinetic energies, which is sort of "glossed-
over" in the "quantum" view, by saying that
"it's the frequency of the incident light that
determines the kinetic energy of the emit-
Tapered Harmony's view is more-compre-
hensive than this because it explains exactly
how and why light of a specific incident
frequency can result of the emission of a
=range= of kinetic energies from 'atoms'.
The kinetic energy of emitted energy just
varies as a function of the nonlinearly-ac-
celerating nonlinear variation of the 'volume'
of the 'sphere' in the SSW<->UES harmon-
ics [of course, carrying-through the "cutoff
frequency" as it was discussed above.
| 3. The maximum kinetic energy of the photo-
| electrons increases with increasing light
Again, this's explained, via the harmonics, in
Tapered Harmony, but TH accounts, rigorously,
for the whole ranges of kinetic energies that
light of a given incident frequency causes to
This difference between TH and the "quantum"
view is important because it's one of the places
where the "quantum" view is forced to invoke
The "quantum" view doesn't see the =Continuous"
compression<->expansion harmonics, so, when
experimenters shine light on stuff, but don't get
a reaction out of the stuff, they invoke 'ran-
domness', by attributing the 'locus' of 'electrons
orbiting the nucleus of an atom' [which is an en-
tirely-False conceptualization] to a 'probabilistic
nature' of 'electron's position within the atom' --
when all that's happening is that the Continuous
compression<->expansion harmonics of the
'atom' have exceeded the physical parameters
of the incident light =waves= that the experi-
menters shined on the 'atom'.
Tapered Harmony Eliminates the 'need' for
all such resort to 'randomness' in treatments
of physical reality.
"Never 'guess'!" :-]
But invocations of 'randomness' are exactly
that -- 'Guessing' [capital "G"].
And then folks go on and on about so-called
"quantum weirdness", "wave-particle dualities",
"uncertainty", "probability waves", etc., when
all of that stuff was put-in-there as a result of
the Fact that the Error made in the late 19th
'century' was carried-through, and built-upon,
making 'all' of mainstream Physics that's been
done since then a 'Guess'.
It's been a Tragedy that's 'Dictated' Falseness
to Science -- be-cause the way in which 'blindly'-
automated TD E/I-minimization induces folks
to "cling", cognitively, to old, long-'familiar'
stuff had not been comprehended.
So, when folks thought about "the atom", they
thought about it through the "lens" of the TD
E/I-minimization that'd already occurred with-
in their nervous systems, found "solar systems"
comprised of "billiard balls" in-there, and forced
their perceptions of experimental results with
respect to the 'atom' to conform to that previous-
ly-existing TD E/I-minimization.
| 4. Electrons are emitted from the surface almost
| instantaneously (less than 10 ^ -9 s after the
| surface is illuminated), even at low light intens-
| ities. Classically, one would expect that the
| electrons would require some time to absorb
| the incident radiation before they acquired
| enough kinetic energy to escape from the
All that's happening is that, rather than having
to "wait" for an 'electron' to respond to the
incident "light", the compression<->expan-
sion harmonics 'just' match-energies, head-
on, with the quantity of energy that's imparted
to the harmonics being 'immediately' emitted
be-cause doing so maintains the harmonics
in a 'balanced' ['stable'] 'state' of their energy-
'containment'. [I'll discuss all of this, further,
| A successful explanation of the photoelectric
| effect was gven by Einstein in 1905, the same
| year he published his special theory of relativity.
| As part of a paper on electromagnetic radiation,
| for which he received the Nobel prize in 1921.
| Einstein extended Planck's concept of quanti-
| zation to electromagnetic waves. He assumed
| that light (or any electromagnetic wave) of
| frequency f can be considered a stream of pho-
| tons. Each photon has an energy E given by
| E = hf
| where h is Planck's constant. Einstein main-
| tained that the energy of light is not distributed
| evenly over the classical wave front, but is con-
| centrated in discrete regions (or "bundles") called
| quanta or photons. [figure cross-reference] Ein-
| stein's simple view of the photoelectric effect
| was that a photon gives =all= its energy, hf, to
| a single electron in the metal. Electrons emitted
| from the surface of the metal possess the max-
| imum kinetic energy, [K sub max]. According
| to Einstein, the maximum kinetic energy for these
| liberated electrons is
| [K sub max] = hf - [phi] (40.9)
| where [phi] is called the ==work function== of
| the metal. The work function represents the min-
| imum energy with which an electron is bound in
| the metal, and is of the order of a few electron
| volts. [table cross-reference]
| With the photon theory of light, one can explain
| the features of the photoelectric effect that can-
| not be understood using classical concepts. These
| are briefly described in the order they were intro-
| duced earlier:
| 1. The fact that the photoelectric effect is not
| observed below a certain cutoff frequency fol-
| lows from the fact that the energy of the photon
| must be greater than or equal to [phi]. If the
| energy of the incoming photon is not equal to
| or greater than [phi], the electrons will never be
| ejected from the surface, regardless of the intens-
| ity of the light.
I explained what's actually going-on, above.
| 2. The fact that [K sub max] is independent of
| the light intensity can be understood with the
| following argument. If the light intensity is doub-
| led, the number of photons is doubled, which
| doubles the number of photoelectrons emitted.
| However, their kinetic energy, which equals
| hf - [phi], depends only on the light frequency
| and the work function, not on the light intensity.
I explained what's actually going-on, above.
| 3. The fact that [K sub max] increases with in-
| creasing frequency is easily understood with
| Equation 40.9.
I explained what's actually going-on, above.
| 4. Finally, the fact that the electrons are emitted
| almost instantaneously is consistent with the
| particle theory of light, in which the incident
| energy appears in small packets and there is
| a one-to-one interaction between photons and
| electrons. This is in contrast to having energy
| of the photons distributed uniformly over a
| large area.
This is an example of another internal Inconsist-
ency that crops-up routinely in "quantum mech-
Yes, "biliard ball" stuff conforms to "one-to-one
interaction[s]", but it does not conform to the
probabilistic conceptualization that exists at
the heart of qm's treatment of the so-called
"motions of electron particles within an atom".
If there actually were bunches of little "particles"
"orbiting nuclei" in-there, there'd have to be an
observable 'time'-differential that coincided
with the "probabilities" -- instead of what is
| A final confirmation of Einstein's theory is a test
| of the prediction of a linear relationship between
| f and [K sub max]. Indeed, such a linear rela-
| tionship is observed, [...]."
| [End of Quoted material. Thank You, Dr. Serway.]
The above "linear slope" stuff is only mostly-'true'.
As I discussed in a previous post in this thread,
this typical "linear slope" behavior results from
the way linear changes of the frequency of in-
cident "light" 'just' match-up with the harmonics
deeper into both the "nucleation" [compression]
and "shelling" [expansion] phases of the harm-
But at max-compression and max-expansion, the
SSW<->UES harmonics become radically-non-
linear, and depart, observably, from this "linear
All of this is vividly-disclosed in the "Compton
Refraction" QBASIC app that I posted long
ago. [It's in the upper-left frame of the app's
screen display.] And after doing that app, I
saw the 'same' curve, including the radical
departures from linearity, calculated via other
It's flat-out, a picture of the compression<->
expansion harmonics, but, apparently, folks've
missed seeing that.
That's it, with respect to the "photoelectric
effect" being the result of Continuous, non-
'random' wave<->wave dynamics.
There are "quanta" of energy emitted, but
they derive, Deterministically, in the wave<->
wave dynamics, not in so-called "collisions"
between so-called "particles".
And the "quanta" of energy that are emitted,
to =not= leave an 'atom' as some "self-contained"
"particle" of energy, but are, themselves, Con-
tinuous with, and within, the UES, existing as
"fluctuations" within it, and contributing to it's
Tapered 'sustaining' of 'atoms' [of SSW<->UES
harmonics throughout the Universe.]
I'll discuss some stuff, at increased depth,
in anaother post in this thread.
k. p. collins
More information about the Neur-sci