OOPS! As many electrons as it takes! Right professor?

humanbydefault · 10:08 AM

“THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY: THE DARK SIDE OF THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT.” [By M. de Zayas, author of the book “Warning Scientific Discretion Advised”]

“Language is the biggest barrier to human progress because language is an encyclopedia of ignorance. Old perceptions are frozen into language and force us to look at the world in an old fashioned way. [Edward de bono].

PART ONE
No matter how many incursions you may do across countless Internet sites, books and other forms of literature concerning the so-called “photoelectric effect,” I promise you one thing:
“The arguments that you’re going read in this (controversial?) article have been brought to you as the fruit of my own personal work of IMAGINATION.” [Myself! Humanbydefault will guarantee it!]
But before getting right into the heart of Einstein’s world class achievement, allow me to introduce you the elements that make up for the good, the bad and the ugly of such amazing puzzle of our reality.
Q. What is the “photoelectric effect”?
A. When light shines on a metal surface, the surface “emits electrons.” Those “electrons” are sometimes referred as “photo-electrons.” [This is a short conclusion I’d rate it as being fairly general].
Allow me to stop just right here to explain the reasons for the use of those intriguing QUOTATION MARKS you won’t see “hanging on both sides” of words like electrons, emission, knockings, ejecting and even the scandalous transforming in any of the millions of existent descriptions about the mentioned effect. Since those useful little marks on top of those words are what we need to uncover the worse side of the UGLY, I warn you about the fact that words could also be used to hide evidences in support of BAD theories, namely Bohr’s atomic model.
“To emit,” “to knock out,” “to eject,” “to cause the ejection or emission,” “to transform,” those are some of the verbs currently used to depict the action of a “photon” after “colliding” against an “electron.”
As you could easily realize, the phraseology has changed a bit and that [no matter your assumed irrelevancy such issue may or may not have] is due to the BAD angle of its theoretical side. From a more classical and “primitive” knocking and ejecting, the technical language used to express this effect has “jumped” into more sophisticated and CONVENTIENT ways of linguistic expressions… more wave-friendly perhaps? “Emitting” and even the outrageous hint to a “photon-transformation into an electron…”
Q. Are we witnessing the first signs of a radical theoretical mind change?
A. I certainly hope so! The sooner the better!
Q. What was the revolutionary idea behind the “photo-electric effect”?
A. It helped to demonstrate that light was made up by “chunks” of energy [quantum of light] and such energy was in direct proportionality with the frequency of the wave instead of its amplitude as it was wrongly thought in the past. It also proved that some highly energetic photons [as those quanta of light were later called] were able to… [OH LORD! Which one should I use to described the effect…?] COLLIDE with “electrons” eventually causing them to be EJECTED from their original orbit… (Feel free to correct me if I have misused those underlined verbs on purpose however I’d like to point out the indisputable fact that you’ll find similar descriptions of the same event elsewhere too).
Albert Einstein received the Noble Prize in 1921 for his work in what’s known today as the “photoelectric effect.” Since the content of my views was (mainly) written for a physics-friendly audience, I decided to omit both the antecedents concerning the bulk of previous research conducting to the “photo-electric effect” and the experimental set-up performed by R.A. Millikan in 1913-1914. I suggest to any potential reader of my writings, anyone who was not familiar with the subject, to go to any serious page of the Internet and to acquire the basics skills needed to be able to learn about a truth that’s been missed behind our false perception of reality. Allow me to give you a good tip:

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000...oelectric.html

It's simple and besides... you could find pretty pictures too!
Being said that, let’s talk about the nature of light first. Light and its nature has been the subject of an old theoretical dispute between English and German physicists for centuries [no one could deny it]. There was a small group that believed that light was composed by a bunch of “lumps” of E-M energy [Newton among them]. The other group [Young among them] however, insisted on the wave-nature of light and considered the idea of “particleness” nothing but horrendous. The “two slit experiment” was [and continues to be… at least for me] the best proof that light [as ENERGY] PROPAGATES as a wave. You have to excuse the use and abuse of capital letters sometimes; it’s my style… Anyway! I see the lesson of Young experiment as a wake-up call, a sort of “universal revelation” of the true nature of light and matter after one of the simplest experimental displays in science… I’m speaking for myself here, no disrespect!
Then the question remains:
Is light a “particle” too? Allow me to answer this question by posing another. Is there any way available for energy to propagate throughout the vacuum in a different configuration rather than in waves? [Let’s put it in other way] Could light chose to spread itself across space in any other way than in waves? Of course not! So it is reasonably logical to see why early physicists were misled assuming light as an endless indivisible entity. Time has passed since those early disagreements of the “chicken or the egg” nature. Scientific progress has made its presence in our societies but the fact of the matter is that light STILL TODAY propagates as a wave and not as “chunks”… Make no mistakes about it!
SO! I hope that THAT takes care of the WAVE SIDE of the story about light. Now! I need you [please] to pay attention to the BAD side of the story.
Imagine that you could have ENERGY in a liquid form… hypothetically speaking! Let’s say that E-M energy was just like clear and plain water. This “magic water” of my story will have the ability to move across space in waves every time we throw some of its content away. We will observe that the bigger and closer its waves crests get, the greater volume of water we were able to throw at a given time… this concept is called frequency. Then it shouldn’t be the end of the world to assume that by making water-waves to “FOLD-in” [just like a piece of paper would] we were “putting in” more ENERGY [water or paper in my analogy] without changing the actual size of the original wave. It is not a problem [I assume] to conclude that a “folded” piece of paper could hold more energy [paper] than an open-spread sheet of the same type of paper. For more details you could ask any of those ladies of older generations about their old fashion fans.
The issue about the LIMITED quantity making up for a “lump” of E-M energy was observed by Max Plank around the year 1900. He resolved the puzzle of the resulting spectrum of radiation emitted in a form of light while experimenting with what physicists then called a “black body.” Plank observed that the only plausible way to explain his results was to assume that light had to be “quantized” [quantified] in some “denominations” just like money. So! If the frequency of the light increased with its energy is fair to say that SOMEWHERE SOMETHING had to do the “job” of sort of “FOLDING” some of that ENERGY into a more “compact package.”
Q. If frequency could be seen as the density of paper being folded into a more compact structure, what is intensity then?
A. NO BIG DEAL! Intensity could be translated into the actual size of a fan with equal number of folding. Let’s say that you could fold a small piece of paper back and forward ten times and you want to duplicate the original “intensity” of the fan, all you need to do is look for a bigger piece of paper [twice as long] folding it also ten times. You’d have increased the “intensity” of the initial “paper wave” by two.
At this point, my story takes a different theoretical path getting far from what you may read in those fancy WebPages repeating over and over again the same empty arguments.
If light is in fact a “crunch” of light with no mass and no charges…
Q. How could such “lump” of pure E-M energy be able to BLOWN-APART a “piece of matter” from the very structure of the atom?
Q. Could any one out-there [please] could answer me why the molecular structure on the surface of the metal (previously) shined with light did not change its chemical properties?
Q. I have been told that if an atom looses one electron it will become an ion. Is the “photoelectric effect” capable of turning into ions every single atom on the surface of the metal being previously and continuously exposed to light?
Q. After having read a great deal of articles about the “photo-electric effect” do you know how many times did I find clues to where atoms GET their electrons BACK and with it their alleged neutrality?
A. ZERO!
Have you learned about such results in relation to direct consequences of the effect? Cause I haven’t!
You are a smart guy… Just think about it! Don’t let yourself be overwhelmed by “old `perceptions frozen into language…”
Let’s hypothetically assume that every single atom of this vast universe was the amazing result of a pattern of interference between two or more specks of pure radiation energy. [I have given a name to that special pattern in my book. I baptized them as “Standing Nuclear waves”].
In my imagination I saw a sort of HARMONIC structure in a multi-level configuration limited by scales. I want you to picture a huge PIANO inside your mind. In my hypothetical example I will ask you to introduce some weird design changes to that same piano that you have already figure out. Let’s assume that the very first scale (the first seven keys starting from left to right) was looking just like the real one. Be ready! Because the weird thing comes in a moment! Let’s change the SIZE and SPACE between the keys of the next scale (the one located next to the right). As a matter of fact, I want you to change each consecutive scale by the square of the distance between its previous scales. Don’t worry! I will not ask you to play such incredible piano!
However I’ll ask you to imagine what would happen the moment we play one key. I’d imagine that harmonics of the key played above in my thought experiment would produce some sort of vibration on its far-reaching octaves across the piano. If we assumed that the first key from the very first scale was the first level of energy [an unknown “particle” by the way] we could easily identify the scale of “electrons” as one of the last to the right.
Q. Are you saying that whatever is causing the first scale to spin and “vibrate” will be responsible for what’s happening in distant scales too?
A. That’s my point! The smallest “sub-atomic particle” of the human’s particle catalogue [by the time of these writings by the way] was still considered to be the quark. I’d imagine them to be located somewhere in the vicinity of the point closer to the middle scale in our hypothetical piano. To the right, a more familiar scale would spread making up for what we’ve named “protons.” I would assign the black keys to be the rightful holders of a different concept: the NEUTRON. Imagine [again, hypothetically speaking] that NEUTRONS were some sort of “solution” to accommodate two keys [from different energy families] both of the same scale, into a new form or “COMPROMISE.” I know! We have never seen a piano key to decay before, but we could theoretically assume that those black keys were indeed an intermediate sound between two adjacent ones. Now! Every piano (including the one built in our minds) has black keys in every single scale… Am I right or wrong?
So! What rights do we have to ignore that the same “energy-solution” seen before with NEUTRONS would be repeated across the entire range of scales? Haven’t you heard about the existence of a concept called SYMMETRY before? Of course you have! Then why should we ignore the lesson when it comes to the nature of the smallest speck of matter? I’ll tell you why! Because we don’t do our homework!
Q. Out of the countless times we’ve looked at the spectrum of light in the simplest case found in nature [the hydrogen atom] have you ever asked yourself (at least once) where those energy levels came from?
A. I know you will start talking about De Broglie’s work and the “Pauli exclusion principle.” I also know that you will include phrases like quantum numbers and sophisticated words like Fermions and Bosons. However after all the effective display of equations and arguments you won’t be able to supply me with a single solid argument that could explain the origin of those energy levels. One thing is trying to describe them [with mathematical logos] and a totally different one trying to explain where they came from in the first place! Since the present atomic model is obsolete and flawed… No offense! I won’t ask you to embarrass yourself by attempting such a task!
I’ll give you the answer to the question instead… The hypothetical piano!
(To be continued…)
HUMANBYDEFAULT

humanbydefault · **Oops! ... [part Two] -** 11-02-2005, 11:14 AM

PART TWO

LEARNING HOW TO PLAY ON MY PIANO

Q. What is the true meaning of each single “key” or “note” inside a given scale?
A. POTENTIAL for the actual existence of an “atomic oscillator.” What I mean by potential here is nothing more than a POSSIBLE place to insert a new “rung” to the “ladder” [atom]. As any regular ladder you know it could only be ONE RUNG built at the same level.
Pay close attention to this part because it is crucial to comprehend not only my theory, but also “Shell theory” in ways never told to any one before. Imagine that you were faced with an invisible ladder. The fact that a musical note could reach a level of “musical perfection” including a wide range of related harmonics does not automatically means that it has to be that way always. The human voice is rich in harmonics but each one is different just as our own personal fingerprints. The same phenomenon is happening in MATTER too. Hydrogen is so primitive in its scales that could only have ONE NOTE [the very first key to the very left of each scale]. When the first “key vibrates,” such resonance extends across further scales to the right. One note [proton] also vibrates and therefore in the next scale one single note [electron] also does the same. There are other scales to the right of the “electron scale” which is sad to say, they are presently ignored and its roll has been wrongly blamed on a virtual wave-function “own by electrons” while performing “tunneling”… To avoid complications, let’s leave this topic for a future discussion.
This is the reason why hydrogen has always been considered by earlier physicists as “piece of cake and it is still one of the atoms more studied in labs worldwide… Scientists have been dealing with the simplest piano there is in the entire creation! A pathetic one-note little piano!
Louis De Broglie was so right! He was the first to realize that standing waves were the only plausible explanation to why ENERGY was quantized by the limitations imposed by the existence of such pattern.
But he was stopped in the middle of the road to discovery when he chose to ignore the hidden origin of those patterns of interference. He lived in a world that has refused to revise [at least yet] the concept of “particles.” Others after him have continued to “see” the atom as a bunch of different “particles” with an ELEMENTAL nature given to them by some human-made “standard theory.” My work not only explains the true origin of those “standing waves” “visualized” more than a century ago by the French physicist but also the true essence of MASS and its important roll inside the atom. The atom of hydrogen is the “building block” [the first “piano key”] of every single and more complex atomic structure found in the universe for that matter.
More complex atoms are the result of BONDS taking place at each and every scale from left to right in that hypothetical piano of mine. Those BONDS are the reason for being for NEUTRONS, isotopes, molecules and crystals we call matter. Our piano is constantly playing a non-stop melody called existence and light is an indisputable evidence of that process.
Q. What happens when two or more “energy families” rearrange themselves in one single structure?
A. A BOND is formed! In other words, a perfect ENERGY match would be reached at a specific level inside a given scale where a bond happens to take place. The BONDING process will guarantee a new structure based on the spatial projection of the SUM of all POTENTIAL (invisible ladder rungs) of both “energy families” together. A more complex energy configuration will also be “spread” across further scales. This is like incorporating more ‘keys” to every single scale in a less primitive piano. As more and more “energy families” incorporate into the first structure [the “backbone” or hydrogen atom] more POTENTIALS [rungs of the invisible ladder] and also new BONDS will join together. First isotopes, then molecules and later more complex molecules will form, making our initial primitive piano to be part of the orchestra of MATTER and LIFE. As in a regular piano, no two keys could occupy the same place. It won’t make any sense to include two keys that would produce the same note… A smart move don’t you agree?
Think about what I’ve just said above! A SUM of POSSIBLE (and invisible) rungs of two or more ladders [with equal length] attached to each other at different points...!
What do we have? THE OVERLAPPING OF HARMONICS! In other words, electronic sub-shells overlapping just the way observed in previous spectroscopic measurements.
Sub-shell overlapping was never a matter of a capricious configuration on the part of the universe with the only purpose to make us feel confused and intellectually small. I blame precisely those OLD CONCEPTIONS frozen in time for our present miseries both in the theoretical field and in no lesser degree in the philosophical side of science.
(... and next, the conclusion)
HUMANBYDEFAULT

humanbydefault · **OOPS! ... [The conclusion] -** 11-02-2005, 11:18 AM

PART THREE

The process of integration as a result of the association [nucleonic bonding] between “energy families” is a two-way “road.” When the nucleus emits energy suffering from a form of decay the harmonic structure of the whole atom is also restructured into a new element. With an entirely new configuration an atom could gain or loose “keys” changing the design of its scales from the very point where the mutation took place to the very last scale to the right. If a change has taken place inside the nucleus of the atom is easy to understand why the entire electronic configuration would also reflect those exact changes. Do not forget that the very existence of the first scale [the first scale to the left] will determine the further existence of the others. In a regular piano the scales and their keys are physically part of it in a permanent way. However, If we assumed the scales of our hypothetical piano to be SPATIAL PROJECTIONS instead of GIVEN PHYSICAL ENTITIES, then a removal of a key located to the very left of the piano will cause an instantaneous “vacuum” inside the harmonics structure. Not just every single octave of the key being removed but with them the POSSIBILITIES (or rungs of the invisible ladder) will also be GONE.
Q. What are those rungs that you mention so often?
A. HARMONICS included after each new “energy family” joins the atomic assembly. In SHELL theory experiments carried on the spectrum of scattered radiation from the atomic nucleus proved that a similar structure found in “electronic orbits” were also observed inside deeper levels. My theory proposes the mechanism for such conclusions. Instead of a wide range of “elemental particles” with different mass, internal energy, charge and polarity I proposed instead an integral structure built upon the bonding of “energy families” where there was just ONE ENRGY and ONE PATTERN involved. An atom where MASS was nothing more than inert ash which presence was required to prevent the occurrence of a perfect vacuum. It’s precisely the unavoidable presence of MASS what’s make light and electricity possible.
If you happened to pay attention to standing waves before, you would probably realized that the result of two confronting waves were able to produce a sort of spinning wave. The resulting spinning wave was not present before the interference between the two original ones however the consequences of its appearance would certainly make a different in the fabric of the universe. Space could be thought as a big scenario were ENERGY (E-M energy and heat) along with MASS could play along as long as any form of those mentioned above honors this vast scenario with its presence. There is no place in this universe [no matter how tiny] where we could find a PERFECT VACUUM. Inside the atom (according with my theory) the highest radiation energy ever imagined found refuge from total extinction and a slow dissipation into heat by doing the logical thing to do: confronting its own kind and redirecting its dissipation upon themselves. Sound is a perfect example of the phenomenon. If there was a place on Earth with perfect acoustic requirements [with no dissipation or absorption of energy carried on each vibration whatsoever] an endless and continuos standing wave would imitate a current circulating in a super-conducting wire. It is the (impossible) goal for a perfect saving of energy what allows the existence of atoms, matter and ultimately life in its infinite forms.
Back to our hypothetical piano… If we managed to replace the spinning MASS imposed by the universe on space by other forms of energy, E-M energy for example, we would intentionally allowing the instantaneous absorption of ENERGY and the removal of MASS inside those patterns of interference [the keys of our piano]. Just as the energy used to “play a key” in a regular piano was transformed into sound, a quantified magnitude of E-M energy will see itself TRANSFORMED [re-modulated] into a new wave in accordance with the “sound” of the given note “being played.” It’s worth noting that the required ENERGY has to MATCH the magnitude of MASS previously spinning inside the pattern… No more and no less!
At this point I believe that a very important point must be clarify. Less energy will cause the original ENERGY [E-M energy] to be rejected. More ENERGY [but not much of it] will cause either a scattering of a new quantum or a total balance of energies inside the HARMONIC. This point is very important to understand eventually when optimal conditions are favorable for TUNNELING and its future applications in a concept called “quantum dot.”
I have said that in order to manufacture one “electron charge” we need to fulfill the following two requirements:
1- That the net E-M energy supplied to the atom was a perfect match of the MASS spinning inside a given harmonic. Since MASS is the actual capacity for energy modulation inside the atomic oscillator we have no other choice but to comply with this condition.
2- That there was a “escape path” for MASS to go to. If the case mentioned above does not meet this important condition the E-M energy would be rejected at once. It shouldn’t be a problem [in my personal opinion] to understand my point. The atoms of carbon in the crystal of diamond [for example] are bond in such way that MASS has no “room” available to reach the outside vacuum eventually allowing ENERGY to occupy its place during the modulation process.
With these final conclusions I’ll end this posting. This article is an important piece and material evidence of my theory. It will be sent for copyright purposes as well as most of my previous work. It is my hope that you have gain some insides into a new interpretation of our reality, a new vision that will open your imagination into the deepest secrets of the unknown.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

www.humanbydefault.com

ã Copyright 2005.

humanbydefault · 11-28-2005, 11:40 AM