Anda di halaman 1dari 42

LIGHT QUANTA AND THE FREQUENCY OF LIGHT

By V. Laxmanan, Sc. D.

I recently asked a few friends, who are science and engineering professionals, some of whom have advanced degrees, what they understood by the term “energy quantum”, as defined in physics. This was to lay the ground for another kind of “quantum” that we will discuss shortly, after some additional empirical observations become available in the days (following March 17, 2014, the date of this writing), weeks and months ahead.

LIGHT QUANTA AND THE FREQUENCY OF LIGHT By V. Laxmanan, Sc. D. I recently asked ahttp://www.howdoweknowit.com/tag/millikan/ (No matter how bright your red light is, you won’t knock any electrons out of the sodium metal [4]. But shine even a weak blue light on it, and immediately, it starts to release electrons). Also, https://www.llnl.gov/str/June05/pdfs/06_05.2.pdf (blue light causes sodium to release electrons, but red light does not [5]). ________________________________________________________________________ Email address: vlaxmanan@hotmail.com The author is a retired research professional, with advanced degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering who has spent his entire professional career in leading US research institutions, in academia ( MIT and CWRU), in government (NASA), and in corporate research labs (Allied Chemical Corporate R & D, now part of Honeywell, and the General Motors Research Labs). He has also published many widely cited scientific articles in leading peer-reviewed international journals in both physics and the materials sciences. His current research interests include the study of business, financial, and economic data using methods commonly used in physics and the “hard” sciences. This has led him to propose a broad generalization of the Page 1 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-0-12" src="pdf-obj-0-12.jpg">

Electrons out

LIGHT QUANTA AND THE FREQUENCY OF LIGHT By V. Laxmanan, Sc. D. I recently asked ahttp://www.howdoweknowit.com/tag/millikan/ (No matter how bright your red light is, you won’t knock any electrons out of the sodium metal [4]. But shine even a weak blue light on it, and immediately, it starts to release electrons). Also, https://www.llnl.gov/str/June05/pdfs/06_05.2.pdf (blue light causes sodium to release electrons, but red light does not [5]). ________________________________________________________________________ Email address: vlaxmanan@hotmail.com The author is a retired research professional, with advanced degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering who has spent his entire professional career in leading US research institutions, in academia ( MIT and CWRU), in government (NASA), and in corporate research labs (Allied Chemical Corporate R & D, now part of Honeywell, and the General Motors Research Labs). He has also published many widely cited scientific articles in leading peer-reviewed international journals in both physics and the materials sciences. His current research interests include the study of business, financial, and economic data using methods commonly used in physics and the “hard” sciences. This has led him to propose a broad generalization of the Page 1 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-0-16" src="pdf-obj-0-16.jpg">
LIGHT QUANTA AND THE FREQUENCY OF LIGHT By V. Laxmanan, Sc. D. I recently asked ahttp://www.howdoweknowit.com/tag/millikan/ (No matter how bright your red light is, you won’t knock any electrons out of the sodium metal [4]. But shine even a weak blue light on it, and immediately, it starts to release electrons). Also, https://www.llnl.gov/str/June05/pdfs/06_05.2.pdf (blue light causes sodium to release electrons, but red light does not [5]). ________________________________________________________________________ Email address: vlaxmanan@hotmail.com The author is a retired research professional, with advanced degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering who has spent his entire professional career in leading US research institutions, in academia ( MIT and CWRU), in government (NASA), and in corporate research labs (Allied Chemical Corporate R & D, now part of Honeywell, and the General Motors Research Labs). He has also published many widely cited scientific articles in leading peer-reviewed international journals in both physics and the materials sciences. His current research interests include the study of business, financial, and economic data using methods commonly used in physics and the “hard” sciences. This has led him to propose a broad generalization of the Page 1 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-0-18" src="pdf-obj-0-18.jpg">
LIGHT QUANTA AND THE FREQUENCY OF LIGHT By V. Laxmanan, Sc. D. I recently asked ahttp://www.howdoweknowit.com/tag/millikan/ (No matter how bright your red light is, you won’t knock any electrons out of the sodium metal [4]. But shine even a weak blue light on it, and immediately, it starts to release electrons). Also, https://www.llnl.gov/str/June05/pdfs/06_05.2.pdf (blue light causes sodium to release electrons, but red light does not [5]). ________________________________________________________________________ Email address: vlaxmanan@hotmail.com The author is a retired research professional, with advanced degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering who has spent his entire professional career in leading US research institutions, in academia ( MIT and CWRU), in government (NASA), and in corporate research labs (Allied Chemical Corporate R & D, now part of Honeywell, and the General Motors Research Labs). He has also published many widely cited scientific articles in leading peer-reviewed international journals in both physics and the materials sciences. His current research interests include the study of business, financial, and economic data using methods commonly used in physics and the “hard” sciences. This has led him to propose a broad generalization of the Page 1 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-0-20" src="pdf-obj-0-20.jpg">

Red light

in

No

Electrons

Blue light

in

LIGHT QUANTA AND THE FREQUENCY OF LIGHT By V. Laxmanan, Sc. D. I recently asked ahttp://www.howdoweknowit.com/tag/millikan/ (No matter how bright your red light is, you won’t knock any electrons out of the sodium metal [4]. But shine even a weak blue light on it, and immediately, it starts to release electrons). Also, https://www.llnl.gov/str/June05/pdfs/06_05.2.pdf (blue light causes sodium to release electrons, but red light does not [5]). ________________________________________________________________________ Email address: vlaxmanan@hotmail.com The author is a retired research professional, with advanced degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering who has spent his entire professional career in leading US research institutions, in academia ( MIT and CWRU), in government (NASA), and in corporate research labs (Allied Chemical Corporate R & D, now part of Honeywell, and the General Motors Research Labs). He has also published many widely cited scientific articles in leading peer-reviewed international journals in both physics and the materials sciences. His current research interests include the study of business, financial, and economic data using methods commonly used in physics and the “hard” sciences. This has led him to propose a broad generalization of the Page 1 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-0-34" src="pdf-obj-0-34.jpg">

Sodium Metal

Schematic Illustration of the Photoelectric Effect with Sodium Metal

Millikan [1-3] studied the photoelectric effect, with sodium and lithium, in his Nobel Prize winning experiments. No electrons are produced even with very bright red light shining on sodium metal; see http://www.howdoweknowit.com/tag/millikan/ (No matter how bright your red light is, you won’t knock any electrons out of the sodium metal [4]. But shine even a weak blue light on it, and immediately, it starts to release electrons). Also, https://www.llnl.gov/str/June05/pdfs/06_05.2.pdf (blue light causes sodium to release electrons, but red light does not [5]).

________________________________________________________________________

Email address: vlaxmanan@hotmail.com The author is a retired research professional, with advanced degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering who has spent his entire professional career in leading US research institutions, in academia ( MIT and CWRU), in government (NASA), and in corporate research labs (Allied Chemical Corporate R & D, now part of Honeywell, and the General Motors Research Labs). He has also published many widely cited scientific articles in leading peer-reviewed international journals in both physics and the materials sciences. His current research interests include the study of business, financial, and economic data using methods commonly used in physics and the “hard” sciences. This has led him to propose a broad generalization of the

Planck-Einstein ideas from quantum physics and their application to financial, economic, business,

social, and political, sports and other systems. He has also recently been active in the analysis of the climate data, especially global average temperature data using similar methods (a new physics of global warming) and as recently created a Facebook group called Global Warming for the Layman; see https://www.facebook.com/groups/GWforlayman/, on January 5, 2014, aimed at discussing global warming data in an easy-to-understand manner, with short posts; see also

Besides the well-known elementary energy quantum of Planck, there is also an elementary quantum of electrical charge, which was also determined by Millikan in his Nobel Prize winning experiments. Let q denote such an elementary and indivisible unit of charge. If N such indivisible units are attached to a microscopically small oil drop, the total electrical charge on the

drop is Q = qN. This will determine the force acting on the drop and hence the velocity with which the drop will move in an electrical field. If the number of

units N changes, the total charge Q will change but q = ∆Q/∆N will remain

constant. Here ∆Q is the change in the total electrical charge due to the change in the number of units, ∆N, of the elementary unit. The absolute magnitude of the electrical charge on a single electron, one of the fundamental constants of nature, was determined by Millikan [1, 6-9], in his famous oil drop experiments, by careful measurements of the changes in the velocity of the oil

drops in response to changes in ∆Q = q∆N. The oil drop experiment is still

considered to be among the Top 10 most beautiful science experiments [10].

According to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc 2 , the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content, which is an exact quote from Einstein’s 1905

paper [11, 12]; see also Ref. [13]. Thus, the energy content of a body of mass m can be determined by multiplying by c 2 where c is the speed of light; see Refs. [14, 15] for the numerical value of c and how it was measured. Hence, if a

person weighs 70 kg (or has a body mass of 70 kg), the energy equivalent can

be calculated using Einstein’s famous equation. Then, it seems that one should

be able to tell exactly how

many energy quanta a person has since, by

definition, the total energy E = Nε where E is the total energy content ε is

the elementary (and indivisible) energy quantum; see also the remarks

attributed to Planck in the centennial review of Planck’s paper by Kragh

[16], in December 2000. This is exactly analogous to the equation Q = Nq

for the total charge on the electrified oil drop in Millikan’s experiments.

WHAT IS A QUANTUM?

(Planck and Bose’s method of deriving the same law)

  • 1. Since E = mc 2 , can we determine how many indivisible energy quanta each person has?

  • 2. How many tiny ball bearings of mass m will equal the total mass M of a person, if we put both of them on a weighing balance? Is there a unique answer to this question?

  • 3. When we buy a dozen roses, the florist also gives us a small packet of plant food, of 10g quantity. Since plant food is only obtained in 10g packets, can we ever get 5g, or 12 g, or 23 g of plant food?

  • 4. Millikan deduced the absolute magnitude of the electrical charge q on a single electron from his observations on the motions of literally hundreds of microscopically small, electrified, oil drops with the total charge Q = Nq where N is the number of electrons attached to the drop. He showed that a single value of q can be used to explain all of his observations.

What is the energy quantum? What makes the energy quantum “indivisible”? How many energy quanta does a person have? These questions can be answered but with a slight twist, which can be understood, as follows.

For example, I recently picked up a dozen roses and along with it came a small packet of plant food. The label said that the packet weighed 10 grams (10 g). Since I can only get packets of 10g each, I can never get 5g of the plant food, or

12g, or 23 g of plant food. I can only get 10g, or 20g, or 30g, whole multiples of the basic 10g packet. This is an example of a “quantum” of plant food.

Likewise, steel ball bearings, used in many different applications in the modern world, are made in many different sizes. They are typically made of 440C stainless steel (name given to a specific composition of stainless steel.)

Several billion ball bearings are made each year [17, 18]. They are all perfectly spherical and the diameter of each steel ball is very accurately controlled, to thousandths of an inch. Hence, each ball bearing has a fixed mass m, which varies very little, just like the 10g packet of plant food.

Although I can have any mass m of the ball bearing I desire, depending on the diameter, the total mass M = Nm is a fixed multiple of m. Although m can vary continuously, M will always be some multiple N of the “elementary” m. Hence, different values of N will be obtained, for the same M, depending on the choice of m (i.e., diameter of the ball bearing). In other words, there is no fixed value of N for the same total M.

With this background, the purpose here is to discuss what is meant by the elementary energy quantum ε, see also Table 1, and if one can indeed determine the number N in the formula E = Nε = mc 2 where we take m as the mass a typical adult in kilograms. Or, look at it this way. How many tiny ball bearings of mass m will be exactly equal your weight M? Can we determine the “N” in these problems?

In Table 1, I have summarized the values of the elementary energy quantum for light of different colors, using the basic equations given by Planck (1900) and Einstein (1905) in the papers they published in the years indicated in the parentheses, which revolutionized physics at the turn of the 20 th century; see also Refs. [19-25] for additional details. Here’s a sample calculation.

The speed of light c

=

λν

=

λ/T where λ is the distance (equal to one

wavelength) covered by light in the time T (the period of the wave) and frequency ν = 1/T. The accepted value of c = 299,792, 458 m/s = 2.99792458 x 10 8 m/s. For wavelength of 700 nanometer (for red light), the frequency ν = c/λ = 299,792,458/ 700 x 10 -9 = 428,274.9 x 10 9 = 428.27 x 10 12 Hz = 428.27

THz. Multiplying by the Planck constant h = 6.62606957 x 10 -34 J.s gives the energy quanta values (in units of Joules). The last column gives the energy in eV, which is the work done (or energy needed) to move a single electron in an electric field across a potential of one volt.

Table 1: The elementary energy quantum for light of different colors

Color

Wavelength

Frequency f

Energy

Energy

λ (nm)

(or ν)

quantum ε = hν

quantum

THz

(in Joule)

ε = hν (in eV)

Violet

380

 
  • 788.93 5.22749E-19

3.26

 

390

 
  • 768.70 5.09345E-19

3.18

Blue

450

 
  • 666.21 4.41432E-19

2.76

Green

495

 
  • 605.64 4.01302E-19

2.50

Yellow

570

 
  • 525.95 3.48499E-19

2.18

Orange

590

 
  • 508.12 3.36686E-19

2.10

Red

620

 
  • 483.54 3.20394E-19

2.00

 

700

 
  • 428.27 2.83778E-19

1.77

 

750

 
  • 399.72 2.64859E-19

1.65

Infrared

1234

 
  • 242.94 1.60976E-19

1.00

Red

650

 
  • 461.22 3.05607E-19

1.91

Yellow

580

 
  • 516.88 3.42491E-19

2.14

Green

540

 
  • 555.17 3.6786E-19

2.30

Blue

470

 
  • 637.86 4.22648E-19

2.64

Violet

440

 
  • 681.35 4.51465E-19

2.82

Notes: The typical human eye is sensitive to range of wavelengths 390-700 nanometer, nm, which is one billionth of a meter. The calculations here cover the range of wavelengths for different light colors given in the sources cited [13-16]. The Wikipedia article [13] also gives the energy calculations for different colors, in units of eV (electron volt) and kJ mol -1 . The SI

energy unit of Joules is used here.

One electron volt = 1.602175656 x 10 -19 Joule.

As we see here, there is no single value for the energy quantum for light. It all depends on the color of light (like the mass of a ball bearing which depends on our choice of its diameter or the smallest size of the plant food packet). Even for the same color of light, say blue, there is a range of values for the energy quantum ε = hν = hf. Blue light has the frequency range 606-668 THz, or the wavelength range 450-495 nm, see summary in Table 2.

Blue light has an energy quantum. Red light also has an energy quantum. As we see from the photoelectricity experiments, the effects of blue light and red

light on sodium metal are very different. Does red light have a smaller energy quantum? If so, has the energy quantum that blue light has got “divided” up into something smaller that we see in red light? What makes the energy

quantum “indivisible”? Is there is a truly “indivisible” energy quantum, like the “quantum” of electrical charge observed in the oil drop experiments?

Everyone seems to agree, when pushed into a discussion, that the energy

“quantum” is “indivisible” only if the frequency is fixed. But the frequency

itself is infinitely divisible! Herein lies a contradiction, IHOPA (in the humble

opinion of the present author). We must come to grips with this characteristic

of the “energy quantum” to understand the “money quantum” observed when

we discuss the problem of wealth generation by the richest of billionaires.

Table 2: Frequency and the color of light

Color of light/Name of radiation

Frequency f or ν

Red (620-750 nm)

400-484 THz

Orange (590-620 nm)

484-508 THz

Yellow (570-590 nm)

508-526 THz

Green (495-570 nm)

526-606 THz

 

606-668 THz

Blue (450-495nm) Violet (380-450 nm)

668-789 THz

Data sources: For frequencies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum and

Planck constant from NIST fundamental constants, 6.62606957 x 10 -34 Js.

The typical human eye is sensitive wavelengths in the range 390-700 nm (430-790 THz).

Wavelength and Frequencies used by Millikan

Wavelength

Wavelength

Frequency

Frequency

λ (Angstroms)

λ (nm)

ν (THz)

ν (10 13 Hz)

  • 5461 546.1

   
  • 548.97 54.90

  • 4339 433.9

   
  • 690.93 69.09

  • 4047 404.7

   
  • 740.78 74.08

  • 3650 365.0

 
  • 821.35 82.13

 
  • 3125 312.5

 
  • 959.34 95.93

 
  • 2535 253.5

 

1182.61

118.26

Millikan gives the wavelength in Angstroms and the frequencies in units of 10 13 per second (Hz); see references to the original papers at the end of this article.

WHAT FOLLOWS HERE: OPTIONAL, ONLY FOR THE ENQUIRING MINDS

Everything that follows here, after Tables 1 and 2, is purely for intellectual curiosity. I have shared here a simple way of deriving:

  • 1. Planck’s expression for the average energy U of N particles, in terms of the elementary energy quantum, ε which is U = ε /(e ε/kT 1).

  • 2. Einstein’s special relativity equations, especially his equation for the time difference shown by clocks held by observers who are moving relative to each other, which can be written as (t’ – t) = t [(1/β) – 1]; see text for details.

Finally, I have called attention to the fact that we have, IMHO, not yet built the clock that Einstein wants us to use to test his theory critically. These points might seem to be only peripherally related to the energy quantum of interest to us but are still important in the bigger context, since the

frequency of light, ν and ν’, as determined by observers moving relative to

each other, is also the subject of the first 1905 paper on the theory of relativity. Einstein [12] gives the following expression for the frequency of light as measured by the observers in relative motion, at the fixed speed U = v where U is the relative velocity, U = v is the rest frame. The quantity outside the LHS of the equation (highlighted in yellow) is the ratio of frequencies and RHS has v/c, is the ratio of velocity v to the speed of light c.

ν’/ν
ν’/ν

= { [ 1 (v/c)] /[ 1 + v/c)] } 1/2 ≈ [ 1 – (v/c) ]

WHY THE THEORY OF LIGHT QUANTA AND THE DEPENDENCE ON LIGHT FREQUENCY IS SO FASCINATING

The change in the frequency of a wave for an observer, moving relative to its source, is called the Doppler Effect (see Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect). As applied to light, it leads to either a blueshift or a redshift which enables us to determine the velocity with which distant stars or galaxies are either approaching or receding from the observer. Einstein [12] derives the following relativistic expression for the frequency ratio ν’/ν = √ [1 – (v/c)/[1 + (v/c)] ≈ √[ 1 – (v/c)] 2 = 1 (v/c).

WHY THE THEORY OF LIGHT QUANTA AND THE DEPENDENCE ON LIGHT FREQUENCY IS SO FASCINATING Thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect ) . As applied to light, it leads to either a blueshift or a redshift which enables us to determine the velocity with which distant stars or galaxies are either approaching or receding from the observer. Einstein [12] derives the following relativistic expression for the frequency ratio ν’/ν = √ [1 – (v/c)/[1 + (v/c)] ≈ √[ 1 – (v/c)] 2 = 1 – (v/c). Electrons out Red light in No Electrons Blue light in Sodium Metal Imagine observers in relative motion performing the experiment with sodium. If two observers are moving relative to each other, the frequency of the light changes as given above. Since v/c < 1, the ratio ν’/ν < 1. Hence, a high frequency for observer A will be perceived as a low frequency for observer B who is moving relative to observer A. Will the moving observing see the light as red instead of blue? If so, will one observer see electrons being emitted while the other does not? The Wikipedia animation is also recommended in this context, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect This too is an interesting consequence of the theory of relativity and we cannot view Einstein’s 1905 paper on light quanta as being completely divorced and independent of his theory of relativity. The reader is also referred to the discussion by Weinstein [26]. Surprisingly, Weinstein does not mention what has just been noted – the implications with respect to photoelectric effect because of the change in the frequency of light. Page 8 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-7-15" src="pdf-obj-7-15.jpg">

Electrons out

WHY THE THEORY OF LIGHT QUANTA AND THE DEPENDENCE ON LIGHT FREQUENCY IS SO FASCINATING Thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect ) . As applied to light, it leads to either a blueshift or a redshift which enables us to determine the velocity with which distant stars or galaxies are either approaching or receding from the observer. Einstein [12] derives the following relativistic expression for the frequency ratio ν’/ν = √ [1 – (v/c)/[1 + (v/c)] ≈ √[ 1 – (v/c)] 2 = 1 – (v/c). Electrons out Red light in No Electrons Blue light in Sodium Metal Imagine observers in relative motion performing the experiment with sodium. If two observers are moving relative to each other, the frequency of the light changes as given above. Since v/c < 1, the ratio ν’/ν < 1. Hence, a high frequency for observer A will be perceived as a low frequency for observer B who is moving relative to observer A. Will the moving observing see the light as red instead of blue? If so, will one observer see electrons being emitted while the other does not? The Wikipedia animation is also recommended in this context, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect This too is an interesting consequence of the theory of relativity and we cannot view Einstein’s 1905 paper on light quanta as being completely divorced and independent of his theory of relativity. The reader is also referred to the discussion by Weinstein [26]. Surprisingly, Weinstein does not mention what has just been noted – the implications with respect to photoelectric effect because of the change in the frequency of light. Page 8 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-7-19" src="pdf-obj-7-19.jpg">
WHY THE THEORY OF LIGHT QUANTA AND THE DEPENDENCE ON LIGHT FREQUENCY IS SO FASCINATING Thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect ) . As applied to light, it leads to either a blueshift or a redshift which enables us to determine the velocity with which distant stars or galaxies are either approaching or receding from the observer. Einstein [12] derives the following relativistic expression for the frequency ratio ν’/ν = √ [1 – (v/c)/[1 + (v/c)] ≈ √[ 1 – (v/c)] 2 = 1 – (v/c). Electrons out Red light in No Electrons Blue light in Sodium Metal Imagine observers in relative motion performing the experiment with sodium. If two observers are moving relative to each other, the frequency of the light changes as given above. Since v/c < 1, the ratio ν’/ν < 1. Hence, a high frequency for observer A will be perceived as a low frequency for observer B who is moving relative to observer A. Will the moving observing see the light as red instead of blue? If so, will one observer see electrons being emitted while the other does not? The Wikipedia animation is also recommended in this context, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect This too is an interesting consequence of the theory of relativity and we cannot view Einstein’s 1905 paper on light quanta as being completely divorced and independent of his theory of relativity. The reader is also referred to the discussion by Weinstein [26]. Surprisingly, Weinstein does not mention what has just been noted – the implications with respect to photoelectric effect because of the change in the frequency of light. Page 8 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-7-21" src="pdf-obj-7-21.jpg">
WHY THE THEORY OF LIGHT QUANTA AND THE DEPENDENCE ON LIGHT FREQUENCY IS SO FASCINATING Thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect ) . As applied to light, it leads to either a blueshift or a redshift which enables us to determine the velocity with which distant stars or galaxies are either approaching or receding from the observer. Einstein [12] derives the following relativistic expression for the frequency ratio ν’/ν = √ [1 – (v/c)/[1 + (v/c)] ≈ √[ 1 – (v/c)] 2 = 1 – (v/c). Electrons out Red light in No Electrons Blue light in Sodium Metal Imagine observers in relative motion performing the experiment with sodium. If two observers are moving relative to each other, the frequency of the light changes as given above. Since v/c < 1, the ratio ν’/ν < 1. Hence, a high frequency for observer A will be perceived as a low frequency for observer B who is moving relative to observer A. Will the moving observing see the light as red instead of blue? If so, will one observer see electrons being emitted while the other does not? The Wikipedia animation is also recommended in this context, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect This too is an interesting consequence of the theory of relativity and we cannot view Einstein’s 1905 paper on light quanta as being completely divorced and independent of his theory of relativity. The reader is also referred to the discussion by Weinstein [26]. Surprisingly, Weinstein does not mention what has just been noted – the implications with respect to photoelectric effect because of the change in the frequency of light. Page 8 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-7-23" src="pdf-obj-7-23.jpg">

Red light

in

No

Electrons

Blue light

in

WHY THE THEORY OF LIGHT QUANTA AND THE DEPENDENCE ON LIGHT FREQUENCY IS SO FASCINATING Thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect ) . As applied to light, it leads to either a blueshift or a redshift which enables us to determine the velocity with which distant stars or galaxies are either approaching or receding from the observer. Einstein [12] derives the following relativistic expression for the frequency ratio ν’/ν = √ [1 – (v/c)/[1 + (v/c)] ≈ √[ 1 – (v/c)] 2 = 1 – (v/c). Electrons out Red light in No Electrons Blue light in Sodium Metal Imagine observers in relative motion performing the experiment with sodium. If two observers are moving relative to each other, the frequency of the light changes as given above. Since v/c < 1, the ratio ν’/ν < 1. Hence, a high frequency for observer A will be perceived as a low frequency for observer B who is moving relative to observer A. Will the moving observing see the light as red instead of blue? If so, will one observer see electrons being emitted while the other does not? The Wikipedia animation is also recommended in this context, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect This too is an interesting consequence of the theory of relativity and we cannot view Einstein’s 1905 paper on light quanta as being completely divorced and independent of his theory of relativity. The reader is also referred to the discussion by Weinstein [26]. Surprisingly, Weinstein does not mention what has just been noted – the implications with respect to photoelectric effect because of the change in the frequency of light. Page 8 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-7-37" src="pdf-obj-7-37.jpg">

Sodium Metal

Imagine observers in relative motion performing the experiment with sodium.

If two observers are moving relative to each other, the frequency of the light changes as given above. Since v/c < 1, the ratio ν’/ν < 1. Hence, a high frequency for observer A will be perceived as a low frequency for observer B who is moving relative to observer A. Will the moving observing see the light as red instead of blue? If so, will one observer see electrons being emitted while the other does not? The Wikipedia animation is also recommended in this context, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

This too is an interesting consequence of the theory of relativity and we

cannot view Einstein’s 1905 paper on light quanta as being completely divorced and independent of his theory of relativity. The reader is also referred to the discussion by Weinstein [26]. Surprisingly, Weinstein does not mention what has just been noted the implications with respect to photoelectric effect because of the change in the frequency of light.

Planck’s elementary energy quantum and its application by Einstein to light

In a famous, presented at the meeting of the German Physical Society on

December 14, 1900 paper [27-31], Max Planck puts forward the idea that the

total energy U N of N particles can be written as U N = NU = Pε where N and P

are very large integers, U is the average energy and ε is an elementary

measure for energy, or what we now call the quantum of energy.

Thus, the ratio P/N= U/ε = φ

…… (1)

..

Planck then derives the relation between U and ε. The product NU is the

familiar way of thinking about the total energy of N particles. The same

product can also be written as Pε; see also Kragh [16]. This is the key step

taken by Planck and led to the birth of modern quantum physics. If there are N

= 10 particles, with energy of 100 units, there are many different ways of

distributing this total energy among the N particles. Planck provides the

following example in his December 1900 paper. For an English translation of

Planck’s original paper, see Shamos [27]. It can also be found online [29].

Table 3: Planck’s Example of Energy Distribution from his 1900 paper

Particle no. N

1

2

3

 

5

  • 4 6

 

7

  • 8 9

 

10

Energy of particle

7

38

11

 
  • 0 2

9

 

20

  • 4 4

 

5

The number of particles N = 10 and total energy U N = NU = 100ε = Pε. There are

many different “microstates” that will give rise to the same macrostate U N = NU.

There are obviously many different ways of distributing the 100 units of

energy among the 10 particles. This gives rise to a property called entropy S.

Planck then gives the expression for entropy that is obtained from the

elementary theory of permutations and combination and includes factorials of

N and P and R is the number of ways.

Entropy S N = S 0 + k ln R = k ln [ (N + P 1)! /(N 1)! P! ]

…… (2)

..

R = (N + P 1)! /(N 1)! P!

……..(3)

A logarithmic relation between S and R is envisioned, with “ln” denoting the

natural logarithm of R. The proportionality constant k relating S and R is

called the Boltzmann constant. Plank includes the nonzero additive constant

S 0 and also discusses this in his Nobel lecture we can only measure the

differences in the entropy or the energy, not the absolute values. The

expression for R is that given by Boltzmann in a famous 1877 paper [27-29,

32]; see also the remarks made by Planck, almost 20 years later, in his Nobel

lecture [28], about his struggles with accepting equation 2 and the

implications of the quantity R from the elementary theory of permutations

and combinations. In his recent review, 100 years later, Kragh [16] notes that

Planck interpreted equations 2 and 3 in a non-probabilistic way.

Thus, S is a function of the ratio P/N or U/ε. It is of interest to note that the

formula for R used by Planck is the same as the formula used to determine the

number of ways in which one can have 3 scoops of five favorite flavors of ice

cream; see Math is Fun [33]. After using Stirling’s approximation for factorials,

x! ≈ x x , Planck arrives at the following expression for the average entropy S =

S N /N which only depends on φ which is the ratio P/N (see equation 1).

S = k [ (1 + φ) ln (1 + φ) – φ ln φ ]

…… (4)

..

Performing differentiation, using the elementary rule d(lnx) = dx/x, leads to

dS = k { (1 + φ) d [ln(1 + φ)] + ln(1 + φ)dφ – φ d(lnφ) – lnφ dφ }

dS/dφ = ε (dS/dU) = k ln [ 1 + (1/φ) ] = k ln [ 1 + (ε/U)]

Now, Planck introduces T = dU/dS or 1/T= dS/dU to arrive at the expression

for U given below, in terms of ε. Hence, the above becomes,

ε = kT { ln [(U + ε)/U ]} or ε/kT = ln [1 + (ε/U)] giving the following

U /(e ε/kT 1) =ε [e -ε/kT /(1 e -ε/kT ) ] = ε [e -ax /(1 e -ax ) ] …… (5) ..

The reader can thus readily derive equation 5 which is the most general

expression for the average energy U for a complex system, in terms of the

elementary ε. It only involves kT and ε. It should be noted that other than

equations 1 and 2 and the relation 1/T = dS/dU, Planck has revealed nothing

about the nature of the elementary ε to arrive at the remarkable expression

for U. The constant k appearing in equation 5 was introduced into the theory

via the expression for the entropy of the system of N particles. The parameter

T is the rate of change of the average energy U with respect to entropy S and is

called the temperature of the system. Its reciprocal 1/T is the rate of change of

entropy S with respect to the energy U.

What is ε?

It is only at this stage that Planck introduces his famous ε = hν where the

constant h is the Planck constant and ν is the frequency.

The expression for U can also written as the last equality where a = h/kT and x

is the frequency.

More generally, we can think of equation 5 as the most general expression for

the average value U of any property of interest to us (not just energy) when

we are dealing with a complex system, capable of exhibiting many different

microstates. Each state of the system, such as given in Table 3, is called a

“complexion” and the number of complexions R is a very large number, giving

rise to the entropy of the system. The myriads of microscopic entities N that

make up a complexion are associated with some “property” of interest, for

which we can continue to use the symbols U and U N . The “property” called

“entropy” is a consequence of the many possible complexions. The property

called T, the “temperature” of the system (or 1/T it’s reciprocal) is simply the

rate of change of U with respect to S, or T = dU/dS and 1/T = dS/dU and k is a

constant appearing in the entropy relation.

This rather broad generalization of the Planck-Einstein ideas can give rise to a

new worldview, especially as applied to business, financial, and economic

systems, and also social, political, and environmental systems, and to the

observations made in a number of cultural situations and in the sports world;

see bibliography list given at the end of this article [49-59].

Finally, the recent discussion by Professor Kragh [16], historian of science and

technology, is highly recommended. The central role played by entropy in

Planck’s thinking is highlighted here as is the meaning of the integer P; see

remarks on page 33, the paragraph to the right of the intensity-wavelength

graph; see image extracted below. The total energy of the blackbody

oscillators E = U N = Pε = P(hν). Note the qualifying phrase “once multiplied by

the common frequency of the resonators is specified”. This like diameter of

ball bearings that must be specified to compute N in the equation M = Nm.

remarks on page 33, the paragraph to the right of the intensity-wavelength graph; see image extractedhttp://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~ krasny/math156_article_planck.pdf Max Planck: The Reluctant Revolutionary By Helge Kragh Physics World December 2000 See also discussion of Boltzmann’s 1877 paper at http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 95728457/What-is-Entropy See also Bose’s paper [ 75]. Page 12 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-11-15" src="pdf-obj-11-15.jpg">
remarks on page 33, the paragraph to the right of the intensity-wavelength graph; see image extractedhttp://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~ krasny/math156_article_planck.pdf Max Planck: The Reluctant Revolutionary By Helge Kragh Physics World December 2000 See also discussion of Boltzmann’s 1877 paper at http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 95728457/What-is-Entropy See also Bose’s paper [ 75]. Page 12 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-11-17" src="pdf-obj-11-17.jpg">
   
 

From

 

Max Planck: The Reluctant

Revolutionary

By Helge Kragh

Physics World December 2000

See also discussion of

Boltzmann’s 1877 paper at

See also Bose’s paper [75].

 
remarks on page 33, the paragraph to the right of the intensity-wavelength graph; see image extractedhttp://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~ krasny/math156_article_planck.pdf Max Planck: The Reluctant Revolutionary By Helge Kragh Physics World December 2000 See also discussion of Boltzmann’s 1877 paper at http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 95728457/What-is-Entropy See also Bose’s paper [ 75]. Page 12 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-11-61" src="pdf-obj-11-61.jpg">

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ENERGY QUANTA AND BOSE’S DERIVATION OF PLANCK’S LAW

It is of interest to note here the key steps taken by Bose [75, 76], in his 1924

paper, to derive Planck’s law; see also the discussion of Bose-Einstein

statistics by Delbrück [77]. Bose derives Planck's radiation law (published in

1900 and then in 1901) using a new statistical argument. Bose begins by first

pointing out the flaws in the prior derviations of Planck’s law. The law can be

written as the product of two quantities A and B.

Energy density = (density of states)(average energy of each particle) = AB

= (8πν 2 /c 3 )U = ρ ν

The average of each particle is the quantity U that was derived by Planck, as

just discussed. The term “density of states” means the number of particles per

unit volume. Thus, the energy density ρ ν (also called spectral energy density

since it refers to a specific frequency) is the energy per unit volume.

Bose points out that Planck only derived the quantity B, viz., the expression

for U. The quantity A = (8πν 2 /c 3 ) has been deduced using classical physics. In

classical physics, U = kT and the law is then called the Rayleigh-Jeans law with

A being derived using classical arguments. This presents a logical

inconsistency. Then Bose shows that the entire product AB can derived using

new statistical arguments. This was obviously appreciated by Einstein, who

arranged to have Bose’s paper published in Zeitschrift für Physik [76, 77].

Very briefly, Bose starts by imagining with a volume V which is filled with

radiation with a total energy E. (The energy density is thus E/V.) Let there be

quanta of different species, he says, with abundance N s each with the energy

s (with s going from 0 to ∞). The total energy E is sum of the energies of all

the quantas. Thus,

E = ∑ N s (hν s )

Here h is the Planck constant and ν s the frequency where subscript “s” means

that the frequency goes from 0 to ∞. Bose then defines the momentum of

each quanta as p s = hν s /c. This gives rise to a theoretical six-dimensional space

characterized by the coordinates x, y, z and the components of the momentum

p x , p y , p z in the three coordinate directions; see also the discussion by

Delbrück [77]. He then shows that we can divide the total phase volume ** into

cells of size h 3 and imagines a distribution of the energy quanta in these phase

cells such that there are p 0 s cells with energy 0, p 1 s with energy quantum of 1,

p 2 s with 2 energy quanta, and so on. Thus,

N s = 0.p 0 s + 1.p 1 s + 2.p 2 s + ….

He then uses the formula for permutations with repetitions [77, 78] to

determine the number of distributions (W) and arrives at the entire Planck

law subject to the constraints of total energy E and total number of quanta

which will maximize the probability of states

W = A s ! /p 0 s !p 1 s !p 2 s ! .

Note that the total phase volume A s = (8πν 2 /c 3 )V dν. Maximizing W subject to

the constraints (using the method of Lagrangian multipliers from our calculus

courses) then yields the full Planck radiation formula. The first factor has thus

automatically been derived using a new expression for W (which replaces

Planck’s R). Some references which discuss the elementary formulae for

permutations and combinations are included for convenience [78-81] to gain

further insights into the two different methods of calculating the entropy

using S = k lnW, by Bose, and S = k ln R, by Planck.

______________________________________________________

** The surface area of a sphere equals 4πR 2 and hence the volume of spherical

shell of thickness dR will be dV = 4πR 2 dR. The volume of the sphere V =

(4/3)πR 3 is obtained by integration. Likewise, as noted by Delbrück, Bose

obtains the number of quantum cells by considering the momentum space,

with the infinitesimal volume dV = 4πR 2 dR with R = (hν/c) and spherical shell

thickness dR = (hdν/c). Thus, dV = (4πν 2 /c 2 )h 3 dν.

Delbrück [77], who received the Nobel Prize in Medicine, in 1969, has pointed

out an interesting flaw in the method of counting used by Bose. We must think

of the quanta like three people, Tom, Dick, and Harry, who occupy two rooms,

as illustrated below. Instead, Delbrück points out that Bose is envisioning the

situation differently and defines a microstate by counting how many quanta

are in each state; like counting how many (identical) men in each room. The

men are NOT identical and the quanta also are NOT all identical since the

frequencies are different. The elementary energy elements are equal to hν s

where the subscript sgoes from 0 to .

Tom and Dick in living room Harry in kitchen Harry, Dick, and Tom, alone in kitchen

Tom and Dick in living room

Harry in kitchen

Tom and Dick in living room Harry in kitchen Harry, Dick, and Tom, alone in kitchen

Harry, Dick, and Tom, alone in

kitchen and the other two in the

living room.

Bose seems to thinking about the quanta in this way, according to Delbrück, like identical men.

Bose seems to thinking about the

quanta in this way, according to

Delbrück, like identical men.

APPENDIX I: Newton and the Colors of the Rainbow

It was Newton who showed that white light made up the (seven) different

colors of the rainbow (VIBGYOR) by separating the component colors using a

prism [19-25]. Here V is violet, I indigo (now dropped from this list), B is blue,

G is green, Y is yellow, O is orange and R is red. Newton also believed that light

is made up of particles that obey his laws of mechanics.

APPENDIX I: Newton and the Colors of the Rainbow It was Newton who showed that whitehttp://www.jessicacrabtree.com/journal1/2009/09/hints-of-color-2 However, his contemporaries, notably Robert Hooke and Christian Huygens held the view that light was a wave. Huygens, in particular, was very successful in applying his wave theory to explain the laws of reflection and refraction, as discussed in most physics texts and other treatises on the subject [23-25]. Hooke, with whom Newton had an antagonist relation for most his life, was vehemently opposed to Newton’s particle view , so much so that it is widely noted that Newton published his work on Opticks, in 1707, only after Hooke’s death . Unlike the Principia, which was published in 1687 and written in Latin, the Optiks was written in English and became very popular and Newton published three revisions of this book. Each color of the rainbow, according to Newton, was due to light particles having a different momentum p = mv = mc where m is the mass of the light particle and v is the velocity. Newton’s view led to the prediction that the Page 16 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-15-14" src="pdf-obj-15-14.jpg">

Figure 1: The Color wheel depicting the

primary and secondary colors.

However, his contemporaries, notably Robert Hooke and Christian Huygens

held the view that light was a wave. Huygens, in particular, was very

successful in applying his wave theory to explain the laws of reflection and

refraction, as discussed in most physics texts and other treatises on the

subject [23-25]. Hooke, with whom Newton had an antagonist relation for

most his life, was vehemently opposed to Newton’s particle view, so much so

that it is widely noted that Newton published his work on Opticks, in 1707,

only after Hooke’s death. Unlike the Principia, which was published in 1687

and written in Latin, the Optiks was written in English and became very

popular and Newton published three revisions of this book.

Each color of the rainbow, according to Newton, was due to light particles

having a different momentum p = mv = mc where m is the mass of the light

particle and v is the velocity. Newton’s view led to the prediction that the

speed of light in water would be higher than its speed in air. This particle view

of light was summarily discredited when Foucault’s experiments (in 1850)

should that the speed of light in water is less than in air, the exact opposite of

Newton’s predictions. The wave theory of light, on the other hand, predicted a

lower speed, in agreement with experiments. (A list of new references is

provided at the end of the article to avoid revising the reference numbers in

the original first publication.)

Foucault’s experimental result, together with Thomas Young’s famous two slit

experiment (in 1801) demonstrating the interference (of light waves) marked

the end of Newton’s particle view of light. The wave theory reached its

pinnacle of success when Maxwell showed that light must be a wave of

electromagnetic origin, with a speed c = (ab) -1/2 where “a” and “b” are the

constants in the expressions for the electrical and magnetic force (called the

permittivity ε 0 and permeability μ 0 , respectively). Or, stated differently, c 2 =

1/ab = 1/(ε 0 μ 0 ). Hence, for any fixed speed c, the graph of ε 0 versus μ 0 is a

rectangular hyperbola with the observed values (ε 0 , μ 0 ) being just one single

point on this hyperbola [34].

It is against this context that we must judge Einstein’s paper on light quanta

[35-39] and his explanation of the cut-off frequency observed in Lenard’s

experiments [40, 41]. Einstein was boldly reviving Newton’s old and

discredited idea but gave it a new twist. Instead of associating a momentum

with each light particle, like Newton did, Einstein associated a fixed amount of

energy with each particle (depending on the frequency, ε = hν, or E = hf).

Einstein’s 1905 paper on light quanta was therefore more revolutionary than

his papers on relativity, as discussed recently by Weinstein [26].

This new particle view of light was put to a successful test by Millikan [1] in

his photoelectricity experiments [2, 3]; see also the recent discussions [42-47]

to commemorate the centennial of Einstein’s 1905 publications.

Thus, the lower case “c” is now commonly used to denote the speed of light, as

in Einstein’s famous equation E = mc 2 , where E is the energy and m is the

mass. The speed of light is an unimaginably huge number (about 186,000

miles per second, or 299,792,458 m/s, or 2.998 x 10 8 m/s) and a small change

in mass ∆m will result in a huge change in the energy ∆E = c 2 ∆m. In his

original 1905 paper, Einstein mentions that his mass-energy equivalence can

be tested with radioactive bodies (such as radium salts) whose energy content

varies to a high degree. The theory was eventually confirmed experimentally,

by Otto Hahn and Strassman, who decided to repeat Fermi’s experiments to

understand the chemical nature of the transuranic elements produced in the

latter’s experiments; see the fascinating account given by Hahn in his Nobel

lecture [48]. When the uranium atom is bombarded by slow moving (or

thermal) neutrons, it does not produce transuranic elements (with atomic

numbers greater than 92, the atomic number of uranium) as had been claimed

by Fermi. Rather the uranium atom breaks up into two smaller atoms (barium

and krypton) resulting in a small loss in the mass and its conversion into a

huge amount of energy.

__

In the 1905 special relativity paper [12], Einstein also derives the expression

relating the frequency ν and ν’ for light as measured by two observers moving

relative to each other. This leads to the conclusion that the ratio ν/ν’ depends

only the ratio v/c where c is the speed of light and v is the relative velocity of

the two observers; see discussion by Weinstein [26].

Finally, here’s a nice explanation of light quanta and the observations on the

photoelectric effect taken from Ref. [43].

In the 1905 special relativity paper [12], Einstein also derives the expression relating the frequency νScientific American . All these experimental observations are explained by Einstein's photon idea. The low energy red light hits the metal as low energy photons. These photons "bump" low energy electrons off of the metal. If the intensity of the light increases, then more low energy photons hit the plate and more low energy photons are ejected. By shining the high energy blue light on the plate, high energy photons hit the plate and more energetic electrons are knocked off. The extension of the Planck-Einstein ideas to problems outside physics (from economics, finance, business, sports, etc.) has been discussed in several recent articles by the authors [49-59]. Of interest is the appearance of what seems like a “quantum” for the inc rease in the net worth of billionaires such as Mark Zuckerberg [52]. This will be tested more critically in the days, weeks, and months ahead with the daily net worth data from Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Some notes are attached to the individual references and some brief comments follow them. Page 19 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-18-18" src="pdf-obj-18-18.jpg">

The intensity of the light does not affect the energy of the electrons,

but the number of

ejected

electrons.

From

American. All these experimental observations are explained by Einstein's photon idea. The low

energy red light hits the metal as low energy photons. These photons "bump" low energy

electrons off of the metal.

If the

intensity

of

the

light

increases,

then more low energy photons hit the plate and more low energy photons are ejected. By shining the high energy blue light on the plate, high energy photons hit the plate and more energetic

electrons are knocked off.

The extension of the Planck-Einstein ideas to problems outside physics

(from economics, finance, business, sports, etc.) has been discussed in

several recent articles by the authors [49-59]. Of interest is the

appearance of what seems like a “quantum” for the increase in the net

worth of billionaires such as Mark Zuckerberg [52].

This will be tested more critically in the days, weeks, and months ahead

with the daily net worth data from Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Some

notes are attached to the individual references and some brief

comments follow them.

APPENDIX II: Some Notes on Special Relativity

ELECTRON VOLT AND THE WORK DONE ON AN ELECTRON

The electron volt is the work done to move the elementary charge q (one

electron) through a potential difference of one volt. The work done, or energy

E = qV, equals the charge times the potential difference. In his first 1905 paper

on special relativity [12], Einstein determines the work done (W), against the

relativistic forces, to move an electron from infinity into an electric field. The

final result is:

W = mc 2 -1) where β =[1 – (v 2 /c 2 )] -1/2

Here “m” is the mass of the electron, as defined by Einstein in the 1905 paper,

and v is the velocity of the electron, which is being viewed in a reference

frame moving with the electron, at the speed of the electron. This is the rest

frame, as discussed in the previous section of the 1905 paper on special

relativity; see pages 61 to 64 of Ref. [12]. The same “m” also appears in

Einstein’s expressions for the forces acting on the electron in the x, y, and z

directions (page 62). Einstein says we must be careful when we compare

different theories and briefly discusses the Lorentz idea of a longitudinal mass

(force equation for x-direction, the direction of motion) and the transverse

mass (force equation for the transverse direction) of the electron.

Later the same equation (for W) was reinterpreted by others as implying a

velocity dependence for the mass given by m = m 0 (β – 1) where Einstein’s

original “m” became the rest mass m 0 and the velocity-dependent factor β got

associated with Einstein’s m. Strictly speaking, according to the principle of

relativity, the charge q and mass m are fundamental quantities that are not

affected by the velocity of the observer. Einstein states this quite clearly on

page 54 when he discusses the meaning of charge according to this theory.

Also, in section dealing with the motion of the electron (§10, pages 61 to 63 of

Ref. [12]), we find Einstein clearly disagreeing with Lorentz’s viewpoint of

mass of electron varying in different directions. He notes that force = mass

times acceleration (see page 63, Ref. [12]) and then gives the expressions for

the longitudinal and transverse masses, as deduced by Lorentz in a paper

published in 1904, see equation 30 of Ref. [60].

Note that Lorentz was already a Nobel laureate and received the Nobel Prize

in physics, in 1902. We see Lorentz talking about the newly discovered

electron in his Nobel lecture and the strange property that it seems to have,

with a velocity dependent mass [61], a view that Einstein says is

INCONSISTENT with this theory of relativity. The velocity dependent factors,

in the expressions for the force on the electron in the x, y, and z, directions,

according to Einstein, show changes in the acceleration, not changes in the

mass of the electron, or any other moving body.

Nonetheless (and unfortunately, IMHO), 20 th century physicists came to adopt

the view of a velocity-dependent mass and have associated the velocity

dependent factor with m and converted Einstein’s origin m into the rest mass

m 0 . The present author likes to agree with the original Einstein viewpoint.

Why must we disagree with one of the fundamental postulates of relativity, as

emphasized by Einstein, and insist on a velocity dependence for the mass?

VELOCITY-DEPENDENCE FOR THE ELECTRON MASS: LORENTZ’S NOBEL

LECTURE

The following (in the smaller fonts) is a verbatim quote from Lorentz’s Nobel

lecture, delivered in 1902.

The electron theory also presents an enormous field of study outside the realm of magneto- optical phenomena. For one thing, the free-moving electrons, with which we are concerned in

cathode rays and in some types of Becquerel rays, give rise to many interesting problems.

I will

single out only the important question of the so-called apparent mass of these particles.

A

definite magnetic field in the surrounding ether - and hence also a certain amount of energy in this medium - are inextricably connected with every movement of an electron; we can therefore never set an electron in motion without simultaneously imparting energy to the ether. To do this a great amount of work is necessary, and we must employ a greater force than if it were not necessary to set up this magnetic field. Calculation shows that the force required is the same as would be needed if the mass were somewhat greater than it is in reality. In other words, if we determine the mass in the usual way from the phenomena, we get the true mass increased by an amount which we can call the apparent, or electromagnetic, mass. The two together form the effective mass which determines the phenomena.

Now the investigations published by Kaufmann and Abraham in the past year have shown that the apparent mass is by no means to be discounted. It certainly forms a considerable part of the effective mass, and there is a possibility that in the end we shall have to ascribe apparent mass only and never true mass at all to electrons.

The peculiar thing about this apparent mass is, moreover, that it is not constant, but

depends on the velocity

 

; consequently the study of the motion of the electron differs in many

ways from ordinary dynamics.

While Lorentz mentions the work of Kaufmann and Abraham, quite

surprisingly, he fails to mention the work of J. J. Thomson, widely considered

to mark the discovery of the electron. Sir J. J. Thomson received the Nobel

Prize in 1906 for his discovery. (Kaufmann uses beta rays, or electrons,

produced by a radioactive source to measure the mass/charge ratio. The

velocity of these electrons is, therefore, very close to the speed of light and

much higher than those observed in Thomson’s experiments. However,

Kaufmann uses a more complicated experimental technique than was used by

J. J. Thomson, making them more difficult to interpret.)

In a well-known paper [60], published in 1904, after this Nobel lecture was

delivered, and a year before Einstein published his special relativity paper in

1905, Lorentz develops his mathematical theory for the motion of an electron,

in a reference frame moving with a velocity v along the x-axis. In this

reference frame, the velocity of the electron, with the components u x , u y , u z

along the (x, y, z) co-ordinate axes, becomes,

v x = v + u x

and v y = u y and v z = u z

…… (L1)

..

These equations can be found on page 13 of Ref. [60]. Then, after listing

Maxwell’s equations (for the electric and magnetic fields), Lorentz proposes a

transformation of co-ordinates as follows

x’ = βℓ x, y’ = ℓy, z’ = ℓz

t’ = (ℓ/β)t - βℓ (vx/c 2 ) = (βℓ)t [ (12 ) - (vx/c 2 t) ]

where, β = [1 – (v 2 /c 2 )] -1/2

…… (L2)

..

…… (L3)

..

…… (L4)

..

Lorentz states that the parameter ℓ introduced in this transformation of

coordinates is to be determined later on in the analysis. It is assumed to have

a value of ℓ = 1 when the relative velocity v = 0. The variable t’ is called the

“local time”. These remarks can be found on pages 14

When v = 0, β = 1 and t’ = t if ℓ = 1.

and 15 of Ref. [60].

The velocity dependent factor β, with the ratio v/c, where v is the relative

velocity of the two reference frame and c the speed of light, is exactly the same

factor that appears also in Einstein’s space and time relations for x’ and t’.

I have written the expression for t’ in a manner that is as close as possible to

the expression for relativistic time given by Einstein in his 1905 paper, which

can be written as follows.

t’ = βt + γx = β [t – (vx/c 2 ) ] = βt [ 1 – (vx/c 2 t) ] …… (L4) ..

Comparing equations (L3) and (L4) we see that even with ℓ = 1, there is still a

BIG difference between the Einstein and Lorentz expressions. The difference

arises from the fact that Lorentz does

Lorentz states that the parameter ℓ introduced in this transformation of coordinates is to be determined

not assume the speed of light to be a

universal constant having the same value for all observers. It is also of interest

to consider the ratio x’/t’ for Lorentz.

The ratio x’/t’ = (x/t) /[(1/β 2 ) - (vx/c 2 t)] = x / [(t/β 2 ) - (vx/c 2 )] …… (L5) ..

For the special case of v = 0, β = 1 and we get x’/t’ = x/t. For a nonzero relative

velocity v the ratio x’/t’ differs from the ratio x/t which is due to the

differences in the speed of light for observers moving relative to each other.

Lorentz appears to have been among the first of Einstein’s peers to appreciate

the elegance of the mathematical results of the 1905 special relativity paper

and the notion that the times t and t’ are different with c = c’ for both

reference frames.

ON THE MEANING OF AN INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME

Angels travel at the speed of light, as noted in Ref. [71], which refers to a

passage from the Muslim scripture the Holy Koran. This speed is deduced

from the distance traveled by the angels (12000 lunar orbits) in one earth day.

To prove this proposition, the author discusses the difference between an

inertial [72] and a non-inertial reference frame. Hence, the following brief

discussion is added here. Bergmann’s treatment is highly recommended [73].

Bergmann was a close associate of Einstein at Princeton University and

Einstein has written a nice foreword to Bergamnn’s book on relativity.

According to Newton’s first law of motion, every object continues in a state of

rest, or uniform motion along a straight line, unless it is compelled to do

otherwise due to the action of an external force. Or, to quote verbatim from

Andrew Motte’s translation of the Principia (see page 19, readily available at

any bookstore [74]), “Law I, Every body preserves in its state of rest, or uniform

motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces

impressed thereon.”

In other words, there is no acceleration in the absence of a force and the

velocity of the object v = constant where the constant can also have the value

of zero which means the object is at rest. If nonzero, the object is in motion

and will be found to move in a straight line, if no forces act on it.

In the presence of a force, the situation changes and objects are subject to

acceleration, regardless of whether the path is a straight line or a curve. If a

curve, such as a circle, there is an acceleration, even if the velocity itself is

constant. (For an object moving in a circular path, it can be shown that

acceleration a = v 2 /R where v is the constant velocity and R is the radius of the

path traced. Such a perfect circle is traced by an electrical charge if acted upon

by PURELY by magnetic forces.)

Thus, in his first paper on the theory of relativity, which is called special

relativity, published in 1905, Einstein reconsiders the notions of space and

time, after introducing his postulate of the universal constancy of the speed of

light. Instead of a single observer, Einstein considers two observers who are

moving relative to each other at a fixed speed U along the x-axis.

Let (x, y, z, t) denote the familiar space and time coordinates for observer A

and let (x’, y’, z’, t’) denote the space and time coordinates for observer B, who

is moving relative to observe A, at the fixed speed U, along the x-direction.

Thus, the reference frames considered by Einstein in this first paper on

relativity are called

inertial reference frames or Galilean frames .
inertial
reference
frames or
Galilean
frames .

No

acceleration is detected by either observer; see also Bergmann [73], page 33.

It is assumed that the two co-ordinate frames are exactly coincident at the

time t = t’ = 0. In other words x = x’ =0 at t = t’ = 0 and the two observers start

moving. They observe a light front which is imagined to spread from the

origin at the time t = t’ = 0. What will be the relation between the co=ordinates

x and x’ and t and t’ if the speed of light c, as measured by both observers is

the same? This is one of the postulates of the theory of relativity. Thus, r = ct

for observer A and r’ = ct’ for observer B, where r = (x 2 + y 2 + z 2 ) 1/2 is the

radius of the spherical light front for observer A and r’ = (x’ 2 + y2 + z 2 ) 1/2 is

the radius of the same front as determined by observer B.

We do not question the postulate itself but examine its consequences and test

its predictions. Since speed equals distance divided by time, it follows that r/t

= c for observe A and r’/t’ = c’ for observer B. If observers A and B measure the

same light speed, i.e., if c’ = r’/t’ = c = r/t, it follows that t and t’ cannot be

identical and space, and also time itself, must be relative.

To conform to this

new view of the universal constancy of the speed of light,

the relation between

the space and time co-ordinates is re-derived. Einstein starts with the

simplest of possible mathematical relations, given below as equations 6 and 7,

see also Bergmann [73].

x’ = α(x – Ut)

t’ = βt + γx

…… (6)

..

…… (7)

..

Note that both the space and time coordinates (x and t) have been thoroughly

“mixed up” by equation 7 for t’. In the pre-relativity physics before Einstein, it

was assumed that time is an absolute quantity have the same value for all

observers. In other words, t = t’ which means γ = 0 and β = 1.

Also, relativity of space was recognized even in pre-Einstein physics. The

parameter α = 1 in pre-relativity physics. This is the reason why the speed of a

car, moving alongside another vehicle, appears to be lower than if the car is

observed by a stationary observer on the road side. If the two observers A and

B can match their speeds, the two vehicles will appear to be stationary.

Einstein derives the relations between x and x’ and t and t’ which

revolutionized physics and led to the notions of length contraction and time

dilation which are discussed on pages 48 to 50 of Ref. [12]. Bergmann’s step

by step treatment can be understood even by advanced high school students.

Essentially we write the equations

for the spherical

fronts seen by

the

observer A, r 2 = x 2 + y 2 + z 2 = c 2 t 2 , and observer B, r’ 2 = x’ 2 + y’ 2 + z2 = c’ 2 t’ 2

with c = c’, and compare the coefficients of each term. This yields the three

constants, α, β, and γ in special relativity.

 

α

= β = [1 – (U 2 /c 2 )] -1/2

…… (8)

..

and

γ = -β(U/c 2 )= - α(U/c 2 )

…… (9)

..

Equations 8 and 9, as well as 10 and 11 below, can be found on the top of page

48 of Ref. [12], Einstein’s first paper on the theory of (special) relativity.

Thus,

x’ = β(x – Ut)

(10)

and,

t’ =

β [t – (Ux/c 2 )]

…… (11)

..

Note that t’ depends on U and x, as expected, because of the linear relation

already assumed via equation 7. Now, Einstein introduces an interesting

concept, which is used throughout the special relativity paper. He wants us to

consider the special case of U = v where v = x/t is the velocity of a moving

object of interest to us, such as a moving electron, observed in J. J. Thomson’s

cathode ray experiments. The special reference frame U = v means that we are

observing the electron, in a reference frame moving with the electron, at

exactly the speed of the electron, see page 61 of Ref. [12] where Einstein

discusses the motion of the electron, and the forces acting on the electron

according to this new theory.

Sir J. J. Thomson is observing the electron in his laboratory and another

observer, let’s say Einstein, is chasing the electron and observes it in the

special reference frame U = v. (Biographers have talked about Einstein

imagining, even as a young boy, what would happen if one could chase a beam

of light.) The special reference frame U = v is called the rest frame in relativity

(the object appears to be at rest, like the two cars on the highway, moving

along parallel paths with the same speed). In this special reference frame,

after setting U = v = x/t, we get,

t’ = βt [1 – (Ux/tc 2 )] = βt [1 – (Uv/c 2 )] 1/2 =

βt[ 1 – (v 2 /c 2 )]

…… (12)

..

Note the several steps that have been intentionally included to arrive at the

expression relating t’ and t. Now, we introduce the expression for β with U = v

and compute the time difference shown by the two clocks. First, we note that

equation 12 simplifies to the following,

t’ = t/β

or t = βt’ or t’/t = 1/β

…… (13)

..

Hence, the time difference (t’ – t) = t [ (1/β) – 1] …… (14) ..

Next, using the approximation 1/β = [1 – (v 2 /c 2 )] 1/2 ≈ 1 – ½ (v 2 /c 2 ) gives the

final time difference equation found on page 49 of Ref. [12].

(t’ – t) ≈

½ (v 2 /c 2 ) t

…… (15)

..

After deriving this time difference equation, Einstein describes a simple

experiment which can be performed to test the relativity of time, as predicted

here. Place one clock on the equator and one on one of the poles of the earth.

Today, it is indeed possible to place a clock on the South Pole of the earth,

where we already have permanent stations where various scientific

experiments are being conducted.

Mirror 1 Mirror 2
Mirror 1
Mirror 2

Schematic illustration of the Einstein clock with a light ray (shown with the tipped arrows) bouncing back and forth between (perfectly parallel) mirrors. The clock ticks when the light ray makes the back and forth journey. The ticking rate ∆t = 2D/c where D is the distance between the two mirrors and c is the know speed of light. Einstein suggests that we build such a clock BEFORE beginning any of his mathematical deliberations on the space and time relations, and the motion of the electron.

The clock on the equator is moving with the tangential (rotational) speed of

here. Place one clock on the equator and one on one of the poles of the

the earth relative to the clock at the Poles, which is stationary. A measurable

time difference shown by these two clocks (even if we do not find PERFECT

numerical agreement) will be the most critical and eloquent test of the

theory of relativity.

None of the other tests, in the opinion of the present author, such as the tests

of the velocity dependence of the electron mass, the half-life of mu-mesons, or

the test with aircrafts going around the world, are fully satisfactory. The fuller

discussion for the reasons is beyond the scope of the present article (already

well beyond its original scope of discussing the “energy quantum” in physics).

However, the clocks used for such a test should NOT rely in any way upon the

force of gravity. For example,

Einstein states quite clearly that we cannot

use pendulum clocks (see footnote on page 50, Ref. [12])

. Even modern

atomic clocks use the force of gravity (see Ref. [34]) in that “balls of atoms”

are allowed to fall through the gravity field of the earth. The clock that

Einstein recommends, one that ticks when a light ray is allowed to bounce

back and forth between two mirrors, at a distance D,

has NOT yet been built.

Einstein describes such a clock in §1 of his 1905 paper on special relativity,

BEFORE even begins any of his mathematical deliberations about space and

time. The clock will tick at the rate ∆t = 2D/c where D is the distance between

the mirrors and c is the known speed of light. Two such identical clocks are

carried by the observers A and B who are in relative motion at the fixed speed

U, which is taken as U = v, when making observations on moving objects of

interest to us. It is such a test that will ultimately provide the real PROOF

needed to demonstrate the relativity of time, in Einstein’s view.

Such a test, IMHO, or (IHOPA), in the opinion of the present author, has still to

be performed, precisely because the Einstein clock with light ray bouncing

back and forth has still NOT been built. Of course, the author may be in error

and would like to know from other eminent physicists about the existence of

such an Einsteinian clock.

Finally, can we use a clock that already assumes the correctness of the theory

of relativity and incorporates the theory in some way to measure time itself?

Acknowledgements

have used here quite freely, mainly to enhance

I am thankful for the lovely color images that I

the value of this contribution to the reader. All

these sources are gratefully acknowledged and references have been cited with links to the original publications.

REFERENCES

[1]

Millikan, R. A., The electron and light quanta from experimental point of

view, Nobel lecture, May 23, 1924,

 

[2]

Millikan,

R.

A.,

Einstein’s

Photoelectric

Equation

and

Contact

Electromotive Force, Phys. Rev. 7, 18-32, (1916). This is the first of two

papers on photoelectricity published in 1916; see Figure 2 with only two

measurements

 

with

lithium.

[3]

Millikan, R. A., Direct Photoelectric Determination of Planck’s “h”, Phys.

Rev. pp. 355-88 (1916)

 

Interestingly, Millikan does not present the sodium and lithium data on a

single graph probably because the slopes are slightly different. The

 

following linear regression equations were obtained using his data.

For lithium V 0 = 0.4126 f 3.593, from 1st paper published in 1916

For lithium V 0 = 0.4223 f 3.922, from 2nd paper published in 1916

For sodium V 0 = 0.4069 f 4.288, from 2nd paper published in 1916

[4]

Whitener, K., How do we know that light is a particle? December 10,

 

[5]

Shedding Light on Quantum Physics, S & TR, June 2005, Lawrence

 

of red and blue light on sodium metal explained with a nice illustration.

[6]

Millikan, R. A., Phys. Rev. 32, pp. 349-398 (1911);

 

[7]

Millikan, R. A., On the Elementary Electric charge and the Avogadro

 

Constant, Phys. Rev. vol. II, No. 2, pp. 109-143 (1913); see

 

[8]

Shamos, M. H., Great Experiments in Physics, The Elementary Electrical

Charge, pp. 238-249, Dover Publications (1959); link for online version

[9]

Goodstein, D., In the Case of Robert Andrew Millikan, American

[10]

Science’s 10 Most Beautiful Experiments, http://physics-

[11]

Einstein, A., Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content? pp.

69-71, in The Principle of Relativity, Dover Publications (1952). English

translations of the original papers on relativity by Einstein and other

leading scientists. The statement made by Einstein, “The mass of a body

is a measure of its energy content” can be found in the concluding

paragraphs on page 71.

[12]

Einstein, A., On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, pp. 37-65, in The

Principle of Relativity, Dover Publications (1952). The equation for the

energy enclosed within a light front, page 58, derived in this first paper

is used in the second paper to derive the mass-energy equivalence [13].

[13]

Laxmanan, V., How Einstein Himself Derives the World’s Most Famous

Equation, Published June 18, 2013,

[14]

Fundamental Constants, Values for the speed of light and Planck

constant can be found here, http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-

[15]

Michael Fowler, The speed of light, Michelson measured speed of light,

an improvement of Foucault’s method, to get 186,355 miles per second,

[16]

Kragh, H., Max Planck the reluctant revolutionary, Physics World,

December 2000, pp. 31-35,

[17]

[18]

How Products are made: Ball bearings

[19]

Color http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color Table of colors, wavelength,

frequency and energy (in eV and kJ mol -1 )

[19] Color <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color Table of colors, wavelength, frequency and energy (in eV and kJ mol -1 ) The Planck constant h has units of Joule-second (energy multiplied by time). One electron volt (eV) = 1.602176565 x 10 -19 J; see http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/energy/ev-to- joule.htm . The calculations in Table 1 can be shown to agree with the values in eV given here. [20] The Visible Spectrum, Nice table of colors and wavelength and frequency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum Page 32 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-31-12" src="pdf-obj-31-12.jpg">

The Planck constant h has units of Joule-second (energy multiplied by time). One electron volt (eV) = 1.602176565 x 10 -19 J; see http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/energy/ev-to- joule.htm . The calculations in Table 1 can be shown to agree with the values in eV given here.

[20]

The Visible Spectrum, Nice table of colors and wavelength and

[19] Color <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color Table of colors, wavelength, frequency and energy (in eV and kJ mol -1 ) The Planck constant h has units of Joule-second (energy multiplied by time). One electron volt (eV) = 1.602176565 x 10 -19 J; see http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/energy/ev-to- joule.htm . The calculations in Table 1 can be shown to agree with the values in eV given here. [20] The Visible Spectrum, Nice table of colors and wavelength and frequency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum Page 32 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-31-27" src="pdf-obj-31-27.jpg">

[21]

Jessica Crabtree, Hints of Color,

[22]

Newton’s Particle theory of Light,

20-LIGHTII.pdf See discussion of refraction based on Newton’s particle

view, the decisive test by Foucault which proved Newton to be in error

(light travels more slowly in water than in air, opposite of Newton’s

view), discussion of Thomas Young’s interference experiment (he used

Newton’s data to deduce wavelengths of red and violet light and got

values of 650 nm for red and 440 nm for violet, in agreement with

modern measurements, proving that Newton was a very good

experimentalist); see also color, wavelength table on last page: Red 650

nm, Yellow 580 nm, Green 540 nm, Blue 470 nm, and Violet 440 nm.

[23]

Halliday D., Resnick R., Walker, J., Fundamentals of Physics, John Wiley

and Sons (2013)

[24]

Segre, E., From Falling Bodies to Radio Waves: Classical Physicists and

their Discoveries, Dover Publications, 2007 Segre received the Nobel

Prize in physics for his discovery of the anti-proton.

[25]

Baierlein, R., From Newton to Einstein, The Trail of Light, (2001)

[26]

Weinstein, Galina., The 1905 Relativity Paper and the Light Quantum,

[27]

Planck, M. The Quantum Hypothesis, in Great Experiments in Physics,

Morris H. Shamos (Ed.), Dover Publications (1959) pp. 301-314; see also

[28]

Planck, M, Nobel Lecture: The Genesis and Present State of Development

of the Quantum Theory". Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2013. Web. 23

[29]

Planck, M., On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal

Spectrum, Annalen der Physik, vol. 4, p. 553 (1901), see Whitener [4],

[30]

C. A. Gearhart, Planck, the Quantum, and Historians, Phys. Perspect. 4

[31] Badino, M., The Odd Couple: Boltzmann, Planck and the application of statistics to physics (1900-1913),
[31]
Badino, M., The Odd Couple: Boltzmann, Planck and the application of
statistics to physics (1900-1913), pp. 17 to 27 (30 to 40 of 374) in
Conference on History of Quantum Physics, Preprint 350 (2008).
Excellent discussion of Boltzmann's 1877 paper, Planck's 1900 and
subsequent papers, and also the Ehrenfest and Kammerlingh Ones
(1915) arguments to explain the meaning of Planck’s “R” in the
expression for S.
[32]
Laxmanan, V., What is Entropy? Published June 3, 2012,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/95728457/What-is-Entropy
[33]
Combinations and Permutations, Math is Fun,
http://www.mathsisfun.com/combinatorics/combinations-permutations.html
[34]
Laxmanan, V., A Simple Test of Special Relativity and Discussion of
Einstein’s God Letter, http://www.scribd.com/doc/109540492/A-Simple-
Test-of-Special-Relativity-and-A-Brief-Discussion-of-Einstein-s-God-Letter-
within-the-context-of-Krishna-Stories
[35]
Einstein, A., On a heuristic point of view about the creation and conversion of
light, Annalen der Physik (1905). In Stachel, J. A., (1989), pp. 150-166,
http://www.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_heuristic.pdf
Historians view the following, taken from the introduction to this paper, as the most
revolutionary statement made in physics, especially, the last sentence here starting with
according to this picture. “In particular, black body radiation, photoluminescence, generation of
cathode rays from ultraviolet light and other phenomena associated with the generation and
transformation of light seem better modeled by assuming that the energy of light is distributed
discontinuously in space . According to this picture, the energy of a light wave emitted from a
point source is not spread continuously over ever larger volumes , but consists of a finite number
of energy quanta that are spatially localized at points of space, move without dividing and are
absorbed or generated only
as
a
whole.”
See
also
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_a_Heuristic_Point_of_View_about_the_Creation_and_Conver
sion_of_Light
[36]
The Photoelectric Effect, Great Experiments in Physics, Edited by Morris
H. Shamos (Dover Publications, 1959), pp. 232-237.
[37]
Photoelectric Effect, The Physic Hyper Textbook,

http://physics.info/photoelectric/ see an illustration of the movement

of photoelectric measurements along parallels for different metals.

[38]

Stuewer, R. H., Einstein’s revolutionary light quantum hypothesis, pp. 1-

5 (pp. 14 to 18 of 374) in Conference on History of Quantum Physics,

Preprint 350 (2008), Christian Joas, Christoph Lehner, and Jürgen Renn (eds).

[39]

Neuenschwander, D. E., Einstein’s Quanta, Entropy, and the Photoelectric

Effect, Excellent discussion about how Einstein arrives at his conception

of light quanta by considering a property called entropy possessed by

[40]

Philipp Lenard Biographical, Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2013.

Web. 23 Feb 2014. It is stated here that Lenard never forgave Einstein

for discovering and attaching his own name to the photoelectric law

[41]

Lenard, P. E., Nobel lecture, delivered on May 28, 1906,

rd-lecture.pdf It is, perhaps, of interest to note that Lenard does not cite

Planck’s December 1900 paper on blackbody radiation or the young and

unknown Einstein’s explanation for the cut-off frequency, published in

1905. Lenard provides an exhaustive list of the relevant literature in his

Nobel lecture, through 1906. Perhaps, Lenard did not want to associate

himself with the idea of light being discrete particles with an energy

equal to the Planck quanta.

[42]

Albert Einstein: A Centennial Celebration of his Miraculous Year,

Photoelectric Effect and Light Quanta (Nice illustrations of the effect of intensity of light of

[43]

A Revolution in Physics; Einstein’s Discoveries of 1905 Made Simple,

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Published in 2005

[44]

Fowler, M., The photoelectric effect,

[45]

The photoelectric effect, Everything Physics, Optical Phenomena and

[46]

The Physics Hyper Textbook, Photoelectric Effect,

[47]

Masters, B. R., Albert Einstein and the Nature of Light, http://www.osa-

[48]

Hahn, Otto, From Natural Transmutations of Uranium to it Artificial

Fission, December 13,, 1946,

ahn-lecture.html Hahn gives a fascinating account of the arduous

experiments performed jointly with Meitner and Strassman to identify

the products produced by bombardment of uranium atom with slow

neutrons. Eventually, it was confirmed that the uranium atom was

breaking up into barium and an inert gas. Separately, Meitner and Frisch

published the explanation of the breakup (using the Bohr liquid drop

model) and the potential conversion of the small mass difference into a

huge amount of energy following Einstein’s E = mc 2 .

[49] Laxmanan, V., Money in Economics is Just Like Energy in Physics,

Extending Planck’s law beyond Physics, Published January 14, 2013,

[50]

Laxmanan,

V.,

Bibliography

I

of

Articles

by

V.

Laxmanan

on

the

Extension of Planck’s and Einstein’s Ideas on Energy Quantum to Topics

Outside

Physics,

compiled

 

April

16,

2013,

 
 

[51]

Laxmanan, V., Bibliography II of Articles by V. Laxmanan on the

 

Extension of Planck’s and Einstein’s Ideas Beyond Physics with

Examples from the observations on financial, economic, social, and

 

political systems, compiled June 16, 2013,

 
 
 

[52]

Laxmanan, V., A Dynamic Analysis of Facebook CEO Mark

Zuckerberg’s (Bloomberg Billionaire) Net Worth Data,

WEALTH-GENERATION , Published March 14, 2014.

[53]

Laxmanan, V., Is Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg Possessed with the

Work Function Voodoo? Published March 12, 2014,

[54]

Laxmanan, V., Mark Zuckerberg is Having a Great Year With Net

Worth Up from $24.7B to $31.6B in 2014: Analysis of Daily

Bloomberg Billionaires Data and Facebook Profits-Revenues

(2009-2013), Published on March 13, 2014

graphs for Facebook and the Breakeven Model, no work function.)

[55]

Laxmanan, V.,

 

Facebook Profits and Revenues (2009-2013) and the

Idea of a Work Function, Published March 13, 2014,

[56]

Laxmanan, V., Limits to the Growth of the Average Net Worth of

Billionaires: Significance of the Photoelectric Work Function,

Published March 11, 2014,

 

Profits-Revenues graph and breakeven model)

[57]

Laxmanan, V., We Can All Learn from Bill Gates, Published March 7,

[58]

Laxmanan, V., Bill Gates’ Personal Fortune and Einstein’s

Photoelectric Work Function, Published March 7, 2014,

(Appendix II provides a discussion of the photoelectric law, the nonzero

intercept c, the six cases of the linear law, y = hx + c, the generalized

statement of the power-exponential law of Planck and the maximum

[59]

point on profits-revenues curve.)

Laxmanan, V., On Billionaires and Wealth Generation: A Broad

Generalization of Einstein’s Photoelectric Work Function Outside

Physics, Published March 6, 2014 (Formal journal article style)

Additional references have been added after first publication. They

are included here to avoid revision of the reference numbers given in

the original text.

[60] Lorentz, H. A., Electromagnetic Phenomenon in a System Moving at any

Velocity less than that of Light, in The Principle of Relativity, Dover

Publications (1952), pages 11-34. In this paper, Lorentz has essentially

derived the same equations as Einstein derives a year later, in his

special relativity paper of 1905, Ref. [12], the difference being that

Lorentz considers time to be an absolute quantity and consider the

speed of light to be different for different observers. Hence, he is led to

the conclusion of a strange variation in the mass of the electrons when

we consider the forces acting in the longitudinal and the transverse

directions (equation 30 on page 24). It is these equations that Einstein

reproduces on page 63, with the remark that when comparing different

theories for the motion of the electron, one must proceed very

cautiously.

[61] Lorentz, H. A., Theory of Electrons and the Propagation of Light,

December 11, 1902, see extract below from Lorentz’s Nobel lecture.

[62]

Thomson, J. J. Carriers of Negative Electricity,

mson-lecture.html This is the best explanation for the particle view of

the electron; better than found in most physics textbooks.

[63]

Thomson,

G.

P.

Electronic

Waves,

June

7,

1938,

mson-lecture.html (J. J. Thomson, who received the Nobel Prize in 1906

for the discovery of the electron, and put forward the particle view, was

in attendance when his son gave the Nobel lecture to put forward the

wave view of the electron. The wave viewpoint was popular in Europe,

before J. J. Thomson used the particle view and determined the

mass/charge ratio for the particles that comprised the “cathode rays”.)

[64]

Price, R., and Zizka, J., Experimental Determination of the Speed of light

by the Foucault Method,

 
 

[65]

The

Speed

of

Light

and

Index

of

Refraction,

html The refractive index for lead is 2.6 and the speed of light is reduced

to 1.2 x 10 8 m/s (or 2.6 x 10 8 miles per hour). High energy gamma rays

travel for only a few centimeters before being completely absorbed.

summary of the measured values of the speed of light, first determined

by the Danish astronomer Røemer (by studying the eclipses of Io, the

innermost of Jupiter’s moons), to the currently accepted value can be

found here. The modern value is 299,792,458 m/s or 299,792.458 km/s.

Unfortunately, physicists have now adopted the view that the speed of

light is no longer to be considered a measured quantity (at the Geneva

Conference on Weights and Measures, October 21, 1983, see Ref. [50]),

but rather a defined quantity. Since the magnetic permeability is also

taken as a defined quantity (μ 0 = 4π×10 7 Hm 1 , Henry/meter), if the

speed of light is also taken as a defined quantity, based on Maxwell’s

theory of electromagnetism, the electrical permittivity ε 0 = 1/c 2 μ 0 also

becomes a fixed quantity. This need NOT agree with experimental

observations, if such observations are made sometime in the future, say

in the 21 st century or the 22 nd century,

using materials from a
using
materials
from
a
<a href=mson-lecture.html This is the best explanation for the particle view of the electron; better than found in most physics textbooks. [63] Thomson, G. P. Electronic Waves, June 7, 1938, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1937/tho mson-lecture.html (J. J. Thomson, who received the Nobel Prize in 1906 for the discovery of the electron, and put forward the particle view, was in attendance when his son gave the Nobel lecture to put forward the wave view of the electron. The wave viewpoint was popular in Europe, before J. J. Thomson used the particle view and determined the mass/charge ratio for the particles that comprised the “cathode rays”. ) [64] Price, R., and Zizka, J., Experimental Determination of the Speed of light by the Foucault Method, http://www.phys.ksu.edu/personal/rprice/SpeedofLight.pdf [65] The Speed of Light and Index of Refraction, http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Dept2/APPhys1/optics/optics/node4. html The refractive index for lead is 2.6 and the speed of light is reduced to 1.2 x 10 8 m/s (or 2.6 x 10 8 miles per hour). High energy gamma rays travel for only a few centimeters before being completely absorbed. [66] The speed of light, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light A summary of the measured values of the speed of light, first determined by the Danish astronomer Røemer (by studying the eclipses of Io, the innermost of Jupiter’s moons), to the currently accepted value can be found here. The modern value is 299,792,458 m/s or 299,792.458 km/s. Unfortunately, physicists have now adopted the view that the speed of light is no longer to be considered a measured quantity (at the Geneva Conference on Weights and Measures, October 21, 1983, see Ref. [50]), but rather a defined quantity. Since the magnetic permeability is also taken as a defined quantity ( μ = 4π×10 − 7 H ⋅ m − 1 , Henry/meter), if the speed of light is also taken as a defined quantity, based on Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism, the electrical permittivity ε = 1/c 2 μ also becomes a fixed quantity. This need NOT agree with experimental observations, if such observations are made sometime in the future, say in the 21 st century or the 22 nd century, using materials from a different planet of our own solar system (such as Mars, or Venus, or Page 39 of 42 " id="pdf-obj-38-170" src="pdf-obj-38-170.jpg">

different planet of our own solar system (such as Mars, or Venus, or

Mercury), or our moon, or an asteroid, or if such an experiment can be

conducted on an exoplanet, outside our solar system.

[68] McFarland, K., Speed of Light Demonstration by the Foucault Method,

filled with water was inserted between the two mirrors to show that the

speed of light in water is lower than in air. The exact of the two speeds,

given later by Albert Michelson, was 1.33 and corresponds to the

refractive index of water.

[69] Rotating mirror, Foucault’s measurement of light speed in air and water,

[70] Historical Measurements of the Speed of Light, http://www.speed-

light.info/measurement.htm Final quote here is of interest. However 1400

years ago it was stated in the Quran (Koran, the book of Islam) that angels travel in one day the same distance that the moon travels in 1000 lunar years, that is, 12000 Lunar Orbits / Earth Day. We discovered that when the geocentric frame is inertial 12000 Lunar Orbits / Earth Day becomes equivalent to the speed of light! See proof: Speed of Light.

[71]

Speed of Light is 12000 lunar orbits per earth day, http://www.speed-

light.info/speed_of_light_12000.htm The author provides a proof of this

statement from the Koran which gives the distance traveled by angels in

one earth day. In this method of stating the speed of light, 12000 lunar

orbits is the distance traveled by light and time in which this distance is

covered is one earth day. So, angels travel at the speed of light. It should

be noted that numbers like 12000 also appears in the ancient Hindu

scriptures such as the Srimad Bhagavatam which provides a description

of the cosmic time scales and distances, see Srila Prabhupada’s

translations http://vedabase.com/en/sb/3/11 (see in particular

3.11.19).

[72] Inertial reference frame, All inertial reference frames are in a state of

constant

rectilinear

motion

with

respect

to

each

other

and

accelerometer

will

detect

no

acceleration,

[73] Bergmann, P. G., Introduction to the theory of relativity (with foreword

by Albert Einstein) Dover Publications (1976), see pages 28 to 38 for

the mathematical derivation of the space and time relations.

[74] Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia, Great Minds Series, Translated by

Andrew Motte, Prometheus Books (1995).

[75] Bose, S. N., Planck Law and Light Quantum Hypothesis, ZP (1924), 26,

sent his paper to Einstein who had it translated and sent to the journal

for publication, with a short comment at the very end. This led to

Einstein to predict the existence of a new state of matter called the BEC,

Bose-Einstein Condensate. Bose points out the logical flaw in the

derivation, see Bose’s equation 1, which relies on classical physics for to

deduce the term (8πν 2 /c 3 ) which is then multiplied by Planck’s value for

the average energy U. (The law derived using classical physics is called

Rayleigh-Jeans law with kT replacing Planck’s average U; see

unnumbered equation given by Bose, following the first paragraph.)

Bose’s re-derivation of the law shows that the entire radiation formula

can be deduced without resorting to the classical theory. The statistical

formula used by Bose is W = N!/N 1 ! N 2 ! N 3 ! …N r ! , see Gearhart’s review

and Refs. [77, 78], permutations with repetitions.

[76] Theimer, O., and Ram, B., The beginning of quantum statistics, Am. J.

Phys.,

vol.

44,

No.

11,

pp.

1056-57,

[77]

Delbrück, M., Was Bose-Einstein Statistics arrived at by Serendipity?,

J. Chem. Education, vol. 57, No. 7, July 1980, pp. 467-470, The author

received the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1969 and was a pioneer in the

field of molecular biology, http://users.physik.fu-

illustrations in Figures 1 to 3 of this paper which critique the method of

counting used by Bose in his 1924 paper.

[78]

Permutations with Repetitions,

[79]

Combinatorics and Probability,

by Bose is found in the section 4.6, Orderings with Identical Items

[80] The Multiplication Principle, Permutations and Combinations,

[81]

The

Multiplication

Principle,

Permutations

and

Combinations