Skip to main content

How Einstein reassured that light is a particle?

 



It was the period of Newton when he said the light is nothing but a stream of particles, and with which the reflection, refraction and other observed phenomena are explained. Everything was good.


But after that, there were new observations which could not be explained by the particle nature of light.

The famous one was Young's double slit experiment, which deduced that light was nothing but a wave and was later known to be a type of electromagnetic wave (with the help of Maxwell's equations). 

Then scientists re-explained how the wave-light could perform the reflection, refraction and other phenomena which were previously under the category of particle-light.


So people changed their perspective and agreed that light was a wave. Again, everything was good.


But with no concern about the mental peace of scientists, another observation had appeared - the photoelectric effect.


What is the photoelectric effect?

In short, you throw the light at the surface of metals, and they give out electrons.


What we should expect from the wave-light?

The wave-light has two main properties - frequency and amplitude, and the energy of the light is proportional to both.

So, if the frequency is high but the amplitude is low (or) if the frequency is low but the amplitude is high, the energy of the light could be considered the same.

Once you got the light to the required energy, and you shoot it on metal surfaces, it gives off electrons.


But what was reported by observations?

If you give the input of light with more frequency and less amplitude, electrons are coming out, but if you give it with less frequency and more amplitude, electrons are not coming!


"What the heck is happening??" - the response from the then scientists. (You can relate to this feeling, can't you?)


Then came Einstein to help us - saying that light behaves like a particle! (Yeah, back to square one...)


How did 'light as the particle' explain the photoelectric effect?

The light consists of particles and the energy of these particles solely depends on the frequency.

The amplitude of wave-light, which corresponded to the intensity (brightness, to put it simply) was mapped to the number of light particles.

So, take the case of more frequency and low amplitude(intensity):

As the particles have more frequency, means they have more energy. So if they have enough energy they can eject electrons from the surface. Job done.

Now, the case of less frequency and more amplitude:

This case is nothing but having more particles at hand, but none of them has more energy. 

So, as long as the particles don't have enough energy, the number of particles you throw on metals does not matter...

This explanation matched the observations perfectly.


What happened afterwards?

Yeah so when we got the evidence for both wave-light and particle-light, we started to accept (once more) and live with the truth that light exists as both wave and particle - the wave-particle duality!!

***

Thank you so much for reading up on this!

If you want to give feedback on this post of any kind, feel free to do so in the comments section!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Top 5 take aways from "Linux 101 Hacks" - The Bloggers League 2022

  Author: Rama Subrahmanyam Hello, how are you doing..?         We all know that Windows is a super cute-looking OS, but software people will connect to Linux; It offers much flexibility with file management, and plus, it's open-source too..!         So, the book - Linux 101 Hacks, is a nice intro for beginners, by Ramesh Natarajan . Having said that, we look at the top 5 hacks from the book. It is a free e-book, and you can download it here . 1. 'alias' for most used commands:-     There will be commands that are used repeatedly, for which we can have a shortcut using an alias. For example, for cd commands, we can have            alias cd1="cd .."           alias cd2="cd ../.."           alias cd3="cd ../../.."           alias cd4="cd ../../../.."           alias cd5="cd ../../../../.." *Put these in your .bashrc to save permanently. 2. 'ctrl-r' to search:-     Pressing the up arrow till you reach that one previous

Bye-bye strict timetables...! - The Bloggers League 2022

     Author: Rama Subrahmanyam (ramasubrahmanyam.m@gmail.com) When we are planning for multi-tasking, we divide our time and allocate it for each task. That is a great thing, as it gives a chance for incremental growth, eventually getting compounded...      Scheduling makes us punctual; sometimes forces us to be punctual if someone is counting on us, say an examination, office meeting, so on...      Besides strict things, some activities should happen at planned times, like sports, gym, etc. But, we still have things, that can be done in our free time - say reading books, solving puzzles, or learning something of our passion. Should we also maintain the timetable in those cases...? Well, may not be that necessary... We get used to a task at the same time if we have a strict timetable; In a way, can also affect our peace... Suppose due to urgent work, we missed a task      -  We may develop a bad feeling,      - This can lead to frustration, anger, regret, grief...       uff... Enough d

How can we become narrow-minded people without realising it?

In science, whenever we observe a novel event, we start sharpening our brains to decode it. We make a couple more observations related to that event, and try to get a reason for it. It was also the same with the previous generation of scientists. They observed various new phenomena and they gathered as much information as possible to get the accurate reason behind them. But there was a problem with the human mind. In the past days, when there was limited information at hand and more time was required for getting new information, scientists had to make the best possible theories (i.e., explanations) with whatever data was available. It was like a competition, where the scientist with the best theory would win. This "winner" scientist, should be able to explain the data from future experiments with the theory. Consider that, a new experiment happened later, but the results were not explained by the theory of our scientist, then the theory was to be changed, and again the compet