Re: [Phys-L] Delay in photoelectric effect?

[brian whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

This seems like an excellent topic to distinguish experimentally the "EM 
radiation is not quantized" enthusiasts from the "all energetic transfer 
is quantized" enthusiasts.
 Give the deployment of a single electron sensor, any desired division 
of incident light flux intensity may be arranged so as to test the 
relation between incident flux intensity and resulting electron 
production delay, as it appears to me.

Brian Whatcott
p.s. past tense of arise is arose.

On 9/16/2014 1:30 PM, Savinainen Antti wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it is again a time in the year when I'm teaching early quantum mechanics for the IB and 
> Finnish syllabus HS students. We just finished discussing the photoelectric effect and a 
> question arised: does the lack of time delay in the process really mean "no time 
> whatsoever"? Could it be that the time delay is so small that it cannot be measured 
> using the available technology? Or is it really a process which takes exactly zero time? 
> My physical intuition (well, for what it's worth) would suggest that it would take *some* 
> time, although clearly much less than classically anticipated.
>
> For comparison, it is possible to monitor electrons participating in a chemical 
> reaction in real time (e.g., <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21887417>). 
> This was not feasible, say, 50 years ago but it is now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Antti Savinainen, PhD
> Finland