In fact, when light hits metal, part of the light is reflected, and what is not reflected accelerates the movement of electrons, heating the metal, but does not knock them out. After a certain heating, the metal goes into a liquid state, but does not lose any electrons
Look at real-world applications- elevators, bar code scanner, X-ray, Industrial automation, satellites, international space station, and solar energy- just to name a few. Certainly, such innovations deserve Nobel. Amazing to know. Thanks a ton.
It's really beneficial as I realised this vd clarified all my doubts in just few minutes . So it's better to watch this vd without spending time to go tuitions
На самом деле при попадании света на метал часть света отражается, а та что не отразилась ускоряет движение электронов нагревая металл, но не выбивает их. После определённого нагрева металл переходит в жидкое состояние, но никаких электронов не теряет
The toll booth example is not a good example - if you pay more than required , you can still pass. A good example is cardboard with holes - if you throw particles bigger than the holes you don't see any effect, irrespective of how many you throw. Similarly particles much smaller than the hole would not even know that the holes exist. Particles of similar size can feel the hole.
You were doing well until you said that light is made of massless particles. That is simply not the case, no matter how many times people repeat it. Light is a quantum field that can only exchange quanta of energy that carry an angular momentum of one Planck unit. It's the angular momentum quantization together with angular momentum conservation that makes it look like material particles are involved. The human mind likes to imagine that discrete conserved quantities have a material carrier. We made this mistake twice before in form of the phlogiston and the aether. This is the third time that this fallacy come around. One would think that humans can learn from past mistakes, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
@@aditya__chavan What concept? Energy, momentum and angular momentum? You should be well acquainted with all of those by 11th grade. All you need to remember in addition is that "A photon is a small amount of energy.". That's eight words. An 11th grader should be able to do that, right? By the time you are given this information you must have read millions of words. If you want to go all the way to grad student level physics, then you can remember "A photon is the smallest amount of energy, momentum and angular momentum that the electromagnetic field can exchange irreversibly with another system.". That's a bit more precise but it doesn't give you all that much more ontology.
What about that hole which get generated after loosing an electron, how it get's it's electron back ? 3:20 Or that excited e- again transfers the energy ( to the next atom's e- ) & comes back to it's position again, from where it was excited initially...is this the case ?
Question: Where do tye electrons go to after gettting emergy transfered from photons. I am actually still a gcse student,just like these type of stuff, so i dont understand much of all of this.
There is something wrong here because if the light has a high intensity, it will knock out more electrons because a high intensity means more photons, and that means more electrons will come out of the metal.
No It doesn't depend upon intensity As for photoelectric effect you need minimum amount of fixed energy required to remove electron from different metal surfaces and it is different for different metal High intensity doesn't mean there will be more electron coming out of metal surface It depends on metal and the collisions occuring bw electrons May might be a case where the electron absorb energy but do not come out at all because the energy absorb may be lost in collisions occuring inside the metal surface
ohhh, so you mean it will not remove more energy because of its metal nature? If that is the case, I think it will knock out more electrons in a time interval.@@prachitiwari890
@@prachitiwari890it’s like if you have a glass with water but isn’t full, you shake it with lesser than enough energy and it only rotates and swirls inside the glass(internal collisions), but only when you have more than the minimum amount of shaking the water gets enough energy to fall out the glass. That’s the idea right?
@@prachitiwari890I think you are wrong We need a light of the correct frequency to eject the electrons, but at that point if time the intensity doesn't matter bcz the min frequency requirement is not full-filled But when we have a light of enough frequency, then surely enough the light with more intensity will eject more electrons
bro you saved me literally i ve watched 3 teachers explain this and I couldnt get it until i made it here THANKS A MILLION
Glad you found it useful!
can't believe there aren't as many people that watch this as there should be.
It’s science videos that I’d actually watch outside school
for real@@Loirn-onajourney
You're video is so amazing, can i use your video for my thesis?
I understood that bro is a fan of DC ✅️
tnx, i have chemistry test tomorrow and i knew nothing abt photoelectric effect but this helped a lot. You got a new sub.
respect sir you explained in a great manner and also i love the way you relate the science with real life application
I successfully studied 1detail and 1short answer by this video I'm studying 12th Standard from India😃
In fact, when light hits metal, part of the light is reflected, and what is not reflected accelerates the movement of electrons, heating the metal, but does not knock them out. After a certain heating, the metal goes into a liquid state, but does not lose any electrons
this is PERFECT
thanks
Look at real-world applications- elevators, bar code scanner, X-ray, Industrial automation, satellites, international space station, and solar energy- just to name a few. Certainly, such innovations deserve Nobel. Amazing to know. Thanks a ton.
شكرًا لك 🌱🌸
أخيرا لقيت حد عربى 😂❤
@@rahma8394 اهلا اهلا 🩵😂
It's really beneficial as I realised this vd clarified all my doubts in just few minutes . So it's better to watch this vd without spending time to go tuitions
this is cool ... i really found a hard to study this but animation such like that always make it simple , thx
W explanation
Will a blue light always kick off an electron according to photo electric effect as it has highest frequency
Saved me from failing tyy 🙏🙏
I like this explanation a lot
This is an amazing theory
And you made itvery easy to me
soo good
BRO THATS AMAZING
Thanks 😊
Thank you
the animation is the best
thanks a lot
Does it mean when we watch our devices, we eject of electrons of our eyes
If our eyes have less work function than the Radiation emitted from the device
Can only sun undergo photoelectric effect or every light? And how is it used in barcode scanner?
So nicee thank you
На самом деле при попадании света на метал часть света отражается, а та что не отразилась ускоряет движение электронов нагревая металл, но не выбивает их. После определённого нагрева металл переходит в жидкое состояние, но никаких электронов не теряет
The toll booth example is not a good example - if you pay more than required , you can still pass. A good example is cardboard with holes - if you throw particles bigger than the holes you don't see any effect, irrespective of how many you throw. Similarly particles much smaller than the hole would not even know that the holes exist. Particles of similar size can feel the hole.
You were doing well until you said that light is made of massless particles. That is simply not the case, no matter how many times people repeat it. Light is a quantum field that can only exchange quanta of energy that carry an angular momentum of one Planck unit. It's the angular momentum quantization together with angular momentum conservation that makes it look like material particles are involved. The human mind likes to imagine that discrete conserved quantities have a material carrier. We made this mistake twice before in form of the phlogiston and the aether. This is the third time that this fallacy come around. One would think that humans can learn from past mistakes, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Wrong, photons are massless
@@mrdefaultynoob Light is NOT made of particles. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 it's made of photons
You MAY be right I'm not sure but this concept is for class 11(highschool) students in my country, that's the reason
@@aditya__chavan What concept? Energy, momentum and angular momentum? You should be well acquainted with all of those by 11th grade. All you need to remember in addition is that "A photon is a small amount of energy.". That's eight words. An 11th grader should be able to do that, right? By the time you are given this information you must have read millions of words. If you want to go all the way to grad student level physics, then you can remember "A photon is the smallest amount of energy, momentum and angular momentum that the electromagnetic field can exchange irreversibly with another system.". That's a bit more precise but it doesn't give you all that much more ontology.
What about that hole which get generated after loosing an electron, how it get's it's electron back ? 3:20
Or that excited e- again transfers the energy ( to the next atom's e- ) & comes back to it's position again, from where it was excited initially...is this the case ?
😭😭😭😭so cute and good
thanks a lot
Question:
Where do tye electrons go to after gettting emergy transfered from photons.
I am actually still a gcse student,just like these type of stuff, so i dont understand much of all of this.
I think they'll stay in atmosphere and get into atoms of gases
Most Pre- Teens will tell ya,....if a SNACk- FOOD didn't mention this,....
It probably didn't happen
Dimes di exist
Einstein Baba
I'm an engineer, and . . .
and what ?😂
@@rahma8394 doesn't matter. Whatever an engineer says, people listen.
Okay 😂@@cattnipp
haha that's why I wrote that. I'm not an engineer.
@ that's how all youtube comments start
There is something wrong here because if the light has a high intensity, it will knock out more electrons because a high intensity means more photons, and that means more electrons will come out of the metal.
No
It doesn't depend upon intensity
As for photoelectric effect you need minimum amount of fixed energy required to remove electron from different metal surfaces and it is different for different metal
High intensity doesn't mean there will be more electron coming out of metal surface
It depends on metal and the collisions occuring bw electrons
May might be a case where the electron absorb energy but do not come out at all because the energy absorb may be lost in collisions occuring inside the metal surface
ohhh, so you mean it will not remove more energy because of its metal nature? If that is the case, I think it will knock out more electrons in a time interval.@@prachitiwari890
@@prachitiwari890it’s like if you have a glass with water but isn’t full, you shake it with lesser than enough energy and it only rotates and swirls inside the glass(internal collisions), but only when you have more than the minimum amount of shaking the water gets enough energy to fall out the glass. That’s the idea right?
Such quantisation of light into particles, as opposed to the wave model, led to quantum mechanics, a paradigm Einstein didn’t like.
@@prachitiwari890I think you are wrong
We need a light of the correct frequency to eject the electrons, but at that point if time the intensity doesn't matter bcz the min frequency requirement is not full-filled
But when we have a light of enough frequency, then surely enough the light with more intensity will eject more electrons
What are these animations 😂
Hindi language plz 😢😢😢😅😅😅😅😂😂😂
I like this explanation a lot
This is an amazing theory
And you made itvery easy to me
I like this explanation a lot
This is an amazing theory
And you made itvery easy to me