## Discussion Questions Rich Text Content

1) No. If light were truly a wave, I would expect the amplitude of the wave to define it's energy. For example, if light were a wave it would behave like sound, which we know to be a mechanical pressure wave. The energy contained in sound is defined by how big the compressions it creates are, not by how many compressions per second occur (i.e. a high frequency sound can be very quiet and therefore have low energy even though it is at a high frequency).

2) Yes. The intensity of the light is analogous to the amplitude of the light and by changing the intensity of the light you are changing the energy of the light. Therefore if light is a wave, it would be dependent on the amplitude.

3) Yes. Becuase the energy isn't contained in a single point on a wave front, enough of the wave would have to hit the phototube to give the electrons the energy they need to escape before they can go. However, this "time delay" would be extremely minute.

4) Yes. The frequency of the light will determine exactly how much energy is in each color. Therefore, each color would represent a specific energy and no matter how much of that light is present, it will all be at the same energy.

5) No. Like I just said, if light follows the quantum model, each quanta of light will have the same amount of energy no matter how many hit a surface. Therefore intensity doesn't matter

6) No. If light follows the quantum model then all the energy of these particles will be contained at a single point, and once that point collides with the surface, there will be enough energy there to eject an electron. In other words, every single particle of light contains enough energy to knock off electrons.

7) The quantum theory unanimously! Both experiment 1 and 2 point towards the confirmation of the quantum model of light.

rich_text