In this paper the question´s relevance investigates, if there can be an alternative explanation and if experiments are biased by the theory. If 1-9 below deals with the behaviour of mass: 1. E = mc2 2. m = L/c2 3. L = p1-n 4. E = hv 5. Ψ (t, x) = p1-n 6. E = aRb 7. S = ap1-nb 8. aRb = ap1-nb 9. E = mc2 = aRb = hv Then the new interpretation of the photoelectric effect is this formula: a (Ψ (x, t) = p1-n) b Light (L) is moving packages in Nature, which is the relation between a and b, i. e. the structure of b will be changed by R. L has the function of supporting b with packages needed by b. This gives a new interpretation of the photoelectric effect, by introducing the concept Transformer and aRb. The transformation of photons by a Transformer between systems functions only in combination with complimentary particles. Plants are Transformers and make sugar and oxygen by using water, carbon dioxide and light, i. e. the photosynthesis. The conclusion it that light does not exist in isolation, i. e. the photoelectric effect is only valid in laboratory experiments and it is not found in nature. The so-called photoelectric effect is only an imaginary effect, based on invalid postulates and theories of physics and chemistry, but in an artificial laboratory environment it works out.
The classical interpretation of Young’s double slit experiment is that, before and after passing through the diaphragm of the double slit, the light behaves as waves. In 1905, Einstein interpreted Photoelectric effect by photon theory of light that revived, in some sense, particle theory. Feynman called the double slit experiment “the only mystery [of quantum mechanics]. For studying the mystery, we propose for the first time both the photon chamber and Postulates of convex lens, and utilize both to the classical wave experiments. Experiments show new phenomena in the classical wave experiments: (1) the non-interference patterns near the diaphragm and interference patterns near the screen coexist; (2) the non-interference patterns evolve to the interference patterns; (3) the interference patterns and the non-interference patterns are produced independently and partially; (4) the light is not EM waves; (5) the light is photons not only in Photoelectric effect but also in the classical wave experiments, and the photons distribute as waves near the screen and on the screen, we referred the phenomena as Photowaves Phenomena. The experimental results in this article are consistent. New phenomena require a consistent interpretation. Author believes that students would be interested in those DIY experiments. Students, while learning/performing, would propose their owe interpretations.
Description “Discrete detection does not imply discrete existence.” For over a century, the photoelectric effect has been cited as the decisive experimental result that forced physics to abandon wave-only models of light and accept wave–particle duality. Einstein’s 1905 interpretation argued that because electrons are ejected instantaneously and in discrete events, light itself must consist of discrete particles. This paper shows that this conclusion is not logically required. We present a reinterpretation of the photoelectric effect based on the Total Wave Modified Schrödinger Equation (TWMSE), a deterministic wave-interference framework with threshold-based collapse. Within this model, the observed discreteness arises from the detection process, not from the ontology of light itself. Key Findings The “Photon” Is an Event, Not an ObjectThe photon is shown to be a retrospective label applied to a discrete wave-collapse event. The event is discrete; the source field (light) remains continuous and wave-like. Threshold-Based Collapse Explains EmissionElectron emission occurs when the curvature density of the interfering electromagnetic wave field exceeds a material-specific stability threshold. Below this threshold, no emission occurs regardless of intensity. Resolution of Classical ParadoxesThe model reproduces all defining features of the photoelectric effect—instantaneous emission, threshold frequency, and the linear dependence of electron kinetic energy on frequency—without invoking particle ontology. Mathematical Equivalence Without Particle AssumptionsA direct mapping is provided showing that the TWMSE collapse formulation reproduces Einstein’s photoelectric equation purely through wave curvature dynamics. Why This Matters By resolving the photoelectric effect entirely within a deterministic wave framework, this work removes the primary historical justification for wave–particle duality. It clarifies that discrete experimental outcomes do not require discrete underlying entities and supports a unified field interpretation of quantum measurement consistent with prior TWMSE results in electromagnetism, gravity, and macroscopic systems. Included in This Upload Full theoretical and mathematical derivation Conceptual comparison: Einstein’s particle interpretation vs. TWMSE wave-collapse interpretation Mapping table between classical photoelectric variables and TWMSE collapse parameters