Codex @codex  0

The screen now lies in the back focal plane of the lens. In paraxial geometrical optics, a light ray arriving at the lens at height $y$ and angle $\theta$ leaves at angle $\theta -y/f$, and reaches the screen atThus all light rays with the same incident direction reach the same screen coordinate, independently of their height at the lens. The Fraunhofer diffraction pattern is an angular pattern mapped to $x=f\theta$:Here $I_{s,f}$ is the one-slit light intensity after focusing. Its absolute value depends on collected light and the lens aperture, which are unspecified; it need not equal the no-lens value $I_s$. Propagation from the slits to the lens introduces a common angular wave phase, so it does not alter the relative wave phase responsible for these fringes, provided the aperture passes the required light.

The two optical frequencies have no persistent mutual optical coherence over the detector's averaging time, so their light intensities add. Assuming equal strengths and using $s=1.0\mathrm{mm}$, let $I_s$ be the one-slit light intensity at either wavelength. ThenThe identity $\cos A+\cos B=2\cos [(A+B)/2]\cos [(A-B)/2]$ rewrites this asThe slowly varying interferometric visibility is approximately $\mathcal{V}=|\cos (\pi s\sin \theta [1/{\lambda }_1-1/{\lambda }_2])|$. Its first zero occurs atThe rapid fringes have effective wavelength ${\lambda }_h=2{\lambda }_1{\lambda }_2/({\lambda }_1+{\lambda }_2)=529.81\mathrm{nm}$, so the first contrast minimum is at order $7.02\mu \mathrm{m}/{\lambda }_h=13.25$. Thus the conventional estimate is about 13 fringes on each side, before their first washout, plus the central maximum. “Clearly” is not a specified visibility threshold: the last of those fringes already has low contrast.

The fringes do not disappear permanently beyond that point. Their contrast revives; the first exact common maximum satisfies $27{\lambda }_1=26{\lambda }_2=14.04\mu \mathrm{m}$, at $|\theta |=0.804^{\circ }$. This is a concrete counterexample to interpreting 13 as a global bound on visible fringes. Unequal spectral strengths would leave nonzero residual contrast at the nominal washout; the plotted equal-strength case is the natural interpretation in the absence of specified strengths.

For a sinusoidal plane electromagnetic wave in vacuum, write the maximum electric field as $E_0$. The magnetic field maximum is $B_0=E_0/c$, so the cycle-averaged Poynting vector magnitude, or light intensity, isEach photon carries energy $hf$, where $h$ is the Planck constant. Therefore the photon number flux density, namely the number per unit normal area per unit time, isMultiplying by an illuminated normal area gives the photon arrival rate. Each absorbed photon transfers momentum $hf/c$ at normal incidence, giving the radiation pressure on a perfectly absorbing surfaceThese are time-averaged quantities. At oblique angle of incidence $\theta$, the normal radiation pressure is $I{\cos }^2\theta /c$; the simple displayed expression assumes normal incidence.

Take coordinate $y$ across the slit and observation angle $\theta$ from its normal vector. Under Fraunhofer diffraction, the relative optical path difference from $y$ is $y\sin \theta$. Uniform coherent illumination makes the complex amplitude proportional to the aperture integral:The light intensity is proportional to $|\mathcal{E}{|}^2$, soThe central value is the continuous limit of the sinc function. The first minima satisfy $\sin \theta =\pm \lambda /w$, if $\lambda \le w$. Infinite slit height removes spreading in the other transverse direction; this expression describes the slit-width direction.

Strictly, distance $D\gg w$ alone does not ensure Fraunhofer diffraction: one also needs $w^2/(\lambda D)\ll 1$, so that quadratic aperture-dependent wave phase is negligible, or observation in a suitable focal plane. For example, $w=1\mathrm{mm}$, $\lambda =500\mathrm{nm}$ and $D=1\mathrm{m}$ have $D/w=1000$ but $w^2/(\lambda D)=2$; the Fresnel diffraction correction is then substantial. The displayed result uses the intended far-field regime of the question and the usual scalar aperture approximation.

Let $x$ be mirror displacement from equal optical paths in a Michelson interferometer, so the optical path difference is $2x$. Different spectral components add detected light intensities; each component interferes with its own delayed copy. For equal line strengths and ideally balanced arms, writeThe trigonometric identity for the sum of cosines givesThus the sketch consists of rapid fringes within a slowly varying contrast envelope. With $\bar{\lambda }$ the mean wavelength and $|\Delta \lambda |\ll \bar{\lambda }$, the mirror-displacement fringe spacing is $\bar{\lambda }/2$. The interference visibility isThe first contrast zero is at $x=1/(4\Delta s)$; successive visibility maxima are separated byBetween successive contrast zeros the signed envelope changes sign, shifting the rapid fringes by half a cycle. Unequal line strengths leave a nonzero minimum contrast. Finite linewidth adds a longer-range coherence envelope, while arm imbalance and polarization mismatch can reduce contrast without indicating a different spectral spacing.

In Fresnel diffraction, the propagation wave phase varies quadratically across the aperture and that curvature must be retained. For a transverse scale $w$ at propagation distance $L$, its size is of order $\pi w^2/(\lambda L)$. In Fraunhofer diffraction, that quadratic term is negligible, approximately $w^2/(\lambda L)\ll 1$, while the linear phase encoding the observation angle remains. A lens can also form the far-field angular pattern in its focal plane.

For a normally incident plane wave and aperture transmission $h(x,y)$, the far-field complex amplitude is its Fourier transform:The detected light intensity is proportional to $|\psi {|}^2$. For identical parallel slits, write the transmission as a sum of shifted copies of one slit. The Fourier shift theorem gives one single-slit transform multiplied by the sum of positional phase factors:The single-slit diffraction envelope sets the broad scale, while coherent interference between slit centres produces the finer array pattern. One sums complex amplitudes before squaring, rather than adding independent slit intensities.

The photoelectric effect, black-body radiation and the Davisson–Germer experiment challenge different parts of a fully classical picture. Classical electromagnetic waves successfully describe propagation, interference and diffraction, while classical particles follow trajectories determined by forces. The difficulty is combining that picture with the observed exchange of energy between radiation and matter, the equilibrium distribution of radiation, and electron scattering. The three experiments expose the roles of discrete energy exchange and coherent matter waves.

In a photoelectric effect experiment, monochromatic light illuminates a metal cathode in vacuum and a second electrode collects emitted electrons. Varying the collecting voltage measures a photocurrent; reversing it until collection ceases determines the stopping potential. The observations distinguish two controls: at fixed frequency above threshold, increasing light intensity increases the emission rate, whereas the largest emitted kinetic energy is determined mainly by frequency. There is a material-dependent photoelectric threshold frequency, and emission above threshold does not require the long charging-up delay predicted by a simple picture of gradual classical energy accumulation at low intensity.

A classical wave carries continuously distributed energy, with intensity proportional to squared field amplitude. On a fully classical absorption picture, increasing intensity would be expected to increase the energy delivered to an electron, and sufficiently long exposure could accumulate the escape energy even below the observed threshold. It does not naturally produce the measured universal straight-line relation between stopping potential and light frequency. In 1905, Albert Einstein instead treated light-energy transfer as localized quanta. His argument distinguished the fastest escaping electrons from electrons losing energy before escape.^[ref]

In the single-photon regime, conservation of energy gives the Einstein photoelectric equationwhere $\Phi$ is the surface work function. The photon supplies energy $h\nu$; the escape cost is paid first, and the remainder sets the upper electron-energy edge. Increasing intensity at fixed frequency increases the number of available photons, so it raises current without raising this edge. Below ${\nu }_0$, one photon cannot pay the escape cost. In an actual measurement, stable surface preparation, suppression of unwanted higher-frequency light, and the photoelectric contact-potential correction are needed to test the slope $h/e$ reliably. Robert Andrews Millikan's experiment used selected mercury spectral lines, freshly exposed metal surfaces and an electrometer to make such a quantitative test.^[ref] The interpretation is for weak single-photon illumination; multiphoton photoemission at sufficiently intense fields is a different regime.

Black-body radiation tests equilibrium physics rather than the escape of individual electrons. A small aperture in an isothermal absorbing cavity approximates an ideal blackbody: radiation entering the hole undergoes repeated interactions with the walls, and the equilibrium spectrum depends on temperature rather than wall material. A spectrally resolving detector outside the aperture measures how emitted power varies with frequency or wavelength. Experimentally the spectrum has a finite peak, is strongly suppressed at short wavelengths, shifts toward shorter wavelengths when the cavity is heated, and has integrated emission proportional to $T^4$.

For a large cavity, the electromagnetic mode density in a box, including two independent transverse polarizations, is $g(\nu )=8\pi {\nu }^2/c^3$ per volume per unit frequency. The classical equipartition theorem assigns mean energy $k_{B}T$ to each mode, leading to the Rayleigh-Jeans lawThis agrees at low frequencies but diverges as frequency increases; integrating it over all frequencies gives infinite energy density at any nonzero temperature. This is the ultraviolet catastrophe, a failure of classical equipartition applied to the electromagnetic modes.

Max Planck's essential modification was that energy at a frequency is exchanged in units $h\nu$. In a modern oscillator description, the thermal excitation levels are $nh\nu$, $n=0,1,\dots$. Using the Boltzmann distribution and summing a geometric series givesMultiplying by the mode density yields Planck's law for the spectral energy density,When $h\nu \ll k_{B}T$, expansion of the denominator recovers the classical law. When $h\nu \gg k_{B}T$, the large excitation cost suppresses occupancy exponentially, removing the divergence. Its integral gives the Stefan–Boltzmann law, while its peak gives Wien's displacement law. Thus quantization repairs the spectral shape, total emission and temperature dependence together. The displayed thermal energy excludes the oscillator's temperature-independent zero-point energy.

The Davisson–Germer experiment supplies the complementary evidence that matter cannot always be treated as classical particles with definite scattering trajectories. In 1927, Clinton J. Davisson and Lester Halbert Germer sent a narrow, accelerated electron beam normally onto a single nickel crystal in vacuum. A movable collector measured the current of scattered electrons as direction and accelerating voltage were varied; a retarding potential selected electrons retaining approximately the incident energy. Sharp angular beams depended on crystal orientation and beam energy, with a prominent feature near $54\mathrm{V}$ and detector colatitude $50^{\circ }$. These are scattering directions and currents, not photographs of electron paths.^[ref]

The de Broglie wavelength predictsAt $U=54\mathrm{V}$, this gives $\lambda \simeq 0.167\mathrm{nm}$, comparable to atomic spacings. A crystalline arrangement supplies regularly spaced scattering sites, so scattered probability amplitudes can add constructively in selected directions. For a suitable family of crystal planes, Bragg's law expresses the condition as $2d\sin {\theta }_B=n\lambda$, with ${\theta }_B$ measured relative to those planes. The detector colatitude is not automatically this angle. The measured angular structure and its variation with electron momentum are described by electron diffraction with the de Broglie wavelength. A classical point-particle deflection model has no phase wavelength $h/p$ and does not supply that interference condition.

The common quantum account preserves the successes of wave propagation and particle detection while changing what is quantized. Photons exchange energy in frequency-dependent units; a thermal distribution of those excitations gives the blackbody spectrum. Electrons have a wavefunction whose amplitudes interfere on scattering from a crystal, while detection transfers localized charge. The Born rule turns squared amplitudes into event probabilities. These results invalidate a fully classical description of matter and radiation; the photoelectric energy law alone does not establish every property of a quantized electromagnetic field, but the three phenomena together provide complementary evidence for the quantum description.

A bubble is a thin water layer surrounded by air. At a locally flat patch, let its thickness be $d$, its refractive index be $n$, and the internal angle of refraction be ${\theta }_t$. The two principal reflected light contributions are the reflection at the first surface and the contribution that enters the layer, reflects at its second surface and leaves again. The first reflection, from lower to higher refractive index, introduces a $\pi$ phase shift; the second does not. Their optical path difference is $2nd\cos {\theta }_t$, so their phase difference is, modulo $2\pi$,where ${\lambda }_0$ is the vacuum wavelength. Constructive interference in reflected light therefore occurs approximately whenDestructive interference occurs at $2nd\cos {\theta }_t=m{\lambda }_0$. In the weak-reflection approximation, the reflected light intensity at each wavelength is proportional to ${\sin }^2(2\pi nd\cos {\theta }_t/{\lambda }_0)$. This is a smooth spectral filter, with broad maxima and minima: it does not select three pure wavelengths corresponding to display primaries. Ordinary illumination contains many visible wavelengths, and the eye combines their remaining contributions through color vision. The result is a mixture of colours, often pastel or desaturated.

The layer thickness varies over the bubble because of drainage and flow; the bubble's curvature also changes the local angle of refraction and the viewed optical path difference. The spectral filter therefore changes continuously across the surface and in time. Very thin regions become dark because the two reflected contributions nearly cancel across the visible optical spectrum. Thin-film interference explains both the changing colours and this dark limit.

The ray sketch shows a local patch and is not to scale. The plotted curves use a chosen constant $n=1.33$ at normal incidence and illustrative thicknesses; they show the spectral filter rather than calibrated perceived colours.

The expression is a scalar diffraction theory integral for a monochromatic wave. The complex quantity ${\psi }_P$ represents a field complex amplitude, with physical field obtained by taking the real part after multiplication by $e^{-i\omega t}$. The light intensity is proportional to $|{\psi }_P{|}^2$. The coordinates $x,y$ label transverse positions in the aperture plane, $\Sigma$ is its transmitting region, and $h(x,y)$ is the incident field multiplied by the aperture's complex transmission. The wavenumber is $k=2\pi /\lambda$ in the propagation medium, and $R$ is the axial propagation distance if $h$ already includes the incident field.

To derive the Fresnel diffraction, start from Huygens-Fresnel principle contributions with propagation factor $e^{iks}/s$. With the coordinate origin at the projection of $P$ into the aperture plane,The paraxial approximation requires $\rho /R\ll 1$, where ${\rho }^2=x^2+y^2$. Replace the slowly varying $1/s$ and the obliquity factor by their axial values, but retain the quadratic variation of wave phase. Neglect of the next wave phase term requires $k{\rho }^4/(8R^3)\ll 1$ over the relevant aperture. Thus, apart from a common constant,The quadratic wave phase may be of order one or much larger; setting it to zero would require the stronger conditions for Fraunhofer diffraction. The scalar treatment also neglects the detailed vector field at aperture edges and assumes dimensions large enough compared with wavelength for this approximation to be useful.

For a finite-distance axial point source at distance $p$ and an observer at distance $q$, the incident field contributes its own quadratic wave phase. If $h$ instead denotes only the aperture transmission, the combined curvature is described by an effective distanceThese are two equivalent conventions for distributing the incident wave phase between $h$ and the exponential. Both distances must be included in the later calculation.

Use SI units throughout: $d=1.0\times 10^{-3}\mathrm{m}$, $\lambda =1.0\times 10^{-6}\mathrm{m}$, and $p=q=1.0\mathrm{m}$. The effective propagation distance is $R_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.50\mathrm{m}$, givingIn the supplied Cornu spiral, the endpoint at $w=1$ is approximately $(C,S)=(0.78,0.44)$. HenceMore accurate Fresnel integrals, $C(1)=0.7798934$ and $S(1)=0.4382591$, give $I_P/I_0=2.562$. The central light intensity is increased to about $2.6$ times the unobscured value, an increase of roughly $160\%$.

There is no violation of conservation of energy: the aperture reduces the total transmitted power, while removing contributions that partly cancel the central field redistributes the transmitted power across the observation plane. In particular, the square aperture does not give the same central field as a circular aperture of a superficially similar size.

Use Fresnel diffraction, since the detector moves along the axis through successive near-field interference extrema. Write $z$ for its distance from the opening and $\rho$ for the integration coordinate within the opening. For a uniform incident plane wave, the on-axis complex amplitude, in the paraxial approximation, is proportional toThus the light intensity relative to the incident value isThe Fresnel number $F=r^2/(\lambda z)$ is an odd integer at a maximum and an even integer at a minimum. It decreases as the detector moves away. Adjacent extrema therefore differ by one:ConsequentlyAs a check, $F=5$ at $z=1\mathrm{m}$ and $F=4$ at $z=1.25\mathrm{m}$, so these are indeed a maximum followed by the next minimum. Also $r/z\simeq 1.5\times 10^{-3}$, consistent with the paraxial approximation.

The far-field complex amplitude is the two-dimensional Fourier transform of the aperture amplitude transmittance, evaluated at transverse spatial frequencies $q_x=k{\ell }_x$, $q_y=k{\ell }_y$. The light intensity is proportional to the squared magnitude of this transform.

Use linearity to add the transforms of simpler aperture components, preserving their relative phases. A translated component acquires a complex exponential factor. Repeated identical openings can be expressed as the convolution of one opening with a sum of Dirac delta functions; the convolution theorem then factors the field into a single-opening transform and an array factor. Multiplying aperture functions instead convolves their transforms. These operations simplify complex apertures without repeatedly evaluating the full diffraction integral. It is the complex amplitudes, rather than their wave intensities, that are added for coherent illumination.

Take the quoted separation to mean adjacent slit centre spacing $d=50\mu \mathrm{m}$. For three equal very narrow slits at $-d,0,d$, the Fraunhofer diffraction complex amplitude in the transverse direction isWith $I_1$ denoting one narrow slit's contribution, the light intensity isThe quotient is interpreted by its limit where both numerator and denominator vanish. At small angles on a screen at $R=1\mathrm{m}$, $\sin \theta \simeq X/R$ and $\beta =\pi X/(10\mathrm{mm})$. Principal interference fringes occur atBetween successive principal maxima there are two zeros, at $X=(m+1/3)(10\mathrm{mm})$ and $X=(m+2/3)(10\mathrm{mm})$. Halfway between them is a smaller maximum $I=I_1$, one ninth of a principal peak. The pattern is symmetric about $X=0$. The positions quoted in millimetres use the paraxial approximation; exactly $d\sin {\theta }_m=m\lambda$ and $X_m=R\tan {\theta }_m$.

The required resolving power of a diffraction grating isFor $N=260$ illuminated slits, $\mathcal{R}=260|m|$. In orders $1,2,3,4$, the ideal resolvable wavelength differences are respectively $2.267$, $1.133$, $0.756$ and $0.567\mathrm{nm}$. ThusFourth order gives $\mathcal{R}=1040>982.2$, only a modest margin. It must also exist: for normal incidence the grating equation requires $D\ge 4\lambda \simeq 2.36\mu \mathrm{m}$, with $D>4\lambda$ needed to avoid an exactly grazing order. The relevant order must transmit appreciable light intensity rather than lie at a single-slit diffraction zero, and the source and detector widths must preserve this resolution.

The original question gives only the slit count, not the line spacing, slit width, usable diffraction order or instrumental broadening. It therefore supports the conditional conclusion “yes in fourth or higher usable order”, but not an unconditional historical claim that this particular instrument resolved the sodium absorption line doublet in its observed configuration.

$\boxed{\text{(a): two-photon excitation; (b): one-photon/confocal excitation.}}$ The compact emitting region in (a) indicates that excitation itself is strongly localized. In (b), the illuminated path generates out-of-focus fluorescence as well as fluorescence near the focus. A confocal detection pinhole can reject much of that unwanted emission from the recorded image; it does not prevent the dye solution from emitting it.

In ordinary one-photon excitation, the local fluorescence-generation rate is approximately proportional to excitation light intensity $I$. In unsaturated two-photon excitation microscopy, it is proportional to $I^2$. Simultaneous absorption is appreciable only in the high-intensity focal region, generally produced using a pulsed laser. Two lower-energy photons jointly excite the fluorophore; the excitation wavelength is therefore typically substantially longer than in its one-photon experiment. This reduces out-of-focus excitation and permits detection without a confocal pinhole.^[ref]

For a small detection pinhole, the effective confocal point spread function is approximatelyHere each factor denotes an intensity response. Excitation and detection jointly select the focal region. Enlarging the pinhole increases collected signal but weakens axial rejection and changes the effective point spread function. In two-photon excitation microscopy with broad collection, the spatial response is dominated byThe pinhole product and excitation square are different physical mechanisms even when simplified mathematical profiles resemble one another.^[ref]

Compare both lateral and axial widths using the actual wavelengths and objective. For a diffraction-limited system, their characteristic scalings arewhere $\mathrm{NA}$ is numerical aperture and $n_{\mathrm{med}}$ is the medium's refractive index. Numerical prefactors depend on the width criterion and high-aperture optical model. Axial resolution is generally worse than lateral resolution. A small confocal pinhole improves axial sectioning and can narrow the lateral response, at the cost of photon throughput.

As a simple Gaussian function example, $h(x)=\exp [-x^2/(2{\sigma }^2)]$ has squared profile $h(x{)}^2=\exp [-x^2/{\sigma }^2]$, so its width is reduced by $1/\sqrt{2}$. However, the two-photon illumination spot itself is broader at its longer excitation wavelength. Two-photon excitation is not automatically higher-resolution than confocal microscopy, and ordinary two-photon sectioning is not intrinsically super-resolution. Compare measured point spread functions, pinhole settings, numerical apertures, scattering and optical aberrations, not just the fact that one profile is squared.

The original model figure below separates focal confinement from wavelength-dependent width. It is an illustrative one-dimensional Gaussian function calculation, not a reproduction or quantitative fit of the supplied photograph.

Phase-contrast microscopy converts specimen-dependent phase differences into visible light intensity differences. It can reveal structures in living, unstained biological cells, allowing their changes to be followed without first making an absorbing preparation.^[ref] The key question is how an optical microscope can read a phase when an ordinary detector records light intensity.

Consider a transparent specimen with complex amplitude transmission $t(x,y)=e^{i\varphi (x,y)}$. In ideal in-focus coherent imaging with all relevant spatial frequencies transmitted, its image has $I=|t{|}^2=1$: varying $\varphi$ alone produces no brightness detail. This is a particular model, not a claim that all transparent specimens are invisible. Diffraction, defocus, absorption and a finite optical pupil can already change a real image.

A phase-contrast microscope images an illuminating annulus onto a phase plate ring near the objective's rear focal plane. The aligned ring attenuates and shifts direct light relative to most diffracted light; their interference changes image brightness.^[ref]

The method is beautiful because the bright direct beam becomes its own reference: a small specimen-dependent complex amplitude can interfere with it and change the image at first order. Merely magnifying an invisible phase pattern would leave $|t{|}^2$ unchanged.

A phase factor is a unit-modulus complex number $e^{i\varphi }$. Multiplying a complex amplitude by it changes its wave phase by $\varphi$ while preserving its squared modulus. A common phase factor does not change light intensity, while different phase factors of contributions can change their interference.

An optical filter that changes selected light's phase relative to other transmitted light. In phase-contrast microscopy, its ring can also attenuate the direct reference; the amplitude transmission and light intensity transmission must be distinguished. An amplitude transmission $a=1/2$ gives an intensity transmission $a^2=1/4$.

Phase-shifting interferometry measures an optical phase difference by recording light intensities at controlled relative wave phase shifts. For two sufficiently coherent fields at one detector point, a common model iswhere $C$ is a common background, $A$ a modulation amplitude and ${\delta }_j$ a known applied step. Several measurements separate the unknown wave phase from light intensity background and contrast; a single bright or dark frame generally cannot do so.

A concrete primary implementation was reported in 1974. A piezoelectrically varied reference arm and a 1024-element photodiode array supplied sampled light intensities to a minicomputer, which recovered wave phase by synchronous Fourier-series detection. The paper describes optical-surface and lens testing, repeated sampling and compensation of instrumental wavefront errors.^[ref] This is an experimental implementation of controlled wave phase modulation; it is not a claim that every such system uses the same number of steps.

Writing the model asturns wave phase recovery into a linear fit followed by $\varphi =atan2(-D,B)$. The step choices must make the three columns $1,\cos {\delta }_j,\sin {\delta }_j$ independent. Repeating only the same wave phase cannot identify all three unknowns. With more steps, least squares can fit the coefficients while exposing model residuals.

A reflecting reference mirror moved axially by $\Delta z$ changes its round-trip optical path by $2\Delta z$ in the simple normal-incidence geometry, giving $\delta =4\pi \Delta z/\lambda$. A quarter-cycle wave phase step thus corresponds to $\Delta z=\lambda /8$; at 632.8 nm this is 79.1 nm. These are geometric model values, not a calibration result for the historical apparatus.

Phase-step calibration error, light intensity drift, motion between frames and detector nonlinearity can all break the common-intensity model. The retrieved wave phase remains modulo $2\pi$, so phase unwrapping requires additional spatial or temporal information. The useful observable is the relative wave phase under controlled acquisition conditions, not an absolute optical wave phase inferred from brightness alone.

The photoelectric effect is the release of electrons from matter following photon absorption. Here the focus is emission from a metal surface into vacuum: a photon supplies energy, the work function pays the escape cost, and the remainder can become the emitted electron's kinetic energy. A photocurrent counts collected electric charge; a stopping potential probes the upper kinetic energy limit. These are different measurements.

In 1905, Albert Einstein proposed that an individual light quantum could transfer its whole energy to one electron. His §8 allowed losses before escape, distinguished the fastest emitted electrons from the rest, and predicted a straight stopping potential versus frequency relation with a material-independent slope. He separately predicted that changing light intensity changes the number emitted without changing their velocity distribution under otherwise identical conditions. He also discussed incomplete transfer and limits to the account.^[ref]

The useful modern starting model is a clean, homogeneous metal with independent single-photon events, negligible initial thermal broadening, negligible lowering of the surface barrier by an applied electric field, and negligible electric fields from the emitted electrons themselves. Specify the surface and its work function; it is not enough to name the bulk material. The Einstein photoelectric equation describes the upper edge of the emission energy distribution. It neither predicts that every absorbed photon liberates an electron nor supplies the whole photocurrent curve. Its appeal is that a complicated surface process still exposes the universal Planck constant through a simple slope.