|
Post by icefisher on Sept 19, 2016 18:31:13 GMT
Well Kuhn is in the paper you linked to is the among 8 historians an outlier minority of one. My view is there always at least one nut in every conversation. Your view is not relevant here. The view of the Max Planck institute was it was 20 years since Kuhn and it was time to look at quantum discontinuity again where the reviewers found: "the detailed results brought forward by Kuhn’s revisionist account have meanwhile found their way into the historical literature on the quantum theory and have, even though with some modifications, to a considerable degree been accepted by other historians of science," The view of Max Planck in 1909 and 20 years later is totally clear - Planck was not ready for the revolution. I have moved this thread here out of courtesy to others: The above is typical of your half baked approach to debating. The article is clear. History has treated Max Planck well. There is a table in the paper that summarizes the findings of the paper. It has scientific 8 historians who have written papers on the matter. Four of those credit Max Planck as the discoverer of the quantum theory. Three are inconclusive. And one which you chose to focus on actually appears to advance an argument that Einstein's 1905 paper fell short of discovery as it was speculative and described it mathematically in terms of classical physics. All issues that Einstein continued to support while quantum mechanics went in a different direction to a new non-classical set of physics. 1) So you are wrong about what the paper was about. It wasn't about whether Planck discovered energy quanta (photons). The paper is about whether Planck should be considered the discoverer of the quantum mechanics revolution. So your argument is totally invalid that he did not discover energy quanta. My gawd! He got the Nobel Prize for it. 2) You are a political moron because what the heck do you think kind of paper the Max Planck Institute would write? They have written a paper acknowledging that Max Planck did not discover all that there was to discover in quantum mechanics but that he discovered the first step which was in deducing energy quanta from the measurements of his oscillators. Yes you were wrong about him not doing experiments too. Politically, if they would not write an article supporting a questionable notion that Planck's discovery was did not represent the birthdate of quantum mechanics. But you skip read it and cherry picked parts of it to makes some broad moronic claim about it, exactly like your propensity to do so regarding the greenhouse theory, latent heat, ice breakers, barycenters and probably every topic you get involved in. 3) Realize that "considerable degree" in the Max Planck Institute article you provided above. That means you need to look elsewhere to quantify it rather than moronically assuming its a conclusive link in support of your argument that Planck did not discover energy quanta (photons). I did and reported the results above. Kohn's view was a lone view but that his view had convinced some (a minority of) historians that the notion that Planck was the discoverer of quantum mechanics (not energy quanta) might be inconclusive. It took about 10 seconds to find the table that summarized the literature they were referring to. 4) Finally, its actually a pretty good paper in support of the notion of Max Planck being the discoverer of quantum mechanics (and they long ago placed the birthdate of that in 1900 when Planck released his findings and reference it in this paper). While there is minority dispute the consensus view is that he is the discoverer. 5) Is the paper biased? I have little doubt of its probability of being biased but someone else needs to do the research as to whether, like you, they cherry picked their sources. You though will first have to realize what it says. 6) And did you actually expect there not be controversy? After all both Planck and Einstein remained as the biggest critics of the direction that quantum mechanics took. How can they be discoverers of it if they were heretics? Fact is they lost a number of rounds after that, but its worth noting that its not proven they were wrong in their world view that a common set of equations would be discovered to cover all of electromagnetism and that the current direction of science is not moving into a lot of mathematically convenient Ptolemy-like epicycles around the truth. 7) Who won this argument. I am going to claim victory in that your argument self destructed. And your own source provides the evidence. I have no opinion on who discovered non-classical physics quantum mechanics, as it exists today. It has been largely attributed to Einstein but indeed as I also pointed out he was a theoretician (in the speculative sense) whereas Planck worked in the area of physics theory he did not work in the universe of speculation. While there are thousands of arguments why Columbus did not discover America, the fact is he provided the first surviving record of it and it wasn't some guy in Geneva (or whereever) that pointed toward the west and said sail that way and you will find the east Indies. That latter guy is like Einstein a man of great vision, highly proficient in mathematics and physics, but really the discoverer of very little. The Nobel Prize committee is aware of this and has been for a long time. They awarded the Nobel Prize to Planck for discovering "energy quanta" in 1918. The awarded Einstein a few years later for "his contributions to theoretical physics" for his vision regarding the quantum mechanics revolution. And Kuhn who is apparently somebody who believes like I do that true "discovery" always involves experiment claimed neither Planck nor Einstein were the discoverers of the quantum revolution. So far nobody appears to be supporting Einstein due to his lack of qualifications for discovery. But nobody in the article you produced contended that Planck did not discover "energy quanta". The paper only argues about Planck and to some extent Einstein not being aware of the nature of the revolution to come that came out of their work. But I see this as a discovery by Planck and then an evolution of that discovery to what it is today and that the Max Planck institute acknowledging that folks feel that way also statistically made a case at the same time that via the plurality of the literature Planck remains as the founder/discoverer of the quantum mechanics revolution. One has to get into infinite hair splitting to disagree. Planck himself described the effect it had on his own mind when he discovered energy quanta. He didn't want to believe it but realized he had to. His dogmatic hold on classical physics is why. So his resistance was a realization of the impact of what his discovery was even if he never imagined how far and deep the discovery would go. So if you can find something that refutes that Planck discovered energy quanta (later to be dubbed photons) please read it all first carefully then present it. And to provide you some incentive. I am sure I screwed up something in the above because I only skip read the thing but found the key points as they applied to photons. All the rest seemed irrelevant. So if you want to go in there and pick it apart, I would welcome it because that effort could help my view point on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 19, 2016 18:56:47 GMT
Your view is not relevant here. The view of the Max Planck institute was it was 20 years since Kuhn and it was time to look at quantum discontinuity again where the reviewers found: "the detailed results brought forward by Kuhn’s revisionist account have meanwhile found their way into the historical literature on the quantum theory and have, even though with some modifications, to a considerable degree been accepted by other historians of science," The view of Max Planck in 1909 and 20 years later is totally clear - Planck was not ready for the revolution. There is a table in the paper that summarizes the findings of the paper. The historians are divided into discontinuists, discontinuists with planck not knowing what he was finding, and only Kuhn with continuous. The discontinuists are your best bet to show Duwayne was wrong: www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P150.PDFAmong historians, the most powerful discontinuist is Martin Klein. In papers written in the 1960s, Klein discussed Planck’s program, his relation to Boltzmann, and his lack of concern for the Rayleigh-Jeans law. Although he did not dwell on the question of quantum discontinuity, he clearly took the discontinuist interpretation for granted. In 1961, comparing Einstein’s and Planck’s quantum considerations, he wrote: “Planck had quantized only the energy of the ma- terial oscillators and not the radiation.” "Klein admitted that Planck was not fully aware of the revolutionary character of this step" "Physicist-historians have usually agreed with Klein’s view."
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 19, 2016 21:08:35 GMT
There is a table in the paper that summarizes the findings of the paper. The historians are divided into discontinuists, discontinuists with planck not knowing what he was finding, and only Kuhn with continuous. The discontinuists are your best bet to show Duwayne was wrong: Very true and they were in the plurality. The folks in the inconclusive camp don't support your (even though it sounds like you are already trying to disown it) point of view that he did not, they are shall we say conflicted. One out of eight is the only real heretic of the idea that Planck was the discoverer of quantum mechanics. But that suggests maybe the Nobel Committee was in error on the issue of energy quanta on one hand if you want to extend Kohn's point of view to the discovery of energy quanta (photons). The issue of photons is pretty much done for anybody who thinks Einstein discovered them as he himself attributes it to Planck. Very clearly though Einstein extended it theoretically to light beams which are made up of the same stuff that Planck discovered. I find that an interesting twist in the discussion but it who discovered what has little to do with greenhouse gas theory except to the extent the existence of photons convinces you the greenhouse machine actually works as a machine vs a thought experiment about what you can do with greenhouse gases and photons.. And as a little tease on that last point. It is clear that greenhouse gases promote convection. But they do so at the expense of cooling the atmosphere, the heat of which was the only force preventing convection. Sounds like a contradiction to a theory of warming to me. Sounds like a trade off the net effect of if any needs to be demonstrated. Climate sciences thought effect accomplishes eliminating that by eliminating convection and conduction and assuming no cooling occurred and only the warming part of the atmospheric effect occurred. . . .rather typical of the tunnel vision you find surrounding thought experiments.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 20, 2016 4:08:34 GMT
The historians are divided into discontinuists, discontinuists with planck not knowing what he was finding, and only Kuhn with continuous. The discontinuists are your best bet to show Duwayne was wrong: the most powerful discontinuist is Martin Klein....he wrote: “Planck had quantized only the energy of the material oscillators and not the radiation.” "Klein admitted that Planck was not fully aware of the revolutionary character of this step" "Physicist-historians have usually agreed with Klein’s view. The issue of photons is pretty much done for anybody who thinks Einstein discovered them as he himself attributes it to Planck. Very clearly though Einstein extended it theoretically to light beams which are made up of the same stuff that Planck discovered. Icefisher, do you realise that the word photon, is associated with all forms of electromagnetic radiation? Yes or no please. archive.org/details/eightlecturesont00planuoftMax PlanckEight lectures on theoretical physics, delivered at Columbia University in 1909. pages 95 - 96 Consequently, there remains only the one conclusion, that previous electron theories suffer from an essential incompleteness which demands a modification, but how deeply this modification should go into the structure of the theory is a question upon which views are still widely divergent J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark, who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta hv. I am of the opinion, on the other hand, that at present it is not necessary to proceed in so revolutionary a manner, and that one may come successfully through by seeking the significance of the energy quantum hu solely in the mutual actions with which the resonators influence one another.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 20, 2016 4:48:39 GMT
I'm glad that we now know how to avoid this banal discussion.
Icefisher your sacrifice will be remembered.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 20, 2016 9:20:36 GMT
I'm glad that we now know how to avoid this banal discussion. Icefisher your sacrifice will be remembered. Well its fun and you always learn something along the way. For example, Andrew just learned he isn't going to get much help from the Max Planck Institute.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 20, 2016 10:04:41 GMT
Andrew just learned he isn't going to get much help from the Max Planck Institute. The opposite happened. Planck was focusing on "his resonators" for the quantum effect and was not even considering elecromagnetic wave theory was being challenged by what he found. www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P150.PDF"Among historians, the most powerful discontinuist is Martin Klein. In papers written in the 1960s, Klein discussed Planck’s program, his relation to Boltzmann, and his lack of concern for the Rayleigh-Jeans law. Although he did not dwell on the question of quantum discontinuity, he clearly took the discontinuist interpretation for granted. In 1961, comparing Einstein’s and Planck’s quantum considerations, he wrote: “Planck had quantized only the energy of the ma- terial oscillators and not the radiation.” "Klein admitted that Planck was not fully aware of the revolutionary character of this step" "Physicist-historians have usually agreed with Klein’s view." What aspect of this simple reality is beyond your comprehension??
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 20, 2016 10:26:54 GMT
The issue of photons is pretty much done for anybody who thinks Einstein discovered them as he himself attributes it to Planck. Very clearly though Einstein extended it theoretically to light beams which are made up of the same stuff that Planck discovered. Icefisher, do you realise that the word photon, is associated with all forms of electromagnetic radiation? Yes or no please. archive.org/details/eightlecturesont00planuoftMax PlanckEight lectures on theoretical physics, delivered at Columbia University in 1909. pages 95 - 96 Consequently, there remains only the one conclusion, that previous electron theories suffer from an essential incompleteness which demands a modification, but how deeply this modification should go into the structure of the theory is a question upon which views are still widely divergent J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark, who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta hv. I am of the opinion, on the other hand, that at present it is not necessary to proceed in so revolutionary a manner, and that one may come successfully through by seeking the significance of the energy quantum hu solely in the mutual actions with which the resonators influence one another.
Actually Andrew I am not much interested in what a photon is considered to be today. The topic is discovery and you now seem to be running a path towards an idea that with each change in perception of what something is it becomes something else in it entirety. I am not willing to pursue that line of thinking as it does not seem to represent a path toward learning something new, though if you think it does have at it. On the topic of discovery. I can accept that Christopher Columbus discovered America. There is plenty of support for the idea. We know he was not the first person to get to America. But here we are talking about discovery in a non-personal way. Writing a paper and distributing it can win you an accolade as a discoverer. Christopher Columbus obviously did not discover all of what America was, that was left to many explorers that followed his path and those who found new paths from the continents of Africa, Asia, etc. Of course Columbus did not give America its name. That came decades later as other explorers discovered that the new land was not the East Indies but a new world. The parallels here are obvious and your statement above that photons are an elementary particle used in all forms of electromagnetism is an admission that the "land" discovered by Planck was photons. He didn't name them, he didn't discover all their properties (something that no doubt has not even been done today), but he was the discoverer of them. Now some may want to limit photons to "light" or "light quanta" but I see that as just ignorance of what you above agree what photons are. So like Columbus there are disputes. America may have been named after explorer Amerigo Vespucci who followed Columbus and claimed Columbus' discovery as a "new world". So the name may have come from papers concerning Vespucci's voyages but later Columbus got the accolade as discoverer as people realized he was the first to make a documented voyage across the Atlantic. In this case, Andrew, you made my case by bringing forth the paper documenting history's view on the matter. Pretty definitive I would say. The paper documents the discovery and discoverer of the quantum mechanics revolution as Max Planck and gives a date for its birth. No doubt if you call the institute today they will give you the same date. Of course you are free to go about ripping apart your own source. Be my guess, go out and do a compilation of literature on the subject and see if you come up with a better documented answer than you did with the Max Planck Institute document. p.s. the issue of the oscillators is irrelevant. Planck used the oscillators and a black box to discover the quantum and the basis of his discovery are the laws of radiation. He effectively isolated noise and measured the oscillators. Its a bogus argument because nobody have shown his deductions from his measurements to be incorrect. No amount of big red fonts is going to change that disconnect unless somebody shows his deductions to be incorrect and big red fonts don't rise to that level. But I realize that big red fonts is the last thin thread you are hanging onto, just that the threads are not a lifeline as they are not tied to the boat. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 20, 2016 10:57:34 GMT
Icefisher, Andrew's big red highlights are bigger than yours .... I'm afraid it's all over.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 20, 2016 15:32:55 GMT
Icefisher, do you realise that the word photon, is associated with all forms of electromagnetic radiation? Yes or no please. archive.org/details/eightlecturesont00planuoftMax PlanckEight lectures on theoretical physics, delivered at Columbia University in 1909. pages 95 - 96 Consequently, there remains only the one conclusion, that previous electron theories suffer from an essential incompleteness which demands a modification, but how deeply this modification should go into the structure of the theory is a question upon which views are still widely divergent J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark, who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta hv. I am of the opinion, on the other hand, that at present it is not necessary to proceed in so revolutionary a manner, and that one may come successfully through by seeking the significance of the energy quantum hu solely in the mutual actions with which the resonators influence one another.
Actually Andrew I am not much interested in what a photon is considered to be today. The topic is discovery and you now seem to be running a path towards an idea that with each change in perception of what something is it becomes something else in it entirety. I am not willing to pursue that line of thinking as it does not seem to represent a path toward learning something new, though if you think it does have at it. On the topic of discovery. I can accept that Christopher Columbus discovered America. There is plenty of support for the idea. We know he was not the first person to get to America. But here we are talking about discovery in a non-personal way. Writing a paper and distributing it can win you an accolade as a discoverer. Christopher Columbus obviously did not discover all of what America was, that was left to many explorers that followed his path and those who found new paths from the continents of Africa, Asia, etc. Of course Columbus did not give America its name. That came decades later as other explorers discovered that the new land was not the East Indies but a new world. The parallels here are obvious and your statement above that photons are an elementary particle used in all forms of electromagnetism is an admission that the "land" discovered by Planck was photons. He didn't name them, he didn't discover all their properties (something that no doubt has not even been done today), but he was the discoverer of them. Now some may want to limit photons to "light" or "light quanta" but I see that as just ignorance of what you above agree what photons are. So like Columbus there are disputes. America may have been named after explorer Amerigo Vespucci who followed Columbus and claimed Columbus' discovery as a "new world". So the name may have come from papers concerning Vespucci's voyages but later Columbus got the accolade as discoverer as people realized he was the first to make a documented voyage across the Atlantic. In this case, Andrew, you made my case by bringing forth the paper documenting history's view on the matter. Pretty definitive I would say. The paper documents the discovery and discoverer of the quantum mechanics revolution as Max Planck and gives a date for its birth. No doubt if you call the institute today they will give you the same date. Of course you are free to go about ripping apart your own source. Be my guess, go out and do a compilation of literature on the subject and see if you come up with a better documented answer than you did with the Max Planck Institute document. p.s. the issue of the oscillators is irrelevant. Planck used the oscillators and a black box to discover the quantum and the basis of his discovery are the laws of radiation. He effectively isolated noise and measured the oscillators. Its a bogus argument because nobody have shown his deductions from his measurements to be incorrect. No amount of big red fonts is going to change that disconnect unless somebody shows his deductions to be incorrect and big red fonts don't rise to that level. But I realize that big red fonts is the last thin thread you are hanging onto, just that the threads are not a lifeline as they are not tied to the boat. LOL! Planck did not even believe in atoms and electrons in 1900, and by 1909 he was still clinging on to Classical wave theory, while the others sailed on without him. He never measured any oscillators. He only had a theoretical interest. Planck and Einstein were similar theorists with the difference Einstein showed Plancks energy quanta could not be derived from classical physics and Einstein made the big leap into quanta existing in electromagnetic radiation. For heavens sake give it up. Duwayne was correct. Planck was against the idea of photons even after Einstein proposed electromagnetic quanta. Planck was a conservative who was trying to explain experimental results using traditional wave theory. "I am of the opinion, on the other hand, that at present it is not necessary to proceed in so revolutionary a manner, and that one may come successfully through by seeking the significance of the energy quantum hu solely in the mutual actions with which the resonators influence one another" What aspect of that is beyond you to understand? The others were way ahead of Planck and Planck was fighting them even in 1909! "J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark, who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta" Planck says in 1909, Einstein has a radical view and even believes in photons. Duwayne was totally correct and you are hopelessly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 20, 2016 22:33:37 GMT
Planck did not even believe in atoms and electrons in 1900, and by 1909 he was still clinging on to Classical wave theory, while the others sailed on without him. He never measured any oscillators. He only had a theoretical interest. Planck and Einstein were similar theorists with the difference Einstein showed Plancks energy quanta could not be derived from classical physics and Einstein made the big leap into quanta existing in electromagnetic radiation. For heavens sake give it up. Duwayne was correct. Planck was against the idea of photons even after Einstein proposed electromagnetic quanta. Planck was a conservative who was trying to explain experimental results using traditional wave theory. "I am of the opinion, on the other hand, that at present it is not necessary to proceed in so revolutionary a manner, and that one may come successfully through by seeking the significance of the energy quantum hu solely in the mutual actions with which the resonators influence one another" What aspect of that is beyond you to understand? The others were way ahead of Planck and Planck was fighting them even in 1909! "J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark, who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta" Planck says in 1909, Einstein has a radical view and even believes in photons. Duwayne was totally correct and you are hopelessly wrong. What do you think? Are we going to believe a moron or are we going to believe the intelligencia of an august physics institution? Careful now this is an intelligence test!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 21, 2016 5:09:00 GMT
Planck did not even believe in atoms and electrons in 1900, and by 1909 he was still clinging on to Classical wave theory, while the others sailed on without him. He never measured any oscillators. He only had a theoretical interest. Planck and Einstein were similar theorists with the difference Einstein showed Plancks energy quanta could not be derived from classical physics and Einstein made the big leap into quanta existing in electromagnetic radiation. For heavens sake give it up. Duwayne was correct. Planck was against the idea of photons even after Einstein proposed electromagnetic quanta. Planck was a conservative who was trying to explain experimental results using traditional wave theory. "I am of the opinion, on the other hand, that at present it is not necessary to proceed in so revolutionary a manner, and that one may come successfully through by seeking the significance of the energy quantum hu solely in the mutual actions with which the resonators influence one another" What aspect of that is beyond you to understand? The others were way ahead of Planck and Planck was fighting them even in 1909! "J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark, who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta" Planck says in 1909, Einstein has a radical view and even believes in photons. Duwayne was totally correct and you are hopelessly wrong. What do you think? Are we going to believe a moron or are we going to believe the intelligencia of an august physics institution? Careful now this is an intelligence test! Icefisher, I am happy to believe Planck. "J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark, who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta""
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 21, 2016 13:42:04 GMT
Icefisher, I am happy to believe Planck. "J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark, who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta"" Well thats a great argument but only if you want to endorse the idea that photons only exist in a pure vacuum. If they do only exist in a pure vacuum then for sure Planck did not discover them. I seriously doubt you want to make that argument. So why are you implying you are making that argument? Because you have been reduced once again to an absurdity? The argument that Plancks revolutionary discovery was not a discovery of photons because he had doubts that his quanta extended beyond the atmosphere is not an argument against Planck discovering energy quanta/photons. Did Christopher Columbus realize that the lands he discovered extended to Alaska on the northwest corner and to Terra del Fuego at the southern end? Of course he didn't. Its not a requirement of discovery to learn all there is to know about something before being credited for being the discoverer. If that were the case you can easily argue that nothing has ever been discovered. Most references on Columbus suggest he thought he had found only a new route to the East Indies. But discoveries are usually a big surprise to the discoverer who often isn't totally aware of what he discovered. Finally calling the views of Einstein et al as radical does not mean he excluded them. Discovery is a recognition of a first documented and proven glimpse of information or an object. The story on Planck fits that to a tee. Even to his own words regarding how hard he resisted acknowledging his discovery himself. Einstein is credited with the "theory" of photons but he as you even acknowledged credited Planck for the discovery by equating with Plancks energy quanta. Thats why most references usually state that Einstein's photoelectric paper extended Planck's discovery. Bottom line Andrew. Call the Max Planck Institute and ask them what the birthdate is for the quantum mechanics revolution. They will tell you December 14, 1990. There was no change of opinion nor recanting as you have claimed. Actually there is a good argument that without a religious belief of the existence of something one cannot discover anything without being surprised. That would be false only if someone else's discovery is what led you to claiming the discovery for yourself. One could ask if without Planck would there have been any of Einstein's famous work. Its possible that the elimination of Planck's discovery would have caused time to bypass Einstein. Einstein did not even write one paper before Planck's discovery and the first couple Einstein himself considered worthless and said so in 1907. His great works I think all arose off the discovery of energy quanta. Its not hard to imagine that Planck initially saw Einstein as a young usurper. Certainly this entire thread gives a lot of merit to that idea.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 21, 2016 16:32:42 GMT
Icefisher, I am happy to believe Planck. "J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark, who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta"" calling the views of Einstein et al as radical does not mean he excluded them. Planck November 1912 preface to second edition of the theory of heat radiation archive.org/details/theheatradiation00planrich"While many physicists, through conservatism, reject the ideas developed by me, or, at any rate, maintain an expectant attitude, a few authors have attacked them for the opposite reason, namely, as being inadequate, and have felt com pelled to supplement them by assumptions of a still more radical nature, for example, by the assumption that any radiant energy whatever, even though it travel freely in a vacuum, consists of indivisible quanta or cells. Since nothing probably is a greater drawback to the successful development of a new hypothesis than overstepping its boundaries, I have always stood for making as close a connection between the hypothesis of quanta and the classical dynamics as possible, and for not stepping outside of the boundaries of the latter until the experimental facts leave no other course open." www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P150.PDFAmong historians, the most powerful discontinuist is Martin Klein. ..... In 1961, comparing Einstein’s and Planck’s quantum considerations, he wrote: “Planck had quantized only the energy of the ma- terial oscillators and not the radiation.” "Klein admitted that Planck was not fully aware of the revolutionary character of this step"" Physicist-historians have usually agreed with Klein’s view."
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 21, 2016 17:32:52 GMT
calling the views of Einstein et al as radical does not mean he excluded them. Planck November 1912 preface to second edition of the theory of heat radiation archive.org/details/theheatradiation00planrich"While many physicists, through conservatism, reject the ideas developed by me, or, at any rate, maintain an expectant attitude, a few authors have attacked them for the opposite reason, namely, as being inadequate, and have felt com pelled to supplement them by assumptions of a still more radical nature, for example, by the assumption that any radiant energy whatever, even though it travel freely in a vacuum, consists of indivisible quanta or cells. Since nothing probably is a greater drawback to the successful development of a new hypothesis than overstepping its boundaries, I have always stood for making as close a connection between the hypothesis of quanta and the classical dynamics as possible, and for not stepping outside of the boundaries of the latter until the experimental facts leave no other course open." www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P150.PDFAmong historians, the most powerful discontinuist is Martin Klein. ..... In 1961, comparing Einstein’s and Planck’s quantum considerations, he wrote: “Planck had quantized only the energy of the ma- terial oscillators and not the radiation.” "Klein admitted that Planck was not fully aware of the revolutionary character of this step"" Physicist-historians have usually agreed with Klein’s view." Thats a weak argument because how else would you measure radiation if you aren't using an object? Clearly your view is wrong because he was investigating the issue to bring radiation law into agreement with gas laws. If he weren't working with Boltzmann on this you might have a case. But like your other case of it only occurring in a pure vacuum its in a different realm and is improbable. What you are doing is merely elevating doubt, doubt always exists. Heck we have people who doubt we landed on the moon too.
|
|