|
Post by Andrew on Sept 21, 2016 18:26:37 GMT
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. Get it into your thick head Planck was not measuring anything. What aspect of that is beyond you to understand??? He was theorising only. Where did you get this idea you have where Planck is a real scientist and Einstein is some kind of a half wit theorist? Your views about Planck are multidimensionally wrong. Can you not read all that Planck text I provided?? He was trying to fit his resonators into a classical theory. He was nowhere at all ready to cross the divide into the real quantum world. "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." Duwayne was correct and you are hopelessly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 21, 2016 18:44:20 GMT
Science is not based on authority.
its evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 21, 2016 18:47:21 GMT
Science is not based on authority. its evidence. Please stop being so bloody cryptic and help me out here please.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 22, 2016 23:18:00 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." Andrew, thanks for taking it upon yourself to act as a truth-seeker and impartial referee on this subject. The November 12 preface quote from Planck alone should be enough for any fair-minded person to reach the proper conclusion. I suggest anyone who shares my interest in understanding why Einstein was so successful read the Planck reference. When Einstein received his undergraduate physics degree (next to the bottom in a class of 5) he had already upset enough people with his tendency to question the "settled science" that he could not find a job in academia or for that matter even a teaching job in high school. When a friend landed him a job at the Swiss patent office in his spare time he wrote ground-breaking papers using a heuristic, theoretical, common sense approach without any laboratory proof. While others looked for problems in his ideas, he charged ahead of pack freed from the bounds of the plodding academic style.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2016 23:39:25 GMT
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." Andrew, thanks for taking it upon yourself for acting as a truth-seeker and impartial referee on this subject . The November 12 preface quote from Planck alone should be enough for any fair-minded person to reach the proper conclusion. I suggest anyone who shares my interest in understanding why Einstein was so successful read the Planck reference. When Einstein received his undergraduate physics degree (next to the bottom in a class of 5) he had already upset enough people with his tendency to question the "settled science" that he could not find a job in academia or for that matter even a teaching job in high school. When a friend landed him a job at the Swiss patent office in his spare time he wrote ground-breaking papers using a heuristic, theoretical, common sense approach so he never had any laboratory proof. while others looked for problems in his ideas, he charged ahead of pack. Yeah rushing ahead of the experiment seems to be the mode of the day. No doubt folks if photons only existed in a vacuum then you would have a solid case against Planck. But that is not at all the case. But his objection to that is no good reason for rejecting his observations of photons in a lab. The oscillator argument is ridiculous. Planck very clearly was investigating radiation as described by Stefan Boltzmann as he expected it to be holding strictly to the Maxwell Field equations regarding light and was shocked when it did not. No question whatsoever that he was investigating light and radiation and no question whatsoever that he was the first to observe the quanta nature of light. That he had reservations, subject to further experimentation, regarding it extending into the vacuum of space in accordance with his observations merely mirrors his reluctance to go beyond the environment of his experimental environment and extrapolate, something that Einstein had plenty of moxie to do. Most probably Einstein in developing his theory of Special Relativity had envisioned. Sorry guys but Plancks Nobel Prize stands on its merits.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2016 4:29:15 GMT
Andrew, thanks for taking it upon yourself for acting as a truth-seeker and impartial referee on this subject . The November 12 preface quote from Planck alone should be enough for any fair-minded person to reach the proper conclusion. I suggest anyone who shares my interest in understanding why Einstein was so successful read the Planck reference. When Einstein received his undergraduate physics degree (next to the bottom in a class of 5) he had already upset enough people with his tendency to question the "settled science" that he could not find a job in academia or for that matter even a teaching job in high school. When a friend landed him a job at the Swiss patent office in his spare time he wrote ground-breaking papers using a heuristic, theoretical, common sense approach so he never had any laboratory proof. while others looked for problems in his ideas, he charged ahead of pack. Yeah rushing ahead of the experiment seems to be the mode of the day. No doubt folks if photons only existed in a vacuum then you would have a solid case against Planck. But that is not at all the case. But his objection to that is no good reason for rejecting his observations of photons in a lab. The oscillator argument is ridiculous. Planck very clearly was investigating radiation as described by Stefan Boltzmann as he expected it to be holding strictly to the Maxwell Field equations regarding light and was shocked when it did not. No question whatsoever that he was investigating light and radiation and no question whatsoever that he was the first to observe the quanta nature of light. That he had reservations, subject to further experimentation, regarding it extending into the vacuum of space in accordance with his observations merely mirrors his reluctance to go beyond the environment of his experimental environment and extrapolate, something that Einstein had plenty of moxie to do. Most probably Einstein in developing his theory of Special Relativity had envisioned. Sorry guys but Plancks Nobel Prize stands on its merits. He was not doing any experiments. His papers make it clear he was analysing the experimental work of others.The original german makes it clear he is not just talking about a vacuum. In german it reads, "Any radiant energy, also that in empty vacuum free advances" The translator has put "any radiation whatsoever, even though it travel freely in a vacuum,". jegliche strahlende Energie, auch die im leeren Raum frei fortschreitende, "The oscillator argument is ridiculous" That was his method. He analysed it that way.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 23, 2016 6:10:13 GMT
He was not doing any experiments. His papers make it clear he was analysing the experimental work of others.Pure hair splitting. A lot of top guys don't actually do the experiments but they direct them. He was requesting data from his experimenters. It was an interactive relationship. The original german makes it clear he is not just talking about a vacuum. In german it reads, "Any radiant energy, also that in empty vacuum free advances" The translator has put "any radiation whatsoever, even though it travel freely in a vacuum,". Pure wishful thinking poppycock! He was engaged in experiments to measure light being emitted by near blackbody's. what do you think he discovered? You have avoided answering that question because you know what it is. Nobody denies that Planck didn't fully understood what he had discovered, like Columbus who thought he had arrived at the East Indies, Planck was not ready to fully accept what he had discovered was the quanta of light. As he stated he felt there needed to be more experimentation to verify the ideas of Einstein and it did take another decade for that to happen. History is clear, Planck won the nobel prize for his discovery and Albert Einstein won the noble prize for extending what Planck had discovered. And what was that Andrew? Do you know its name?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2016 6:42:10 GMT
He was not doing any experiments. His papers make it clear he was analysing the experimental work of others.Pure hair splitting. A lot of top guys don't actually do the experiments but they direct them. He was requesting data from his experimenters. It was an interactive relationship. The original german makes it clear he is not just talking about a vacuum. In german it reads, "Any radiant energy, also that in empty vacuum free advances" The translator has put "any radiation whatsoever, even though it travel freely in a vacuum,". Pure wishful thinking poppycock! He was engaged in experiments to measure light being emitted by near blackbody's. what do you think he discovered? You have avoided answering that question because you know what it is. Nobody denies that Planck didn't fully understood what he had discovered, like Columbus who thought he had arrived at the East Indies, Planck was not ready to fully accept what he had discovered was the quanta of light. As he stated he felt there needed to be more experimentation to verify the ideas of Einstein and it did take another decade for that to happen. History is clear, Planck won the nobel prize for his discovery and Albert Einstein won the noble prize for extending what Planck had discovered. And what was that Andrew? Do you know its name? Planck did not have "his experimenters". He was not doing any experiments. His papers make it clear he was analysing the experimental work of others. >> He was engaged in experiments to measure light being emitted No matter how many times you excrete that big fat turd reality is not going to change.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 23, 2016 6:50:11 GMT
Pure hair splitting. A lot of top guys don't actually do the experiments but they direct them. He was requesting data from his experimenters. It was an interactive relationship. Pure wishful thinking poppycock! He was engaged in experiments to measure light being emitted by near blackbody's. what do you think he discovered? You have avoided answering that question because you know what it is. Nobody denies that Planck didn't fully understood what he had discovered, like Columbus who thought he had arrived at the East Indies, Planck was not ready to fully accept what he had discovered was the quanta of light. As he stated he felt there needed to be more experimentation to verify the ideas of Einstein and it did take another decade for that to happen. History is clear, Planck won the nobel prize for his discovery and Albert Einstein won the noble prize for extending what Planck had discovered. And what was that Andrew? Do you know its name? Planck did not have "his experimenters". He was not doing any experiments. His papers make it clear he was analysing the experimental work of others. >> He was engaged in experiments to measure light being emitted No matter how many times you excrete that big fat turd reality is not going to change. What I am noticing most is you are not telling me what Planck was actually obtaining the properties of. They were photons were they not? Keep trying to avoid answering that question and we can keep this thread alive.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2016 7:08:29 GMT
Planck did not have "his experimenters". He was not doing any experiments. His papers make it clear he was analysing the experimental work of others. >> He was engaged in experiments to measure light being emitted No matter how many times you excrete that big fat turd reality is not going to change. What I am noticing most is you are not telling me what Planck was actually obtaining the properties of. They were photons were they not? Keep trying to avoid answering that question and we can keep this thread alive. Planck was not obtaining the properties of anything. It was all happening in his mind. >> He was engaged in experiments to measure light being emitted by near blackbody's. what do you think he discovered? You have avoided answering that question because you know what it is. It has been explained an insane number of times by an insane number of methods he was not doing any experiments and he was simply attempting to come up with a mathematical result that fitted classical wave theory at a time when people still believed in an ether.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 23, 2016 7:18:14 GMT
Planck did not have "his experimenters". He was not doing any experiments. His papers make it clear he was analysing the experimental work of others. >> He was engaged in experiments to measure light being emitted No matter how many times you excrete that big fat turd reality is not going to change. Sure he had "his experimenters". First of all the University of Berlin where he was a professor was where the experiments were carried out in 1901 that proved his work. The University had developed new ways to measure radiation more accurately. Planck took advantage of this and proposed experiments to verify his hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2016 7:27:03 GMT
Planck did not have "his experimenters". He was not doing any experiments. His papers make it clear he was analysing the experimental work of others. >> He was engaged in experiments to measure light being emitted No matter how many times you excrete that big fat turd reality is not going to change. Sure he had "his experimenters". First of all the University of Berlin where he was a professor was where the experiments were carried out in 1901 that proved his work. The University had developed new ways to measure radiation more accurately. Planck took advantage of this and proposed experiments to verify his hypothesis. What is your point?? You have been claiming he was measuring something. Obviously he measured nothing at all. And in his own words he says others have radical ideas that any radiant energy, also that transmitted in an empty vacuum, consists of energy quantaAll the historians agree Planck did not quantisise the radiation. He was still arguing about it at the 1911 solvay conference,
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 23, 2016 16:49:59 GMT
Sure he had "his experimenters". First of all the University of Berlin where he was a professor was where the experiments were carried out in 1901 that proved his work. The University had developed new ways to measure radiation more accurately. Planck took advantage of this and proposed experiments to verify his hypothesis. What is your point?? You have been claiming he was measuring something. Obviously he measured nothing at all. And in his own words he says others have radical ideas that any radiant energy, also that transmitted in an empty vacuum, consists of energy quantaAll the historians agree Planck did not quantisise the radiation. He was still arguing about it at the 1911 solvay conference, His institution was doing the measurements interactively with Planck. What is wrong with you? If you work at an aircraft plant producing a Boeing 747 and you are in the office doing paperwork you are still building a Boeing 747. All you are doing is playing silly semantic games. Your point is vacuous and the fact you think its important is just a measure of your stubbornness, nothing more nothing less. This is the game you usually choose when you can't come out and say that energy quanta is photons. The extension of your line of reasoning is if valid is an argument that Einstein did not discover photons either because he said light energy quanta instead of photons too. And when it comes to discovery one does not need to know the nature of what they discovered. We know Einstein described its nature and he won the Nobel Prize for extending Planck's discovery. So simple solution here are energy quanta photons? A yes or no please.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2016 17:53:51 GMT
What is your point?? You have been claiming he was measuring something. Obviously he measured nothing at all. And in his own words he says others have radical ideas that any radiant energy, also that transmitted in an empty vacuum, consists of energy quantaAll the historians agree Planck did not quantisise the radiation. He was still arguing about it at the 1911 solvay conference, His institution was doing the measurements interactively with Planck. What is wrong with you? If you work at an aircraft plant producing a Boeing 747 and you are in the office doing paperwork you are still building a Boeing 747. All you are doing is playing silly semantic games. Your point is vacuous and the fact you think its important is just a measure of your stubbornness, nothing more nothing less. This is the game you usually choose when you can't come out and say that energy quanta is photons. The extension of your line of reasoning is if valid is an argument that Einstein did not discover photons either because he said light energy quanta instead of photons too. And when it comes to discovery one does not need to know the nature of what they discovered. We know Einstein described its nature and he won the Nobel Prize for extending Planck's discovery. So simple solution here are energy quanta photons? A yes or no please. Nobody was doing anything interactively with Planck. Planck did not believe in energy quanta as particles until at least past 1912. Which should be obvious, but here are his comments from the 1911 solvay conference. archive.org/stream/lathoriedurayo00inst#page/100/mode/1up2. French translation of the proceedings of the 1st Solvay conference held in Brussels in 1911. Plancks submission: The Theory of black body radiation Page 100 Let us search therefore to examine intensely the physical nature of the constante h. It poses immediately a fundamental question: This element of action does it possess a physical signficance for the propagation of radiant energy in the vacuum, or does it not come by its very nature in the phenomena of production and destruction of radiant energy, in emission and absorption? Following the response given to that preliminary question, the later development of the theory must follow completely different paths. The first point of view has been adopted by A. Einstein in his hypothesis of the quanta of light, and J Stark followed. According to this hypothesis the energy of a ray of light of frequency Lamda is not distributed in a continuous manner in space, but propagates in a straight line by quanta determined of size Lw in the same manner as the luminous particles in the theory of Newton. They invoke, as an important confirmation of this hypothesis, the fact the speed of secondary cathodic rays produced by X-rays is independant of the intensity of the these rays. (In case it is not obvious emission and absorption cannot occur in a vacuum, so his emphasis on the vacuum is to make it clear propagation of radiant energy in the vacuum has nothing to do with emission or absorption.)
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 23, 2016 17:57:01 GMT
His institution was doing the measurements interactively with Planck. What is wrong with you? If you work at an aircraft plant producing a Boeing 747 and you are in the office doing paperwork you are still building a Boeing 747. All you are doing is playing silly semantic games. Your point is vacuous and the fact you think its important is just a measure of your stubbornness, nothing more nothing less. This is the game you usually choose when you can't come out and say that energy quanta is photons. The extension of your line of reasoning is if valid is an argument that Einstein did not discover photons either because he said light energy quanta instead of photons too. And when it comes to discovery one does not need to know the nature of what they discovered. We know Einstein described its nature and he won the Nobel Prize for extending Planck's discovery. So simple solution here are energy quanta photons? A yes or no please. Nobody was doing anything interactively with Planck. Planck did not believe in energy quanta as particles until at least past 1912. Which should be obvious, but here are his comments from the 1911 solvay conference. archive.org/stream/lathoriedurayo00inst#page/100/mode/1up2. French translation of the proceedings of the 1st Solvay conference held in Brussels in 1911. Plancks submission: The Theory of black body radiation Page 100 Let us search therefore to examine intensely the physical nature of the constante h. It poses immediately a fundamental question: This element of action does it possess a physical signficance for the propagation of radiant energy in the vacuum, or does it not come by its very nature in the phenomena of production and destruction of radiant energy, in emission and absorption? Following the response given to that preliminary question, the later development of the theory must follow completely different paths. The first point of view has been adopted by A. Einstein in his hypothesis of the quanta of light, and J Stark followed. According to this hypothesis the energy of a ray of light of frequency Lamda is not distributed in a continuous manner in space, but propagates in a straight line by quanta determined of size Lw in the same manner as the luminous particles in the theory of Newton. Your refusal to give a yes or no answer to the question if energy quanta are photons merely demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty in this debate. You have lost for lying.
|
|