|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2016 18:11:17 GMT
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. I told you a week ago Plancks energy quanta was restricted to absorption and emission and Planck was in no way shape or form considering particles of electromagnetic radiation. You have lost the plot.....not that you ever knew what the plot was. No historian agrees with you, planck does not agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 23, 2016 18:29:11 GMT
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. I told you a week ago Plancks energy quanta was restricted to absorption and emission and Planck was in no way shape or form considering particles of electromagnetic radiation. You have lost the plot.....not that you ever knew what the plot was. No historian agrees with you, planck does not agree with you. You are incorrect about that. Planck did not restrict energy quanta to anything he merely only promoted what he knew about it and he was a huge advocate for learning more. You are confusing his conservatism with an attitude that there was nothing more to learn about it and it is an ignorant point of view that runs contrary to Plancks fame compared to your unknownness You continue down your dishonesty path on this without answering the question are photons energy quanta. You know the answer but refuse to give it as you completely understand my point about how Planck discovered it. History is more practical than the few stubborn folks that want to be personally right rather than acknowledge the facts. I have acknowledged all the facts to be acknowledged including Einstein's contributions. You just can't stomach losing a bad argument that you started and now you are resorting to dishonesty to perpetuate it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2016 18:49:38 GMT
I told you a week ago Plancks energy quanta was restricted to absorption and emission and Planck was in no way shape or form considering particles of electromagnetic radiation. You have lost the plot.....not that you ever knew what the plot was. No historian agrees with you, planck does not agree with you. You are incorrect about that. Planck did not restrict energy quanta to anything he merely only promoted what he knew about it and he was a huge advocate for learning more. You are confusing his conservatism with an attitude that there was nothing more to learn about it and it is an ignorant point of view that runs contrary to Plancks fame compared to your unknownness You continue down your dishonesty path on this without answering the question are photons energy quanta. You know the answer but refuse to give it as you completely understand my point about how Planck discovered it. History is more practical than the few stubborn folks that want to be personally right rather than acknowledge the facts. I have acknowledged all the facts to be acknowledged including Einstein's contributions. You just can't stomach losing a bad argument that you started and now you are resorting to dishonesty to perpetuate it. Planck did not believe in energy particles. What aspect of that is beyond you? >>You know the answer but refuse to give it as you completely understand my point about how Planck discovered it. I have no idea what you are talking about. What answer do I know? How did Planck discover this thing you are thinking of? >>You just can't stomach losing a bad argument that you started and now you are resorting to dishonesty to perpetuate it. No. You are wrong. Why do i need to lie about you being wrong? No historian agrees with you. Planck does not agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 23, 2016 19:54:52 GMT
You are incorrect about that. Planck did not restrict energy quanta to anything he merely only promoted what he knew about it and he was a huge advocate for learning more. You are confusing his conservatism with an attitude that there was nothing more to learn about it and it is an ignorant point of view that runs contrary to Plancks fame compared to your unknownness You continue down your dishonesty path on this without answering the question are photons energy quanta. You know the answer but refuse to give it as you completely understand my point about how Planck discovered it. History is more practical than the few stubborn folks that want to be personally right rather than acknowledge the facts. I have acknowledged all the facts to be acknowledged including Einstein's contributions. You just can't stomach losing a bad argument that you started and now you are resorting to dishonesty to perpetuate it. Planck did not believe in energy particles. What aspect of that is beyond you? >>You know the answer but refuse to give it as you completely understand my point about how Planck discovered it. I have no idea what you are talking about. What answer do I know? How did Planck discover this thing you are thinking of? >>You just can't stomach losing a bad argument that you started and now you are resorting to dishonesty to perpetuate it. No. You are wrong. Why do i need to lie about you being wrong? No historian agrees with you. Planck does not agree with you. Belief is a good word. Planck's conservatism led him to not "believe" in unproven science in the way you and Dwayne do. For example because of radiation processes you both believe in a greenhouse effect when nobody has shown that there is an "effect". Certainly it is true there are forces at work, many forces, but does the sum of them amount to an effect? Nobody knows yet. You are merely complaining about Planck for the same reason you complain about me. You are true believer in the "effect" before it has been proven or demonstrated. Evidence of that as a belief and not a fact is the fact nobody can agree on what the "effect" amounts to. But worse, much worse, you deny Planck his discovery and you cover it up by your intellectual dishonesty. Energy quanta are photons. There is no dispute about that today but you won't say so because you are perfectly and completely aware of the implication of that fact to whether Planck discovered photons. It doesn't matter what Planck says above because he did not say that energy quanta were not photons all he did above was argue for being conservative and let experiments demonstrate the fact before assuming the fact. Y9u have such a huge propensity to leap to the unproven as if the thoughts running through your head were sacred. Thats the true stuff upon which religion is built an ego beyond measure. Omniscience. But what you really are is an intellectually dishonest liar. As in order to protect those sacred thoughts you dreamed up about Planck and what he was thinking and equated those thoughts to how your brain is hard wired. You can't even admit to what he did discover. Right at the beginning of this entire thread I said Planck discovered photons but did not develop the current theory of light, he just discovered and only discovered that which light is made up by observing its properties. I am good with all the arguments presented in the Max Planck paper even Koch's argument to an extent. The problem with Koch's argument is it is an endless argument that can be used to deny any discovery any time and he probably fails to recognize that because he is so sure that the ultimate substance of what photons are. Einstein said probably about the ilk of Koch that every Tom, Dicck and Harry thinks they know the answer but they are mistaken. Einstein is a genius because he understands his own limitations a necessity for the ability to discover new stuff. The Koch's of the world and you are capable of discovering nothing because you are inculcated and completely lack any irreverence, with irreverence defined as unable to look outside of the box. Planck was able to do that infinitely better than you can because you can't do it at all.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2016 19:59:57 GMT
Right at the beginning of this entire thread I said Planck discovered photons but did not develop the current theory of light, You seem to believe we need a theory of light and a theory of photons. Planck knew Einsteins hypothesis of the quanta of light included X-rays, he also knew the hypothesis included any radiation.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 23, 2016 21:23:59 GMT
Right at the beginning of this entire thread I said Planck discovered photons but did not develop the current theory of light, You seem to believe we need a theory of light and a theory of photons. No not at all. I think for a discovery of a photon you only need a proven hypothesis of the initial substance of a photon. You don't need a hypothesis of a theory of light. And you do not need to know all there is to know about photons. I would suggest as Einstein suggested that we have yet to fully flesh out the theory of light. He also expressed his discontent that we still do not fully understand what photons/light/energy quanta is. And I suspect we are not even near to fully understanding what it is. But everybody is in agreement on what we do know of the substance of photons and that is it is energy quanta. Planck knew Einsteins hypothesis of the quanta of light included X-rays, he also knew the hypothesis included any radiation. All that is irrelevant. He also knew there was no proof of Einstein's hypothesis when he said that and he knew there was proof of his hypothesis to the extent proof was available for the substance of energy quanta later which became the definition of a photon when finally the photon word was adopted. Uncertainty still exists about photons but not energy quanta. Planck's observations are the least disputed hypothesis about the substance of photons. Einstein's theories have born out as very useful approximations of what photons are also but what still remains is essential to some of the disputes you and I have had about the existence of ether and a medium for a signal from an attractor so that photons may only travel from positive to negative and not in the opposite direction. Everything that suggests otherwise that photons are emitted in all directions is merely duplicative of the ether theory, which in turn is weak only because of the lack of evidence of it. This is the substance of the ability to accept outside of the box ideas. To see clearly that alternative theories are compatible with the effects of current theory to the extent those effects have been verified. Planck might well be still an ether guy today because there is nothing inconsistent with the idea that has been proven. The only thing inconsistent with the theory of ether are figments of peoples imaginations and the inability to see the difference between what has been proven versus what has not. I feel rather comfortable with that point of view not because I fully understand quantum mechanics but because I have not seen a solid proof otherwise and that there remains highly qualified individuals that still hold out for the possibility and what I have read about Einstein I think he is also in that camp. So the real problem here is multifaceted. One you have a concrete idea of what photons are part of which has been proven and part of which remains unproven hypothesis. But you cannot differentiate between the facts of what has been proven and what has not thus you lack the necessary ability to make discoveries and you are locked up inside of your own egotistical beliefs. Two, a lot of discoveries have been made about light that have proven useful. However, correlation is not causation. There could be a thousand more consistencies with the idea that photons are little indivisible particle bullets that are fired randomly in all directions. Folks have been unable to reconcile special relativity to whether photons have mass. math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.htmlI am of the initial opinion that Einstein remained unconvinced either way on the topic. It hard to speak and not use analogies that might be mistakenly taken as a belief that photons are "like" little bullets without saying they "are" little bullets. But what we do know that nobody I know of is disagreeing with is that photons are energy quanta. They have specific energy and because of Einstein's theories we now believe that energy is like matter and subject to some of the same laws that we believe matter is subject to. You though seem incapable of wrapping your mind around the idea that photons are energy quanta and thus being different than energy quanta Planck could not have discovered them. I don't think thats mainstream thought either and I don't think it has any merit beyond ignorance. Now if you can man up and say yes photons are energy quanta maybe we can move on.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 4:28:15 GMT
You seem to believe we need a theory of light and a theory of photons. No not at all. I think for a discovery of a photon you only need a proven hypothesis of the initial substance of a photon. You don't need a hypothesis of a theory of light. And you do not need to know all there is to know about photons. I would suggest as Einstein suggested that we have yet to fully flesh out the theory of light. He also expressed his discontent that we still do not fully understand what photons/light/energy quanta is. And I suspect we are not even near to fully understanding what it is. But everybody is in agreement on what we do know of the substance of photons and that is it is energy quanta. Planck knew Einsteins hypothesis of the quanta of light included X-rays, he also knew the hypothesis included any radiation. All that is irrelevant. He also knew there was no proof of Einstein's hypothesis when he said that and he knew there was proof of his hypothesis to the extent proof was available for the substance of energy quanta later which became the definition of a photon when finally the photon word was adopted. Uncertainty still exists about photons but not energy quanta. Planck's observations are the least disputed hypothesis about the substance of photons. Einstein's theories have born out as very useful approximations of what photons are also but what still remains is essential to some of the disputes you and I have had about the existence of ether and a medium for a signal from an attractor so that photons may only travel from positive to negative and not in the opposite direction. Everything that suggests otherwise that photons are emitted in all directions is merely duplicative of the ether theory, which in turn is weak only because of the lack of evidence of it. This is the substance of the ability to accept outside of the box ideas. To see clearly that alternative theories are compatible with the effects of current theory to the extent those effects have been verified. Planck might well be still an ether guy today because there is nothing inconsistent with the idea that has been proven. The only thing inconsistent with the theory of ether are figments of peoples imaginations and the inability to see the difference between what has been proven versus what has not. I feel rather comfortable with that point of view not because I fully understand quantum mechanics but because I have not seen a solid proof otherwise and that there remains highly qualified individuals that still hold out for the possibility and what I have read about Einstein I think he is also in that camp. So the real problem here is multifaceted. One you have a concrete idea of what photons are part of which has been proven and part of which remains unproven hypothesis. But you cannot differentiate between the facts of what has been proven and what has not thus you lack the necessary ability to make discoveries and you are locked up inside of your own egotistical beliefs. Two, a lot of discoveries have been made about light that have proven useful. However, correlation is not causation. There could be a thousand more consistencies with the idea that photons are little indivisible particle bullets that are fired randomly in all directions. Folks have been unable to reconcile special relativity to whether photons have mass. math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.htmlI am of the initial opinion that Einstein remained unconvinced either way on the topic. It hard to speak and not use analogies that might be mistakenly taken as a belief that photons are "like" little bullets without saying they "are" little bullets. But what we do know that nobody I know of is disagreeing with is that photons are energy quanta. They have specific energy and because of Einstein's theories we now believe that energy is like matter and subject to some of the same laws that we believe matter is subject to. You though seem incapable of wrapping your mind around the idea that photons are energy quanta and thus being different than energy quanta Planck could not have discovered them. I don't think thats mainstream thought either and I don't think it has any merit beyond ignorance. Now if you can man up and say yes photons are energy quanta maybe we can move on. Icefisher, There is nothing to 'man up to' Today we refer to energy quanta and photons as the same thing. However it is totally clear nobody believes Planck thought he was discovering anything like a photon. The historians do not agree with you. Planck does not agree with you. On what basis have you formed the belief all of these people including planck are wrong? Give me some points that support your belief please. The least you can do after all of this time is outline on what basis your belief has been formed. Right at the beginning you told Duwayne you had heard some story about Planck. If you could provide more details of why you believe what you believe it will help me work out why you are saying what you are saying. So far all the arguments you have made to support your belief have been shown to be false:1.Planck was an experimentalist or he had others work on his suggestions. 2.Planck was only pointing out the radicals were saying something esoteric about radiation in a vacuum 3.Kuhn was wrong - even Klein does not support you. 4.Max planck institute reviewers support you. Do you have any arguments remaining to support your belief? >>Planck's observations are the least disputed hypothesis about the substance of photons Planck did not make any observations. Continually your writing shows you are mixed up. The word observation needs to be removed from your sentence. What are you then talking about?? I have no idea at all. >> I think for a discovery of a photon you only need a proven hypothesis of the initial substance of a photon. You don't need a hypothesis of a theory of light. What does that text mean?? what is the proven hypothesis? What is the initial substance of a photon? Surely if you discover a photon you have to fit it into a framework of what you are now calling the transmission method of light which is totally against the classical physics understanding - so surely you need an hypothesis of light which involves quanta? What meaning do you want to create by saying hypothesis of a theory of light?? >>But what we do know that nobody I know of is disagreeing with is that photons are energy quanta. It is just a silly thing to say. Of course today energy quanta and photons are seen as the same thing. This entire conversation is only about why you believe when Planck wrote energy quanta he had in his mind anything like a photon? Where has that belief of yours come from?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 5:00:31 GMT
Icefisher, There is nothing to 'man up to' Today we refer to energy quanta and photons as the same thing. However it is totally clear nobody believes Planck thought he was discovering anything like a photon. The historians do not agree with you. Planck does not agree with you. If energy quanta is the same as photons, then Planck discovered them because he discovered energy quanta. No question about it. You seem to be trying to say a photon is not anything like energy quanta and that is just plain wrong and you even admit it is wrong because in the same sentence you say its the same thing. What we know about them today does not mean squat. Photons did not change their substance because we learned somrthing about them. Your argument is Planck did not develop the theory of light and nobody is arguing with you about that. How long are you going to languish in your intellectual dishonesty bath until you realize how stupid your argument is?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 5:22:41 GMT
Icefisher, There is nothing to 'man up to' Today we refer to energy quanta and photons as the same thing. However it is totally clear nobody believes Planck thought he was discovering anything like a photon. The historians do not agree with you. Planck does not agree with you. If energy quanta is the same as photons, then Planck discovered them because he discovered energy quanta. No question about it. You seem to be trying to say a photon is not anything like energy quanta and that is just plain wrong and you even admit it is wrong because in the same sentence you say its the same thing. What we know about them today does not mean squat. Photons did not change their substance because we learned somrthing about them. Your argument is Planck did not develop the theory of light and nobody is arguing with you about that. How long are you going to languish in your intellectual dishonesty bath until you realize how stupid your argument is? Icefisher my point of view is very very easy to understand: Planck might have used the words energy quanta? I am not sure. In the 1900 paper it is not mentioned. Later papers he is talking about the quantum of action. When he came up with that expression (whatever words he did use) he was only talking about some process involving absorption and emission. He was not referring to a process that can occur in a vacuum where there are no absorber emitters. Today the words energy quanta mean the same thing as photons. Quanta of action also suggest the same thing as a photon. The point however is what did Planck intend to convey to the reader or the listener? If Planck discovered photons he would have challenged the classical theory of light and would have had to propose an hypothesis of light. We know Planck was fighting tooth and nail to preserve the classical theory of light. At no point in this long conversation have I ever said anything about what we know today about photons. Going through some of your text with this in mind: >>You seem to be trying to say a photon is not anything like energy quanta and that is just plain wrong and you even admit it is wrong because in the same sentence you say its the same thing. Today a photon is an energy quanta. Plancks use of energy quanta did not in any way shape or form mean he was talking about photons. Planck fought tooth and nail against the idea of photons. >>What we know about them today does not mean squat. Photons did not change their substance because we learned somrthing about them. Like I said in this long conversation I have not once talked about what we know or have learnt about photons in the last hundred years or more >>Your argument is Planck did not develop the theory of light and nobody is arguing with you about that. If planck discovered a photon and had in his mind something to do with light transmission he would have totally challenged the current understand of the nature of light and he would have had to have had an hypothesis of light that was totally different to the wave theory then thought to be sacrosanct. >>How long are you going to languish in your intellectual dishonesty bath until you realize how stupid your argument is? No part of my argument is dishonest. Planck agrees with me. The historians agree with me. You heard a story about Planck that was wrong and you just need to realise that and agree duwayne was correct.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 6:08:48 GMT
If energy quanta is the same as photons, then Planck discovered them because he discovered energy quanta. No question about it. You seem to be trying to say a photon is not anything like energy quanta and that is just plain wrong and you even admit it is wrong because in the same sentence you say its the same thing. What we know about them today does not mean squat. Photons did not change their substance because we learned somrthing about them. Your argument is Planck did not develop the theory of light and nobody is arguing with you about that. How long are you going to languish in your intellectual dishonesty bath until you realize how stupid your argument is? Icefisher my point of view is very very easy to understand: Planck might have used the words energy quanta? I am not sure. In the 1900 paper it is not mentioned. Later papers he is talking about the quantum of action. When he came up with that expression (whatever words he did use) he was only talking about some process involving absorption and emission. Wrong! He got the Nobel Prize for discovering Energy Quanta! The Nobel text: "in recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta" He was not referring to a process that can occur in a vacuum where there are no absorber emitters. Irrelevant! A photon is not a process its a thing. Today the words energy quanta mean the same thing as photons. Quanta of action also suggest the same thing as a photon. The point however is what did Planck intend to convey to the reader or the listener? Irrelevant! You admit he discovered energy quanta then try to take it away based upon something he said. If Planck discovered photons he would have challenged the classical theory of light and would have had to propose an hypothesis of light. We know Planck was fighting tooth and nail to preserve the classical theory of light. Irrelevant! A photon is a thing, specifically defined as energy quanta which Planck discovered. A photon is not the theory of light. Your argument is akin to saying Christopher Columbus did not discover America because if he had he would have written the US constitution. Completely absurd! At no point in this long conversation have I ever said anything about what we know today about photons. But you keep talking about the theory of light which came much later and is still evolving and nobody has replaced photons. . . .yet. Going through some of your text with this in mind: >>You seem to be trying to say a photon is not anything like energy quanta and that is just plain wrong and you even admit it is wrong because in the same sentence you say its the same thing. Today a photon is an energy quanta. Plancks use of energy quanta did not in any way shape or form mean he was talking about photons. Planck fought tooth and nail against the idea of photons. Are photons not real? Are they merely an idea in your view? >>What we know about them today does not mean squat. Photons did not change their substance because we learned somrthing about them. Like I said in this long conversation I have not once talked about what we know or have learnt about photons in the last hundred years or more But you keep talking about ideas about them and theories about light. Did that all happen when Planck discovered them.? I don't think so. >>Your argument is Planck did not develop the theory of light and nobody is arguing with you about that. If planck discovered a photon and had in his mind something to do with light transmission he would have totally challenged the current understand of the nature of light and he would have had to have had an hypothesis of light that was totally different to the wave theory then thought to be sacrosanct. He very clearly had in mind stuff about light transmission. No question about it. What he said about it is we need to find out if the energy quanta he had discovered was all there was to know about light transmission. What that logically means is he discovered photons but he was not sure that light stayed as a discreet packet after being emitted. He wasn't sure he had discovered everything there was to know about photons. But it turned he had. However, he was not the one to prove it. But here we are talking about the theory of light that involves photons and we are not talking about photons alone. Your claim here is to have invented photons he would have to have discovered everything there was to know about them. But discovery is not held to that standard because if it were nobody would discover anything. And if you wish to arbitrary assign a cutoff somewhere between traditional discovery and knowing everything. . . .who is the judge of where how far is far enough? The Planck Institute did a study on this and found that Planck's discovery was the first step in the quantum revolution, which you can markdown the "quantum revolution" means the pursuit to know everything there is to know about photons. >>How long are you going to languish in your intellectual dishonesty bath until you realize how stupid your argument is? No part of my argument is dishonest. Planck agrees with me. The historians agree with me. You heard a story about Planck that was wrong and you just need to realise that and agree duwayne was correct. What historians agree with you? Show me where any of them explicitly say that Planck did not discover photons or that in order to be credited with discovering photons you would have to have written a theory of light. How about some references for that? Or are you just talking through your hat?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 6:31:12 GMT
Planck wrote the following two years before he died when he was the remarkeable age of 88. books.google.fi/books?id=gY_T8mKI9DUC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=my+futile+attempts+to+fit+the+elementary+quantum+of+action+into+classical+theory+continued+for+a+number+of+years+and+cost+me+a+great+deal+of+effort&source=bl&ots=xaG5LIUCwy&sig=6nC9wbtrjuX_IMERdpJnn4Jb53A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI3ZCfpafPAhVMiywKHZ5TBF0Q6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q=my%20futile%20attempts%20to%20fit%20the%20elementary%20quantum%20of%20action%20into%20classical%20theory%20continued%20for%20a%20number%20of%20years%20and%20cost%20me%20a%20great%20deal%20of%20effort&f=falsedownload.springer.com/static/pdf/11/bfm%253A978-1-4612-4566-7%252F4%252F1.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fbook%2Fbfm%3A978-1-4612-4566-7%2F4%2F1&token2=exp=1474698648~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F11%2Fbfm%25253A978-1-4612-4566-7%25252F4%25252F1.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Fbook%252Fbfm%253A978-1-4612-4566-7%252F4%252F1*~hmac=131c27febdc572d0513316dae13eb34368956ac211f233b797cc3844deea66e2"My new universal radiation forumula was submitted to the berlin physical society on october 19th 1900. On the very day when I formulated this law by using purely formal argument, I bean to devote myself to the task of investing it with a true physical meaning. This quest led me to study the interrelation of Entropy S and probability W. Since the entropy S is an additive magnitude, but the probability W is a multicplcative one I simply postulated that
S=klogW,
where k is a universal constant.
I found that k represents the so called absolute gas constant. It is understandably, often called Boltzmanns constant. However, this calls fo the comment that Boltzmann never introduced this constant. Now, as for the magnitude W with respect to radiation in a cavity, I found that in order to interpret it as a probability, it was necessary to introduce a universal constant which I called h, [Plancks constant] Since it had the dimensions of action (energy X time), I gave it the name, elementary quantum of action. Thus the nature of entropy as a measure of probability, in the sense indicated by Boltzmann, was established in the domain of radiation too.
While the significance of the quantum of action for the interrelation between entropy and probability was established, the part played by this new constant in general physical processes still remained an open question. I therefore tried immediately to weld the elementary quantum of action h somehow into the framework of the classical theory. But in the face of all such attempts, this constant showed itself to be obdurate. For it heralded the advent of something entirely unprecedented (namely, quantum physics), as was destined to remodel basically the physical outlook and thinking of man which, ever since Leibniz and Newton laid the groundwork for infinitesimal calculus, were founded on the assumption that all causal interactions in nature are continuous.
My futile attempts to fit the elementary quantum of action somehow into the classical theory continued for a number of years, and cost me a great deal of effort. Many of my colleagues saw in this something of a tragedy. But I feel differently about it. For the thorough enlightenment I thus received was the more valuable. I now know for a fact the elementary quantum of action played a far more significant part in physics than I had originally been inclined to suspect, and this recognition made me see clearly the need for the introduction of totally new methods of analysis and reasoning in the treatment of atomic problems. "
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 7:15:11 GMT
Icefisher my point of view is very very easy to understand: Planck might have used the words energy quanta? I am not sure. In the 1900 paper it is not mentioned. Later papers he is talking about the quantum of action. When he came up with that expression (whatever words he did use) he was only talking about some process involving absorption and emission. Wrong! He got the Nobel Prize for discovering Energy Quanta! The Nobel text: "in recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta" He was not referring to a process that can occur in a vacuum where there are no absorber emitters. Irrelevant! A photon is not a process its a thing. Today the words energy quanta mean the same thing as photons. Quanta of action also suggest the same thing as a photon. The point however is what did Planck intend to convey to the reader or the listener? Irrelevant! You admit he discovered energy quanta then try to take it away based upon something he said. If Planck discovered photons he would have challenged the classical theory of light and would have had to propose an hypothesis of light. We know Planck was fighting tooth and nail to preserve the classical theory of light. Irrelevant! A photon is a thing, specifically defined as energy quanta which Planck discovered. A photon is not the theory of light. Your argument is akin to saying Christopher Columbus did not discover America because if he had he would have written the US constitution. Completely absurd! At no point in this long conversation have I ever said anything about what we know today about photons. But you keep talking about the theory of light which came much later and is still evolving and nobody has replaced photons. . . .yet. Going through some of your text with this in mind: >>You seem to be trying to say a photon is not anything like energy quanta and that is just plain wrong and you even admit it is wrong because in the same sentence you say its the same thing. Today a photon is an energy quanta. Plancks use of energy quanta did not in any way shape or form mean he was talking about photons. Planck fought tooth and nail against the idea of photons. Are photons not real? Are they merely an idea in your view? >>What we know about them today does not mean squat. Photons did not change their substance because we learned somrthing about them. Like I said in this long conversation I have not once talked about what we know or have learnt about photons in the last hundred years or more But you keep talking about ideas about them and theories about light. Did that all happen when Planck discovered them.? I don't think so. >>Your argument is Planck did not develop the theory of light and nobody is arguing with you about that. If planck discovered a photon and had in his mind something to do with light transmission he would have totally challenged the current understand of the nature of light and he would have had to have had an hypothesis of light that was totally different to the wave theory then thought to be sacrosanct. He very clearly had in mind stuff about light transmission. No question about it. What he said about it is we need to find out if the energy quanta he had discovered was all there was to know about light transmission. What that logically means is he discovered photons but he was not sure that light stayed as a discreet packet after being emitted. He wasn't sure he had discovered everything there was to know about photons. But it turned he had. However, he was not the one to prove it. But here we are talking about the theory of light that involves photons and we are not talking about photons alone. Your claim here is to have invented photons he would have to have discovered everything there was to know about them. But discovery is not held to that standard because if it were nobody would discover anything. And if you wish to arbitrary assign a cutoff somewhere between traditional discovery and knowing everything. . . .who is the judge of where how far is far enough? The Planck Institute did a study on this and found that Planck's discovery was the first step in the quantum revolution, which you can markdown the "quantum revolution" means the pursuit to know everything there is to know about photons. >>How long are you going to languish in your intellectual dishonesty bath until you realize how stupid your argument is? No part of my argument is dishonest. Planck agrees with me. The historians agree with me. You heard a story about Planck that was wrong and you just need to realise that and agree duwayne was correct. What historians agree with you? Show me where any of them explicitly say that Planck did not discover photons or that in order to be credited with discovering photons you would have to have written a theory of light. How about some references for that? Or are you just talking through your hat? How can it be irrelevant that Planck was not talking about a process that can occur in a vacuum where there are no absorbers or emitters present? Planck emphasisised he was talking about a process that only occured where there were absorbers and emitters and emphasised the others who had radical views were talking about quanta in a vacuum. Planck argued for years against the idea of electromagnetic quanta >>Are photons not real? Are they merely an idea in your view? Why do you behave in such a childish manner?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 7:19:45 GMT
Planck: Now, as for the magnitude W with respect to radiation in a cavity, I found that in order to interpret it as a probability, it was necessary to introduce a universal constant which I called h, [Plancks constant] Since it had the dimensions of action (energy X time), I gave it the name, elementary quantum of action.
Iceskaters: Planck might have used the words energy quanta? I am not sure. In the 1900 paper it is not mentioned. Later papers he is talking about the quantum of action. When he came up with that expression (whatever words he did use) he was only talking about some process involving absorption and emission.
Icefisher: FYI, radiation in a cavity is the blackbox radiation Andrew. He was not talking about a process he was examining radiation in a blackbox. He described a single physical characteristic, the amount of energy it represented.
But the only relevant issue in this discussion is whether Planck discovered that discreet quantity of energy and if photons are still defined by it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 7:28:49 GMT
Planck: Now, as for the magnitude W with respect to radiation in a cavity, I found that in order to interpret it as a probability, it was necessary to introduce a universal constant which I called h, [Plancks constant] Since it had the dimensions of action (energy X time), I gave it the name, elementary quantum of action.Iceskaters: Planck might have used the words energy quanta? I am not sure. In the 1900 paper it is not mentioned. Later papers he is talking about the quantum of action. When he came up with that expression (whatever words he did use) he was only talking about some process involving absorption and emission. Icefisher: FYI, radiation in a cavity is the blackbox radiation Andrew. He was not talking about a process he was examining radiation in a blackbox. He described a single physical characteristic, the amount of energy it represented. But the only relevant issue in this discussion is whether Planck discovered that discreet quantity of energy and if photons are still defined by it. As exhaustively explained Planck analysed the problem from the point of view of matter that resonates. He said the quantum of action only applied to the resonators. He was totally against the idea of discreet amounts of radiation. Even the discontinuist historians acknowledge planck did not quantisise the radiation.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 7:33:21 GMT
How can it be irrelevant that Planck was not talking about a process that can occur in a vacuum where there are no absorbers or emitters present? Andrew if you discover a rabbit in its hole does that mean the rabbit eating the carrots in your field today is not that rabbit? Photons are not a process. Process is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is if Planck's discovery of a discrete quanta of energy is what defines what a photon is. If it doesn't then say that because thats the only relevant issue. Planck argued for years against the idea of electromagnetic quanta Thats laughable. If he did you should be able to find some evidence of it. But why is that relevant if he did? He didn't say he argued he said he tried to fit the photons he discovered, the same ones that even today are photons into the framework of classical physics. Meanwhile other folks enlightened by Plancks discovery went and created a new framework of physics. But none of that has anything to do with who discovered photons. The only point you are making which is completely uncontested is that Planck was not fully aware of the importance and radicalness of his discovery. You are confounding the physical existance of photons with what they are capable of. >>Are photons not real? Are they merely an idea in your view? Why do you behave in such a childish manner? Whats the matter can't you answer a question that a child can?
|
|