|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 7:40:13 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. Your still trying to make it a process. What Planck discovered whether he was sure of it or not was the quanta of energy which is now called a photon. And the dicontinuists agree to a man that Planck's discovery was the first step in the quantum mechanics revolution. So you can claim he was a bumbling idiot and did not know what he discovered and you can make up all sorts of stuff about what he got wrong but none of that has anything to do with discovery. Discovery is first glimpse. Clearly he did that. Recognized discovery is first glimpse with acceptable documentation, and he did that too as the documentation was accepted by the highest of authorities. Everything you are saying is irrelevant to those standards. Including the opinion of a Finland peon who disagrees.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 7:43:59 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? At no point in this conversation have I ever suggested photons are not real. Why do you persist in such childish behaviour?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 7:48:25 GMT
At no point in this conversation have I ever suggested photons are not real. Why do you persist in such childish behaviour? Well you do know that something real is not a theory right? If so then why do you set as a standard of discovery of a real thing that somebody develop a theory around it?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 7:50:53 GMT
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. The only thing to 'laugh' about is the lengths you will go to avoid recognising Duwayne was correct. I have produced at least 3 quotes from Planck where he says others have far more radical views than he has where these other people believe radiation travels as enerqy quanta. Some of these quotes are specifically saying these people are going far too far. Apparently when Planck nominated Einstein for the Berlin physical society Planck said words to the effect he has some promise even though his ideas on light quanta are totally ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 7:57:37 GMT
At no point in this conversation have I ever suggested photons are not real. Why do you persist in such childish behaviour? Well you do know that something real is not a theory right? If so then why do you set as a standard of discovery of a real thing that somebody develop a theory around it? How can you discover a thing without having a theoretical framework to place the thing in a context that has any meaning?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 8:00:34 GMT
Thats laughable. If he did you should be able to find some evidence of it. The only thing to 'laugh' about is the lengths you will go to avoid recognising Duwayne was correct. I have produced at least 3 quotes from Planck where he says others have far more radical views than he has where these other people believe radiation travels as enerqy quanta. Some of these quotes are specifically saying these people are going far too far. Apparently when Planck nominated Einstein for the Berlin physical society Planck said words to the effect he has some promise even though his ideas on light quanta are totally ridiculous. You mean travels as energy quanta through a vacuum. Left that out as an inconvenient truth? It doesn't matter, its irrelevant to the topic of discovery. Planck could have said that after leaving his black box it traveled to the moon and back on a space ship and it would not have mattered. And if he thought Einstein was a blowhard apparently it did not stop him from nominating him to the Berlin Physical Society. Thats just more irrelevancies on your part.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 8:05:12 GMT
The only thing to 'laugh' about is the lengths you will go to avoid recognising Duwayne was correct. I have produced at least 3 quotes from Planck where he says others have far more radical views than he has where these other people believe radiation travels as enerqy quanta. Some of these quotes are specifically saying these people are going far too far. Apparently when Planck nominated Einstein for the Berlin physical society Planck said words to the effect he has some promise even though his ideas on light quanta are totally ridiculous. You mean travels as energy quanta through a vacuum. Left that out as an inconvenient truth? It doesn't matter, its irrelevant to the topic of discovery. Planck could have said that after leaving his black box it traveled to the moon and back on a space ship and it would not have mattered. And if he thought Einstein was a blowhard apparently it did not stop him from nominating him to the Berlin Physical Society. Thats just more irrelevancies on your part. Man oh man. Planck is saying what he discovered has nothing to do with the way light travels where in a empty vacuum there are no absorbers and emitters. Nothing was left out as an inconvenient truth. You are just totally ignorant of the topic. Nothing knew there. Even the historians do not agree with your stupid story about planck
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 8:22:54 GMT
Plancks nobel prize lecture www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1918/planck-lecture.html " Either the quantum of action was a fictional quantity, then the whole deduction of the radiation law was in the main illusory and represented nothing more than an empty non-significant play on formulae, or the derivation of the radiation law was based on a sound physical conception. In this case the quantum of action must play a fundamental role in physics, and here was something entirely new, never before heard of, which seemed called upon to basically revise all our physical thinking, built as this was, since the establishment of the infinitesimal calculus by Leibniz and Newton, upon the acceptance of the continuity of all causative connections.
Experiment has decided for the second alternative. That the decision could be made so soon and so definitely was due not to the proving of the energy distribution law of heat radiation, still less to the special derivation of that law devised by me, but rather should it be attributed to the restless forwardthrusting work of those research workers who used the quantum of action to help them in their own investigations and experiments. The first impact in this field was made by A. Einstein who, on the one hand, pointed out that the introduction of the energy quanta, determined by the quantum of action, appeared suitable for obtaining a simple explanation for a series of noteworthy observations during the action of light"
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 8:51:10 GMT
Look lets try to simplify this.
I am operating off the common meaning of the word discovery. You are suggesting that in the world science discovery has to be more than a first glimpse of the nature of something. OK I can accept the idea that maybe there is a scientific technical term for what is meant by discovery.
From the common layman's use of the word there is no such requirement except that you bring forth a glimpse of something new. Clearly Planck did that. If there is a more technical standard for discovery in the sciences then perhaps you can obtain a reference for it. Otherwise this is going nowhere and you are just making a big issue out of basically nothing. But as I see it nothing you can produce will shake my opinion that what Planck did which was measuring light. He is recognized for discovery the energy formulat for light and he is recognized for quantifying it. He expressed reservations about what he had quantified but that does not detract from what he did do.
Everyday you see somebody who is being recognized for being a hero standup and say he didn't do anything that anybody else would not do. But what ones opinion is about what they have done is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is what they did do.
The arguments you provide are your own interpretations. I don't see Planck arguing against quantum mechanics, or a man who had the wrong idea. I don't see that. I see a man possessed of a deep logic that questions everything. Its not an argument against its an attempt to create hurdles for tests to settle the issue. Blind acceptance is not a good thing, wild speculation is not a good thing. Planck was obviously a tough guy that stood his ground and demanded unquestionable evidence.
One of the greats of Quantum Mechanics, Max Born said of Planck: "He was, by nature, a conservative mind; he had nothing of the revolutionary and was thoroughly skeptical about speculations. Yet his belief in the compelling force of logical reasoning from facts was so strong that he did not flinch from announcing the most revolutionary idea which ever has shaken physics."
We could really use some folks like that now.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 24, 2016 8:56:00 GMT
[ Snip ] We could really use some folks like that now. Why? You've got me.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 8:58:47 GMT
[ Snip ] We could really use some folks like that now. Why? You've got me. OK then we could really use some MORE folks like that now.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 24, 2016 9:03:43 GMT
Now I'm offended .... and that takes some doing, I can tell you !!!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 9:15:38 GMT
Now I'm offended .... and that takes some doing, I can tell you !!! So said Dsvid Crockett when somebody suggested somrbody go get some reinforcements for that Mission in San Antonio.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 24, 2016 9:36:10 GMT
Gotta fess up that I don't know much about The Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 11:35:28 GMT
Look lets try to simplify this. I am operating off the common meaning of the word discovery. You are suggesting that in the world science discovery has to be more than a first glimpse of the nature of something. OK I can accept the idea that maybe there is a scientific technical term for what is meant by discovery. From the common layman's use of the word there is no such requirement except that you bring forth a glimpse of something new. Clearly Planck did that. If there is a more technical standard for discovery in the sciences then perhaps you can obtain a reference for it. Otherwise this is going nowhere and you are just making a big issue out of basically nothing. But as I see it nothing you can produce will shake my opinion that what Planck did which was measuring light. He is recognized for discovery the energy formulat for light and he is recognized for quantifying it. He expressed reservations about what he had quantified but that does not detract from what he did do. Everyday you see somebody who is being recognized for being a hero standup and say he didn't do anything that anybody else would not do. But what ones opinion is about what they have done is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is what they did do. The arguments you provide are your own interpretations. I don't see Planck arguing against quantum mechanics, or a man who had the wrong idea. I don't see that. I see a man possessed of a deep logic that questions everything. Its not an argument against its an attempt to create hurdles for tests to settle the issue. Blind acceptance is not a good thing, wild speculation is not a good thing. Planck was obviously a tough guy that stood his ground and demanded unquestionable evidence. One of the greats of Quantum Mechanics, Max Born said of Planck: "He was, by nature, a conservative mind; he had nothing of the revolutionary and was thoroughly skeptical about speculations. Yet his belief in the compelling force of logical reasoning from facts was so strong that he did not flinch from announcing the most revolutionary idea which ever has shaken physics." We could really use some folks like that now. Nothing I have talked about is my opinion. Planck repeatedly says the radicals are even talking about particles of light of the same form as Newton and they are urging him to go much further than he is able to go. This you have twisted into your own pet version of reality against all common sense, and against all the available references, just so you can support your existing opinion. Planck did not believe in travelling energy quanta so how could he discover them? He fought tooth and nail to preserve the classical status quo, while his colleagues watched on like it was a tragedy. Planck felt that when finally enlightenment came he was the better for it. Planck glimpsed something important but he did not know what it was. Einstein took that glimpse and started talking about energy quanta in space. Plancks writing make it totally clear he did not realise the significance of what he found. His student recalls at the time of the 1900 lecture Planck was not talking about anything revolutionary or anything like it. >>But as I see it nothing you can produce will shake my opinion that what Planck did which was measuring light. Whatever your opinion believes, Planck was not measuring light. He was not measuring anything at all. Why is is that even the simplest of realities is so hard for you?
|
|