|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 17:04:42 GMT
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? it does not matter what Planck thought or did not think. He discovered the energy of light and since all that light is thought to be is energy thats what he found/discovered/postulated nothing more nothing less. Now you are trying to make the point that Planck did not measure anything. . . .well neither did Einstein then either. You are the one going to great lengths to deny Planck of his discovery but making up irrelevant standards. You have acknowledged that what Planck discovered was energy quanta and that energy quanta is a photon. It doesn't matter if he postulated it as living in a hole only peeking its head out enough to become subject to exposing its effects. He spotted it in the data and developed a value for it and noted that the value was an indivisible value tha varied only by its frequency. Today that sums up the only concrete notion of what a photon is. Its so obvious he discovered it you are in complete denial of what you know about it. It is true that Planck did not "know" that this packet of energy came out of its hole and raced across vacuums (keeping in mind Plancks strict values about the standard of knowing, unlike a lot of folks around here today and around Planck then). The fact is he described a photon as to its useful property completely in terms of how the electric company computes a portion of your bill. What else do you need to know to ascribe him as the discoverer. And please stop devolving around what people said, thought, dreamed up or anything else unrelated to the act of discovery. Understand very clearly I am going to minimal lengths to validate his right to a claim of discovery, not great lengths as you describe it. You are the one adding on conditions. I see that as a slippery slope. Perhaps you should offer up a template for what you think discovery is and then allow me an opportunity to pick it apart. Its clear one should not be arguing for non-discovery on an arbitrary basis. So far all your conditions are arbitrary when measured across the entire world of recognized discovery. And you just go on and on endlessly with your arbitrary nit picking. Come up with a standard that Planck did not meet that does not eliminate recognized discovery for others and perhaps you can even convince me. But the hogwash you have been offering are specific complaints you have exclusively with Planck's claim to discovery. That does not wash.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 17:28:28 GMT
You have acknowledged that what Planck discovered was energy quanta and that energy quanta is a photon. I have made it totally clear I do not agree with that statement. He discovered the energy of light He did no such thing The energy of light was known hundreds of years before Planck. If Planck 'discovered' a photon he would have had to build a revolutionary framework for what he 'discovered' where he would be fundamentally challenging the current model. Are you really so dumb you cannot understand the implications of 'discovering' a photon in 1900?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 17:41:50 GMT
You have acknowledged that what Planck discovered was energy quanta and that energy quanta is a photon. I have made it totally clear I do not agree with that statement. Well then you disagree with the Nobel committee and/or mainstream science. Perhaps if you don't think you are the ultimate source maybe you should make a case that Planck did not discover energy quanta or that energy quanta is not what a photon is. He discovered the energy of light He did no such thing The energy of light was known hundreds of years before Planck. To clarify he quantized the energy of light.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 17:46:25 GMT
I have made it totally clear I do not agree with that statement. Well then you disagree with the Nobel committee and/or mainstream science. Perhaps if you don't think you are the ultimate source maybe you should make a case that Planck did not discover energy quanta or that energy quanta is not what a photon is. He did no such thing The energy of light was known hundreds of years before Planck. To clarify he quantized the energy of light. I cannot be disagreeing with mainstream science if all the historians agree with me and none agree with you. Planck did not quantize the energy of light. Einstein did that and Stark quickly followed.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 17:53:27 GMT
You have acknowledged that what Planck discovered was energy quanta and that energy quanta is a photon. I have made it totally clear I do not agree with that statement. Seems both statements are true. What do you disagree with?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 18:04:53 GMT
I have made it totally clear I do not agree with that statement. Seems both statements are true. What do you disagree with? Everybody who has studied the topic agrees Plancks energy quanta was in his resonators and not in the light. How many times does it have to be said to you? The historians agree with me. Nobody agrees with you apart from people who have no idea at all. Until you study the subject and forget about the story you heard you are going nowhere at all.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 18:06:54 GMT
What aspect of the following is beyond your comprehension?
archive.org/details/eightlecturesont00planuoft
Max Planck
Eight 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 revolu- tionary 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. A definite decision with regard to these important questions can only be brought about as a result of further experience.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 18:09:58 GMT
And this? Why is it beyond you to understand what is being said??
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."
Since nothing probably is a greater drawback to the successful development of a new hypothesis than overstepping its boundaries,
Get it?? Light quanta oversteps the boundaries of his hypothesis. He does not want it. He wants classical dynamics.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 18:16:34 GMT
Then 11 years after he was talking about his resonators he is at the solvay conference and still refusing to think in terms of light quanta
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.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 18:34:09 GMT
Seems both statements are true. What do you disagree with? Everybody who has studied the topic agrees Plancks energy quanta was in his resonators and not in the light. How many times does it have to be said to you? The historians agree with me. Nobody agrees with you apart from people who have no idea at all. Until you study the subject and forget about the story you heard you are going nowhere at all. None of the above address your disagreement with the statement: "You have acknowledged that what Planck discovered was energy quanta and that energy quanta is a photon." Your going off on what Planck was thinking again. Its irrelevant what he thought. Planck knew he had discovered something revolutionary but was reluctant to speculate how revolutionary. All that is irrelevant to his actions of reporting his findings. If Planck had actually believed what you accuse him of believing he would not have reported what he found but would have continued to try to find his error. You are on extremely thin ice here Andrew. Its obvious that Planck did not think energy was the resonator. He recognized that the resonator was emitting the energy that he built his constant upon. He was only unsure of what happened next that he had captured the entire event of emission. But since photons are energy quanta he discovered it whether he knew it or not. As I said you need to address why you arbitrarily pick on Plancks thoughts about his discovery and completely refuse to recognize the reality of his discovery. We know that Einstein stated that energy quanta was in fact light, which does nothing but solidify the fact of Planck's discovery of it. I bring it back around to Christoper Columbus. He "thought" he had found a new route to the East Indies, but what he had done was discover the islands of the west indies for which he was given the accolade of having discovered America. It didn't matter what Columbus thought he had done. The only thing that mattered was what he had done.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 18:44:48 GMT
And this? Why is it beyond you to understand what is being said?? 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." Since nothing probably is a greater drawback to the successful development of a new hypothesis than overstepping its boundaries,Get it?? Light quanta oversteps the boundaries of his hypothesis. He does not want it. He wants classical dynamics. Well besides what Planck believing being irrelevant you even manage to completely botch this up too. Your conclusion that he "wanted" classical dynamics is just ignorance of Planck. Planck very plainly a man that did not, like you, buy into hair brained schemes and inculcated beliefs. He is revered as a man of method and a man of skepticism and a man moved to question the inconsistencies of classical physics, hardly a man who wanted classical physics but instead a man that challenged it instead of like you just believing what you are told. The fact that he challenged it and discovered the revolutionary discrete value of energy quanta in conflict with the popular classical physics of the day and did not see his efforts as erroneous demonstrates that he was sure of this departure from classical physics. All he wanted to do was learn the limits of his discovery via experimentation before speculating about them. . . .a trait you apparently know very very very little about. As I said I am not going to any lengths to defend Plancks discovery, I am basing it upon discovery, not expanded speculative theory, if you have a different definition or set of standards of discovery we can apply broadly as it seems you do, please express them specifically instead of trying to beat around the bush to support your own inculcated way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 18:51:29 GMT
And this? Why is it beyond you to understand what is being said?? 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." Since nothing probably is a greater drawback to the successful development of a new hypothesis than overstepping its boundaries,Get it?? Light quanta oversteps the boundaries of his hypothesis. He does not want it. He wants classical dynamics. Well besides what Planck believing being irrelevant you even manage to completely botch this up too. Your conclusion that he "wanted" classical dynamics is just ignorance of Planck. Planck very plainly a man that did not, like you, buy into hair brained schemes and inculcated beliefs. He is revered as a man of method and a man of skepticism and a man moved to question the inconsistencies of classical physics, hardly a man who wanted classical physics but instead a man that challenged it instead of like you just believing what you are told. The fact that he challenged it and discovered the revolutionary discrete value of energy quanta in conflict with the popular classical physics of the day and did not see his efforts as erroneous demonstrates that he was sure of this departure from classical physics. All he wanted to do was learn the limits of his discovery via experimentation before speculating about them. . . .a trait you apparently know very very very little about. As I said I am not going to any lengths to defend Plancks discovery, I am basing it upon discovery, not expanded speculative theory, if you have a different definition or set of standards of discovery we can apply broadly as it seems you do, please express them specifically instead of trying to beat around the bush to support your own inculcated way of thinking. Why was planck so strongly against the hypothesis of quanta of light? Why was he fighting it tooth and nail?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 19:22:03 GMT
Well besides what Planck believing being irrelevant you even manage to completely botch this up too. Your conclusion that he "wanted" classical dynamics is just ignorance of Planck. Planck very plainly a man that did not, like you, buy into hair brained schemes and inculcated beliefs. He is revered as a man of method and a man of skepticism and a man moved to question the inconsistencies of classical physics, hardly a man who wanted classical physics but instead a man that challenged it instead of like you just believing what you are told. The fact that he challenged it and discovered the revolutionary discrete value of energy quanta in conflict with the popular classical physics of the day and did not see his efforts as erroneous demonstrates that he was sure of this departure from classical physics. All he wanted to do was learn the limits of his discovery via experimentation before speculating about them. . . .a trait you apparently know very very very little about. As I said I am not going to any lengths to defend Plancks discovery, I am basing it upon discovery, not expanded speculative theory, if you have a different definition or set of standards of discovery we can apply broadly as it seems you do, please express them specifically instead of trying to beat around the bush to support your own inculcated way of thinking. Why was planck so strongly against the hypothesis of quanta of light? Why was he fighting it tooth and nail? The answer is of course is he was not fighting it tooth and nail. He was playing the role of gatekeeper for a level of evidence to overturn the parts of classical theory that had not been overturned by his work on energy quanta. He very much understood the revolutionary aspect of energy quanta he just did not speculate as to how far it extended. But put it simply Planck had little truck with speculation. It took a decade to prove out Einstein's speculations whereas Planck's submission came a description of how he had arrived at his conclusions and as I understand it, it took less than a year for the replication work to be completed to verify it. I think the quote by Max Born I provided above describes Planck pretty well and pretty well describes his demeanor and position. I don't think your opinion of Planck is correct. You seem to have a low threshold for evidence of the truth and you simply are judging Planck based upon your own personal standards. What I suggested as a solution for this debate is you carefully describe what you see as standards for discovery. I think I have minimalized that in my opinion and the only way to make it more minimal is to trivialize it and make it arbitrary which seems to be what your personal standards are.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 19:49:29 GMT
Why was planck so strongly against the hypothesis of quanta of light? Why was he fighting it tooth and nail? The answer is of course is he was not fighting it tooth and nail. He was playing the role of gatekeeper for a level of evidence to overturn the parts of classical theory that had not been overturned by his work on energy quanta. He very much understood the revolutionary aspect of energy quanta he just did not speculate as to how far it extended. But put it simply Planck had little truck with speculation. It took a decade to prove out Einstein's speculations whereas Planck's submission came a description of how he had arrived at his conclusions and as I understand it, it took less than a year for the replication work to be completed to verify it. I think the quote by Max Born I provided above describes Planck pretty well and pretty well describes his demeanor and position. I don't think your opinion of Planck is correct. You seem to have a low threshold for evidence of the truth and you simply are judging Planck based upon your own personal standards. What I suggested as a solution for this debate is you carefully describe what you see as standards for discovery. I think I have minimalized that in my opinion and the only way to make it more minimal is to trivialize it and make it arbitrary which seems to be what your personal standards are. Why did the radicals hypothesis of quanta of light over step the boundaries of his hypothesis of quanta? Why did he believe a solution for the hypothesis of quanta could be found in the resonators and not in the light? He was still banging on about the resonators and absorption and emission at the 1911 solvay conference.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 20:01:56 GMT
You have acknowledged that what Planck discovered was energy quanta and that energy quanta is a photon. I have made it totally clear I do not agree with that statement. Seems both statements are true. What do you disagree with? I am asking the same question again because your answer did not address the question. Everybody who has studied the topic agrees Plancks energy quanta was in his resonators and not in the light. We are not talking about Planck's views of light. We are talking about photons. You seem to think that energy value that Planck postulated that was confirmed by measurements was not a photon. If not then what was it? A photon in the resonators? Or a photon someplace else? Or something different than a photon? If so what? Planck knew very clearly what he had found was controversial. He was conservative and did not want to speculate that what he had found would overturn the classical theory of light. But it did. How many times does it have to be said to you? The historians agree with me. Nobody agrees with you apart from people who have no idea at all. What you fail to understand is popularity is not science. The only questions at hand are is a photon energy quanta and did Planck discover energy quanta. You want to bring a lot of trivial and arbitrary nonsense to the front to dispute that. I have asked you that if discovery is not finding something then what is it? You continue to dodge that question.
|
|