Talk:Photoelectric effect - Revision history

ArnoldFriend at 22:11, October 27, 2008

2008-10-27T22:11:45Z

ArnoldFriend at 22:11, October 27, 2008

2008-10-27T22:11:14Z

RSchlafly: /* Timeline */ the Nobel committee did not credit Einstein with quantizing light

2008-10-27T01:38:50Z

Timeline: the Nobel committee did not credit Einstein with quantizing light

BRichtigen: You should argue with the guys from EB...

2008-10-26T22:50:19Z

You should argue with the guys from EB...

BRichtigen: /* Timeline */

2008-10-26T22:32:29Z

Timeline

RSchlafly: /* Timeline */ Maybe Einstein deserved being elected to that group

2008-10-26T22:14:03Z

Timeline: Maybe Einstein deserved being elected to that group

BRichtigen: /* Timeline */

2008-10-26T19:41:35Z

Timeline

RSchlafly: /* Timeline */ Planck said that light energy was quantized, and Einstein said that the light itself is quantized?

2008-10-26T17:02:08Z

Timeline: Planck said that light energy was quantized, and Einstein said that the light itself is quantized?

BRichtigen: E vs. p

2008-10-26T15:52:45Z

E vs. p

RSchlafly: /* Timeline */ Planck's idea was that light is emitted in quantized wave packets of energy at a particular frequency

2008-10-26T15:36:52Z

Timeline: Planck's idea was that light is emitted in quantized wave packets of energy at a particular frequency

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, October 27, 2008
Line 57:		Line 57:
	:::::: I am happy to give them all the same credit that the Nobel committee gave them, but the Nobel committee did not credit Einstein with quantizing light. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 21:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)		:::::: I am happy to give them all the same credit that the Nobel committee gave them, but the Nobel committee did not credit Einstein with quantizing light. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 21:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

−	::::::: Hopefully my edits cleared up all the issues over the Nobel prizes. The quotes are directly from the webpage of the Nobel Foundation.	+	::::::: Hopefully my edits cleared up all the issues over the Nobel prizes. The quotes are directly from the webpage of the Nobel Foundation. Ed: Forgot to sign [[User:ArnoldFriend\|ArnoldFriend]] 18:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, October 27, 2008
Line 56:		Line 56:

	:::::: I am happy to give them all the same credit that the Nobel committee gave them, but the Nobel committee did not credit Einstein with quantizing light. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 21:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)		:::::: I am happy to give them all the same credit that the Nobel committee gave them, but the Nobel committee did not credit Einstein with quantizing light. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 21:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	::::::: Hopefully my edits cleared up all the issues over the Nobel prizes. The quotes are directly from the webpage of the Nobel Foundation.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:38, October 27, 2008
Line 54:		Line 54:

	::::: And here is a nice - albeit secondary - [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/183228/electromagnetic-radiation quote] from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: ''These oscillators of frequency ν are incapable of absorbing or emitting electromagnetic radiation except in energy chunks of size hν. To explain quantized absorption and emission of radiation, it seemed sufficient to quantize only the energy levels of mechanical systems. Planck did not mean to say that electromagnetic radiation itself is quantized, or as Einstein later put it, “The sale of beer in pint bottles does not imply that beer exists only in indivisible pint portions.” The idea that electromagnetic radiation itself is quantized was proposed by Einstein in 1905, as described in the subsequent section.'' As usual, they express the thoughts so much clearer then I can do it... --[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 18:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)		::::: And here is a nice - albeit secondary - [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/183228/electromagnetic-radiation quote] from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: ''These oscillators of frequency ν are incapable of absorbing or emitting electromagnetic radiation except in energy chunks of size hν. To explain quantized absorption and emission of radiation, it seemed sufficient to quantize only the energy levels of mechanical systems. Planck did not mean to say that electromagnetic radiation itself is quantized, or as Einstein later put it, “The sale of beer in pint bottles does not imply that beer exists only in indivisible pint portions.” The idea that electromagnetic radiation itself is quantized was proposed by Einstein in 1905, as described in the subsequent section.'' As usual, they express the thoughts so much clearer then I can do it... --[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 18:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::::: I am happy to give them all the same credit that the Nobel committee gave them, but the Nobel committee did not credit Einstein with quantizing light. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 21:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, October 26, 2008
Line 51:		Line 51:
	:::: So Planck praised Einstein. Maybe Einstein deserved being elected to that group. I am not disputing that. Maybe Einstein said something about light quanta that Planck did not fully agree with. Planck does not say who deserves credit for quantizing light. Even if he did, the more significant fact is that Planck published five years earlier. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 18:14, 26 October 2008 (EDT)		:::: So Planck praised Einstein. Maybe Einstein deserved being elected to that group. I am not disputing that. Maybe Einstein said something about light quanta that Planck did not fully agree with. Planck does not say who deserves credit for quantizing light. Even if he did, the more significant fact is that Planck published five years earlier. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 18:14, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

−	::::: And Newton published 200 years earlier about light existing from ''corpuscles''. But neither Planck nor Newton published an the ''photoelectric effect'', using light-quanta. You may not like it, but Planck, Born, the Nobel committee, gave Einstein credit for his explanation - Lenard, of course, did not, not so much because of a priority dispute but as he didn't accept the ''jüdische Physik'' ... --[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 18:32, 26 October 2008 (EDT)	+	::::: And Newton published 200 years earlier about light existing from ''corpuscles''. But neither Planck nor Newton published on the ''photoelectric effect'', using light-quanta. You may not like it, but Planck, Born, the Nobel committee, gave Einstein credit for his explanation - Lenard, of course, did not, not so much because of a priority dispute but as he didn't accept the ''jüdische Physik'' ... --[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 18:32, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	::::: And here is a nice - albeit secondary - [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/183228/electromagnetic-radiation quote] from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: ''These oscillators of frequency ν are incapable of absorbing or emitting electromagnetic radiation except in energy chunks of size hν. To explain quantized absorption and emission of radiation, it seemed sufficient to quantize only the energy levels of mechanical systems. Planck did not mean to say that electromagnetic radiation itself is quantized, or as Einstein later put it, “The sale of beer in pint bottles does not imply that beer exists only in indivisible pint portions.” The idea that electromagnetic radiation itself is quantized was proposed by Einstein in 1905, as described in the subsequent section.'' As usual, they express the thoughts so much clearer then I can do it... --[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 18:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, October 26, 2008
Line 50:		Line 50:

	:::: So Planck praised Einstein. Maybe Einstein deserved being elected to that group. I am not disputing that. Maybe Einstein said something about light quanta that Planck did not fully agree with. Planck does not say who deserves credit for quantizing light. Even if he did, the more significant fact is that Planck published five years earlier. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 18:14, 26 October 2008 (EDT)		:::: So Planck praised Einstein. Maybe Einstein deserved being elected to that group. I am not disputing that. Maybe Einstein said something about light quanta that Planck did not fully agree with. Planck does not say who deserves credit for quantizing light. Even if he did, the more significant fact is that Planck published five years earlier. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 18:14, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	::::: And Newton published 200 years earlier about light existing from ''corpuscles''. But neither Planck nor Newton published an the ''photoelectric effect'', using light-quanta. You may not like it, but Planck, Born, the Nobel committee, gave Einstein credit for his explanation - Lenard, of course, did not, not so much because of a priority dispute but as he didn't accept the ''jüdische Physik'' ... --[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 18:32, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, October 26, 2008
Line 48:		Line 48:

	:::Here is Planck's [http://planck.bbaw.de/planckiana.php?dokument=120 Wahlvorschlag] for Einstein from June 12th, 1913, i.e., his proposal to elect Albert Einstein into the ''Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften'' - in this time one of the leading bodies of science. It's full of praise for Einstein, especially regarding the ''Theory of Relativity'', and you'll find the lines I quoted above: ''"Daß er in seinen Spekulationen gelegentlich auch einmal über das Ziel hinausgeschossen haben mag, wie z.B. in seiner Hypothese der Lichtquanten, wird man ihm nicht allzu sehr anrechnen dürfen. Denn ohne einmal ein Risiko zu wagen, läßt sich auch in der exaktesten Wissenschaft keine wirkliche Neuerung einführen."'' ''(He may have overshot the mark with his speculations sometimes, as regarding his hypothesis of the light quanta, but one can't hold this against him. Because without taking a risk, nothing really new can be introduced into the most exact of sciences)''--[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 15:41, 26 October 2008 (EDT)		:::Here is Planck's [http://planck.bbaw.de/planckiana.php?dokument=120 Wahlvorschlag] for Einstein from June 12th, 1913, i.e., his proposal to elect Albert Einstein into the ''Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften'' - in this time one of the leading bodies of science. It's full of praise for Einstein, especially regarding the ''Theory of Relativity'', and you'll find the lines I quoted above: ''"Daß er in seinen Spekulationen gelegentlich auch einmal über das Ziel hinausgeschossen haben mag, wie z.B. in seiner Hypothese der Lichtquanten, wird man ihm nicht allzu sehr anrechnen dürfen. Denn ohne einmal ein Risiko zu wagen, läßt sich auch in der exaktesten Wissenschaft keine wirkliche Neuerung einführen."'' ''(He may have overshot the mark with his speculations sometimes, as regarding his hypothesis of the light quanta, but one can't hold this against him. Because without taking a risk, nothing really new can be introduced into the most exact of sciences)''--[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 15:41, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::: So Planck praised Einstein. Maybe Einstein deserved being elected to that group. I am not disputing that. Maybe Einstein said something about light quanta that Planck did not fully agree with. Planck does not say who deserves credit for quantizing light. Even if he did, the more significant fact is that Planck published five years earlier. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 18:14, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:41, October 26, 2008
Line 46:		Line 46:

	::: So are you saying that Planck said that light energy was quantized, and Einstein said that the light itself is quantized? What exactly is the difference? I don't get it. And where did Planck every say that he was undeserving of credit for quantizing light? [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 13:02, 26 October 2008 (EDT)		::: So are you saying that Planck said that light energy was quantized, and Einstein said that the light itself is quantized? What exactly is the difference? I don't get it. And where did Planck every say that he was undeserving of credit for quantizing light? [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 13:02, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::Here is Planck's [http://planck.bbaw.de/planckiana.php?dokument=120 Wahlvorschlag] for Einstein from June 12th, 1913, i.e., his proposal to elect Albert Einstein into the ''Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften'' - in this time one of the leading bodies of science. It's full of praise for Einstein, especially regarding the ''Theory of Relativity'', and you'll find the lines I quoted above: ''"Daß er in seinen Spekulationen gelegentlich auch einmal über das Ziel hinausgeschossen haben mag, wie z.B. in seiner Hypothese der Lichtquanten, wird man ihm nicht allzu sehr anrechnen dürfen. Denn ohne einmal ein Risiko zu wagen, läßt sich auch in der exaktesten Wissenschaft keine wirkliche Neuerung einführen."'' ''(He may have overshot the mark with his speculations sometimes, as regarding his hypothesis of the light quanta, but one can't hold this against him. Because without taking a risk, nothing really new can be introduced into the most exact of sciences)''--[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 15:41, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:02, October 26, 2008
Line 44:		Line 44:
	::I don't know whether my points were so garbled - or only your renarration of them is. Einstein's idea is that light can be regarded (at least sometimes) as existing from particles. Planck is clearly ''undeserving of credit for quantizing light'' - and stated so himself, several times. He gave full credit to Einstein, even under difficult circumstances, i.e., living in Nazi-Germany.		::I don't know whether my points were so garbled - or only your renarration of them is. Einstein's idea is that light can be regarded (at least sometimes) as existing from particles. Planck is clearly ''undeserving of credit for quantizing light'' - and stated so himself, several times. He gave full credit to Einstein, even under difficult circumstances, i.e., living in Nazi-Germany.
	::One could say that while Planck gave the ''energy'' of a quantum, Einstein gave its ''impulse''. --[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 11:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)		::One could say that while Planck gave the ''energy'' of a quantum, Einstein gave its ''impulse''. --[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 11:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	::: So are you saying that Planck said that light energy was quantized, and Einstein said that the light itself is quantized? What exactly is the difference? I don't get it. And where did Planck every say that he was undeserving of credit for quantizing light? [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 13:02, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, October 26, 2008
Line 41:		Line 41:

	: So you are saying that Planck's idea was that light is emitted in quantized wave packets of energy at a particular frequency, and Einstein's idea was that light is emitted as a particle. Einstein was correct while Planck was wrong or did not understand what he did or reluctant to take the quantum leap or otherwise somehow underdeserving of credit for quantizing light. Is that right? [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)		: So you are saying that Planck's idea was that light is emitted in quantized wave packets of energy at a particular frequency, and Einstein's idea was that light is emitted as a particle. Einstein was correct while Planck was wrong or did not understand what he did or reluctant to take the quantum leap or otherwise somehow underdeserving of credit for quantizing light. Is that right? [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	::I don't know whether my points were so garbled - or only your renarration of them is. Einstein's idea is that light can be regarded (at least sometimes) as existing from particles. Planck is clearly ''undeserving of credit for quantizing light'' - and stated so himself, several times. He gave full credit to Einstein, even under difficult circumstances, i.e., living in Nazi-Germany.
		+	::One could say that while Planck gave the ''energy'' of a quantum, Einstein gave its ''impulse''. --[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 11:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, October 26, 2008
Line 39:		Line 39:
	#''Einstein is peculiar in that he was well known for being very jealous about crediting anyone but himself.'' So was Gauss. And Lenard was a rabid anti-semite. All accounts agree - on the other hand - that Max Planck was one of the nicest guys you could ever meet - the Nazi propaganda called him a ''white Jew''. All of them made valuable contributions to science. And one of Einstein's contributions was to explain the photoelectric effect by introducing light-quanta - an explanation, Lenard hadn't thought of and Planck was surprised by.		#''Einstein is peculiar in that he was well known for being very jealous about crediting anyone but himself.'' So was Gauss. And Lenard was a rabid anti-semite. All accounts agree - on the other hand - that Max Planck was one of the nicest guys you could ever meet - the Nazi propaganda called him a ''white Jew''. All of them made valuable contributions to science. And one of Einstein's contributions was to explain the photoelectric effect by introducing light-quanta - an explanation, Lenard hadn't thought of and Planck was surprised by.
	--[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 07:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)		--[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 07:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	: So you are saying that Planck's idea was that light is emitted in quantized wave packets of energy at a particular frequency, and Einstein's idea was that light is emitted as a particle. Einstein was correct while Planck was wrong or did not understand what he did or reluctant to take the quantum leap or otherwise somehow underdeserving of credit for quantizing light. Is that right? [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)