[Home]History of Photoelectric effect/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 6 . . July 26, 2001 5:24 am by Lee Daniel Crocker
Revision 5 . . July 26, 2001 4:23 am by (logged).45.18.xxx
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Added: 19a20,21


"Emission of electrons" is clearly wrong, precisely because it is more accurate! Again, let me be clear: physicists (probably Hertz, but others might have noticed it earlier) observed some effect long before they knew that it was in fact the emission of electrons. It was later discovered what caused the effect, but the effect itself should be described as whatever the actual measurement or observation was that led us to figure it out; not what we currently understand as its cause--that's circular definition, and bad science. If what Hertz first measured was the discharge of a plate or a Leyden jar (as I now suspect), then define it that way. If what he first measured was a current flow (which I first assumed, perhaps erroneously), then say that. I'm not sure which it was, but I do know for sure that Hertz did not observe the emission of electrons. --LDC

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: