Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:48:01 -0800 (PST) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb> To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey) Cc: terry@lambert.org, csubl@csv.warwick.ac.uk, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RMS's view on dynamic linking Message-ID: <199702251748.JAA04809@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.970224212845.12907B-100000@professor.eng.umd.edu> from "Chuck Robey" at Feb 24, 97 09:43:36 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Robey wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > > produces three papers in oen year, each worthy of a nobel prize > > in physics....and then gets a nobel for "the photo-electric > > effect??" that was the greatest?? > > I've heard this particular comment so often, but it makes perfect sense to > me ... the special and general relativity were really new, but the > photo-electric effect thing isn't given it's proper background. It had > nothing to do with way photo-cells work on a macro level (which a number > of people have brought up to me in misunderstanding) but instead was the > first application that really used the quantum effects to explain > something previously misunderstood, how photons really did have different > energy levels, and how quantum effects beautifully predicted things. > > Terry knows this better than I do, I just think that this particular > example, which everyone brings up, undervalues the "photoelectric effect". > > I think many people think of "the photo-electric effect" as Einstein > getting an award for a solar cell. Completely misses the point. dont get me wrong, please, ;) explaining the photo-electric effect is good ;) but is it *the* item for which einstein should have gotten his nobel prize? who said that you can get one ;> bose-einstein is not more impressive? that relativity thingie aint more zowie? jmb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702251748.JAA04809>