From owner-freebsd-chat  Tue Feb 25 09:50:51 1997
Return-Path: <owner-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA04983
          for chat-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:50:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jmb@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA04809;
          Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:48:02 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb>
Message-Id: <199702251748.JAA04809@freefall.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: RMS's view on dynamic linking
To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:48:01 -0800 (PST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, csubl@csv.warwick.ac.uk, chat@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
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

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