Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:18:41 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@freefall.freebsd.org> Cc: terry@lambert.org, csubl@csv.warwick.ac.uk, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RMS's view on dynamic linking Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.970225160854.3951A-100000@modem.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <199702251748.JAA04809@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > > 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? Jon, who got the credit for Transistors, the guy who first doped semiconductors, or the guy who provided the math that explained the whole thing? Back then folks weren't completely sold on relativity (although it was indeed moving forward) but his explanation of how to really use quantum effects moved theory to fact, and opened up applications. You have to think about when that nobel prize was awarded, too, but even given that, IMO the "photoelectric effect" was the most immediately critcal step forward. Right now, folks think of special relativity as his most important contribution. It's entirely possible that 100 years from today, everyone will say that general relativity was the most important (dealing with gravity), depending on whether or not it's ultimately proven completely accurate. Who's right? Unfortuantely, I think the Nobel committee got real bad press for making the right choice. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.95q.970225160854.3951A-100000>