How ideas became knowledge: The light-quantum hypothesis 1905-1935

Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 205-246

  Brush, Stephen G ^a  

^a Bldg 142   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248357409     PISSN: 08909997     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/hsps.2007.37.2.205     Document Type: Article

References (345)

1. G. Shearer, "hv," Cavendish Society Post-Prandial Proceedings, as reprinted in G.W.C. Kaye, X-rays (London, 1923, 1929), xvi.
2. Brush, "Prediction and theory evaluation in physics and astronomy," in Kox and Siegel, eds., No truth except in the details (Dordrecht, 1995), 299-318
3. and works cited therein; "Dynamics of theory change: The role of predictions," PSA 1994: Proceedings of the 1994 biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association,
4. Hull et al., eds., vol. 2, Symposia and invited papers (East Lansing, MI, 1995), 133-145;
5. "Dynamics of theory change in the social sciences: Relative deprivation and collective violence," Journal of conflict resolution, 40 (1996), 523-545;
6. "The reception of Mendeleev's periodic law in America and Britain," Isis, 87 (1996), 595-628;
7. "Dynamics of theory change in chemistry," Studies in history and philosophy of science, 30 (1999), 21-79, 263-302;
8. "Why was relativity accepted?" Physics in perspective, 1 (1999), 184-214;
9. "How theories became knowledge: Morgan's chromosome theory of heredity in America and Britain," Journal of the history of biology, 35 (2002), 471-535.
10. Russell McCormmach, "J.J. Thomson and the structure of light," British journal for the history of science, 3 (1967), 362-387;
11. "Henri Poincaré and the quantum theory," Isis, 58 (1967), 37-55.
12. Martin J. Klein, "The first phase of the Bohr-Einstein dialogue," HSPS, 2 (1970), 1-39.
13. Christa Jungnickel and Russell McCormmach, Intellectual mastery of nature: Theoretical physics from Ohm to Einstein, vol. 2, The now mighty theoretical physics 1870-1925 (Chicago, 1986).
14. General works on this topic include: Edmund Whittaker, A history of the theories of aether and electricity, vol. 2, The modern theories 1900-1926 (London, 1953);
15. Max Jammer, The conceptual development of quantum mechanics (New York, 1965, 2nd edn., 1989);
16. Armin Hermann, The genesis of quantum theory (1899-1913) (Cambridge, 1971);
17. Roger H. Stuewer, The Compton effect: Turning point in physics (New York, 1975);
18. Thomas S. Kuhn, Black-body theory and the quantum discontinuity, 1894-1912 (Oxford, 1978);
19. Jagdish Mehra and Helmut Rechenberg, The historical development of quantum theory, vol. 1, Part 1, The quantum theory of Planck, Einstein, Bohr and Sommerfeld: Its foundation and the rise of its difficulties 1900-1925 (New York, 1982);
20. Bruce R. Wheaton, The tiger and the shark: Empirical roots of wave-particle dualism (Cambridge, 1983);
21. Gerald Holton, "On the hesitant rise of quantum physics in the United States," in his Thematic origins of scientific thought, Kepler to Einstein (Cambridge, rev. edn. 1988), 147-187;
22. Katherine Russell Sopka, Quantum physics in America: The years through 1935 (New York, 1988);
23. Helge Kragh, Quantum generations: A history of physics in the twentieth century (Princeton, 1999);
24. John Stachel, "Einstein's light-quantum hypothesis: Or why didn't Einstein propose a quantum gas twenty years earlier," in Don Howard and John Stachel, eds., Einstein: The formative years, 1879-1909 (Boston, 2000), 231-251;
25. Laurie M. Brown, "The Compton effect as one path to quantum electrodynamics," Studies in history and philosophy of modern physics, 33B (2002), 211-249;
26. Alexei Kojevnikov, "Einstein's fluctuation formula and the wave-particle duality," in Yuri Balashov and Vladimir Vizgin, eds., Einstein studies in Russia (Boston, 2002), 181-228;
27. Roger H. Stuewer, "The experimental challenge of light quanta," in Michel Janssen and Christopher Lehner, eds., Cambridge companion to Einstein (Cambridge, forthcoming).
28. The "instant history" of Orest D. Chwolson is also useful, Die Physik 1914-1926 (Braunschweig, 1927).
29. Albert Einstein, "Über einen der Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt," Annalen der Physik [series 4], 17 (1905), 132-48.
30. John Stachel et al, eds., The collected papers of Albert Einstein, vol. 2 (Princeton, 1989) 134-66, including an extensive "Editorial note." English trans. in Dirk ter Haar, The old quantum theory (Oxford, 1967), 91-107.
31. Albert Einstein, "Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung," Mitteilungen der Physikalischen Gesellschaft Zürich, 16(1916), 47-62,
32. reprinted in Physikalische Zeitschrift, 18(1917), 121-128.
33. "All radiation emitted by atoms, induced by atoms... is indeed directed.... There is no radiation in spherical waves." "With this, the existence of light quanta is practically assured" - Einstein, letter to M. Besso, 6 Sep 1916 (both quotations are in his Collected papers, 6, p. xxiv).
34. On Stark's contribution see Stuewer (ref. 4), 30-37.
35. Jungnickel and McCormmach (ref. 3), 305.
36. McCormmach, "Henri Poincaré" (ref. 3).
37. Martin J. Klein, Paul Ehrenfest, vol. 1, The making of a theoretical physicist (New York, 1970), 245-257.
38. Luis Navarro and Enric Pérez, "Paul Ehrenfest on the necessity of quanta (1911): Discontinuity, quantization, corpuscularity, and adiabatic invariance," Archive for history of exact sciences, 58 (2004), 97-141.
39. Robert A. Millikan, "A direct photoelectric determination of Planck's 'h'," Physical review [series 2], 7 (1916), 355-388;
40. The electron: Its isolation and measurement and the determination of some of its properties (Chicago, 1917), 221-238.
41. Wheaton (ref. 4), p. xvi.
42. Laurie M. Brown, "The Compton effect as one path to quantum electrodynamics," Studies in history and philosophy of modern physics, 33B (2002), 211-249, on 213.
43. Pais, "Einstein and the quantum theory," Reviews of modern physics, 51 (1979), 863-894.
44. J.J. Thomson, "On a theory of the structure of the electric field and its application to Röntgen radiation and to light," Philosophical magazine, 19 (1910).
45. McCormmach, "J.J. Thomson" (ref. 3).
46. Millikan (ref. 2), 238,
47. calls it the "Thomson-Einstein semicorpuscular theory." Thomson's theory was still associated with the LQH as late as 1933;
48. see Oliver J. Lodge, A century's progress in physics (London, 1927), 13;
49. Edwin B. Wilson, "Some recent speculations on the nature of light," Science, 65 (1927), 265-271;
50. Herbert Stanley Allen, The quantum and its interpretation (London, 1928), 4;
51. G. Juvet, La structure des nouvelles théories physiques (Paris, 1933), 97-98.
52. W. Friedrich, P. Knipping and M. Laue, "Interferenz-Erscheinungen bei Röntgenstrahlung," Sitzungsberichte, Königlich bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, 42 (1912), 303-322.
53. Wheaton (ref. 4), part 4.
54. Klein (ref. 3), 21-28. Niels Bohr collected works, vol. 2, Work on atomic physics (1912-1917), ed. Ulrich Hoyer (Amsterdam, 1981).
55. Paul Drude, Lehrbuch der Optik (Leipzig, 1900);
56. Robert A. Millikan and J. Mills, A short university course in electricity, sound, and light (Boston, 1908);
57. Henry Crew, General physics: An elementary text-book for colleges (3rd edn., New York, 1916).
58. Drude (ref. 11);
59. Thomas Preston, The theory of light, ed. C.J. Joly (3rd edn. London, 1901),
60. Edwin Edser, Light for students (London, 1902, rept. 1919);
61. C. Riborg Mann, Manual of advanced optics (Chicago, 1902);
62. Albert A. Michelson, Light waves and their uses (Chicago, 1903);
63. W. Watson, A text-book of physics (4th edn., New York, 1905);
64. G.A. Wentworth and G.A. Hill, A text-book of physics (rev. edn., Boston, 1905);
65. Robert A. Houstoun, Intermediate light (London, 1925), 198.
66. See books by Drude (ref. 11),
67. Mann (ref. 12),
68. E.L. Nichols and W.S. Franklin, The elements of physics, vol. 3, Light and sound (New York, 1903);
69. W.S. Franklin and Barry Macnutt, Light and sound (New York, 1909);
70. Richard C. Maclaurin, Light (New York, 1909).
71. Michelson (ref. 12);
72. Arthur Schuster, An introduction to the theory of optics (London, 1904).
73. Preston (ref. 12);
74. Mann (ref. 12).
75. Thomas S. Kuhn (ref. 4)
76. and "Revisiting Planck," HSPS, 14:2 (1984), 231-242.
77. After much resistance, Kuhn's interpretation has now been generally accepted by historians of physics. Jochen Büttner, Jürgen Renn, and Matthias Schemmel, "Exploring the limits of classical physics: Planck, Einstein, and the structure of a scientific revolution," Studies in history and philosophy of modern physics, 34B (2003), 37-59.
78. See also S.G. Brush, "Thomas Kuhn as a historian of science," Science and education, 9 (2000), 39-58;
79. Cathryn Carson, "The origins of the quantum theory," Beamline, 30:2 (2000), 6-19;
80. Helge Kragh, "Max Planck: The reluctant revolutionary," Physics world, 13:12 (2000), 31-35;
81. Olivier Darrigol, "Continuities and discontinuities in Planck's Akt der Verzweiflung," Annalen der Physik (Leipzig) [series 8], 9 (2000): 851-860;
82. "Quantum theory and atomic structure, 1900-1927," in Mary Jo Nye, ed., The Cambridge history of science, vol. 5, The modern physical and mathematical sciences, 331-349 (New York, 2003).
83. See ref. 5.
84. Max Planck, "Zur Theorie des Gesetzes der Energieverteilung im Normalspectrum," Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalisch Gesellschaft, 2 (1900), 237-245.
85. See Planck's original papers in quantum physics, German and English edition, ann. Hans Kangro, trans. D. ter Haar and Stephen G. Brush (London, 1972), 8, 10-11, 40, 42-43, 54-55, quote on 40.
86. As Olivier Darrigol points out, the last sentence "leaves no reason for doubt": "the energy of a single resonator was not thought to be restricted to multiples of ε." See From c-numbers to q-numbers: The classical analogy in the history of quantum theory (Berkeley, 1992), 73.
87. When Planck rewrote and expanded his 1900 papers for publication in 1901, he omitted the statement that if the number of quanta is not an integer one should take the nearest integer ["Ueber das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im Normalspektrum," Annalen der Physik [series 4], 4 (1901), 553-563, on 556-557].
88. Thus if you insist on giving the credit to Planck for originating the quantum theory, your case is a little stronger if you cite his paper of 1901 rather than just the brief announcement of 1900. But we must still consider the following facts, which do not seem to be controversial: (1) Even in the paper of 1901 he never suggested (as Einstein did in 1905) that electromagnetic radiation in space is quantized; his quantum hypothesis, whether physical or mathematical, applies only to the amount of energy possessed by a resonator and to the amount that can be emitted or absorbed. (2) During the next few years he retreated from that position, denying for example that the absorption of energy is quantized and suggesting that the resonator in general will possess a non-integer number of quanta. See Kuhn (ref. 4), chapts. 4, 5, and 10;
89. Jagdish Mehra, The Solvay Conferences on Physics: Aspects of the development of physics since 1911 (Dordrecht, 1975), 24-40.
90. M. Planck, "Zur Theorie der Wärmestrahlung," Annalen der Physik [ser. 4], 31 (1910), 758-768.
91. On his changing views see Holton (ref. 4), 156-158;
92. Collected papers of Albert Einstein, 5 (Princeton, 1995), docs. 47, 303;
93. Planck, Das Wesen des Lichts (Berlin, 1920).
94. M. Planck, Die Entstehung und bisherige Entwicklung der Quantentheorie [Nobel Prize Lecture] (Leipzig, 1920). Trans. R. Jones and D.H. Williams, in A survey of physical theory (New York, 1960), 102-114, on 109.
95. Albert Einstein (ref. 5), from D. ter Haar's trans. (ref. 5), 91-92.
96. Roger Stuewer, "Non-Einsteinian interpretations of the photoelectric effect," in Stuewer, ed., Historical and philosophical perspectives of science (Minneapolis, 1970), 246-263, on 247-248.
97. See also Wheaton (ref. 4), 108.
98. The word comes from a Greek root meaning "discover," more familiar to modern readers from the famous exclamation of Archimedes, "Eureka!" (I have found it). The Neue Deutsche Wörterbuch, ed. Lutz MacKenfen (Laupheim, rept. 1953) defines "heuristisch" simply as "erfinderlisch." Einstein's approach seems quite similar to that of J.J. Thomson, as described by McCormmach: A theory should "suggest things which can be tried by experiment, and for this the theory should be one that is easily visualized." Moreover, as Lord Rayleigh noted in his biography of Thomson, this approach means that one stresses "what a theory would explain rather than what it would not." Some of the critics of Einstein and Thomson were (as it turned out) overly obsessed with the difficulties of explaining interference and other wave properties by a particle theory.
99. McCormmach (ref. 3), 364.
100. Einstein, letter to Konrad Habicht, 18 or 25 May 1905, in Martin J. Klein, A.J. Kox, and Robert Schulmann eds., Collected papers of Albert Einstein (Princeton, 1993), 5, 31-32, on 31.
101. Karl K. Darrow, Introduction to contemporary physics (New York, 1926), 116-117.
102. Einstein (ref. 6). English trans., "On the quantum theory of radiation,"
103. in ter Haar (ref. 5), 167-183, on 169 and 182. This paper is also important because it provided the theoretical basis for the "laser" and because Einstein expressed there his unhappiness with the randomness that he himself had introduced into the quantum theory: "The weakness of the theory lies, on the one hand, in the fact that it does not bring any nearer the connexion with the wave theory and, on the other hand, that it leaves [the] moment and direction of the elementary processes to 'chance'" (p. 182).
104. Stuewer (ref. 23).
105. Thomas S. Kuhn, "Foreword" in Wheaton (ref. 4), ix-xiii, on ix.
106. Hermann (ref. 4).
107. Millikan, "Direct photoelectric determination" (ref. 8), 355, 383. The view that Millikan's work was the "most definitive" is now accepted, but A.H. Compton stated, on the contrary, that the experiment his older brother Karl did with Richardson was the most important.
108. Owen W. Richardson and Karl T. Compton, "The photoelectric effect," Philosophical magazine, 24 (1912), 575-594.
109. See A.H. Compton, X-rays and electrons (New York, 1926), 223;
110. "Michelson, Millikan, and Richardson" [1931], in M. Johnston ed., The cosmos of Arthur Holly Compton, (New York, 1967), 193-201, on 200.
111. G.E.M. Jauncey, Modern physics (New York, 1932, 8th printing 1935), 204-205.
112. Robert W. Wood, Physical optics (3rd edn., New York, 1934), 764.
113. Millikan, The electron (ref. 8), 221-230.
114. Ibid., 31.
115. Philipp Lenard, "Über die lichtelektrische Wirkung," Annalen der Physik, 8 (1902), 149-198.
116. Bruce R. Wheaton, "Philipp Lenard and the photoelectric effect, 1889-1911," HSPS, 9 (1978), 299-322.
117. Millikan, The electron (ref. 8), 238.
118. See also Holton (ref. 4).
119. For an account of Millikan's work with students on the photoelectric effect see John L. Michel, "The Chicago connection: Michelson and Millikan, 1894-1921," in Stanley Goldberg and Roger H. Stuewer eds., The Michelson era in American science 1870-1930, (New York, 1988), 152-176. Millikan's coupling of Thomson's and Einstein's theories now seems inappropriate, but reflects the attitude of many physicists at that time who were more interested in the general question (wave versus particle nature of light) than in the difference between alternative particle theories (see below Section 7).
120. Giora Hon, "Towards a typology of experimental errors: An epistemological view," Studies in history and philosophy of science 20 (1989), 469-504, on 496-497.
121. That does not of course excuse Millikan for misrepresenting his views of 1916 in his autobiography in order to claim more credit than he deserves for establishing the particle nature of light. See Stuewer, Compton effect (ref. 4), 88, note 125
122. and "Experimental challenge" (ref. 4);
123. Gerald Holton, "R.A. Millikan's struggle with the meaning of Planck's constant," Physics in perspective, 1 (1999), 231-237.
124. The citation reads: "for his services to theoretical physics and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect." In his presentation speech, Svante Arrhenius mentions Millikan's experimental confirmation of Einstein's equation but does not explicitly say that this means the theory from which the equation was derived is valid. He does praise the quantum theory in general, and its application to the specific heats of solids as well as to the photoelectric effect: "Owing to these studies by Einstein the quantum theory has been perfected to a high degree and an extensive literature grew up in this field whereby the extraordinary value of this theory was proved." See "The general and present state of development of the quantum theory," in Nobel lectures ... physics 1901-1921 (Amsterdam, 1967), 477-481.
125. For details see Robert Marc Friedman, "Text, context, and quicksand: Method and understanding in studying the Nobel science prizes," HSPS, 20:1 (1989), 63-77,
126. and The politics of excellence: Beyond the Nobel Prize in science (New York, 2001), chapt. 7.
127. Abraham Pais, "How Einstein got the Nobel Prize," American scientist, 70 (1982), 358-365.
128. Millikan received the Nobel Prize for 1923, in part for his confirmation of Einstein's photoelectric equation. In his lecture, delivered 23 May 1924, he said: "the general validity of Einstein's equation is, I think, now universally conceded, and to that extent the reality of Einstein's light quanta may be considered as experimentally established But the conception of localized light-quanta out of which Einstein got his equation must still be regarded as far from being established." Nobel lectures ... physics, vol. 2, 54-66.
129. In the second edition of his book The electron (Chicago, 1924), completed around the same time, he acknowledged that the phenomenon discovered by A.H. Compton "constitutes the best evidence yet found in favor of Einstein's hypothesis of localized light-quanta" but despite its many successes "the theory is as yet woefully incomplete and hazy. About all that we can say now is that we seem to be driven by newly discovered relations in the field of radiation to the hypothetical use of a fascinating conception which we cannot as yet reconcile at all with well-established wave-phenomena" (pp. 256-260).
130. G.I. Taylor, "Interference fringes with feeble light," Cambridge Philosophical Society, Proceedings, 15 (1909), 114-115. In recalling this experiment 54 years later, Taylor wrote that it was his first research experience after taking his degree at Cambridge; it was suggested by Thomson, but Taylor described it as a test of the idea that "light consists of spots or quanta of energy localized in space" without mentioning Einstein or noting that he was testing Thomson's own theory.
131. "Scientific diversions," in S.W. Higginbotham ed., Man, science, learning and education, (Houston, 1963), 137-148,
132. quoted in G. Batchelor, The life and legacy of G.I. Taylor (Cambridge, UK, 1996), 40-41.
133. See also McCormmach (ref. 3), 369.
134. Albert A. Michelson, "On the application of interference methods to astronomical measurements," Astrophysical journal, 51 (1920), 257-262.
135. Michelson and F.G. Pease, "Measurement of the diameter of α Orionis with the interferometer," Astrophysical journal, 53 (1921), 249-259.
136. H.A. Lorentz, "The radiation of light" (lecture at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 1 June 1923), Nature, 113 (1924), 608-611;
137. Collected papers, vol. 8, 17-27.
138. Karl K. Darrow (ref. 26), 162.
139. Paul R. Heyl, The fundamental concepts of physics in the light of modern discovery (Baltimore, 1926), 80.
140. Roger H. Stuewer, "William H. Bragg's corpuscular theory of x-rays and γ-rays," The British journal for the history of science, 5 (1971), 258-281;
141. Stuewer, Compton effect (ref. 4);
142. Wheaton (ref. 4).
143. According to T.S. Kuhn, "Einstein's was only one approach to conceiving radiation as particulate. A second, far less well known, was associated with observations on x-rays and γ-rays, both discovered during the decade before Einstein's hypothesis was enunciated and neither unequivocally identified with light for another decade. By 1900, five years after their discovery, x-rays were almost everywhere assumed to be particulate."
144. T.S. Kuhn, "Foreword," in Wheaton (ref. 4), ix-x.
145. A.H. Compton, "The softening of secondary x-rays," Nature, 108 (1921), 366-367, on 366.
146. Stuewer, Compton effect (ref. 4).
147. "The mistaken notion is to get some idea and then try to prove it.... The real thing that a scientist tries to do when he is faced with a phenomenon is to attempt to understand it. To do that he tries all the possible answers that he can think of to see which of them works best." - Arthur Holly Compton, quoted by Stuewer (ref. 4), 96,
148. from Cosmos (ref. 29), 23.
149. O.W. Richardson, "The asymmetric emission of secondary rays," Philosophical magazine, 25 (1913), 144-150.
150. The electron theory of matter (Cambridge, UK, 1914), 478-481. But he argued that it followed directly from Planck's black-body law, not from Einstein's theory.
151. A.H. Compton, "Secondary radiation produced by x-rays, and some of their applications to physical problems", Bulletin of the National Research Council, 4, pt 2, no. 20 (1922), 24.
152. Robert S. Shankland, ed., Scientific papers of Arthur Holly Compton: X-ray and other studies (Chicago, 1973), 382-401.
153. On the origin of Compton's formula p = E/c for the momentum of a light quantum, see R. S. Shankland, appendix 1 in ibid., 756-758.
154. A.H. Compton, "Aquantum theory of the scattering of x-rays by light elements,2: Physical review [series 2], 21 (1923), 483-502;
155. Shankland (ref. 44).
156. The same theory was developed by Peter Debye, "Zerstreuung von Röntgenstrahlung und Quantentheorie," Physikalische Zeitschrift, 24 (1923), 161-166;
157. see Stuewer, Compton effect (ref. 2), 234-237, 485.
158. Debye's paper was submitted later but published earlier. According to Max Dresden, Hendrik A. Kramers had worked out the theory in 1921 but Bohr talked him out of publishing it and persuaded him to reject the LQH; see Dresden, H.A. Kramers: Between tradition & revolution (New York, 1987), chapt. 14. I thank Roger Stuewer for this reference.
159. Compton (ref. 45), 496.
160. Charles T.R. Wilson, "Investigations on x-rays and -rays by the cloud method," Nature, 112 (1923), 26-27;
161. "Investigations on x-rays and γ-rays by the cloud method. Part I.-x-rays," Royal Society of London, Proceedings, 104 (1923), 1-24.
162. A.H. Compton, "Recoil of electrons from scattered x-rays," Nature, 112 (1923), 435.
163. Wilson, "Recoil of electrons from scattered x-rays," Nature, 112 (1923), 435.
164. Walther Bothe, "Über neue Sekundärstrahlung der Röntgenstrahlen. I. Mitteilung," Zeitschrift für Physik, 16 (1923), 319-320;
165. II Mitteilung," Zeitschrift für Physik, 20 (1924), 237-255.
166. A.H. Compton and J.C. Hubbard, "The recoil of electrons from scattered x-rays," Physical review, 23 (1924), 439-449.
167. A.H. Compton, "The scattering of x-rays," Journal of the Franklin Institute, 198 (Jul 1924), 57-72, on 68.
168. Ibid., p. 70.
169. A.H. Compton, "Light waves or light bullets?" Scientific American, 133 (Oct 1925), 246-247. According to Roger Stuewer (private communication), Compton's statement that Einstein invented the LQH "primarily to explain the photoelectric effect" is clear proof that he never read Einstein's 1905 paper.
170. note on terminology: The word "photon" for light quantum was first introduced in print by Gilbert N. Lewis in 1926, and therefore is not appropriate when discussing the earlier period. (It was suggested in private in a letter from Richard Swinne to Einstein, 12 Feb 1912;
171. see Collected papers of Albert Einstein, (Princeton, 1995), 5, doc. 253.) When the light quantum was finally accepted as a real particle, it deserved a name similar to those of the other real particles, electrons and protons.
172. G.N. Lewis, "The conservation of photons," Nature, 118 (1926), 874-875.
173. See also E.S. Lewis, A biography of distinguished scientist Gilbert Newton Lewis (Lewiston, NY, 1998), 46,
174. on his father's views on photons at that time and their criticism by Einstein, and Arthur Lachman, Borderland of the unknown: The life story of Gilbert Newton Lewis, one of the world's great scientists (New York, 1955), 114-118. Some of Lewis's views, which seemed bizarre at the time, are now accepted by mainstream physicists.
175. A.H. Compton and A.W. Simon, "Directed quanta of scattered x-rays," Physical review, 26 (1925), 289-299.
176. A.H. Compton, "Some experimental difficulties with the electromagnetic theory of radiation," Journal of the Franklin Institute, 205 (1928), 155-178;
177. "The corpuscular properties of light," Physical review supplement [=Reviews of modern physics], 1 (1929), 74-89;
178. "What things are made of - II" Scientific American, 140 (Mar 1929), 234-236.
179. R.H. Stuewer (ref. 23), 247-248.
180. R. Pohl and P. Pringsheim, "On the long-wave limits of the normal photoelectric effect," Philosophical magazine [series 6], 26 (1913), 1017-1024.
181. A.L. Hughes and L.A. DuBridge, Photoelectric phenomena (New York, 1932), 8.
182. Helge Kragh agrees that it was a "truly novel prediction" in (ref. 4), 67.
183. See also McCormmach (ref. 3), 371-372.
184. N. Bohr, H.A. Kramers, and J.C. Slater, "The quantum theory of radiation," Philosophical magazine [series 6], 47 (1924), 785-802.
185. See the extensive commentary and documentation on this paper in Niels Bohr collected works, 5, ed. K. Stolzenburg (Amsterdam, 1984), 99-118.
186. Neil Henry Wasserman, The Bohr-Kramers-Slater paper and the development of the quantum theory of radiation in the work of Niels Bohr (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1981);
187. Mara Beller, The genesis of interpretations of quantum physics 1925-1927 (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1983), chapt. 4,
188. and Quantum dialogue (Chicago, 1999);
189. J.C. Slater, "The development of quantum mechanics in the period 1924-1926," in W.C. Price et al., eds., Wave mechanics: The first fifty years (New York, 1973), 19-25;
190. Slater, Solid state and molecular theory - A scientific autobiography (New York, 1975).
191. Letter from Albert Einstein to Hedwig and Max Born, 29 Apr 1924, in Max Born, ed., The Born-Einstein letters (New York, 1971), 82;
192. see also Physics today, 58:11 (Nov 2005), 14.
193. For an account of Einstein's objections to the Bohr-Kramers-Slater theory see Wolfgang Pauli, letter to Bohr, 2 Oct 1924, in Niels Bohr collected works, (ref. 56), 5, 414-418;
194. English trans., ibid., 414-418;
195. English trans., ibid., 418-421.
196. Pauli, letter to Kramers, 27 Jul 1925, in ref. 13, 439-442;
197. English trans., ibid., 442-444.
198. W. Bothe and K. Geiger, "Über das Wesen des Comptoneffekts: Ein experimenteller Beitrag zur Theorie der Strahlung," Zeitschrift für Physik, 32 (1925), 639-663.
199. A.H. Compton and A.W. Simon (ref. 53).
200. Pauli (ref. 58).
201. Bohr, Jul 1925 "Nachschrift" at the end of his paper "Über die Wirkung von Atomen bei Stössen," Zeitschrift für Physik, 34 (1925), 142-157;
202. Stolzenberg, ed. (ref. 56), 178-193;
203. English trans., ibid., 194-206.
204. The result of the Bothe-Geiger experiment "forces upon us the picture of a corpuscular propagation of light corresponding to Einstein's theory of light quanta." Yet in private correspondence he was already beginning to withdraw this concession. In a letter to Geiger (21 Apr 1925), replying to the news of the results of Bothe and Geiger, he suggests the need to abandon "the ordinary space-time description of phenomena" and that "conclusions about a possible corpuscular nature of radiation lack a sufficient basis." Ibid., 353-354,
205. English trans. in Stolzenburg's commentary, ibid., p. 79.
206. In 1929 he wrote: "in accordance with the classical electromagnetic conceptions we cannot, however, ascribe any proper material nature to light, since observation of light phenomena always depends on a transfer of energy and momentum to material particles. The tangible content of the idea of light quanta is limited, rather, to the account which it enables us to make of the conservation of energy and momentum." Bohr, The philosophical writings of Niels Bohr, 1 (Cambridge, England, 1934), 113.
207. Bohr's continuing opposition to the LQH and his hope that it can be avoided with the help of Louis de Broglie's wave theory of matter are discussed by Mara Beller, "The birth of Bohr's complementarity," Studies in history and philosophy of science, 23 (1992), 147-180,
208. and Quantum dialogue (ref. 56), p. 134.
209. See also Slater, "Development" (ref. 56)
210. and John Stachel, discussion remark in H. Woolf, ed., Some strangeness in the proportion (Reading, MA, 1980), 196.
211. Bohr, "The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory," Atti del Congresso Internatazionale dei Fisici 11-20 Settembre 1927, Como-Pavia-Roma, 2 (Bologna, 1928), 565-588;
212. Niels Bohr collected works, 6, ed. J. Kalckar (Amsterdam, 1985), 113-136.
213. Stuewer (ref. 2), 328-333, summarizes Bohr's view and the reaction of other physicists to it.
214. In her Quantum dialogue (ref. 56), 8,
215. Beller writes that this famous "Como lecture" is "considered one of the most incomprehensible texts in twentieth-century physics" and devotes a substantial part of her book to explicating it. Here I note merely that Bohr appears to be accepting the particle nature of light as needed to explain the Compton effect, all doubts having been "disproved by recent experiments" (Niels Bohr collected works, 6, 115) yet manages to fudge that concession in the rest of the lecture.
216. Manne Siegbahn, in Nobel lectures in physics 1922-1941 (Amsterdam, 1964), 169-173.
217. Erwin Schrödinger, "Über den Comptoneffekt," Annalen der Physik [series 4], 82 (1927), 257-264.
218. G. Ekspong, "The Klein-Nishina formula," in Gösta Ekspong, ed., The Oskar Klein Memorial Lectures (Teaneck, NJ, 1994), 2, 97-112.
219. Brown, "Compton effect," (ref. 2).
220. Compton, "X-rays as a branch of optics" (Nobel lecture, 12 Dec 1927);
221. in Shankland (ref. 44), 541.
222. Owen W. Richardson, "On the present state of atomic physics [Presidential address]," Physical Society of London, Proceedings, 39 (1927), 171-186.
223. Otto Halpern and Hans Thirring, The elements of the new quantum mechanics (London, 1932), 140-141.
224. Percy W. Bridgman, The logic of modern physics (New York, 1927), 153.
225. Paul A.M. Dirac, The principles of quantum mechanics (Oxford, 1930), 7.
226. Joseph Valasek, Elements of optics (2nd edn., New York, 1932), 229-230.
227. Einstein, letter to M. Besso, 29 Jul 1918, in Collected papers of Albert Einstein, vol. 8, doc. 59;
228. M.J. Klein, "Einstein's first paper on quanta," The natural philosopher, 2 (1963), 57-96, on 79;
229. "First phase" (ref. 3), 6;
230. "No firm foundations: Einstein and the early quantum theory," in Some strangeness (ref. 61), 161-185
231. and reply to H.D Smyth on p. 193.
232. Kragh (ref. 4), 68.
233. Kuh (ref. 4), 182.
234. Mehra and Rechenberg (ref. 4, vol. 1), 511.
235. Abraham Pais, "Einstein and the quantum theory," Reviews of modern physics, 51 (1979), 863-914, on 883-886;
236. 'Subtle is the Lord...': The science and the life of Albert Einstein (Oxford, 1982);
237. "Einstein on particles, fields and the quantum theory," in Some strangeness (ref. 61), 197.
238. Stuewer, Compton effect (ref. 4), 23-24, 31, 35, 37, 47, 217-219, 222 (with references to views of W.H. Bragg, J. Stark and others at the 1909 Salzburg meeting, Sommerfeld, Nagaoka, Kaye, Florance, Gray, Compton, Schrödinger, Bohr.)
239. less extreme statement was made by Armin Hermann, The genesis of quantum theory (Cambridge, 1971), 56-57, 62.
240. Planck's criticism, clearly not intended as a damning one, appears in a recommendation by Planck, Nernst, Ru bens and Warburg that Einstein should be appointed to the Prussian Academy of Sciences. See the proposal for Einstein's membership in the Prussian Academy of Science, 12 June 1913, in Collected papers of Albert Einstein (Princeton, 1995), 5, doc. 445.
241. Jungnickel and McCormmach (ref. 3), 2, 305.
242. R.M. Nugayev, Reconstruction of mature theory change: A theory-change model (Frankfurt, 1999). 193;
243. Gerlach, "Reminiscences of Albert Einstein from 1908 to 1930," in Some strangeness (ref. 61),
244. Albert Einstein: His influence on physics, philosophy, politics, eds. P.C. Aichelburg and R. U. Sexl (Wiesbaden, 1979), 189-200, on 191.
245. Nugayev also cites several papers by American scientists in the early 1910s on the "emission theory of light" but most of these deal with the hypothesis that the speed of light depends on the motion of its source, not the particulate nature of light. On the relation between these theories see Stachel (ref. 4), 240.
246. Darrow, The renaissance of physics (New York, 1937), 177-178.
247. Alexei Kojevnikov, "Einstein's fluctuation formula and the wave-particle duality," in Y. Balashov and V. Vizgin eds., Einstein studies in Russia (Boston, 2002), 181-228.
248. Kojevnikov discusses papers by Ehrenfest, Wolfke and others. Henry Small, "Recapturing physics in the 1920s through citation analysis," Czechoslovak journal of physics, B36 (1986), 142-147.
249. Compton's paper received 78 citations, Einstein's 1917 paper received 76. It is not clear whether Small has counted the citations (at least 1) of the original 1916 publication of Einstein's paper, which was reprinted in a more widely-circulated journal in 1917; see ref. 6.
250. McCormmach (ref. 3), 375.
251. Later he notes that in 1910 Planck, Lorentz, and Sommerfeld "all spoke out publicly against light quanta" (ref. 3, p. 382, no. 80).
252. Stuewer, Compton effect (ref. 4), 6-14, 28-29, 59, 68, 70, 222.
253. L. de Broglie, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Paris, 1924); reprinted in Annales de Physique, 3 (1925), 22-128.
254. On his earlier acceptance of the "light molecules" see "Rayonnement noir et quanta de lumière," Journal de physique et le radium, 3 (1922), 422-428;
255. "A tentative theory of light quanta," Philosophical magazine, 47 (1924), 446-458.
256. Fifty years later he asserted that by 1919 he had accepted "the coexistence of waves and particles in radiation, propounded in 1905 by Einstein." See Louis de Broglie, "The beginnings of wave mechanics," in W.C. Price, S.S. Chissick, and T. Ravensdale eds., Wave mechanics: The first fifty years, (New York. 1973), 12-18, on 12.
257. The idea that de Broglie was led to propose his wave theory of matter by reflecting on the Compton effect is unlikely in view of his earlier work. Unlike Compton, he was directly influenced by reading Einstein's papers. See his letter quoted by Sopka (ref. 4), 112.
258. On Thomson see McCormmach, ref. 3.
259. Arnold Sommerfeld, Atombau und Spektrallinien (Braunschweig, 1919), 200;
260. Atomic structure and spectral lines (New York, 1923, trans. from the 3rd German edn. of 1922), vi [Preface dated Jan 1922], 35-45.
261. O.W. Richardson, The electron theory of matter (2nd edn, Cambridge, 1916), 507.
262. On Kramers, see ref. 45.
263. On Slater, see ref. 56.
264. H.A. Lorentz, letter to Einstein, 6 May 1909, see ref. 25, Doc. 153, quotation from Collected papers of Albert Einstein, English translation (Princeton, 1995), 5, 112.
265. See Einstein's reply, 23 May 1909, ibid., 122-126.
266. Again, on 27 Jan 1911, Einstein tried to clarify his position: "I am not the orthodox light-quantizer for whom you take me" (ibid., 175).
267. In addition to those mentioned above, the following publications supported a corpuscular view of light (not necessarily Einstein's LQH): Robert William Wood, Physical optics (New York, 1911, rept. 1929);
268. Norman Robert Campbell, Modern electrical theory (2nd edn., Cambridge, Eng., 1913);
269. James Jeans, The dynamical theory of gases (2nd edn., Cambridge, Eng., 1916);
270. W.H. Bragg and W.L. Bragg, X-rays and crystal structure (2nd edn., London, 1916);
271. Daniel F. Comstock and Leonard T. Troland, The nature of matter and electricity: An outline of modern views (New York, 1917);
272. A.S. Eddington, Space, time and gravitation (Cambridge, UK, 1920), 182;
273. Fritz Reiche, Die Quantentheorie: Ihr Ursprung und ihre Entwicklung (Berlin, 1921); English trans., The quantum theory, trans. H.S. Hatfield and Henry L. Brose (London, 1922).
274. Planck by 1920 was almost ready to accept the LQH; see Das Wesen des Lichts (Berlin, 1920)
275. and his Nobel lecture (June 2, 1920), translated as "The genesis and present state of development of the quantum theory" Nobel lectures (ref. 35), 407-418.
276. Opponents (other than those already mentioned): Max Laue, letters to Einstein, 2 June 1906 and 27 Dec 1907, docs 37 and 70 in ref. 75;
277. Planck, letter to Einstein, 6 Jul 1907, in ref. 75, doc. 47;
278. Walther Nernst, letter to Arthur Schuster, 10 Mar 1910, quoted by Diana Barkan, Walther Nernst and the transition to modern physical science (Cambridge, UK, 1999), 183;
279. O.W. Richardson and K.T. Compton (ref. 29);
280. Siegfried Valentiner, Die Grundlagen der Quantentheorie in elementare Darstellung (Braunschweig, 1914), 14-16;
281. G.W.C. Kaye, X-rays (London, 3rd edn., 1918), 236-246;
282. Max Born, Der Aufbau der Materie (Berlin, 1922), 41;
283. L. Brillouin, La theorie des quanta et l'atome de Bohr (Paris, 1922), 107-109;
284. Franz Exner, Vorlesungen über die Grundlagen der Naturwissenschaften (Leipzig, 2nd edn. 1922), 426, 518.
285. Reiche (ref. 76).
286. Cf. Benjamin Bederson's article, "Fritz Reiche and the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars," Physics in perspective, 7 (2005, pub. 2006), 453-472, which includes in addition to a biography of Reiche some information about the impact of this book.
287. Lakatos presents his views in "Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes," in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave eds., Criticism and the growth of knowledge, (New York, 1970), 91-196.
288. Munevar's thesis about promise and performance comes from a private communication but is briefly discussed in his "Reflections on Hull's remarks" in E.B. Hook ed., Prematurity in scientific discovery, (Berkeley, 2002), 342-345.
289. The Millikan quote is from his "Atomism in modern physics," Journal of the Chemical Society, 125 (1924), 1405-1417, on 1417.
290. Small (ref. 81);
291. G. Hoffmann, "Über den Comptoneffekt bei γ-Strahlen," Zeitschrift für Physik, 36 (1926), 251-258;
292. G.E.M. Jauncey, "Note on the quantum theory of the unmodified line in the Compton effect," Physical review, 27 (1926), 687f.
293. While the Science citation index can be an extremely useful tool for studying the reception of new theories and discoveries if one actually looks at the citing articles, one cannot assume without further research that there is a strong correlation between the number of citations of an article and its importance. On this point see S.G. Brush, "The most-cited physical sciences publications in the 1945-1954 Science citation index," Current contents, no. 20 (14 May, 1990), 7-17; no. 42 (15 Oct 1990), 8-13; no. 43 (22 Oct 1990), 7-16.
294. Millikan, The electron: Its isolation and measurement and the determination of some of its properties (2nd edn., Chicago, 1924); 256.
295. Arnold Sommerfeld, Atombau und Spektrallinien (4. Aufl., Braunschweig, 1924), viii.
296. Stuewer (ref. 4)
297. and Brown (ref. 4) discuss the responses in the physics research literature so I will focus instead on reviews and books.
298. Karl K. Darrow, "Some contemporary advances in physics - VII. Waves and quanta," Bell technical journal, 4 (1925), 280-326.;
299. Introduction to contemporary physics (New York, 1926);
300. Elementare Einführung in die Wellenmechanik, translated from English and "ergänzt" by E. Rabinowitch, and foreword by E. Schrödinger (Leipzig, 1929).
301. A.H. Compton and A.W. Simon (ref. 63), 289.
302. Walther Gerlach, Matter, electricity, energy: The principles of modern atomistics and experimental results of atomic investigation, translated from the 2nd German edn. of 1926 (New York, 1928), 262.
303. A.H. Compton (ref. 52).
304. Wilhelm H. Westphal, Physik: Ein Lehrbuch für Studierende an den Universitäten und technischen Hochschulen (Berlin 1928).
305. Harold Albert Wilson, Modern physics (London, 1928).
306. Karl Försterling, Lehrbuch der Optik (Leipzig, 1928).
307. Arthur Haas, The world of atoms, Ten non-mathematical lectures, trans. and rev. H.S. Uhler (New York, 1928).
308. Florian Cajori, A history of physics (rev. edn., New York, 1929).
309. Alfred Landé, Vorlesungen über Wellenmechanik, gehalten an der Staatsuniversität zu Columbus U.S.A. (Leipzig, 1930).
310. Theodor Wulf, S. J., Modern physics: A general survey of its principles, translated from the 2nd German edn. of 1929 (London, 1930).
311. The total number that might belong to this category is at least twice as large. My current sample is not random but includes the items more easily available in American libraries at the beginning of the 21st century. As explained in more detail in my earlier publications (see ref. 2), I consider textbooks one of the most useful sources of information about new scientific ideas, even though they may reflect the views adopted by leaders in the field several years earlier (obtaining quantitative estimates of this time lag is one of the goals of my research). Research articles in scientific journals often do not explain why a new idea is adopted; they either use it or they don't. The Physics citation index 1920-1929 (see headnote) was useful in locating citations of Compton's 1923 paper in major journals published within the first two or three years, but after that it was simply referred to as "the Compton effect" with no citation.
312. The collected papers of Albert Einstein (ref. 5), 2134-169, 541-553;
313. Klein, "Einstein's first paper" (ref. 67);
314. Poincaré, "Sur la théorie des quanta," Journal de physique théorique et appliquée [series 5], 2 (1912);
315. McCormmach, "Poincaré" (ref. 3).
316. Chandrasekhara V. Raman, "A new radiation," Indian journal of physics, 2 (1928), 387-398,
317. confirming a prediction by Adolf Smekal, "Zur Quantentheorie der Dispersion," Naturwissenschaften, 11 (1923), 873-875.
318. See Rajinder Singh, "C.V. Raman and the discovery of the Raman effect," Physics in perspective, 4 (2002), 399-420.
319. H.A. Lorentz, "Radiation" (ref. 39).
320. Jacob Frenkel, Einführung in die Wellenmechanik (Berlin, 1929),12.
321. Arnold Sommerfeld asserted that this argument did not even apply to the Newtonian theory - it was based on a confusion between phase and group velocities. See also his Wave mechanics (New York, 1930), 208.
322. Similarly, Morgan's chromosome theory of heredity was accepted for different reasons by experts on genetics (who liked the elegant but rather complicated "nondisjunction" and by other biologists (who stressed its ability to make a map of the chromosome and to explain Mendelian genetics); see Brush, "How theories" (ref. 2).
323. Brush, "Dynamics of theory change: The role of predictions" (ref. 2).
324. On "predictivism" see Peter Lipton, "Prediction and prejudice," International studies in the philosophy of science, 4:1 (1990), 51-65;
325. Lipton, Inference to the best explanation (London, 1991);
326. Patrick Maher, "Prediction, accommodation, and the logic of discovery," in PSA 1988 (East Lansing, MI, 1988), 1, 273-285.
327. In a recent exchange of letters, Lipton admitted that he is "focused on the normative question": Whether scientists should give more weight to novel predictions, not whether they actually do so. Lipton, "Accommodation or prediction?" Science, 308 (2005), 1411-1412. My own view is not anti-predictivist but pluralist: Sometimes scientists use the hypothetico-deductive method, sometimes they use other approaches.
328. The closest I have found to this statement is in Edward N. DaC. Andrade, The structure of the atom (3rd edn., New York, 1926), 694.
329. See also Floyd K. Richtmyer, Introduction to modern physics (2nd edn., New York, 1934), 599;
330. Herbert S. Allen, Electrons and waves: An introduction to atomic physics (London, 1932), 135. Allen, however, uses the word "predict" for both the lengthening of the scattered ray (which was known) and the existence and motion of the recoil electron (which was not). As noted in my earlier papers, 20th century physicists generally follow that usage; when they want to emphasize that the predicted phenomenon was not known they may say "predict in advance."
331. Hughes and DuBridge (ref. 65) stated: "As there was little or no experimental evidence for or against the equation in 1905, this equation is to be regarded as one of the great and successful predictions in physics, comparable with that of Maxwell as to the electromagnetic character of light" (p. 8). Note that the credit for a confirmed novel prediction is given here to the photoelectric equation, not to the LQH from which it was derived.
332. Charles D. Ellis, "The light-quantum theory," Nature, 117 (1926), 895-897, on 896.
333. See also Pauli, letter to Kramers, 27 Jul 1925 (ref. 58).
334. Brush, "Dynamics of theory change: The role of predictions" (ref. 4);
335. Robert Marc Friedman, The politics of excellence: Behind the Nobel Prize in science (New York, 2001), 170-176.
336. T.L. Eckersley, "The Compton scattering and the structure of radiation," Philosophical magazine, 2 (1926), 267f, on 286.
337. See Brown, "Compton effect" (ref. 4).
338. Barbara Goss Levi, "Glauber, Hall, and Hänsch share the 2005 Nobel prize in physics," Physics today, 58:12 (Dec 2005), 19-22.
339. For a recent critical evaluation of the light quantum concept see George Greenstein and Arthur G. Zajonc, The quantum challenge: Modern research on the foundations of quantum mechanics (Sudbury, MA, 2005), chapt. 2 (I thank Gonzalo Munevar for this reference).
340. Einstein (ref. 25).
341. The "egg" metaphor comes from his letter to Jakob Laub, 31 Dec 1909, in Collected papers (ref. 75), 5, doc. 196.
342. On Bohr see ref. 61.
343. As Kojevnikov has noted, it is difficult to avoid describing this as a Kuhnian revolution since the participants themselves used Kuhnian terminology and seemed to be acting out Kuhn's scenario. Perhaps this is because Kuhn as a graduate student "witnessed directly the final resolution of the crisis" by quantum electrodynamics (ref. 71, p. 181)
344. Robert A. Houstoun, A treatise on light (6th edn., London, 1930), 451-452;
345. "Nature of light," Journal of the Optical Society of America, 55 (1965), 1186-1188.