Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • My Relativity Relativity Einstein Bhai

    Diunggah oleh

    GuruDutt
    7 tayangan1 halaman
    Albert Einstein never won a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity—in fact, it was only through long, political jockeying within the Nobel committee that he won the prize at all. Instead, when he was given the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics (in 1922, after a long bout of internal Nobel hand-wringing), he received it primarily for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. Extraordinarily enough, he came up with both his relativity theory, and the photoelectric effect in the same year: 1905. At the turn of the century, physicists already knew that, in some circumstances, exposing certain materials to light could create an electric current. An American named Charles Fritts had even created a working solar cell from selenium more than two decades before, in the early 1880s.It was understood, at that point, that light worked as a wave. But if that was true, it didn't make any sense that light could create an electric current: A wave of light just wouldn't have enough energy to cause materials like selenium to shoot off electrons as fast as they did when exposed to light. In 1905, Einstein was 26 and producing physics papers that would change the way we think about the world for decades to come. He wasn't quite the wild-haired celebrity yet. In other words, light could create electricity if it behaved, sometimes, like a particle rather than a wave. (This should sound familiar to anyone who remembers physics class.) Only one section of the paper covered the photoelectric effect, but it outlined how a light particle might deliver enough energy, all at once, to knock an electron off an atom and create an electric current. This, it turned out, was easier to show experimentally than some of the other ideas Einstein had outlined. Within a decade Robert Millikan had verified, experimentally, the equation that Einstein had used to describe the photoelectric effect. The idea that Einstein described in 1905—that won the Nobel Prize a decade and half later—is what makes today's solar panels work at all. But it wasn't until 1954—almost 50 years later—that anyone was able to make a solar cell that created enough current to actually run electrical equipment. Just as there's a gap between observing something and knowing how it works, there's a gap between knowing how something works and being able to do anything useful with it.

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    TXT, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    Albert Einstein never won a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity—in fact, it was only through long, political jockeying within the Nobel committee that he won the prize at all. Instead, when he was given the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics (in 1922, after a long bout of internal Nobel hand-wringing), he received it primarily for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. Extraordinarily enough, he came up with both his relativity theory, and the photoelectric effect in the same year: 1905. At the turn of the century, physicists already knew that, in some circumstances, exposing certain materials to light could create an electric current. An American named Charles Fritts had even created a working solar cell from selenium more than two decades before, in the early 1880s.It was understood, at that point, that light worked as a wave. But if that was true, it didn't make any sense that light could create an electric current: A wave of light just wouldn't have enough energy to cause materials like selenium to shoot off electrons as fast as they did when exposed to light. In 1905, Einstein was 26 and producing physics papers that would change the way we think about the world for decades to come. He wasn't quite the wild-haired celebrity yet. In other words, light could create electricity if it behaved, sometimes, like a particle rather than a wave. (This should sound familiar to anyone who remembers physics class.) Only one section of the paper covered the photoelectric effect, but it outlined how a light particle might deliver enough energy, all at once, to knock an electron off an atom and create an electric current. This, it turned out, was easier to show experimentally than some of the other ideas Einstein had outlined. Within a decade Robert Millikan had verified, experimentally, the equation that Einstein had used to describe the photoelectric effect. The idea that Einstein described in 1905—that won the Nobel Prize a decade and half later—is what makes today's solar panels work at all. But it wasn't until 1954—almost 50 years later—that anyone was able to make a solar cell that created enough current to actually run electrical equipment. Just as there's a gap between observing something and knowing how it works, there's a gap between knowing how something works and being able to do anything useful with it.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai TXT, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    7 tayangan1 halaman

    My Relativity Relativity Einstein Bhai

    Diunggah oleh

    GuruDutt
    Albert Einstein never won a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity—in fact, it was only through long, political jockeying within the Nobel committee that he won the prize at all. Instead, when he was given the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics (in 1922, after a long bout of internal Nobel hand-wringing), he received it primarily for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. Extraordinarily enough, he came up with both his relativity theory, and the photoelectric effect in the same year: 1905. At the turn of the century, physicists already knew that, in some circumstances, exposing certain materials to light could create an electric current. An American named Charles Fritts had even created a working solar cell from selenium more than two decades before, in the early 1880s.It was understood, at that point, that light worked as a wave. But if that was true, it didn't make any sense that light could create an electric current: A wave of light just wouldn't have enough energy to cause materials like selenium to shoot off electrons as fast as they did when exposed to light. In 1905, Einstein was 26 and producing physics papers that would change the way we think about the world for decades to come. He wasn't quite the wild-haired celebrity yet. In other words, light could create electricity if it behaved, sometimes, like a particle rather than a wave. (This should sound familiar to anyone who remembers physics class.) Only one section of the paper covered the photoelectric effect, but it outlined how a light particle might deliver enough energy, all at once, to knock an electron off an atom and create an electric current. This, it turned out, was easier to show experimentally than some of the other ideas Einstein had outlined. Within a decade Robert Millikan had verified, experimentally, the equation that Einstein had used to describe the photoelectric effect. The idea that Einstein described in 1905—that won the Nobel Prize a decade and half later—is what makes today's solar panels work at all. But it wasn't until 1954—almost 50 years later—that anyone was able to make a solar cell that created enough current to actually run electrical equipment. Just as there's a gap between observing something and knowing how it works, there's a gap between knowing how something works and being able to do anything useful with it.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai TXT, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 1

    As long as one was convinced that all natural phenomena were capable of represen

    tation
    with the help of classical mechanics, there was no need to doubt the validity of
    this
    principle of relativity. But in view of the more recent development of electrody
    namics and
    optics it became more and more evident that classical mechanics affords an insuf
    ficient
    foundation for the physical description of all natural phenomena. At this junctu
    re the
    question of the validity of the principle of relativity became ripe for discussi
    on, and it did
    not appear impossible that the answer to this question might be in the negative.
    Nevertheless, there are two general facts which at the outset speak very much in
    favour
    of the validity of the principle of relativity. Even though classical mechanics
    does not
    supply us with a sufficiently broad basis for the theoretical presentation of al
    l physical
    phenomena, still we must grant it a considerable measure of " truth," since it s
    upplies us
    with the actual motions of the heavenly bodies with a delicacy of detail little
    short of
    wonderful. The principle of relativity must therefore apply with great accuracy
    in the
    domain of mechanics. But that a principle of such broad generality should hold w
    ith such
    exactness in one domain of phenomena, and yet should be invalid for another, is
    a priori
    not very probable.
    We now proceed to the second argument, to which, moreover, we shall return later
    . If the
    principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) does not hold, then the Galile
    ian co-ordinate
    systems K, K 1 , K 2 , etc., which are moving uniformly relative to each other,
    will not be
    equivalent for the description of natural phenomena. In this case we should be c
    onstrained
    to believe that natural laws are capable of being formulated in a particularly s
    imple manner,
    and of course only on condition that, from amongst all possible Galileian co-ord
    inate
    systems, we should have chosen one (K 0 ) of a particular state of motion as our
    body of
    reference. We should then be justified (because of its merits for the descriptio
    n of natural
    phenomena) in calling this system " absolutely at rest," and all other Galileian
    systems K "
    in motion." If, for instance, our embankment were the system K 0 then our railwa
    y carriage
    would be a system K, relative to which less simple laws would hold than with res
    pect to K 0 .
    This diminished simplicity would be due to the fact that the carriage K would be
    in motion
    (i.e."really")with respect to K 0 . In the general laws of nature which have bee
    n formulated
    with reference to K, the magnitude and direction of the velocity of the carriage
    would
    necessarily play a part. We should expect, for instance, that the note emitted b
    y an

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai