4 ms·

The photoelectric effect was first discovered in silver chloride solution. I don't know that much about the energy bands of silver chloride, so I won't comment

The photoelectric effect was first discovered in silver chloride solution. I don't know that much about the energy bands of silver chloride, so I won't comment about whether that was a semiconductor. (I also know very little about liquids, basically all the physics I did happened in semiconductors.) The first solid state demonstration was in selenium, which is a semiconductor. This is what I was thinking of when I said that the photoelectric effect was semiconductor physics. http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/first-photovoltaic-devices http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/first-photo... The relevant question to ask is whether the applications today are different from the original motivations. If they are, then frankly, it doesn't matter what the original motivations were... the idea would have been difficult to conceive starting with the eventual application in mind. You are defining "pure" in a far more expansive way than the article does. Your definition is actually so broad that it doesn't contradict the article at all. The article claims that science, with the goal of building cool military applications (or presumably life tables or brewing beer) will work better than curiosity driven applications. Then it claims the fruits of those labors will be useful elsewhere. Now you seem to be agreeing with this, or at least not disagreeing. Note that the article isn't saying "don't figure out fundamental physics". It's saying "go build a giant wall of ice to keep the mexicans out and a better understanding of pure thermodynamics will be one output of that project." Also note that I'm not arguing for the premise of the article, necessarily. I'm simply arguing that it can't be casually dismissed without even an argument. My analogy is meant to be suggestive, not to prove the point.

lutusp 10y ago
> The photoelectric effect was first discovered in silver chloride solution. I don't know that much about the energy bands of silver chloride, so I won't comment about whether that was a semiconductor. Had the first example of the photoelectric effect originated in a semiconductor, that cannot be used to argue that the research was motivated by the goal of practical application. By that reasoning, the fact that particle physics is about atoms, and that atoms can be used to make weapons, could be used to construct an absurd argument that all research that involves atoms has the ultimate goal of designing weapons. > The article claims that science, with the goal of building cool military applications (or presumably life tables or brewing beer) will work better than curiosity driven applications. The phrase "curiosity driven applications" assumes what it should be proving. Not all curiosity into nature has application in mind, indeed that's not now pure research is defined. > You are defining "pure" in a far more expansive way than the article does. Pure research is research meant to discover properties of nature, without any concern for practical application. That's hardly worth discussing as though there's any controversy about the definition.

lutusp 10y ago

> The photoelectric effect was first discovered in silver chloride solution. I don't know that much about the energy bands of silver chloride, so I won't comment about whether that was a semiconductor. Had the first example of the photoelectric effect originated in a semiconductor, that cannot be used to argue that the research was motivated by the goal of practical application. By that reasoning, the fact that particle physics is about atoms, and that atoms can be used to make weapons, could be used to construct an absurd argument that all research that involves atoms has the ultimate goal of designing weapons. > The article claims that science, with the goal of building cool military applications (or presumably life tables or brewing beer) will work better than curiosity driven applications. The phrase "curiosity driven applications" assumes what it should be proving. Not all curiosity into nature has application in mind, indeed that's not now pure research is defined. > You are defining "pure" in a far more expansive way than the article does. Pure research is research meant to discover properties of nature, without any concern for practical application. That's hardly worth discussing as though there's any controversy about the definition.