3 ms·

It's very common on Youtube physics education videos. My take away from was exactly what the article states. That the ultraviolet catastrophe was observed and t

It's very common on Youtube physics education videos. My take away from was exactly what the article states. That the ultraviolet catastrophe was observed and that the study of it lead to Quantum physics because it was noted that it could only be explained if things existed in discrete energy levels.

jerf 3y ago
I'm not even entirely sure the article establishes that it was false. The wrong equations really had a problem with an ultraviolet catastrophe. If the physicists of the time don't seem to be running around panicking about that, it's because equations not being entirely correct as they are in the process of being refined was even by then a relatively mundane thing, obviously part of the process. We (hopefully) historically stand in a similar position with regard to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We know they don't go together. We don't know what the correct answer is. It's an understood problem. But it's not like physicists spend their days running around and shrieking and breaking down into tears about it, and in the meantime, we get on with using GR & QM to predict things. It may be too strong to say "Physicists observed this issue with the equations and their freakout about them directly led to quantization." But it was a real problem with the equations, and it's certainly related to what led to quantization, and if the story glosses over yet another instance of what a physicists perceived as a mathematical convenience that turned out to be quite physically real, I'm not sure that's a vital detail for every high school student.
- twoodfin 3y ago
  Is it possible there’s some confusion here about the understanding (then and now) of “catastrophe”? As I understand, it wasn’t meant to mean that the theory had a catastrophic flaw, but rather that the infinite energy implied at the asymptote itself represented an (obviously unobserved, thus curious) physical catastrophe. I agree with your characterization that an unresolved catastrophe of the latter kind does not imply a crisis of science the way an unresolved “catastrophe” of the former kind might.
  - jerf 3y ago
    Could be. My understanding of the term is the same as yours, but reading it the wrong way would fit the facts, and I have to admit in general I can't be too critical of such a reading. The physics sense of "catastrophe" in use here is pretty obscure; I'm not sure I can think of another instance of it I've come across in English.
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      “Catastrophe” or “crisis” have a long history of use for sudden change phenomena, especially associated with some major failure or blow up of a previous pattern of system behavior. “Critical” may be a more familiar word used in similar contexts, honed in on a specific threshold of a dramatic behavior change. None of these words in this usage style refer to the scientific social process, but to the phenomena.

jerf 3y ago

I'm not even entirely sure the article establishes that it was false. The wrong equations really had a problem with an ultraviolet catastrophe. If the physicists of the time don't seem to be running around panicking about that, it's because equations not being entirely correct as they are in the process of being refined was even by then a relatively mundane thing, obviously part of the process. We (hopefully) historically stand in a similar position with regard to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We know they don't go together. We don't know what the correct answer is. It's an understood problem. But it's not like physicists spend their days running around and shrieking and breaking down into tears about it, and in the meantime, we get on with using GR & QM to predict things. It may be too strong to say "Physicists observed this issue with the equations and their freakout about them directly led to quantization." But it was a real problem with the equations, and it's certainly related to what led to quantization, and if the story glosses over yet another instance of what a physicists perceived as a mathematical convenience that turned out to be quite physically real, I'm not sure that's a vital detail for every high school student.

twoodfin 3y ago
Is it possible there’s some confusion here about the understanding (then and now) of “catastrophe”? As I understand, it wasn’t meant to mean that the theory had a catastrophic flaw, but rather that the infinite energy implied at the asymptote itself represented an (obviously unobserved, thus curious) physical catastrophe. I agree with your characterization that an unresolved catastrophe of the latter kind does not imply a crisis of science the way an unresolved “catastrophe” of the former kind might.
- jerf 3y ago
  Could be. My understanding of the term is the same as yours, but reading it the wrong way would fit the facts, and I have to admit in general I can't be too critical of such a reading. The physics sense of "catastrophe" in use here is pretty obscure; I'm not sure I can think of another instance of it I've come across in English.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    “Catastrophe” or “crisis” have a long history of use for sudden change phenomena, especially associated with some major failure or blow up of a previous pattern of system behavior. “Critical” may be a more familiar word used in similar contexts, honed in on a specific threshold of a dramatic behavior change. None of these words in this usage style refer to the scientific social process, but to the phenomena.