Re: historical physics

[palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)]

> Wait a minute -- I saw Tycho go by (Tychonic model).

Yes, the most accomplished observer of the pretelescopic era, and
Allen cites him for his *theory*! My point exactly, as I state in
my post. The same is true of Ptolemy, Newton, Hooke and perhaps
others I slight.

> Phillip Lenard (of Lenard-Wiechart fame) in 1902. Beautiful series of
> experiments. [on the photoelectric effect]

Indeed they were. He slips my mind for a reason unrelated to physics.

Physics was not developed by contending theoreticians whose ideas
prevailed because of their intrinsic superiority. All of those ideas
had to be tested in Nature, and the feats of the experimentalists
were fully as difficult and fully as important to progress in the
field. A lack of either would stop physics dead in its tracks.

I'd like to see much more attention paid to the experimentalists and
observers in the curricula than one now sees. They are a neglected
group as a whole, I'm afraid. Everyone knows Lee and Yang received a
Nobel Prize for their "discovery" of the nonconservation of parity.
That prize would not have been awarded nearly so soon had it not been
for Wu's beautiful demonstration of it, and she didn't even share the
prize! I still remember the thrill of having her experiment explained
to me (within a very short time of its publication) by that other
neglected experimentalist Luis Alvarez in my nuclear physics class.
That thrill is surely worth sharing with one's students.

Leigh