Going Wrong: To Make a Mistake, to Fall into an Error
1995; Philosophy Education Society Inc.; Volume: 49; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
2154-1302
Autores Tópico(s)History and advancements in chemistry
ResumoHeinrich Hertz, celebrated German experimenter and theoretician, conducted in 1883 experiments on rays. He concluded these pioneering experiments by stating the electrostatic and electromagnetic properties of rays are either nil or very feeble.(1) This conclusion is today to be erroneous. According to current physical theories, rays are streams of electrons: electrically charged particles. is ironic prototype of oscilloscope - for is what Hertz's apparatus amounted to - should be instrumental in demonstrating rays have no closer relation to electricity than has light produced by an electric lamp. Indeed, Hertz argued since cathode rays are electrically indifferent, . . . phenomenon most nearly allied to them is light.(2) Hertz's error had originated in false assumption intensity of voltage across condenser's plates was high enough to induce a deflection of rays when they were made to pass through condenser. Hertz was not aware of fact that, due to poor vacuum in tube, rays ionized sufficient residual gas to permit neutralization of plates; in turn reduced substantially intensity of electric field produced by condenser. Consequently, expected deflection of rays could not be detected - an experimental result which led Hertz to an erroneous conclusion.(3) Consider, for another instance, Franck and Hertz's erroneous interpretation of their experimental result. The Nobel Prize for physics was awarded in 1925 to James Franck and Gustav Hertz for their experimental work on laws governing impact of an electron upon an atom. The Nobel Committee claimed Bohr's hypotheses of 1913 were no longer mere hypotheses but experimentally proved facts. The committee stated in citation methods of verifying these hypotheses had been work of Franck and Hertz.(4) Indeed, Franck and Hertz's experiment is first experiment demonstrated vividly in a graphic way quantized spectrum of atom's energy levels. However, original experimental work of Franck and Hertz was in error. To their credit, laureates were better historians than their judges. It appeared to me to be completely incomprehensible, observed Franck in his Nobel lecture, that we had failed to recognize fundamental significance of Bohr's theory, so much so, we never even mentioned it once in relevant paper.(5) Hertz, for his part, explicitly stated error involved. He remarked at time they had erroneously believed an interpretation of their work would have undermined quantized atom, whereas, when rightly interpreted, all results so far attained with electron-impact method agree very closely with Bohr's theory.(6) Franck and Hertz regarded first inelastic impact recorded by their device as an ionization process. They thus spectral line which they had detected was emitted as a result of ionization of mercury molecules. They were wrong in this interpretation. What they observed and measured was not what they thought they were observing and measuring. According to current physical theories, it is now Franck and Hertz measured a real physical quantity: first excitation potential of mercury. However, they thought it to be an ionization potential and therefore erred in their interpretation of observational results. Franck and Hertz's experiment constitutes a case where an error originated solely in interpretation. was neither method nor various physical approximations, but rather theoretical considerations in comprehending experimental result gave rise to an error.(7) Is there a difference between Heinrich Hertz's error and a miscalculation such as 12 x 12 = 136? Is there a categorical difference between Franck and Hertz's error of interpretation and, say, a printer's error? …
Referência(s)