Einstein–Perrin dilemma on the Brownian motion (Avogadro’s number) resolved?

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Archive for History of Exact Sciences Pub Date : 2024-10-17 DOI:10.1007/s00407-024-00337-1
Jiří Škvarla
{"title":"Einstein–Perrin dilemma on the Brownian motion (Avogadro’s number) resolved?","authors":"Jiří Škvarla","doi":"10.1007/s00407-024-00337-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The general recognition of the existence of atoms and molecules occurred only at the beginning of the twentieth century. Many researchers contributed to this, but the ultimate proof of the molecular nature of matter that convinced even the last sceptics was the confirmation of Albert Einstein’s statistical-fluctuation theory of Brownian motion, a part of his comprehension of interdisciplinary atomism, by Jean Perrin’s experiments on colloidal gamboge particles. Einstein noticed a difference between the values of Avogadro’s constant derived from Perrin’s experiments and Planck’s calculation from black-body radiation. Einstein assumed the incorrectly evaluated size of the gamboge spherules to be a culprit of the difference and asked Perrin to check the assumption with additional experiments and using the viscosity formula introduced in his own dissertation. The result was a discrepancy that neither Einstein nor Perrin settled any further. In this communication, based on the survey of developments in colloid and polymer science and their comparison with relevant experiments, an explanation of the dilemma is given that now, after more than a century, proves Einstein correct. The comparison was de facto possible during his lifetime.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50982,"journal":{"name":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","volume":"78 6","pages":"833 - 881"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00407-024-00337-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00407-024-00337-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The general recognition of the existence of atoms and molecules occurred only at the beginning of the twentieth century. Many researchers contributed to this, but the ultimate proof of the molecular nature of matter that convinced even the last sceptics was the confirmation of Albert Einstein’s statistical-fluctuation theory of Brownian motion, a part of his comprehension of interdisciplinary atomism, by Jean Perrin’s experiments on colloidal gamboge particles. Einstein noticed a difference between the values of Avogadro’s constant derived from Perrin’s experiments and Planck’s calculation from black-body radiation. Einstein assumed the incorrectly evaluated size of the gamboge spherules to be a culprit of the difference and asked Perrin to check the assumption with additional experiments and using the viscosity formula introduced in his own dissertation. The result was a discrepancy that neither Einstein nor Perrin settled any further. In this communication, based on the survey of developments in colloid and polymer science and their comparison with relevant experiments, an explanation of the dilemma is given that now, after more than a century, proves Einstein correct. The comparison was de facto possible during his lifetime.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于布朗运动(阿伏加德罗数)的爱因斯坦-佩林难题解决了吗?
直到二十世纪初,人们才普遍认识到原子和分子的存在。许多研究人员为此做出了贡献,但最终使最后一批怀疑论者信服物质分子性质的证据,是让-佩林(Jean Perrin)对胶体甘布尔粒子的实验证实了阿尔伯特-爱因斯坦的布朗运动统计波动理论,这是他对跨学科原子论的理解的一部分。爱因斯坦注意到佩林实验得出的阿伏加德罗常数值与普朗克根据黑体辐射计算得出的值之间存在差异。爱因斯坦认为,对甘布革球体大小的错误评估是造成差异的罪魁祸首,并要求佩林用更多的实验和他自己论文中提出的粘度公式来验证这一假设。结果,爱因斯坦和佩林都没有进一步解决这一差异。在这篇通讯中,根据对胶体和聚合物科学发展的调查及其与相关实验的比较,对这一困境做出了解释,在一个多世纪后的今天,证明爱因斯坦是正确的。在爱因斯坦生前,这种比较事实上是可能的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Archive for History of Exact Sciences
Archive for History of Exact Sciences 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Archive for History of Exact Sciences casts light upon the conceptual groundwork of the sciences by analyzing the historical course of rigorous quantitative thought and the precise theory of nature in the fields of mathematics, physics, technical chemistry, computer science, astronomy, and the biological sciences, embracing as well their connections to experiment. This journal nourishes historical research meeting the standards of the mathematical sciences. Its aim is to give rapid and full publication to writings of exceptional depth, scope, and permanence.
期刊最新文献
Research on the expansion–contraction difference for the inner planets in ancient China The problem of Apollonius in the Urbino School Felix Klein and Sophus Lie on quartic surfaces in line geometry Einstein–Perrin dilemma on the Brownian motion (Avogadro’s number) resolved? Some remarks on the history of Ricci’s absolute differential calculus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1