Photoelectric Effect: History of Einstein's Revolutionary View of Light

[@stephenfoster6940]

Excellent videos Kathy. As a physics teacher with a deep interest in the history and philosophy of science, they really help to bring the subject alive for my students. It's great to see references to the original papers too, something that most other channels neglect.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Thanks! If you (or one of your students) want a link to any sources just ask. Cheers, Kathy

[@mdfaizankhan4797]

@@Kathy_Loves_Physics can you provide me the link please

[@usdjsjjshdihdhhushid]

I Absolutely Agree!

[@amitpatil5151]

No, You Did Not Mess up. You are a Fantastic Teacher. Its Hard to Imagine that how much time and effort you had given for all your research and telling us all the story.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

So glad you liked it.

[@joeboxter3635]

@@Kathy_Loves_Physics Unfortunately, heir Einstein is wrong. Light is a wave because it perfectly satisfies Maxwell equations. "Particles" do not interfere with themselves. And we know that is true for light as it is true for all other waves. Where Einstein went wrong is he denied Quantum Mechanics and hence had to appeal to a classical notion of particles. It's his cognitive bias. Assume light is a wave. Now look at one period of a wave undulating down a string. It's still a wave. It is made of crest and trough over it's period. It's a pulse basically. And that is a single photon. It is not a particle. It is a single pulse But we generally do not observe this with light waves or other waves. We generally observe a stream of pulses: crest, trough, crest trough, crest trough .... So that is light. But now light interacts with a atom. In particular, it interacts with electron. So then why would a series of pulses not add to give enough energy to eject electron. Energy is in the amplitude. And if I have many pulses of low frequency combine the way waves do, why would accumulation of low frequency waves not eject an electron. Why only one minimum frequency and independent of total number of wave sources? Because the geometry of the experiment is different. The waves can never be perfectly on top of each other and in phase. And the electron does not have a single locality. Think like this: you are pushing child on a swing. You push, but simply cannot move the child. You do not have enough energy in your arms. Then your partner joins you. You both push. But both you and he cannot be in the same spot where the child is. He is next to you. Even though he is pushing, he is not pushing where the child is. He's just pushing in the air. The next person comes besides you. Same thing. Only now all of you step away. I come. I'm a burly man, strong, with muscles big as everest. I push at right energy and right frequency to achieve the resonance to send the child swinging. And off she goes because I'm pushing at resonance and child looses grip. You see how the geometry of the experiment explains what is happening. And a light wave at lower frequency cannot combine at the exact locality of an electron. No more then you, partner, and next person can match exact locality of child. I can explain both interference assuming wave and the frequency requirement by the geometry of a particular experiment. Now why do I ever need to claim light is anything but a wave? But wait, you started by talking of a pulse. That pulse is a photon. Indeed, I did. And you have just made my argument. Is it a photon? Or is it a pulse? It's a wave. Pulse is a feature of all waves. So I know not this photon thing thou speak of. I know my friend the wave and he has pulses of trough+crest.

[@tonyduncan9852]

Yay.

[@nandagopaliyengar1258]

@@joeboxter3635 your explanation is the best answer , red light cannot eject electrons, UV light ejects electrons , Because UV has the right frequency, this absolutely makes sense ,

[@drhshah]

@@nandagopaliyengar1258 you

[@girijaedwards]

please stop making excuses about "messing up. ". you're the most fascinating science reporter ever and so much fun to listen to. The human connections behind all this science work is truly what life is all about . please continue "messing up " or not And i vote not messing up !!! As you breathe life into the scientific world .. we all appreciate you for that ❤

[@gckoenig]

I just discovered this series and I love it! The integration of the personal life stories, the social and economic environment of the times, and the contemporary research and papers put out by others, all add to the value of what you’re presenting.

[@daleeasternbrat816]

When I was a kid I had old Navy manuals. I am lucky I didn't burn down the house or electrocute myself. (A battery of capacitors made up of a half dozen used picture tubes. Just one example.)

[@oscargr_]

I have always found it easier to absorb a physics theory once you know a bit about why/how/when it came about and what was the previously leading theory. I cannot but think you are helping a lot of physics students with your storytelling.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Glad you liked it

[@varahamihiragopu6667]

This entire video series is like attending a friendly delightful informative course on the history of electricity and physics. Absolutely awesome. I think kathy had an annus mirabulus when she up loaded these videos and finally this corona lockdown will make her famous. As more and more people watch and share the videos.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

VarahaMihira Gopu can I give a double heart to a comment?? What a lovely thing to say, thank you.

[@billmosby673]

The high quality of your videos shows how much work goes into them. Thanks so much for creating them!

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

So glad you like them, and yes, they were a lot of work.

[@gkprivate433]

The man is the definition of thinking outside the box. That miraculous year when his mind was razor sharp. He looked at things, thought deeply about them, saw some logical inconsistencies, and then, saw what had to be true, no matter how odd it seemed

[@subcdriller1]

I love your presentations Kathy!!!! They are an enjoyable and informative journey into science and history. Robert Coates

[@aprilsianpi7973]

Trust me, this is the only channel that I subscribe in my entire life. Always give me new knowledge. Can't wait for the next videos.

[@herrroin6867]

Didnt age well this

[@Roberto-REME]

Outstanding video Kathy. You made it interesting, easy to understand and your narration is superb. Well done!

[@jon2431]

You do such great work, Kathy. I always leave a little more educated.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Jon thanks so glad you liked it

[@ChucksAstrophotography]

Wow, a lot of information here I never knew. Excellent. Subscribed!

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Thanks

[@daleeasternbrat816]

I also instantly subscribed. Wow is also a word I used . This is well done!

[@boyanfg]

A big thumbs up! This is the best explanation of the photo-electric effect that I found on KZbin. A thrilling and entertaining story especially with the historic background. Please continue this series.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Glad you enjoyed it! I have another video just on the battle between Lenard and Einstein on the photoelectric effect if you are interested: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aou0d2Obd81qb5Y

[@boyanfg]

@@Kathy_Loves_Physics Thank you very much! I will watch this ASAP. During my time at the University of Nürnberg I found a book in the Library from Lenard with the title „Arische Physik“. It was shocking to read it. It was filled with hatred. A terrifying look into a dark soul. But it taught me a lesson. You have to be watch out for intolerance and fascism even among the best educated people.

[@emana6553]

Beautiful and Inspiring !! Keep it up.

[@nirajabcd]

Your channel deserve much better recognition like the other popular science channels. I think will happen in due time.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Niraj Shah thank you and I hope you are right. Feel free to share

[@mjsnosk8er720]

KZbin must be broken, this channel should have 100K subs.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

MJ Snosk8er thank you so much. I was feeling a bit down as this video is not doing as well as I had hoped but your comment really cheered me up.

[@24680kong]

I must agree wholeheartedly. Kathy, you do an excellent job presenting these developments in an understandable way!

[@itsevilbert]

KZbin is broken, in many ways. They do not promote videos, unless: 1. The videos are monetized (if google can not push ads the content gets a much much much much much much much much much much much low placement). If google can not shove ads down peoples throats and make profit they will not promote that content. It is annoying but to get google to promote content to new viewers, you have to enable ads. 2. Longer videos watched from start to end gets more sidepanel placement (more time for google to push ads). 3. The videos get a large number of up votes (or down, both are equal to the algorithms), relative to views. 4. Large number of comments, anything that shows social engagement, that people who watched the video interact with each other (again relative to views). Once promoted then you need a high click through rate: A good snappy title and a really enticing thumbnail (clickbait). It is a good idea to click on "VIDEOS", "SORT BY" and select "Most popular" and see what has working for this channel and other channels in the past. See what titles and thumbnail images gain the highest views. Click Through Rate and other things are explained well here kzbin.info/www/bejne/nHnWkmx6ptJ8mpo Anyhow Kathy's content is fantastic as always, thank you. The fault is Google does not promote it, and they do not promote it because it does not put ad revenue into their pockets, google does benefit from additional user profiling information so they infrequently add it to promoted content sidepanel. (p.s. This comment is also a bump to engagement as well)

[@99bits46]

@@Kathy_Loves_Physics it's the KZbin Algorithm, Veritasium explained why some videos get more exposure than others. For one, Viewers must hit the like button so it ends up in other's recommendation.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Thanks for the info Count Dracula! I am still struggling with the KZbin algorithm. I monetized my videos just because of #1 (and so far made like $3.20) which I feel really bad about but I worry that is the only way to get any traction. I have to work on the clickbait stuff. Hmm. Thanks again, Kathy

[@mokoepa]

I wish the video titles were numbers not on the thumbnails but the literal titles themselves just so one doesn't have to fish for the next videos... I'm addicted to your content... Very outstanding, Thanks a lot.

[@sergioalejandrosalinasguem9091]

I just love the way you put what, for others, it could be just a narrative of technical stuff in a way that we can perceive the human drama behind. Thank you for your passion and accuracy in the exposition of these interesting chapters of the human development. I would like to suggest a video on the history of the e number. Thanks again!

[@JO-mg6xc]

Thank you, Kathy! thank you, Kathy! thank you, Kathy! You’re a great teacher and a better story teller

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Thank you for the lovely comment ❤️

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

8:03 The explanation I remember reading is that “quantum” is the Latin answer to the question “how much?” -- it just means “so much”. There is no implication of “indivisibility” about it -- that’s what “atom” means -- “not cuttable” in Greek. Now there’s a lovely word, “atom”: it seems to have a curse such that any concept it is applied to inevitably turns out, sooner or later, to be indeed cuttable into smaller parts.

[@kn9ioutom]

THESE LECTURES ARE AMAZING !!!

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Thanks

[@jakelabete7412]

Your enthusiasm is contagious. Almost makes me want to become a physicist. Your pronunciation is just fine. Keep it up.

[@riodasperolas]

Hey Kathy, it’s amazing watching you talking about Physics’ history! Like a thriller

[@Unique-Concepts]

This is the best channel and most underrated....Hated youtube algorithm...For not showing until now...

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Thank you for the lovely compliment. On the plus side now you have hours and hours and hours of videos from me to watch while waiting for my newest video 😉

[@sergioreques4524]

Thanks! We need more videos like this, to put real life into the equations and learn about the many roundabouts science developement requires. Also wonderful the way underconsidertion of Mileva is shown. I'm using all of this for my classes, for sure! ^_^

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

So glad you liked it - I hope I don't irritate your students too much

[@sergioreques4524]

@@Kathy_Loves_Physics Students NEED irritation ^_^

[@deepakbiradar2494]

Its an excellent video. It's pleasure to see references of the original papers. While watching this video I was feeling like I am in that era of Albert and Plank.

[@julianramirez4465]

Love this channel very much. Thank u for this Kathy. U shall grow to 10 million subs.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Julian Ramírez so glad you liked it. And 🤞 your prediction comes true.

[@ardecki7961]

Great video Kathy. Can't wait for the next one.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Marek Ardecki so glad u liked it.

[@lamequemaciel6412]

Under quarantine days, my professor (about structure of matter) often shared your channel. And I appreciate.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Glad you (and your prof) liked it!

[@warrentappe2018]

Your presentation is, by far, the best on the web! A thousand thanks!

[@alastairchestnutt6416]

Another great presentation. Thanks.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Alastair Chestnutt you are quite welcome

[@CharlesAustin]

You are fantastic !! I need to hear each video an infinite number of times to get it, and I will :)? So great to hear about the stories and the development of science and it’s explorations. !! The truth emerges !! Such great people behind it all. Thank you !!

[@jw228w]

brilliant.love the background behind the equations.Mileva so under appreciated. keep videos coming. thanks john

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Glad you liked it

[@manmohanmehta5697]

Opened my eyes.Right from the calculation of speed of light (which required very sophisticated experiments ) ,to the mathematical equations leading to photoelectric effect, light as quanta leading to space time concept makes one wonder the development of physics almost a spiritual experience. I may be wrong in above sequence of events, your videos are eye and soul openers. Lots happenings at a very fast pace these days when observations and experiments are being carried over on grand scale , great to be alive and watching as it happens.

[@ahmetgazi5624]

You clearly explain the concrete contribution of Einstein. Very clear.

[@michaeltellurian825]

What a great lecturer! Your exuberance is deeply felt.

[@stephenebenezer8238]

Phenomenal! you are doing a great work by putting up these videos.

[@piquitojuno3383]

Your lectures are so illuminating that make me go back in time when I was a young man attending school…Thanks…

[@davidssesanga3410]

thanks Cathy

[@richmanz447]

This video popped up and it was great. A well edited presentation that had the perfect mix of history & theory for the masses.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@GraemePayne1967Marine]

Another excellent video - especially the interconnections between all of the people and their theories, ideas and discoveries. I tended to learn about each principle in isolation, as needed to explain the subject at hand. As for your presentation, your pronunciation of some names is acceptable to me because you do much better than I could attempt. A rule I was taught was if you stumble, just power on and most people won't even notice.

[@benmmbk765]

You are giving us an ALL-ROUND picture of not only physics but about SCIENCE the great. Thanks and respect. From India.

[@sanjeevsharma9998]

One of the best description of Photoelectric effect

[@paulsenjohannes]

You are extremely eloquent Kathy and very well informed. Your memory and vast knowledge of Science and it's history is astounding. Just in this very short video I learned a lot from you. Thank you.

[@JagdishCVyas]

Very nicely narrated story. Thanks.

[@SC-rb2jr]

Nicely done. Many Thanks.

[@monkmonk2747]

wow so - glad to have come across this Video. loved it As a Physics teacher I have been looking for interesting ways to teach to give my students a a real vibe of story behind the discoveries and inventions!

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

This comment makes me so happy. I have a whole catalogue of videos if you are interested and feel free to contact me if you want to talk (email is in the "about me" section)

[@monkmonk2747]

@@Kathy_Loves_Physics Hi Kathy - you will surely be hearing from me. Thank you so much

[@kenindra1747]

I just discovered you a few days ago and your articles are fantastic. Keep up the good work.

[@brianstrom3103]

Thanks Kathy. Another excellent video. Have posted a link to this video on my FB page to explain the complexity of early research in physics.

[@lembriggs1075]

You are so interesting! So much energy in your words and smile! Such a great scientific motivator. Thanks so much for these videos!

[@otiebrown9999]

An outstanding history of Einstein's discoveries. Thank you, Kathy!

[@marklepage2133]

Discovered your channel about a week ago, and I am hooked! I have subscribed, I love this channel! Thank you

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Thanks Mark.

[@Karreth]

I'm glad my physics education didn't let me down - I did already know the significance of Einstein's description of the photovoltaic effect. You video provides some excellent historical context, though, and I don't think I quite understood how Planck fit into the story before. Excelent video as always!

[@Karreth]

*Photoelectric effect

[@aarrodri]

Been binging all your videos all week since discovering you. Love all of them!

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Thanks

[@TheCaptK]

All of your videos are absolutely phenomenal. I would give triple-thumbs-up.

[@macbookpro1232]

Watching your videos is like... falling in love !!!!

[@BigJohn6060]

wonderful shows. Very illuminating (ahem...) and lively! Well done!

[@billyhack9673]

Great videos, Kathy! Keep up the good work!

[@pauleohl]

Needs/deserves many more views, likes and subscribes. Kathy creates an excellent presentation.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Thanks

[@ecelectic1]

Hi Kathy - loved the video. I've always felt science should be taught as a history class and here we are - subscribed!

[@keybawd4023]

Another totally fascinating and informative video. Having learned all this in a classroom, how wonderful it is to see it come to life with photos, potted biographies, original papers and documents, and your own special way of narration -WOW! These videos should be available to schools. I think that this kind of approach to science might encourage all those students who reject it as 'too difficult' "just learning formula" "dry". It might make them realise that Science is the longest and most gripping Sherlock Holmes story there is!!! I jest. But there is truth in it. Thank you.

[@gilbertogarbi4479]

Kathy, I do love your lessons!! Congratulations!

[@UOttawaScotty]

Your channel is amazing, really enjoying the content

[@random_Person347]

Thanks Kathy. I love your videos about science history. When I was a physics undergraduate many years ago one of the things that I found frustrating was that very little information was given about the historical context in which discoveries were made and so it was difficult to imagine what scientists of the time were thinking and trying to do. We would be presented with something like Schrodinger's Equation without having any idea of where it came from. On a small matter, I don't think you pronounced Einstein's daughter Lieserl's name correctly - I think it's more like "lee-zel" - if you have seen the film "The Sound of Music" there is a character with that name.

[@urbinamdm]

I just fell completely for your videos!! You really make the science come alive. A big thank you!!

[@BailelaVida]

Great video, as usual. Thanks dearly. Please continue improving sound quality..

[@janedoe5229]

I am really enjoying learning from you. :)

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Happy to hear that!

[@AndrewBlucher]

Great work! I'm gradually getting through the backlog.

[@paulscousedownie]

I love this ladies passion and knowledge about science and physics. More importantly her whole way of her presenting scientific facts. She's a delight to watch even if you don't fully understand all the technical aspects of her presentations. .

[@tonybklyn5009]

I'm very happy to have found your channel. These science videos are excellent.

[@Freddy-Da-Freeloadah]

So there is a basis for "Quantum Physics" other then the dual slit experiment. IDNK!!! Thanks!! IMHO

[@buenosairesam]

I can believe only now yt recommended me this channel. Great content!

[@donphilp7511]

Excellent, I am enjoying every one of these things. That I have discovered that you've made.

[@supermikeb]

She has a new one, and I think it's her best yet.

[@wati52]

Love your videos Kathy. Thanks.

[@49minutesago]

Really enjoying your videos, your presentation is delightful and the historical approach insightful.

[@Goku17yen]

Love this channel giving the context of such groundbreaking things!

[@supermikeb]

In her newest video she hold the very first science book in her hand, as well as many of the first science books!

[@Goku17yen]

@@supermikeb wow, I gotta check that out. Thanks ☺️

[@marzymarrz5172]

What a wonderful teacher you are.

[@TexRenner]

I'm so glad I found you, Kathy!

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

I’m glad you found me too

[@its703]

I love this way of teaching... 💖 💖 💖

[@lingarajpatnaik6514]

Sweet video. Loved it!

[@geetgeorge9696]

Just discovered your channel! I haven't been more excited at the prospect of finishing all videos of a channel. You combine two of my favourite interests: Science + history. Just a personal request, though... If possible, could you explain conceptually or simplistically some more details? For example, in this video, could you explain how Einstein put together the relativity principle and Maxwell's equations together to show that mass and energy are not independent. I don't have a physics background, so it doesn't come easy to me. But absolutely great job, nevertheless... I am hoping to learn and know a lot from you. :)

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

I should probably make a video about E=mc2 by itself huh? (This one was really about Einstein's interpretation of quantum mechanics in the beginning). I have a (long) list of videos that I missed in my semi-chronological videos and I will add that. I am not sure when I will get to it, though. Sorry. Kathy ps. I think it is great that you are liking these videos without a Physics background, I was hoping they would work for everyone.

[@geetgeorge9696]

@@Kathy_Loves_Physics You are already doing a good job with the series.. The ones that you think you missed, you could always keep for season 2? :P

[@dr.michaellittle5611]

Your videos are awesome !

[@mikey20is]

Really, really good work, thanks.

[@markspc1]

Great video Kathy.

[@lukestockett252]

I appreciate how thorough you are in covering the Einstein's photoelectric effect, including his female counterpart(s).

[@rafaelprdm4]

Thank you so much. I am finally filling in the gaps in this history. I have read Faraday and max. Finally I understand e=mc2 .can't get enough.

[@amraly9640]

Excellent blending of history and science.

[@ReevansElectro]

Always exciting and interesting. You are very personable and are developing your personal brand.

[@keacoq]

Another great video. I would like to see a list of your videos, so as to be able to browse them..

[@sumonarosner4674]

Terrific stuff. Should be viewed in every High School physics class. I always thought that Einstein's Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect should have been for relativity but I now believe the opposite as quantum theory has a far greater effect on scientific thought and technology than relativity. Put it another way quantum theory causes us to rethink the nature of reality itself.

[@RadicalCaveman]

Relativity is integral to quantum mechanics.

[@craigcales1168]

A very enjoyable series on scientists

[@rob858585]

Great explanation!

[@cajun70122]

Iam greatly enjoying your videos!

[@henrywasserman]

Loved it - thank-you so much - your enthusiasm is infectious.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

So glad you liked it

[@justanotherguy469]

I really enjoyed your presentation.

[@physicslab_]

Kathy, there's a great hero in this story, an Indian, which is why I'm proding this. Satyendranath Bose, a fellow country man, who we may attribute to first understanding the statistics of photons. Without the statistics, photons are not, photons, just mystic energy packets.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

I’ve been meaning to do a video on him for forever and I’m a little intimidated by the depths of his physics. I will get to him eventually though because he is so interesting.

[@lingarajpatnaik6514]

Sweet video. Loved it,

[@lueelee6063]

Nice view on Einstein's views. Also what are your thoughts on this guy's view on how Einstein viewed QM: Einstein didn't dislike Quantum Mechanics. After all he was one of its founders. What Einstein did dislike was the approach the development of Quantum Mechanics was taking. He was a big proponent for the idea that physical theories shouldn't just work. They should also provide a linear progression to the previous interpretive/philosophical assumptions from which they are derived from. For him, this was very important becuase he believed this is what allows future physicists to develop new insight. Remember how Einstein reached the conclusion of The Theroy of Relativity? He didn't abandon the old interpretation. He simply refarmed it a way that provided a new insight into the works of space and time. None of his postulates actually proposed anything new. Quantum Mechanics was developed in a highly competitive environment. Where you had the old school, established physicists vs the newly emerging hot guns of the physics world. One side was fighting to preserve their status and the other trying to prove their worth in the new age of physics. This left no time for anybody to stop and interpret the meaning of what they were doing. It was all just fancy maths to prove a point. And now, here we are in the 21st century with a huge and complex theory with no grounded interpretation. Making it very difficult to develop insight. This is what Einstein was concerned about and I for one agree with him.

[@Kathy_Loves_Physics]

Well, Einsteins views (like everything about him) were complicated and changed over time. At first he was the lone voice for particle-wave duality. Then he was frustrated with trying to adjust Maxwell's equations. Then he liked it again, then he was frustrated again... I think the big problem with QM is that it is freaking confusing. It doesn't follow the laws of nature *as we see it* in a human level scale. That is incredibly frustrating and not just for Einstein :)

[@lueelee6063]

@@Kathy_Loves_Physics Also since you spoke about Einstein's personal views, will you also speak ever of is his political views? I was surprised of some them like his socialist ones and pro black ones in his later life in the USA

Practicing physicist (well working on PhD, but you get my drift). Okay, you're absolute correct on a number of points (or I should say the guy you're quoting is right on a number of points). Very impressed actually, most people think Einstein thought "God didn't play dice" while ignoring the fact that: intrinsic randomness, wave-particle duality (14 years before de broglie - who, in my estimation, is massively overrated), probability waves, and even the idea of quantization are ALL from Einstein and Einstein alone. He understood the theory better than anybody alive at the time, that's why he had such problems working with it. For about 20 years Einstein was the only notable physicist in the western world who really believed in photons. Without Einstein there is no quantum mechanics. Period. End of story. Both it's mathematical-physical AND conceptual inspirations come largely from Einstein. Schrodinger's wave function, for instance, was a byproduct of letters from Einstein to Schrodinger espousing Bose-Einstein statistics (among other ideas). Without Einstein, Schrodinger certainly doesn't get his wave-function, and in fact Einstein deserves 40% of the credit - as Abraham Pais has argued. Einstein's derision of QM stems from two principle grievances: the idea that the OBSERVER played a role in the outcome of experiments (superposition) - meaning science had lost its objectivity, and the idea that QM implied the loss of causality (entanglement - which implies faster than light speed). Einstein also had problems with the interpretation leaps of logic Bohr performed (how anybody still believes in the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM baffles me) to account for discrepancies in QM. The fact that there are so many contemporary physicists who are currently working on QM and who understand it mathematically yet have WIDELY VARYING interpretations of what it means, suggests that QM is indeed not on any firm foundation. Einstein, borrowing from Mach and in many ways Karl Popper, retained the idea of realism in science: if an idea cannot be be tested for falsifiability, then it is useless. QM passed a host of experimental tests, so the next bar to jump was the idea that QM violated SR due to entanglement (yet another genius prediction of Einstein). The problem is that "reality" isn't just a set of mathematical equations, reality must be reified by the real world of experience. QM still has major problems accounting for how QM systems at the microscopic scale behave classically at the macroscopic scale. Meaning is what we are after. The "shut up and calculate' era of physics is over. We have come to the point where a coherent, internally consistent interpretation of QM that accounts for 'real' observations in the classical spectrum while also accounting for quantum phenomenon is necessary. Einstein was looking for that in the Bohr debates, and he Bohr failed to provide that. Einstein's riposte has never been fully answered by quantum physicists: is the moon there when you're not looking at it?

[@varahamihiragopu6667]

@ the moon is always there only because someone somewhere is looking at it. One of these days it will absorb a large solar flare which the right frequency and will jump to a higher orbit.

[@dr.kasrafarahani1172]

wonderful informative work, thanks a lot.