Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was the first to take Max Planck's (1858-1947)
quantum hypothesis seriously, and he believed in the existence of universal physical laws. His
efforts to realize his visions culminated in his Annus Mirabilis 1905, the centenary of which has
been celebrated in the World Year of Physics 2005. Corresponding to the experimental
material, he sought for applications of quantum theory, first in the field of light-matter
interaction (Einstein, 1905 and 1906), where he found the first explanations of Stoke's rule, of
the external photo effect (the main point in the reasoning for awarding him the Nobel prize
and of the photo-ionization of gases. His seminal paper, "Planck's Theory of Radiation and
the Theory of Specific Heat of Solids" (Einstein, 1907), published two years later, founded
the quantum theory of solids; it was the first to apply the quantum hypothesis to
ponderable matter (Klein, 1965). Again, Albert Einstein took an atomistic positionin the context of
the recent centenary of the death of Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906), it may be
remembered that then the acceptance of atomism was still not prevailing in the physics community.
As in his 1905 papers, Albert Einstein brought forward most simple and striking
arguments. In a few lines, he demonstrated that Wilhelm Wien's (1864-1928) classical distribution law
is obtained when using the continuous energy spectrum of a classical oscillator, while
Max Planck's non-classical distribution law results from the discrete energy spectrum of a
quantum oscillator. He found supporting evidence in the fact, that the frequency of the
hypothetical quantum oscillator representing the lattice vibrations was often close to the
experimental reststrahlen frequency. Twowidely underestimatedimplications will be discussed in
this paper. The first concerns the notion of state being one of the most important notions
of physics, while the second sheds a non-traditional light on the nature of quantization.
These implications had not been realized by his contemporaries, however, and also not in
Martin Klein's appraisal (Klein, 1965). For this, it should be useful to supplement my paper
(Enders, 2008), (hereafter referred to as I) by a more detailed account of them. |