Talk:Lord Kelvin

Untitled

Old discussions are archived.

2 dark clouds lecture never mentioned blackbody radiation

This paragraph misrepresents what was in Lord Kelvin's two dark clouds lecture:

"On 27 April 1900 he gave a widely reported lecture titled Nineteenth-Century Clouds over the Dynamical Theory of Heat and Light to the Royal Institution.[61][62] The two "dark clouds" he was alluding to were the unsatisfactory explanations that the physics of the time could give for two phenomena: the Michelson–Morley experiment and black body radiation."

Having just read through the whole lecture (already linked in reference 61), I was struck by how different the lecture is from what's described in this paragraph. He never addresses the subject of blackbody radiation in any way in the lecture. He does mention the Michelson-Morley experiment but it is just one of many points he makes regarding his first cloud; it does not appear to be the main focus. The 2 dark clouds he mentions are:

Cloud 1.) Relative motion of ether and ponderable bodies

Cloud 2.) The Equipartition Theorem

Sections 2 through 11 deal with cloud 1. He makes many arguments that there is confusion surrounding the question of how matter can move through ether without affecting it, some theoretical and some experimental, citing many different works. But only 1 of the sections, section 10, deals with the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Sections 12 through 56 deal with cloud 2. His point about cloud 2 is that he believes that the Law of Equipartition of Energy (which he refers to mostly as the "Boltzmann-Maxwell doctrine") is false. He goes through many long calculations (mostly involving scattering angles between molecules, it looks like) which he claims disprove it, and also offers many different experiments which he believes demonstrate it's false (such as the specific heats of diatomic gasses not matching the degrees of freedom diatomic molecules appear to have). None of the 45 sections dealing with cloud 2 mention blackbody radiation, blackbodies, or even radiation at all. It's true that Max Planck had already been studying blackbody radiation for years in Germany, and later that year (Dec 1900) came up with an empirical formula for it based on the hypothesis that E=hf. But there's no indication in Kelvin's lecture that he was aware of Planck's work on blackbodies.

Correction to an earlier statement I had at the end of this paragraph: Kelvin was right about both clouds 1 & 2, so does deserve credit for anticipating the 2 major revolutions in physics that were about to come. Both the aether and equipartition ended up breaking down. So I think the only thing that needs to be changed is the description of his 2nd cloud as being blackbody radiation to being equipartition... and possibly changing the description of the 1st cloud from being Michelson-Morley to discomfort with the accepted theory of how matter moves through the aether.

---

Above comments added by Spoonless (talk • contribs) 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You are probably correct as you have taken the trouble to read Kelvin's lecture. I think it would be best if you were to go ahead and make the necessary changes to the article, since you would have the details straighter than most of us at least. You could add "See talk" to your edit summary for those who might want a full justification. Dirac66 (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203034027/https://sheemere.hautetfort.com/archive/2007/10/16/des-chevaux-sur-mars.html to http://sheemere.hautetfort.com/archive/2007/10/16/des-chevaux-sur-mars.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Marriage and children

I dont find whom William Thomson was married with? Usually its in the articles. Or its stated if unmarried. Children? Here is an extra twich: I read some physics and history of technics about 20 years ago. There was lady Kelvin mentioned - whom earlier (or later!) was also married with two other physicists in thermotynamics and heat engines. At least one of them was Thompson - I remember I felt it was a little odd at least two of the husbands had almost the same surname. My curiosity awakened as these men had several of their best inventions / discoveries while married with her. Was she an informal co-worker?? - Im digressing, but the name of mrs Thomson / lady Kelwin would be nice to know./StefanZ78.69.228.145 (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)/StefanZ

The Westminster Abbey website at https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/commemorations/william-thomson-lord-kelvin/ says that "His first wife was Margaret Crum and he married secondly Frances Blandy but had no children." Dirac66 (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And I have now noticed that this article has a section "Later expedition" which says that his first wife died in 1870 and he married Frances Blandy in 1874. Admittedly this is not the place one would look for info on his wives. Perhaps this and the above info should be combined either in the infobox or in a new Personal life section. Dirac66 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have now found a more complete source, and placed the information in the infobox. Dirac66 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Age of Earth Controversy

Presbyterian

William Thomson went to a kirk, not a chapel. He was indeed an elder of the Church of Scotland there. "Chapel" is the term in Wales for a place of worship that is not Church of England. I agree with the body of this below, by Cassian1080, that indeed Thomson was entitled to be skeptical of Darwin's evolution, and of Lyle's estimate of a Very Old Earth, independently of the fact of his Christianity. He improved, by almost four orders of magnitude, upon the estimate of 6000 years by Archbishop Ussher of Armagh. Having gone to that trouble, and concluding that the age could not have exceeded 100 million years, he was entitled on perfectly good scientific grounds, by the evidence available to him, to be skeptical of Natural Selection, and even of the geologist Lyle's conviction that marble in the Alps implied a much older Earth. Both of these would have required thousands of millions, as indeed we now know that they did.
DaveyHume (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Discussion inaccurate in several respects. (1) Implies Thomson rejected natural selection on account of his Christian faith, perpetuating discredited conflict thesis in the history of science and religion. According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The vast majority of authors in the science and religion field [are] critical of the conflict model and believe it is based on a shallow and partisan reading of the historical record." Helen De Cruz, "Religion and Science," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2017 Edition, Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/religion-science/ Kelvin's actual reasons described in Chapters 17 and 18 of Energy and Empire: A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin, by Crosbie Smith and M. Norton Wise. (2) Implies his views opposed a united geological community. In fact the geological community was divided on the question of the age of the earth. Simple dichotomy between physics and geology addressed and rejected in Norton & Wise, p. 579-80. (3) Neglects the centrality of disputes over proper scientific method which arose in the wake of Origin; weight of scientific opinion in the 1860's against Darwin on the grounds that his views speculative & unempirical & therefor no legitimate part of science. However, in the 1870's and 80's it rose to prominence with the younger generation, who simply changed the definition of science in order to accommodate Darwin's approach; hence dispute over Origin's status in part an inter-generational dispute between scientists as to what ought to count as legitimate methods & assumptions, in which the younger generation eventually prevailed through attrition. Kelvin's views in line with that of earlier generation of scientists, in respect to which Darwin & Huxley stood as outsiders. On this last point see James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 195-200, and surrounding passages generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassian1080 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)