Untitled

Jenkin, J.G.

doi:10.1023/a:1012783802528

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lawrence Bragg'. The rivalry between father and son also became apparent when both co-authored a book on their early work, with the preface written by the father alone (W. H. Bragg & W. L. Bragg, 1915;Jenkin, 2001).…”

Section: A Discovery Based On Misapprehensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disputed discovery: the beginnings of X-ray diffraction in crystals in 1912 and its repercussionsThis Laue centennial article has also been published inZeitschrift für Kristallographie[Eckert (2012).Z. Kristallogr.227, 27–35].

Eckert

2011

Acta Cryst Sect A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discovery of X‐ray diffraction is reviewed from the perspective of the contemporary knowledge in 1912 about the nature of X‐rays. Laue's inspiration that led to the experiments by Friedrich and Knipping in Sommerfeld's institute was based on erroneous expectations. The ensuing discoveries of the Braggs clarified the phenomenon (although they, too, emerged from dubious assumptions about the nature of X‐rays). The early misapprehensions had no impact on the Nobel Prizes to Laue in 1914 and the Braggs in 1915; but when the prizes were finally awarded after the war, the circumstances of `Laue's discovery' gave rise to repercussions. Many years later, they resulted in a dispute about the `myths of origins' of the community of crystallographers.

show abstract

Section: A Discovery Based On Misapprehensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disputed discovery: the beginnings of X-ray diffraction in crystals in 1912 and its repercussionsThis Laue centennial article has also been published inZeitschrift für Kristallographie[Eckert (2012).Z. Kristallogr.227, 27–35].

Eckert

2011

Acta Cryst Sect A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: A Discovery Based On Misapprehensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disputed discovery: The beginnings of X-ray diffraction in crystals in 1912 and its repercussions

Eckert¹

2012

Zeitschrift für Kristallographie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The discovery of X-ray diffraction is reviewed from the perspective of the contemporary knowledge in 1912 about the nature of X-rays. Laue's inspiration that led to the experiments by Friedrich and Knipping in Sommerfeld's institute was based on erroneous expectations. The ensuing discoveries of the Braggs clarified the phenomenon (although they, too, emerged from dubious assumptions about the nature of X-rays). The early misapprehensions had no impact on the Nobel Prizes to Laue in 1914 and the Braggs in 1915; but when the prizes were finally awarded after the war, the circumstances of 'Laue's discovery' gave rise to repercussions. Many years later, they resulted in a dispute about the 'myths of origins' of the community of crystallographers. IntroductionThe discovery of X-ray diffraction in crystals a hundred years ago, and the ensuing birth of the new specialities of X-ray spectroscopy and X-ray crystallography, have been praised and reviewed on numerous occasions, most extensively half a century ago in P. P. Ewald's Fifty Years of X-ray Diffraction (Ewald, 1962). The pioneers were awarded with the Nobel Prize in physics as early as 1914 and 1915: Max von Laue, who had suggested in spring 1912 the -now famous -experiments performed by Walter Friedrich and Paul Knipping, 'for his discovery of the diffraction of X-rays by crystals'; William Henry Bragg and William Lawrence Bragg, father and son, 'for their services in the analysis of crystal structure by means of X-rays' (Nobel Prizes, 1914. Few other discoveries received such swift recognition and widespread praise.The reconstruction of the events that led to Laue's idea in 1912 have provoked critical scrutiny. The science historian Paul Forman challenged the 'clan of X-ray crystallographers' with a 'critique of the myths' that he discerned in their accounts of the discovery. Ewald's Fifty Years Festschrift, dedicated to the International Union of Crystallography, and other celebratory reviews of the events in 1912, according to Forman, served the purpose of maintaining a disciplinary identity among the crystallographers. "This circumstance, and its evident social function of reinforcing a separate identity, strongly suggests that the traditional account may be regarded as a 'myth of origins', comparable to those which in primitive societies recount the story of the original ancestor of a clan or tribe" (Forman, 1969, p. 68). In turn, Ewald regarded this interpretation as "the myth of the myths". Forman failed, in Ewald's view, "to appreciate the vagueness of the physical information confronting Laue before the experiment. To make his interpretation plausible, the author repeatedly aggrandizes statements taken from the literature, especially from Laue's Nobel Lecture and from the Festschrift for the semicentennial of the discovery. These unjustified accents, needed in support of his main thesis, show that his scheme is pre-conceived, artificial, and unnecessary" (Ewald, 1969, p. 81).From these passages it is apparent that a review of the discovery of...

show abstract

Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007)

Gingras

Wallace

2009

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a comprehensive bibliometric study of the profile of Nobel Prize winners in chemistry and physics from 1901 to 2007, based on citation data available over the same period. The data allows us to observe the evolution of the profiles of winners in the years leading up to-and following-nominations and awarding of the Nobel Prize. The degree centrality and citation rankings in these fields confirm that the Prize is awarded at the peak of the winners' citation history, despite a brief Halo Effect observable in the years following the attribution of the Prize. Changes in the size and organization of the two fields result in a rapid decline of predictive power of bibliometric data over the century. This can be explained not only by the growing size and fragmentation of the two disciplines, but also, at least in the case of physics, by an implicit hierarchy in the most legitimate topics within the discipline, as well as among the scientists selected for the Nobel Prize. Furthermore, the lack of readily-identifiable dominant contemporary physicists suggests that there are few new paradigm shifts within the field, as perceived by the scientific community as a whole.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 8 publications

References 1 publication

Disputed discovery: the beginnings of X-ray diffraction in crystals in 1912 and its repercussionsThis Laue centennial article has also been published inZeitschrift für Kristallographie[Eckert (2012).Z. Kristallogr.227, 27–35].

Disputed discovery: the beginnings of X-ray diffraction in crystals in 1912 and its repercussionsThis Laue centennial article has also been published inZeitschrift für Kristallographie[Eckert (2012).Z. Kristallogr.227, 27–35].

Disputed discovery: The beginnings of X-ray diffraction in crystals in 1912 and its repercussions

Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About