Emil Rupp, Albert Einstein and the canal ray experiments on wave-particle duality: Scientific fraud and theoretical bias

Jeroen van Dongen

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0709.3099

Emil Rupp, Albert Einstein and the canal ray experiments on wave-particle duality: Scientific fraud and theoretical bias

Jeroen van Dongen

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In 1926 Emil Rupp published a number of papers on the interference properties of light emitted by canal ray sources. These articles, particularly one paper that came into being in collaboration with Albert Einstein, drew quite some attention as they probed the wave versus particle nature of light. They also significantly propelled Rupp's career, even though that from the outset they were highly controversial. This article will review this episode, and in particular Rupp's collaboration with Einstein. Evidence that Rupp forged his results is presented and their critical reception in the socially and politically divided German physics community is discussed. These divisions fail to explain the full dynamic; the latter is attempted by turning to the role that theoretical bias on occasion has in assessing experiment. Einstein's responses in particular are analyzed in this context.

Explore related subjects

physics.hist-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Jeroen van Dongen. 2007-09-19. Emil Rupp, Albert Einstein and the canal ray experiments on wave-particle duality: Scientific fraud and theoretical bias. https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3099

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

A Personal History in Quantum Foundations: an Oral History Interview

This oral history interview provides Yakir Aharonov's personal and conceptual recollections from the 1950s to the 2000s, focusing on his academic trajectory, some of his major contributions to quantum foundations, and his perspective on the development of the field. The interview traces Aharonov's academic career through the Technion, University of Bristol, Brandeis University, Yeshiva University, University of South Carolina, Tel Aviv University, George Mason University, and Chapman University. The interview also traces the development of Aharonov's work and collaborations on the EPR paradox, time-energy uncertainty relations, quantum measurement theory, quantum frames of reference, the two-state vector formalism, weak values, protective measurements, and several other contributions. It includes recollections of meetings and discussions with David Bohm, Niels Bohr, John Clauser, Paul Dirac, Rudolf Peierls, Aage Petersen, and Abner Shimony. Also mentioned: David Albert, Jeeva Anandan, Peter Bergmann, Gideon Carmi, Avshalom Elitzur, Dave Finkelstein, Vladimir Fock, Itzhak Kalugai, Ed Lerner, Joel Lebowitz, Stanley Mandelstam, Yuval Ne'eman, Sandu Popescu, Maurice Pryce, Daniel Rohrlich, Nathan Rosen, Joseph Safko, Paul Singer, Daniele Struppa, Leonard Susskind, Lev Vaidman, Chien-Shiung Wu.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

Black Holes are about Quantum Information

We review and analyse quantum information-theoretic approaches to black hole evaporation that purport to bring us closer to a resolution of the black hole information paradox. Our focus is on the Page-time paradox and on the contribution of the Hayden-Preskill model to understanding information release under the assumption of unitary evaporation. In this model, the black hole is taken to be a finite-dimensional quantum system whose dynamics can be represented by a quantum circuit, and its information-processing and communication abilities are studied. We identify the assumptions underlying this modelling and highlight two key features, fast scrambling dynamics and entanglement as a resource, that underpin the information release in the model. We argue that this reasoning exemplifies a broader change in how information is used in black hole physics, in which quantum information theory now provides a useful operational modelling framework. This application avoids earlier philosophical objections insofar as it is not based on epistemic ignorance and does not regard information as a substance. This line of reasoning has become central to the debate and, as such, warrants greater attention from the philosophy of physics community.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

Gibbs and Einstein in 1902: Parallel Constructions in Statistical Mechanics

This article reexamines the striking conceptual and formal parallels between Josiah Willard Gibbs Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics and Albert Einstein first paper on statistical mechanics. Although their derivations follow different paths, both arrive at the canonical distribution and construct closely related theoretical frameworks for thermal equilibrium. Each offers a mechanical grounding of the second law of thermodynamics and defines temperature as the quantity that equalises when systems exchange energy, thereby characterising equilibrium without recourse to kinetic theory. In both cases, the constructions rely on general mechanical principles, most notably energy conservation and Liouville theorem, combined with probabilistic reasoning, and deliberately set aside Boltzmann kinetic approach. Whereas Gibbs treatise quickly became a canonical reference, Einstein 1902 paper remained marginal in both physics and its historiography for more than half a century. Focusing primarily on that first article, while also considering the closely related papers of 1903 and 1904, the present study reviews the main historiographical interpretations of their reception. Particular attention is given to Paul Hertz two critical articles of 1910, which identified a close affinity between Gibbs's and Einstein's approaches and played an important role in Einstein subsequent distancing from his early statistical programme, following a private meeting in Basel that Einstein sought in preference to a public controversy. Drawing on new archival evidence concerning the rapid European dissemination of Gibbs book in the spring of 1902, the article reassesses the plausibility of Einstein later claim that he was unaware of Gibbs work at the time.

physics.hist-ph↗