「對我而言，假設光的能量在空間的分布不是連續的分布，更容易理解關於黑體輻射、光致發光（photoluminescence）、紫外線產生的陰極射線，以及其他與光的產生或轉換相關的現象。」[1] 這段關於光子的說明，出現在愛因斯坦1905 年發表《關於光產生與轉換的啟發性觀點，On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light.》這篇論文的引言，為暸解黑體輻射與光電效應提供全新的觀點，經過無數實驗證實後，愛因斯坦也因此於1922年榮獲1921年的諾貝爾物理學獎。
“Insbesondere erscheinen mir die Schwarzkörperstrahlung, die Photolumineszenz, die Erzeugung von Kathodenstrahlen durch ultraviolettes Licht und andere den Entstehungs- oder Umwandlungsprozessen des Lichtes angehörige Erscheinungen besser verstanden, wenn man voraussetzt, daß die Energie des Lichtes nicht kontinuierlich im Raume verteilt ist.” — A. Einstein, “Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt” (Annalen der Physik 17, 132–148, 1905)
“In particular, black-body radiation, photoluminescence, the generation of cathode rays by ultraviolet light, and other phenomena associated with the creation and transformation of light seem to me to be more readily understood if one assumes that the energy of light is not continuously distributed in space.” [1]
This concise yet revolutionary statement on the nature of light quanta appeared in the introduction of Einstein’s 1905 paper On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light. It opened an entirely new path for understanding black-body radiation and the photoelectric effect. After years of experimental confirmation, it became one of the foundations of quantum theory and eventually earned Einstein the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics (awarded in 1922).
By then, Einstein had already completed his most transformative work—not only the photoelectric effect, but also the theory that reshaped humanity’s perception of space and time: relativity. Remarkably, four epoch-making ideas—the light-quantum hypothesis, Brownian motion, special relativity, and mass–energy equivalence—were all published in the same year, 1905, now remembered as Einstein’s Annus Mirabilis, or “miracle year.”
Among them, relativity became the theoretical cornerstone of modern cosmology. Subsequent research built upon it to win numerous Nobel Prizes, and its practical consequences—most notably the operation of the GPS system—pervade modern life.
Why Not a Nobel for Relativity?
Many have wondered why Einstein did not receive the Nobel Prize for relativity itself. Despite multiple nominations, he went unawarded for years, prompting debate within both the scientific community and the Nobel Committee. This ambivalence was captured by Svante Arrhenius, Chair of the Nobel Committee for Physics, in his official presentation speech on 10 December 1922:
“There is probably no physicist living today whose name has become so widely known as that of Albert Einstein. Most discussion centres on his theory of relativity. This pertains essentially to epistemology and has therefore been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles. It will be no secret that the famous philosopher Bergson in Paris has challenged this theory, while other philosophers have acclaimed it wholeheartedly. The theory in question also has astrophysical implications which are being rigorously examined at the present time.” [2]
This shows that, even in 1922, the scientific world was still grappling with the conceptual shock that relativity had dealt to our understanding of time and space—while philosophers debated its epistemological implications.
From “No Award” to “Delayed Recognition”
In 1921, Max Planck—himself the 1918 laureate for quantum theory—again nominated Einstein, citing his contributions to general relativity. Another eminent physicist, Carl Oseen, nominated him for the photoelectric effect instead.
The Nobel Committee appointed two evaluators: Allvar Gullstrand (1911 laureate in Physiology or Medicine) reviewed relativity, while Arrhenius reviewed the photoelectric effect. Gullstrand argued that relativistic effects were too small to measure; Arrhenius thought it premature to grant another quantum-theory prize. As a result, the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics was left unawarded—a decision that caused widespread controversy. [3]
The following year, Planck proposed that the 1921 prize be retrospectively given to Einstein and the 1922 prize to Niels Bohr. By then, consensus had formed:
“Imagine, fifty years from now, if Einstein’s name were absent from the list of Nobel laureates—what would people think?”
On 10 November 1922, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences officially informed Einstein that he had been awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics,
“for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.”
Arrhenius summarized the achievement in the closing section of his speech:
“Einstein’s law of the photo-electrical effect has been extremely rigorously tested by the American Millikan and his pupils and passed the test brilliantly. Owing to these studies by Einstein the quantum theory has been perfected to a high degree and an extensive literature grew up in this field whereby the extraordinary value of this theory was proved. Einstein’s law has become the basis of quantitative photo-chemistry in the same way as Faraday’s law is the basis of electro-chemistry.” [2]
The Prize—and Beyond
At the time of the announcement, Einstein was already aboard a ship to Japan and thus unable to attend the Stockholm ceremony. The Academy made a rare exception, allowing him to deliver his Nobel Lecture later. In July 1923, Einstein visited Sweden and addressed King Gustaf V and an audience of 2,000 in Gothenburg—not on the photoelectric effect, but on relativity. [4] Since no other official text was available, this lecture became his formal Nobel address, closing one of the most curious episodes in Nobel history.
A Prize—and a Principle
The Nobel Prize is awarded for a discovery, not to a person.
Each year, as speculation swirls about the winners, attention naturally turns to personalities rather than to the discoveries themselves. Yet the essence of the Nobel Prize lies in the work, often meaningful only to specialists, while the public merely sees the spectacle. Still, perhaps a little spectacle serves its purpose.
Some critics claim that the Nobel tradition has made science too theatrical; others are consumed by its allure. The academic world has, in turn, spawned countless imitative prizes, sometimes distracting scholars from true curiosity. Worse still, certain self-proclaimed authorities, confident in their prestige, have stifled younger generations—unwittingly extinguishing many futures.
A wise professor once told me:
“Some people honor the prize; others are merely honored by the prize.”
Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac—these were scientists who honored the prize through their work. Einstein, however, stood apart—he transcended the prize itself.
Richard Feynman might be placed in that same category. He once said his father taught him to despise honor:
“I can’t stand it. It hurts me.” He even mocked elite societies that existed solely to decide who deserves to be called an elite.
In a letter dated 20 September 1931, Einstein wrote to the Nobel Committee that both Heisenberg and Schrödinger had made independent and equally significant contributions, and each should be recognized individually. If forced to choose who should receive the prize first, he said, he would choose Schrödinger—for his deeper influence. History played out accordingly: Heisenberg won the 1932 prize (awarded in 1933), and Schrödinger shared the following year’s prize with Dirac. As always, history keeps its own rhythm.
這段話出自愛因斯坦 1905 年論文〈關於光產生與轉換的啟發性觀點〉（On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light）。這一年，愛因斯坦發表了四篇改變世界的論文，主題涵蓋光量子假說、布朗運動、特殊相對論與質能互換。 短短一年，四次震撼——因此被稱為愛因斯坦的「奇蹟年」（Annus Mirabilis）。
I don't know anything about the Nobel Prize. I don't understand what it's all about or what it's worth. If the people in the Swedish Academy decide that X, Y or Z wins the Nobel Prize, then so be it. I won't have anything to do with the Nobel Prize. It's a pain in the ass. I don't like honors. I appreciate it for the work I did and for the people who appreciate it. I know there are lots of physicists who use my work. I don't need anything else. I don't think there is any sense to anything else. I don't see that it makes any point that someone in Sweden decides that his or her work is noble enough to receive a prize. I've already got the prize! The prize is the pleasure of finding the thing out; the kick is the discovery. The observation that other people are using it. Those are real things; the honors are unreal to me. My Papa brought me up this way. I can't stand it. It hurts me . . .
德文原文 ALBERT EINSTEIN CAPUTH bei Potsdam, 20.September 1931 An das Nobelkomitee für Physik Stockholm 50, Schweden
Sehr geehrte Herren!
Nach meiner Ueberzeugung sind es zwei Männer, die in erster Linie den Nobelpreis für Physik verdienen. Nämlich die Begründer der Wellen- bzw. Quantenmechanik, Professor E. Schrödinger in Berlin und Professor Heisenberg in Leipzig. Diese Lehre enthält nach meiner Ueberzeugung ohne Zweifel ein Stück endgültiger Wahrheit. Die Leistungen beider Männer sind voneinander unabhängig und so bedeutend, dass es nicht angehen dürfte, einen Nobelpreis zwischen ihnen zu teilen.
Die Frage, welcher den Preis zuerst bekommen sollte, ist schwer zu beantworten. Ich persönlich schätze Schrödingers Leistung höher ein, weil ich den Eindruck habe, dass die von ihm geschaffenen Begriffe weiter tragen werden als die Heisenbergs. Andererseits geht die erste wichtige Publikation Heisenbergs zeitlich derjenigen Schrödingers voraus.
Wenn ich die Entscheidung zu treffen hätte, würde ich Schrödinger den Preis zuerst geben.
Mit ausgezeichneter Hochachtung A. Einstein
x Dies ist aber nur meine Meinung, die falsch sein kann.
