This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Max Planck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 23, 2008, December 14, 2008, December 14, 2009, and December 14, 2015. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
we have a red link Karl Planck. Per context, it should be another physicist. Wikidata gives no answer Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
15, 2023, 17:49 - «top: removing --again-- silly wp:EASTEREGG. "a Plank constant" is not an energy quantum.»
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
As you can see Planck's constant reflects the smallest quantity of energy - quanta of energy.Given that, I suggest you revert your revert back. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)The Planck constant is a number that defines the amount of energy in those quanta and expresses how small things can be.
— "The Planck Constant". NIST. 2022-04-07.
I agree with DVdm.This dispute is about putting a link into the article of two related things. What do you agree with DVdm exactly on?
...I don't think it's quite right to say "energy quanta (a Planck constant)..."
...was a German theoretical physicist whose discovery of energy quanta won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918...
"Energy quanta," on the other hand, is a general concept,Planck didn't attribute constant to anything else except of electromagnetic radiation of a black body AFAIK. The source you have cited ( [2]) discusses the quanta theory proposed by Einstein for photons. It's an extension to the Old quantum theory. In the context of disputed intro it's not relevant. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The following source also reasonably argues that the Nobel prize was awarded to Planck for his entire work on quanta theory: Old quantum theory, Planck's law, and Planck constant, not just some vague "quanta". "Nobel Prize Winners in Physics By Arun Agarwal · 2008" AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)When a black body is heated, electromagnetic radiation is emitted with a spectrum corresponding to the temperature of the body, and not to its composition. Calculating the form of the spectrum using then-known physical laws gave an unreasonable result; the radiation in the high-frequency area of the spectrum became infinite. Max Planck solved this problem in 1900 by introducing the theory of “quanta”, that is, that radiation consists of quanta with specific energies determined by a new fundamental constant, thereafter called Planck’s constant.
I think that strongly supports the current phrasing in the lead.It supports my suggestion as well.
"quantization of energy levels"
I don't think the lead needs to be any more verboseShort intro should reflect the content of the article per MOS:INTRO. Like it or not, but Planck constant should be mentioned, one way or another. I see no sane reason to object here. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The constant is mentioned and wikilinked in the body of the article. The reason why your additional link in the lead is removed, is that there seems to be no natural way to include it in the lead without creating an eastereggy link. If the article would have an entire section devoted to the constant, it could be mentioned in the lead in a separate sentence (like "He has a contant named for him, the Planck constant"), but that is not the case: it is just mentioned once in the article, so there is no place for it in the first sentence. Again, an energy quantum is not "a Planck constant", which is what your link would suggest. In my last removal ( [5]) I have wikilinked the word quantum. That should be sufficient. To relate the person with the constant, we all can find references and quotations as much as we want, but wp:EASTEREGG has nothing to do with with content. It is just a matter of style. - DVdm ( talk) 08:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
References
@ Qcomp: i added in the intro the planck constant and what he made out of it by using it, in a simple language, without forcing people to open 5 different pages, and go to chatgpt to get a summary to understand approximately why that stuff is important. i know many of you study or studied physics, and for you it is so obvious that you feel that it is not worth mentioning. but mere mortals depend on being a little simpler here, and as well to state stuff more than once. the video reference is by multiple persons, amongst them joseph conlon, tony padilla, Geraint F. Lewis. ThurnerRupert ( talk) 22:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
two remarks. first, was not Planck's law why he got the nobel prize for, and is mentioned in the first sentence? where he noticed the energy of an oscillator depends on the freuqency times a small number which was then the planck constant? which makes it discrete? would you be able to put this in words which people can understand at one hand, and not misleading on the other? second, if that engergy thing is true, simplified, energy equals to frequency times planck constant, and heat is energy as a result of the movement of these tiny particles, how would you explain that there is no absolute heat, in the standard model? ThurnerRupert ( talk) 13:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@ DVdm: I see that you added a new source for von Jolly quote saying "In this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes." However this seems apocryphal. Here is an analysis of the original quote [6] by Planck about Jolly, that exact quote cannot be found. Maybe it is best to remove the quote. ReyHahn ( talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Planck was fundamental on turning the page on old physics. His debate with Ernst Mach] and the energerticists should be mentioned. ReyHahn ( talk) 13:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Max Planck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 23, 2008, December 14, 2008, December 14, 2009, and December 14, 2015. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
we have a red link Karl Planck. Per context, it should be another physicist. Wikidata gives no answer Estopedist1 ( talk) 20:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
15, 2023, 17:49 - «top: removing --again-- silly wp:EASTEREGG. "a Plank constant" is not an energy quantum.»
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
As you can see Planck's constant reflects the smallest quantity of energy - quanta of energy.Given that, I suggest you revert your revert back. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)The Planck constant is a number that defines the amount of energy in those quanta and expresses how small things can be.
— "The Planck Constant". NIST. 2022-04-07.
I agree with DVdm.This dispute is about putting a link into the article of two related things. What do you agree with DVdm exactly on?
...I don't think it's quite right to say "energy quanta (a Planck constant)..."
...was a German theoretical physicist whose discovery of energy quanta won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918...
"Energy quanta," on the other hand, is a general concept,Planck didn't attribute constant to anything else except of electromagnetic radiation of a black body AFAIK. The source you have cited ( [2]) discusses the quanta theory proposed by Einstein for photons. It's an extension to the Old quantum theory. In the context of disputed intro it's not relevant. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The following source also reasonably argues that the Nobel prize was awarded to Planck for his entire work on quanta theory: Old quantum theory, Planck's law, and Planck constant, not just some vague "quanta". "Nobel Prize Winners in Physics By Arun Agarwal · 2008" AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)When a black body is heated, electromagnetic radiation is emitted with a spectrum corresponding to the temperature of the body, and not to its composition. Calculating the form of the spectrum using then-known physical laws gave an unreasonable result; the radiation in the high-frequency area of the spectrum became infinite. Max Planck solved this problem in 1900 by introducing the theory of “quanta”, that is, that radiation consists of quanta with specific energies determined by a new fundamental constant, thereafter called Planck’s constant.
I think that strongly supports the current phrasing in the lead.It supports my suggestion as well.
"quantization of energy levels"
I don't think the lead needs to be any more verboseShort intro should reflect the content of the article per MOS:INTRO. Like it or not, but Planck constant should be mentioned, one way or another. I see no sane reason to object here. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The constant is mentioned and wikilinked in the body of the article. The reason why your additional link in the lead is removed, is that there seems to be no natural way to include it in the lead without creating an eastereggy link. If the article would have an entire section devoted to the constant, it could be mentioned in the lead in a separate sentence (like "He has a contant named for him, the Planck constant"), but that is not the case: it is just mentioned once in the article, so there is no place for it in the first sentence. Again, an energy quantum is not "a Planck constant", which is what your link would suggest. In my last removal ( [5]) I have wikilinked the word quantum. That should be sufficient. To relate the person with the constant, we all can find references and quotations as much as we want, but wp:EASTEREGG has nothing to do with with content. It is just a matter of style. - DVdm ( talk) 08:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
References
@ Qcomp: i added in the intro the planck constant and what he made out of it by using it, in a simple language, without forcing people to open 5 different pages, and go to chatgpt to get a summary to understand approximately why that stuff is important. i know many of you study or studied physics, and for you it is so obvious that you feel that it is not worth mentioning. but mere mortals depend on being a little simpler here, and as well to state stuff more than once. the video reference is by multiple persons, amongst them joseph conlon, tony padilla, Geraint F. Lewis. ThurnerRupert ( talk) 22:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
two remarks. first, was not Planck's law why he got the nobel prize for, and is mentioned in the first sentence? where he noticed the energy of an oscillator depends on the freuqency times a small number which was then the planck constant? which makes it discrete? would you be able to put this in words which people can understand at one hand, and not misleading on the other? second, if that engergy thing is true, simplified, energy equals to frequency times planck constant, and heat is energy as a result of the movement of these tiny particles, how would you explain that there is no absolute heat, in the standard model? ThurnerRupert ( talk) 13:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@ DVdm: I see that you added a new source for von Jolly quote saying "In this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes." However this seems apocryphal. Here is an analysis of the original quote [6] by Planck about Jolly, that exact quote cannot be found. Maybe it is best to remove the quote. ReyHahn ( talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Planck was fundamental on turning the page on old physics. His debate with Ernst Mach] and the energerticists should be mentioned. ReyHahn ( talk) 13:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)