Talk:History of Planck's law

Gratuitous insults in edit summary lines and tags

Sighs and comments that adjectives are silly, placed in edit summary lines, seem like gratuitous insults.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you are paranoid. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

new edits

The eponyms 'Planck's relation' and 'Planck-Einstein relation' are not sourced and should be.

Planck used $P$ not $N$. Why improve on him?

Einstein used the words "in Raumpunct". It is not essential to a particle that it be punctate, and the intention here is to emphasize the distinction between a bundle or packet and a punctate particle.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Planck used $P$ not $N$. Why improve on him? because we don't use archaic terminology here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'Planck-Einstein relation' refers to $E=h\nu$ and E = ħω , referring to propagating quanta of energy, not usually to elementary increments of energy of Planck's virtual material oscillators, to which ε = ħω refers, and which have a different physical meaning even if they are quantitatively equal. Accuracy and reliable sourcing are needed.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Find a source that makes this distinction between Planck and the Einstein-Planck relation. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 20:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Michael C Price is accustomed to giving orders. He made the edit and one would expect him to give reliable sources for it.

Ram, B. (1974), Presenting the Planck's Relation $E=nh\nu$, American Journal of Physics 42: 1092-1094 does not mention photons.

Schwinger, J. (2001). Englert, B.-G. (ed.). Quantum Mechanics: Symbolism of Atomic Measurements. Springer. p. 203. ISBN 3-540-41408-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chatper= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) Schwinger is quoted as calling the relation $E=h\nu$= ħω "Planck's energy-frequency relation". The context is simply wave-functions for force-free motions, with no mention of either photons or Planck oscillators.

French, A.P., Taylor, E.F. (1978), An Introduction to Quantum Physics, Van Nostrand Reinhold, ISBN 0-442-30770-5, on page 24 writes "the Planck-Einstein relation:

$E_{\mathrm {photon} }=E_{i}-E_{f}=h\nu$ ."

and on page 55 writes "the Planck-Einstein relation $E=h\nu$ for photons".

Razeghi, M. (2009), Fundamentals of Solid State Engineering, Springer, ISBN 978-0-387-92167-9, on page 77 writes: "Planck's relation for the irradiance of a blackbody $I(\lambda )={\frac {2hc^{2}}{\lambda ^{5}}}{\frac {1}{e^{\frac {hc}{\lambda k_{b}T}}-1}}.$ ".

In general, sources do not make the distinction, but that is the point here. They are slipshod and do not use reliable sources. There is no reason for Wikipedia to promote muddled usage of eponyms. Wikipedia has a policy of using reliable sources. The present eponym(s) is(are) not routinely or consistently used in reliable sources.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Einstein also wrote of "Nadelstrahlung", which is apparently not punctate.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

simple curve fitting

It is inaccurate and unsourced to say that: "Planck simply curve-fitted the Wein and Rayleigh–Jeans laws together." Would the person who put this in please provide something more accurate and reliably sourced?Chjoaygame (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced, at present, admittedly, like most of the article. But not inaccurate. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

There is no need for a separate article on Planck's law. Planck's law#History covers this appropriately and where efforts for improvements should be directed, rather than spend our efforts on unneeded content forks. The article could have been deleted per WP:CSD#A10, but since people used the talk page, I redirected it instead. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)