Talk:Max Planck

Karl Planck?

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)

Plank constant

15, 2023, 17:49 - «‎top: removing --again-- silly wp:EASTEREGG. "a Plank constant" is not an energy quantum.»

@DVdm: Your allegations on wp:EASTEREGG are false. Look thoroughly at what you're reverting. There is no wp:EASTEREGG in my link: it's direct link to Planck constant, not piped one. If you try further to enforce in-applicable WP:INFOPAGES how-to guide you may indeed end up banned. You basically reverted to the very wp:EASTEREGG you are fighting against. Regarding previous edits by the IP, refer to this thread: WP:ANI#62.121.132.130 by Alexander Davronov.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@DVdm:

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.

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)

I have explained why the link is not appropriate. If you revert it once more, you will end up reported (and most likely blocked) at WP:AN/EW. - DVdm (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I've explained your revert message was wrong and ultimately - false. Are you going to ignore given source and explanation? You object to add source to Planck constant and reinstate the link to it? I advise you to drop threats to "report" and "block". They never helped in discussions like this to anyone and make no sense. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If you don't understand that a Wikilink like "energy quanta (a Planck constant)", as you have been doing here already 4 times ([1], [2], [3], [4]) is inappropriate, then you have a severe lack of understanding English. That link suggests that an energy quantum is "a Planck constant". That is nonsense. I suggest that you restrict your editing to your own language variant and to stay away from the English version. - DVdm (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You indeed don't understand what Planck was awarded for. I urge you to consult sources first lol. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we elaborate on the definition of the quanta and add Planck constant link. Here is the same source currently used in the introduction of the article: Max Planck Facts (See Works)

The intro should be fixed. The "discovery" is in fact man-made theory of quanta. Its specific quantity is determined by the said constant. These are interrelated. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm here to give a 3O. This is a rather interesting case. :P I'm not a physicist but I know enough about it to weigh in here, I think, and I double-checked what I wrote against an undergraduate physics textbook to be sure.

So, Axonov, I'm sorry to say, I agree with DVdm. I don't think it's quite right to say "energy quanta (a Planck constant)", but I don't necessarily think it's a language issue exactly (although it's the Planck constant, or Planck's constant—there's only one, which does kinda gesture at the issue since "quanta" is plural). The reason I don't think it works is because Planck's constant is a specific physical quantity, 6.62607015×10⁻³⁴ J⋅Hz⁻¹, which expresses the relationship between the energy of a photon and its frequency. "Energy quanta," on the other hand, is a general concept, that of "smallest possible observable amounts of energy." Photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic field, and they do carry energy as Planck's constant suggests. So, there's a relationship between the idea of "Planck's constant" and the idea of "energy quanta," but they're not identical. For example, there are other fields at least as fundamental as the electromagnetic field, and they have their own quanta, such as the gluons of the gluon field which mediate the strong force. The strong force binds quarks to one another, and QCD predicts that it's impossible to obtain a single quark; accordingly no one has ever seen a single gluon and we don't have anything quite as precise as Planck's constant for the energy of a gluon. Maybe we'll figure out a way to measure it someday, though. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 22:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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)..."

The way the link I put is not correct, yes, but if you consider the sentence in the current intro:

...was a German theoretical physicist whose discovery of energy quanta won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918...

It's obviously that the said quote is not entirely correct. Plack was awarded for both his now-old theory of quanta and calculating Planck constant - quantifying electromagnetic radiation. Therefore my point is to provide a link to a Planck constant into the intro. It's mentioned down below in the article and is related overall. See also MOS:INTRO.

"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 () 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)

I will quote the mentioned above source entirely over here:

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.

— Nobel prize: Work

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)

My understanding was that the dispute was over the phrasing "energy quanta (a Planck constant)", and that's all I was objecting to. It sounds like you're saying that you actually just want to pursue a different description in the lead of what Planck won the 1918 Nobel for than just "energy quanta"? Your "Nobel prize: Work" source does say right at the top, "Prize motivation: 'in recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta'". I think that strongly supports the current phrasing in the lead. At the same time, the textbook I was citing says, "The credit for inventing the concept of quantization of energy levels goes to Planck, even though he didn’t believe it at first. He received the 1918 Nobel Prize in physics for his achievements." So, if you prefer, we could use "quantization of energy levels" instead; looking around online it seems like that phrase gets somewhat wider use these days. I don't think the lead needs to be any more verbose than that, though, because it's just a short summary (MOS:LEAD); the article discusses the work that led to his Nobel in detail in the section Black-body radiation. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 20:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that strongly supports the current phrasing in the lead. It supports my suggestion as well.
"quantization of energy levels" This won't be correct and won't be supported by the sources. Not in this article. This was correct.
I don't think the lead needs to be any more verbose Short 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

planck achievements should be mentioned more clearly

@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)

I still find this lengthy description of what is a minor part of his achievements inappropriate for the introduction. The video is not a high-quality source. I think it's not correct to refer to the Planck units as "quanta" or to imply that there is a "smallest amount of distance" (there's no evidence so far that space is discrete) or a "highest temperature". If there is need to expand on Planck's achievements related to Planck's constant in the introduction, I would suggest something like

He is known for Planck's constant, which became fundamental for all of quantum physics, and which he used to derive a set of units, today called Planck units, expressed only in terms of physical constants.

I don't think a reference is needed since Planck's constant and Planck units are linked.--Qcomp (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I made the change to remove the misleading statements mentioned above. I'm not convinced that even this shorter sentence belongs in the introduction. I think it gives undue weight to the units, while Planck's law, which is the more important achievement (the fact that he was able to solve the long-standing blackbody-radiation riddle gave weight to the constant and the notion of energy quanta associated with its derivation) is not mentioned. None of the big language versions of WP that I can read mentions Planck units in the introduction. Any other opinions? --Qcomp (talk) 09:44, 14 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)

Yes, he got the prize for "his discovery of energy quanta", which he had to postulate (for energy exchange between radiation and matter) to derive his radiation law. But the law itself is not mentioned in the introduction.

Do you suggest to add further information to the introduction? I'm not sure it is warranted: the postulate of energy quanta and their relevance for the derivation of the Planck law is described in the section Black-body radiation. If one wanted to rewrite the introduction to include info on quantization and the radiation law, one might try something like this:

Planck made many substantial contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame as a physicist rests primarily on his role as the originator of quantum theory, which revolutionized human understanding of atomic and subatomic processes. His postulate of a quantized exchange of energy between matter and radiation that allowed him to explain the observed spectrum of black-body radiation is considered the birth of quantum physics [1]. In the same work he also discovered a fundamental physical constant (now known as Planck's constant), which is of foundational importance for quantum physics, and which he later used to derive a set of units, today called Planck units, expressed only in terms of fundamental physical constants.

But this is lengthy and brings a number of complicated terms (spectrum, black-body, exchange of energy, radiation) into the introduction so it does not seem an improvement to me.

What do you mean by "absolute heat"? --Qcomp (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Von Jolly's quote

@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)

Neat! Perhaps we can say that Jolly described physics to Planck "as a highly developed, nearly fully matured science, that through the crowning achievement of the discovery of the principle of conservation of energy [it] will arguably soon take its final stable form." We will have to correct the grammar though: the "it" is not where it should be. - DVdm (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. I tried to fix the paragraph, but I had to invert it, it was the wrong dates. Maybe it needs a bit of tweaking.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

- DVdm (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Missing clash

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)