Talk:Planck's law/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Headbomb complaints

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Let me start by saying that I like Headbomb's shading of the percentile tables, a nice cosmetic touch.

I wish I could find something else positive to say about the more than a hundred edits he's made in the past three days. The previous fifteen sections of this talk page (not counting the section rejecting my attempted overview, which I accepted without any objection) are all in response to Headbomb's extensive editing. The first section consisted of concerns raised by Chjoaygame, PAR, Q Science, and myself (all of whom have made substantial contributions to this article over the years) concerning Headbomb's initial efforts at changing the article's notation.

I would say fifteen sections of discussions of edits by a single editor in three days constituted disruptive behavior by that editor, since the time put into writing the fifteen sections could have been more productively spent on the article. If that one editor had been right and the regular contributors to this article wrong, it would still be disruptive, but in the positive sense that the term "disruptive technology" is supposed to suggest. Let me list the reasons why all of Headbomb's disruptive edits have been negative in this sense. (No one has objected to his shading of the percentile tables, which was therefore not disruptive even though done without any consultation.)

1. When editors have strong disagreements with Headbomb's edits, instead of resolving the disagreements on this talk page before proceeding with editing he ignores them and reverts anyone who tries to put things back the way they were. This is not in accord with the procedure in WP:EW which says "It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring over it. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and try to discuss the issue on the talk page, or approach appropriate venues for help." My preference is to resolve such disputes at the article with the participation of the expert editors rather than take it to arbitration, who are neither experts in the topic nor keen on people finding yet more ways for them to spend their copious free time. But when all else fails, arbitration becomes the remaining option.

2. Headbomb's answer to the complaint that he's replacing readable fonts with unreadable ones is that this is the fault of the visitors to Wikipedia, who are all expected to follow Headbomb's recommended procedure for fixing their broken system before attempting to read any of the many Wikipedia articles Headbomb claims have these unreadable fonts. Does it make sense for Wikipedia to put the burden of installing fonts on the user before they can reliably read Wikipedia articles? I would have thought not.

3. He invents concepts and formulas. There's no such equation in the literature as $B_{k}(T)={\frac {hc^{2}k^{3}}{2\pi ^{2}}}{\frac {1}{e^{\frac {hck}{2\pi k_{\mathrm {B} }T}}-1}}.$ It's nowhere in the alleged source, namely Paltridge and Platt's underappreciated text Radiative Processes in Meteorology and Climatology, and I can guarantee that you won't find it anywhere else either. Not only is it not sourced but Headbomb keeps changing it as he tries to get it to mean what he thinks it should mean. Since he does not say what it means (he doesn't even give the units) there is no way anyone else can tell whether he's right or wrong. He may be attempting to derive a formula in MKS units of radians/meter, or in CGS units of radians/cm, but if so then in either case he hasn't succeeded. (I could invent a unit for which his formula is the correct one but it would be a really weird unit.) [Stop press: I see he's finally found and fixed his error.] His inability to get even this simple algebra right shows that his claim to being a "much respected physics editor" is greatly exaggerated. It also shows that it is time to delete this bit of unsourced material. (If people are going to delete my correct material on the ground that it's unsourced, why should Headbomb get a free pass, especially when there's no such thing as $B_{k}$ in the literature?)

(Ironically, even though Paltridge and Platt doesn't contain Headbomb's homebrew formula, in any of the forms he posted, it does contain everything I put in the overview section that was deleted, including the function $\nu B_{\nu }=\lambda B_{\lambda }$, which P&P call the "frequency scale" Planck function and denote naturally enough by $B_{f}$, whose peak is the frequency-wavelength-neutral peak given in the percentile section of this article. It also contains the function of $\lambda$ defined by the radiance from a black body below wavelength $\lambda$, a function they trace back to Bramson's 1968 translation of a Russian handbook of infrared radiation (I'll try to track that down but P&P will do as a source). The symbol for radiance is $L_{e}$ so the function of $\lambda$ P&P/Bramson are talking about here is $L_{e}$ low-pass filtered to cut off at $\lambda$. If there's a standard notation for that, say $L_{e}(\lambda )$, one could then define $B_{\lambda }$ very simply as $B_{\lambda }={\frac {d}{d\lambda }}L_{e}(\lambda )$, and then all this obscure stuff about differentials would become obvious.)

4. He is clearly unaware that the units of wavenumber ${\tilde {\nu }}$ are $m^{-1}$ in MKS units and $cm^{-1}$ in CGS units, while the units of angular wavenumber $k$ are radians/m in MKS units and radians/cm in CGS units. Instead his attempts to grasp the subject have led him to the belief that "wavenumber" and "angular wavenumber" are interchangeable concepts, and that one can use whichever of ${\tilde {\nu }}$ or $k$ one chooses. He had a 50/50 chance of picking the correct one of $k$ and ${\tilde {\nu }}$ for wavenumber and his coin toss let him down.

5. Headbomb claims superior knowledge of spectroscopy to those attempting to correct him. I'm not aware of any WP rule against arrogance, but in light of the obvious difficulty he's having with the subject I'm tempted to suggest there should be one.

6. Headbomb regards any attempt to rein him in, for example my proposal to force him into a WP:3RR violation, as "disruptive." Rather than debate whether disrupting disruption is itself disruptive, I'd prefer to think of the WP:3RR rule as disruptive technology in the good sense of the word. Disruption is when you waste the time of the other editors of an article, which the fifteen sections I mentioned clearly demonstrates has happened here. I seriously doubt whether the effort of reverting Headbomb's unwanted edits will consume remotely near that much time, it's just a matter of clicking the undo button.

7. Headbomb appears to have taken over this article. I've edited this article off and on since 2008, never with anyone reverting what I had to contribute. Suddenly every edit I make gets reverted by Headbomb. That is not how things were here before Headbomb. This sounds to me like a violation of WP:OWN.

8. Personally I very much resent the time needed to coordinate in one place the many objections to Headbomb's edits raised in the preceding fifteen sections. The one other thing he got right besides his shading of the percentile tables was his assessment of me as a "patronizing a-hole." If I weren't I would have had a much harder time writing this section. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Disagree - Headbomb is aggravating, arrogant and does not follow protocol - true but irrelevant. If he improved the article, then I give him a pass. (I am NOT saying that he improved it, but that is ANOTHER question. If he degraded it I do not give him a pass.)

2. Agree - Headbomb uses fonts not readable by the wider audience - true, and I am trying to fix that.

3. Agree - B sub k - certainly needs to be referenced. My feeling is that this should not be too hard for Headbomb, it seems like a sensible equation to me, if done correctly.

4. No opinion

5. Resist temptation

6. Agree - the 3RR rule is another word for consensus the hard way. It should not be an excuse for gang warfare, Wikipedia is not World of Warcraft.

7. Disagree - If any change is positive and either obvious or referenced, it should stay, no matter how hard and long anyone worked on the article beforehand. I agree that the derivation of the integral should have its own article, as a math article. I agree that any article using Boltzmann's constant and wavenumber should notationally distinguish between the two, and my non-adamant first choice would be kB and k, only because I have seen that used before.

8. LOL

PAR (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, PAR, points of agreement and disagreement noted. :) While I'm waiting for a larger sample, one correction to what I wrote above: P&P don't write what I called $\lambda B_{\lambda }$ as $B_{f}$ after all, they just refer to it as $\lambda B_{\lambda }$, the same as Goody and Yung do, and the same as I did in the section I wrote that was deleted. What we now call $\nu$ and ${\tilde {\nu }}$ they call respectively ${\tilde {f}}$ and $\nu$. (I may have just blown my chances of getting a job with the Australian government translating their third-of-a-century old tracts into modern notation. :( )

Also, lest I leave the impression that P&P say nothing at all about wavenumber, they do have the formula $B_{\tilde {\nu }}=2hc^{2}{\tilde {\nu }}$ as the coefficient of the $1/(e^{x}-1)$ function where $x={\frac {ch{\tilde {\nu }}}{kT}}.$ (This is all in modern notation, their 1976 book is still in the good old days of CGS rather than MKS units and they put hats and tildes in creative places on h, k, and f that I found hard to keep track of.)

But neither they nor anyone else in the world has ever published the formula for the angular wavenumber counterpart $B_{k}$ that finally got Headbomb to the next level. I was wondering if he'd ever get it right and eventually he did, bravo for that at least! If that's not original research (in a better sense than intended by Jimbo), what is? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

the 3RR rule is another word for consensus the hard way. Ever thought of going into professional writing? Or maybe you already do. I couldn't have put it half as well. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If he improved the article, then I give him a pass. Exactly. That was the point of my reference to disruptive technology. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that any article using Boltzmann's constant and wavenumber should notationally distinguish between the two --- If by wavenumber you mean angular wavenumber, then certainly. But angular wavenumber and Planck's law never cross paths, since Planck's law only deals with photons and there is never any group velocity. (But if you have kT in an already messy formula, I would argue for dropping the B in that situation on the ground that the T serves the same purpose as the B but without making the formula even messier.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

it seems like a sensible equation to me, if done correctly. And he did eventually get it right after some hours of wrestling it to the mat, drinks all round. But Planck's law sucks even without the extra 8π⁴ in the denominator. Who ordered that? And why does everyone so hate my much simpler $2h(\nu /\lambda )^{2}$ as the common coefficient of $\nu B_{\nu }$ and $\lambda B_{\lambda }$? Has fear rendered Wikipedia catatonic? So sad. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

B sub k - certainly needs to be referenced. My feeling is that this should not be too hard for Headbomb --- And if he can't? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

OMG, 6 responses by the same nutter in an hour. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Holy tl;dr. Let's address stuff point by point.

1) You have "strong disagreements" with my edits, yet cannot articulate them more precisely than "butidon'tlikeit!" If you can't follow what happenned in the last few days, simply take the version before changes, and the version after changes, and summarize what exactly you think should be changed from the current version. So far, your main argument is "it's different than before". Well yeah, that's what edits do. I have reasons, backed by policy and by sound editorial judgement behind every edit I made. It's possible some of the changes things I made do not reflect consensus, but you've been too busy attacking me at every opportunity, and focusing on the most trivial of details to convince the rest of us there's something substantially wrong with the current version.

2) Changing e.g. λ to $\lambda$ on this article is a hack. This is one article, out of several thousands of articles on Wikipedia which uses λ. The fix is to use a good font, not to work around the poor choices you've made.

3) B_k has been fixed. As for units, the formula it's not unit dependent. You can work in ergs, joules, centimeters, meters, etc... If you mean that the SI units of B_x are not given, that's a rather trivial thing to add. If it's not in Paltridge & Platt, it's again trivial to change the reference. It's hardly an otherworldly result. If you're claiming there is no such thing as a B_k, then you're living in another universe.

4) You're rambling incoherently there.

5) You're the one that claims that the B_k has no merits at the conceptual level, but that $B_{\tilde {\nu }}$ somehow has (despite the only difference being one of scaling by factor of 2π), or that the Plank constant never has anything to do with wavevectors because "the plank constant deals with photons". In case you hadn't noticed, photons have wavelengths... which means they have wavevectors. This is of paramount importance in solid state physics, and material science in general (crystallography, semiconductors, photonic crystals...), as well as particle physics and quantum mechanics. So you'll have to forgive me if I find it hard to consider you an authority on this subject.

6) "for example my proposal to force him into a WP:3RR violation" is the very defining of disruptive editing. This is known as WP:MEATPUPPETRY and is a blockable offense. It does however, nicely illustrate your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and your unwillingness to compromise or cooperate with people.

7) You do not own the article. Every edit you made was reverted because they make the article worse (for example, by introducing inconsistent notation, or WP:TEXTBOOK stuff).

8) See PAR's comments.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not sure what it means on Wikipedia for a discussion to be "closed," but I cannot let the above stand merely on the ground that it was closed before I had a chance to even see it. If Wikipedia is serious about excommunicating me on those grounds, so be it.

1. yet cannot articulate them more precisely than "butidon'tlikeit!" That was not my complaint. I said "When editors have strong disagreements with Headbomb's edits, instead of resolving the disagreements on this talk page before proceeding with editing he ignores them and reverts anyone who tries to put things back the way they were. This is not in accord with the procedure in WP:EW which says 'It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring over it.' " You have not addressed this complaint.

2. The fix is to use a good font, not to work around the poor choices you've made. Again you have ignored my point, which is that it's not just me with the "badly chosen" font (as though I chose it) but every visitor to Wikipedia. These visitors do not "choose" fonts, most of them don't even know what that means.

3. If it's not in Paltridge & Platt, it's again trivial to change the reference. If you can source it, great. If not it's WP:OR as others have already pointed out.

4. You're rambling incoherently there. That's a relative concept. When I don't understand what two algebraic topologists are saying to each other I don't assume they're incoherent.

5. In case you hadn't noticed, photons have wavelengths... which means they have wavevectors. This is of paramount importance in solid state physics, and material science in general (crystallography, semiconductors, photonic crystals...), as well as particle physics and quantum mechanics. For all the areas you mention, all of which involve massive particles, wavevectors are indeed of "paramount importance." However they aren't for electromagnetic radiation, which consists just of photons and has a very simple description that does not depend on the wavevector concept. If you can source your claim that Planck's law involves wavevectors then it would be perfectly reasonable to have it in the article. If not, as seems very likely given that photons are not massive particles, then your claimed connection with wavevectors is WP:OR.

6. This is known as WP:MEATPUPPETRY PAR seemed of the opposite opinion (3RR = "consensus the hard way"), but I'm happy to listen to all opinions on this.

7. Every edit you made was reverted because they make the article worse According to you. According to me they made it better. How do you propose we resolve this difference?

8. LOL --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Discuss content not contributors

This talk page is for discussing article content. Wikipedia is a collaboration, please work together to improve the article. By all means discuss the content but do not make it personal. Any futher personal attacks will be reverted and reported. Editing wikipedia should be an enjoyable experience. Enjoy it and enjoy working together to resolve differences constructively. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

spectral radiance as a function of "wavenumber"

The reason for including this way of expressing the law is that this way is used by spectroscopists and they want it to appear. The present version is however unsuitable for this purpose because it does not use the definition of wavenumber that spectroscopists use. Headbomb has not taken this into account and his version is actually a misquote from a reliable source, and strictly I think would be classified as own research. Headbomb apparently thinks that he has the appropriate definition of wavenumber, and indeed his definition is used for other purposes, but not for the present purpose. The original version should be restored, with the associated definitions and notes. Headbomb is the person to do this as he is the person who made it wrong.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And other spectroscopists use the wavenumber as k = 2π/λ. There is no particular convention followed in the field, and most physics and chemistry students would have encountered k before, and be unfamiliar with ${\tilde {\nu }}$. Any spectroscopist worth their salt out there would know the difference between k and ${\tilde {\nu }}$, as well as how to get Planck's law expressed in their favourite variables. Generalists and students would not be so familiar. We should aim to write for audiences as wide as possible, and so we should use the common wavenumber, rather than the spectroscopist's, for exactly the same reason we should use the MKS system of units, rather than Gaussian/cgs units or natural units version of these equations. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The present form is not reliably sourced and seems like own research. The reference to Paltridge and Platt is a misquotation, so that the present form is not reliably sourced. If Headbomb wants to override the previous reliably sourced form, he should provide a new reliable source, indeed several reliable sources, since he seems to agree that there is diversity. Perhaps there may also be diversity of opinion about which spectroscopists are worth their salt and which are not, and perhaps Headbomb may not be the only sound judge of that. Headbomb says we should aim to write for audiences as wide as possible; this sounds like a form of the doctrine that one size fits all. The case of spectroscopy is not the same as the case of units, and it is not sound to try to apply "exactly the same" reasoning to both.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Headbomb is just making up his own theory of how to write physics articles, insisting on his notation and conventions, and refusing to listen to complaints. He's changed $\nu$ to ν which now appears as a Latin vee instead of a Greek nu. He claims without any evidence that $k_{B}$ is commonly used when a glance at any standard physics text will show he's wrong. (Maybe there's one but I couldn't find it, it's always been kT for the past 50 years of my experience reading articles that use it, and there is no way anyone would read kT as the product of angular wavenumber and temperature, which makes no sense.) His statement that k is the standard symbol for wavenumber is exactly as true as saying that $\hbar$ is the standard symbol for Planck's constant, namely 100% false---clearly he doesn't understand the difference between wavenumber and angular wavenumber. He believes that every article should begin with the history of the subject, a convention new to me which I had not seen before in science articles in Wikipedia. And when we try to fix these problems, with explanations as to why he's wrong, he rudely ignores the explanations and just restores his mistakes.

What we have here is someone who incorrectly believes he is familiar with physics, has made a hundred edits to this article in the space of 24 hours that are just full of errors, pays no attention to etiquette, rudely reverting people and making wholesale edits to large swathes of the article without any consultation. What to do about him? This cannot go on like this! --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion needs to include Headbomb's Wavenumber edits. Q Science (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That article seems to need work, quite apart from Headbomb's edit (which merely replaced one small section with a see-also). What the article doesn't make clear is that, in all disciplines, wavenumber is a property of a particle, whether it be an electron, a photon, or whatever. Instead of saying "in spectroscopy," as though spectroscopists were "oddballs" as User talk:Dicklyon put it, it should say "in the case of photons." And all it need say about photons is that in normal transit photons are particles that happen to travel at light speed, whereas electrons invariably run much slower. If you already know this, you can make sense of "For the special case of an electromagnetic wave in vacuum, where vp = c," but those in need of this article are unlikely to make this connection without more help than the article offers. As it stands the article makes it sound as though different areas use the term inconsistently when they don't. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the most glaring error? If we agree on one indisputable technical error or omission, then we fix it, and it will stay. Then go to the next glaring error or omission. Then we get into stylistic stuff like notation and which section goes where. That will be more problematic unless its very obvious. PAR (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The most glaring error is the change from the spectroscopists' wavenumber to the wave equation wavenumber. The purpose of the entry was to provide for the spectroscopists' viewpoint, because a spectroscopist wanted it. The present entry fails the purpose. The present entry is not sourced from a reliable source and seems like own research.

As a small point, which does not come into it as a practical matter right here and now, it is not too rare for people to use the B subscript to distinguish the Boltzmann constant, but it is not called for here, because the k is not here needed as a notation for the wavenumber.

I do not at this moment intend myself to make an edit at this point, because it is beginning to look like an edit war, into which I do not wish to enter.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

He may have decided that k instead of k_B is ok after all, since he didn't keep reverting me. After reviewing everything it looks to me like it may not be too much work to fix things piecemeal rather than the messier approach of bulk reverts. Anyone think otherwise? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with the history section. Who besides Headbomb wants it at the beginning? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb changed much of the Latex to unicode. I'm generally fine with that except for Greek letters, in particular $\nu$ and $\lambda$ which in unicode come up as the less readable ν and λ. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So there are no substantial errors, only stylistic ones? Any substantial omissions? I have only read the introduction, history, common forms and physics sections and they appear ok to me. I mean, I am against history coming first, but I don't want to waste my time in an edit war over it. On Headbomb's user page, he devotes a section to proper type faces etc. so he has given this some thought. I hate the unicode the way it appears on my browser, but I will not get into an edit war without reading and understanding that section, and I may do that. I will absolutely support the correction of any error or omission in substance. I'm not passionate about stylistic arguments, however. I also think piecemeal fixes are better than bulk reverts. PAR (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If Headbomb is the only one who wants the history section at the front, I think we can safely move it back. Headbomb may not know much physics, but he clearly knows Wikipedia, which means he knows he can't win an edit war against a consensus. So I think we just need to establish that we're in agreement on each change we want to make and there's nothing Headbomb can do to stop it. Since no one has supported Headbomb's placement of the history section I'm going to move it back now and see what if anything happens. I'll be very surprised if Headbomb undoes it. (This is almost like a Star Trek episode where they're strategizing out loud how to outwit the alien that's taken over the central control complex.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Headbomb may not know much physics" / "This is almost like a Star Trek episode where they're strategizing out loud how to outwit the alien that's taken over the central control complex." Could you be anymore of a patronizing asshole? You really ought to be blocked on grounds of civility.

Concerning the history section, it belongs at the top, as it the pratice in any well-written books, or in all our featured articles (take Quark, Atomic line filter, Big Bang, etc....) The reason for this is simple. Before you delve in specialist interest, you need to deal with generalities, context, and motivation. Well-written articles have a readership-level gradient, with laypeople at the top, specialist at the end. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The history section should, clearly, be up near the front. Your comments are disturbing in that you do not appear to be presuming good faith (in response to Vaughan Pratt). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Good faith does not necessarily entail good judgment. To my surprise I ran across this Wikipedia guideline about "good faith" that made my preceding sentence unnecessary so I struck it out. My growing frustration with being unable to work on the article eventually got my back up, which I admit in hindsight was an over-reaction. However like Chjoaygame I feel it is a waste of time working on this article only to see every edit reverted by Headbomb. I would call that "disruptive behavior." Regarding history, the first dozen articles on major physics principles of the last two centuries that I looked at (Maxwell's equations, Stefan-Boltzmann law, etc.) had their main history section somewhere between the middle and the end. Laws that go back hundreds of years might be expected to have more history near the front. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Formatting the inline math

Comparing Headbomb's version of this article with the others, I see that one thing he is trying to do is improve the appearance of the inline math. I love LaTeX, but its online implementation in Wikipedia looks awful. Unfortunately, Headbomb's solution employs some unfortunate devices like naming the frequency by the English letter v.

Have you considered using the math template? In this template, the frequency would be ν. An expression like $B_{\nu }(T)\,dA\,d\Omega \,d\nu$ would become B_ν(T) dA dΩ dν. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The letter is nu (ν), not v. If the took look alike, you have a bad font (and will run into problem on many pages both on and off wiki, not just this article). As for {{math}}, it's just awful, using serif text instead of the sans-serif. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Awful" is pretty strong. I think all the choices have their pros and cons. Another is to use inline LaTeX with \scriptstyle (as in my example below). RockMagnetist (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The two look alike to me, and apparently to a number of other people. What is the fix? Change a system font? a browser font? a Wikipedia font?. PAR (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Browser font. DéjaVu Sans is a personal favourite, but there are others. (You can also just set Wikipedia to use a different font in your user preferences). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The two are distinguishable here, which browser is the issue with? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am using Firefox 4.0.1 on a Mac. The problem is not with the browser font, its with the Wikipedia font. Since I last fooled around with that, a new option has been added: "Recommended for modern browsers". I had selected "HTML if very simple or else PNG". Using "Recommended..." it looks fine to me. Unless I run into problems, I will stick with that. PAR (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC).

Problems - Firefox has four font options - proportional (serif or sans), serif font (e.g. Times), sans font (e.g. Helvetica) and monospace (e.g. Courier). The proportional choice picks either the serif or the sans option as default. I inadvertently had Times (a serif font) in the sans slot, and the nu looked good. However, when I corrected the error by putting Helvetica in the sans slot, the nu reverted to a v. IN OTHER WORDS, Wikipedia displays unicode nu in my browser's sans serif font, which makes it look like a v. This is independent of what my default font is. This looks like a Wikipedia problem, which needs a Wikipedia solution. I find no option to change the Wikipedia font in general, only the math font in Preferences>Appearance. PAR (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear RockMagnetist, this is slightly off-track here, but please would you very kindly show me by example here how to write ${\hat {r}}$, by itself, and also in a more complicated formula, inline in a suitable font? Perhaps in several different ways?Chjoaygame (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you really want to know, so I'm not going to go to the trouble of finding the answer for you. There probably is an answer, but a major drawback of the math template is that the documentation is not nearly as good as in LaTeX. For something like ${\hat {r}}$, it might not be worth the trouble. An alternative is to use \scriptstyle to get smaller output in LaTeX. For $\scriptstyle {\hat {r}}$ it looks lousy, but for $\scriptstyle B_{\nu }(T)\,dA\,d\Omega \,d\nu$ it improves the formatting. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear RockMagnetist, I can tell you, I really would like to know how to do what I asked you tell me about. I have spent hours trying to do it. At least I can take some comfort on that from your answer suggesting that you would have to go to some trouble to find the answer. I want to use it in another article and I saw you as a possible source of helpful advice.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I misread the tone of your question. The last time I was stuck with using this template, I went to the talk page and asked for help there. I have another idea I'll test and get back to you if it's successful. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was worth a try. My idea was to compose the characters in a LaTeX document and use a macro like Klaus Gerhardt's htlatexc to format it in HTML. It turns out that the macro creates PNG images. Bah. There is also a UNICODE string as an alternate, and I include the output here for your amusement: ˆr, ˆr. I apologize again for reacting badly to your question. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear RockMagnetist, thank you for your kind care in this. As I said above, at least I am comforted that the solution is not too obvious.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Help:Displaying_a_formula#TeX_vs_HTML it is clear that rendering of HTML symbols (e.g. HTML nu) is browser dependent. To quote:

Once a formula is done correctly in TeX, it will render reliably, whereas the success of HTML formulae is somewhat dependent on browsers or versions of browsers. Another aspect of this dependency is fonts: the serif font used for rendering formulae is browser-dependent and it may be missing some important glyphs.

Since we are aiming to have things render for the widest possible audience, I will begin changing HTML to PNG where necessary to render nu correctly. PAR (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with editors customizing their environment for their personal use. However when they're creating something for public use they should make sure that it works in the most likely environments. As suggested best practices editors might consider turning off their personal customizations when editing for public consumption. For an editor to tell a Wikipedia user that they've chosen wrongly because they're not using the customizations preferred by that editor, as happened here, does not make Wikipedia a comfortable place to visit. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael C Price's new edit

It would be good if Michael C Price would consider discussing on this page to the article. My reading of Planck 1914 is the source of my edit which Michael C Price effectively reverted. On page 161, Planck draws a graph of the time course of energy of one of his oscillators. This shows a continuous absorption of energy, and only the emission is there depicted by Planck as discontinuous. I suppose this source represents Planck's view in 1912 and 1914. Perhaps he had other views at other times, which may be explicitly cited with advantage.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I put a dubious tag in twice but there was no response. I'd be surprised if Planck thought the absorption was continuous but the emission was discrete since he was the leading thermodynamist of the age. But it is possible. I think we need to check the original 1900/1901 papers on this. (BTW I did check Einstein's 1905 paper and AFAICS he was only proposing the extension of quanta to the tranmission of radiation, implying that emission and absorption were already quantised by Planck.)-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

We should be using secondary sources and not inferring from primary sources, unless it is written explicitly. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is explicitly written in Planck 1914 as follows: "the energy of the oscillator increases continuously and at a constant rate". In Planck 1900 and Planck 1901 I find no explicit statement on this point.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, in 1900/1 Planck is not explicit about the emission and absorption. However he is explicit about the quantised energy levels of the oscillators, which has a clear implication about the absorption and emission process as well. It seems he later abandoned this.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Einstein, translated by ter Haar, in 1905 writes: "According to the assumption considered here, when a light ray starting from a point is propagated, the energy is not continuously distributed over an ever increasing volume, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta, localised in space, which move without being divided and which can be absorbed or emitted only as a whole."Chjoaygame (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

But that does not tell us to what extent he was moving beyond Planck - perhaps delibrately so, since Planck was not explicit on this issue. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Einstein 1905, as I read it, was not explicit.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

But what exactly is not explicit about my above quotation from page 161 of Planck 1914? Against what Planck explicitly wrote in 1912/1914, are you insisting on your inference about what Planck might have meant in 1900/1901, when you say he was not explicit, but implied and then later abandoned, he the "the leading thermodynamicist of the age."?Chjoaygame (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

At thermodynamic equilibrium processes run forward and backwards at equal rates; I be surprised if Planck envisaged discrete emission but continuous absorption. Anyway, he does not distingish between emission and absorption in his 1900/1 papers. That might have done later, after 1905, is irrelevant to the derivation of Plank's law in 1900/01.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we may say that we haven't established with Wikipedia source reliability what Planck thought in 1900/1901 about absorption?

But surely he meant what he wrote and diagrammed explicitly on page 161 in 1912/1914?

Perhaps Wikipedia rules tell us then that we should write something like: Einstein proposed a model and formula whereby light was emitted, absorbed, and propagated in free space in energy quanta localized in points of space ("in Raumpunkten"). In 1908, considering Einstein's proposal of quantal propagation, Planck opined that such a revolutionary step was perhaps unnecessary. Indeed in his book of 1912 he even went so far against Einstein's proposal of punctate light quanta as to propose that absorption of light by his virtual material resonators might be continuous, occurring at a constant rate in equilibrium.?Chjoaygame (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Planck may have meant what you say he meant in 1914 or 1908, but there is no evidence that he meant it in 1900/1, which is, I repeat, the only time that is relevant to this article.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of the basic elementary things we take for granted now were not yet established at that time, like the princple of detailed balance. It was only later that Einstein applied that principle and found out that to make it work, you need to invoke stimulated emission. Count Iblis (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

He's back

I was wrong about Headbomb, I thought he'd calmed down but his latest edit unfortunately disproves this. So for the moment I'm putting the history move on hold until this k_B issue is resolved. One Headbomb undo at a time, I think.

I believe we have a consensus: Headbomb is acting entirely on his own here. There are two ways to proceed. One is to take the problem to arbitration. However it seems to me the odds are stacked so heavily against Headbomb that we ought to be able to deal with this ourselves without adding to arbitration's already heavy load. It should suffice to take turns reverting his changes.

My impression is that no one wants his k_B. I've already reverted it twice, and he's reverted my reversion twice, so I can't afford a third one for now. If everyone else is happy with his k_B nothing further need be done. If not, then please take turns reverting it, in which case eventually he'll get the message that his uninformed editing is not wanted here. He's starting a war that I don't see how he can win. The more we coordinate the sooner we can solve this problem. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice the article on Boltzmann's constant uses k throughout, with the exception of an "or k_B" in the lead. So yet another reason for reverting k_B to k would be for consistency with other Wikipedia articles, in particular that article. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to take you people seriously when all you seem concerned is to demonize me and antagonize me as best you can. The article both uses the wavenumber and the Boltzmann's constant. The two cannot share the same symbol, and that is simply that. Plenty of other articles use k_B BTW, e.g. Planck constant. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I would support using the k_B in the formula for B_k only. The k_B doesn't look too well in most formulae, it appears in a fraction, inside and exponent which in turn also appears in a fraction. One can also think of replacing e^(x) by exp(x) and replacing \frac in the exponential by a solidus. The k_B would then look a bit better. But there is no need to use consistent notation for k_B throughout an article, you can just write below the formula for B_k that here k_B denotes Boltzmann's constant. Count Iblis (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There certainly is a need for that! Changing conventions halfway through an article is a recipe for confusion and disaster. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with Headbomb here, there should be one style across the article. And k_B is how it is taught to undergrad and school pupils nowadays (at least in the UK). It's ugly, but there we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael C Price (talk • contribs)

I don't see the big deal here if one explains things properly. E.g. k everywhere and only K_B in the formula for B_k with a sentence saying so below it. Uniform notation/conventions throughout an article may be more desirable, but it's not a hard rule. In this case, if its only the B_k formula that forces one to switch to k_B leading to such severe opposition from 3 other editors (not counting me, I don't care that much), and if that very mention of B_k also attracts some oppostion, then it seems to me that making an exception to the B_k formula is the best thing to do. Count Iblis (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note that Headbomb added the k_B notation to the Boltzmann constant article in May 2009. It was immediately removed. At ay rate, as Chjoaygame states below, the problem is not the Boltzmann constant, the problem is someone wanting to use 'k' for wavenumber. That is not a standard. Neither is including 2π in the definition when working with spectra. Q Science (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Q Science is correct. Saying that k is a standard symbol for wavenumber is like saying $\hbar$ is a standard symbol for Planck's constant. Anyone familiar with physics knows that that's ridiculous. Those who insist that Wikipedia identify angular frequency with frequency and angular wavenumber k with wavenumber ${\tilde {\nu }}$, and who repeatedly revert those who object to this identification, should be banned from editing articles containing these concepts. And as far as mistaking k in the context kT for angular wavenumber, what possible meaning could the product of angular wavenumber with temperature have? The argument that k is ambiguous in that context makes no sense. Angular wavenumber has no place in this article, it is a concept from particle physics that is irrelevant to thermal emission. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

k is the standard symbol for wavenumber in pretty much any discipline, including spectroscopy. If you actually delt with spectroscopy you would know this, rather than say "that is ridiculous" or make unrelated claims about ν and ω. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The standard practice is always consistency. Whatever notation you choose is really arbitrary, provided each variable is clearly defined and used consistently throughout the article. You should not change notation halfway through an article, it only leads to confusion. Since k is indeed typically used to denote wavenumber/vector in spectroscopy and already used in the article for that purpose, it is inappropriate to then use k as planks constant. Hence k_B should be used consistently throughout the article to denote the Boltzmann constant. Anything else is just sloppy and unprofessional. Polyamorph (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC) By the way, the suggestion of taking it in turns to revert another user so as to circumvent 3RR is disruptive.

You guys are getting way too emotionally invested in this trivial issue. A scientist writing a paper is often confronted with notational problems because symbols like k mean so many different things. If he wanted to use k for something but it was already in use, he'd probably just call it q. Just choose a consistent terminology and stick with it. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

But that's precisely our complaint! The article has had a consistent terminology for years. Headbomb is the one who's not sticking with what we have and has been trying to make it inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia as well as with most of the literature of the last hundred years, for no good reason, and reverting us whenever we try to change it back. There is no risk of confusing it with the k used in particle physics because that k is not used in this article, which has nothing to do with massive particles. To refute this latter point Headbomb invented the nonexistent B_k so that he could claim k is used in this article, which is even more ridiculous.

If you seriously believe notation is trivial, trying doing the equivalent of what Headbomb has been doing to this article in the article Newton's laws and change F to A, m to B, and a to C, and express F = ma as A = BC. Do it consistently throughout the article. When challenged say "notation is trivial." See how far that argument will get you on Wikipedia. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you can extend my argument to a ridiculous extreme and create a straw man. Unfortunately, that is fairly typical of this talk page. Both camps in this silly argument are trying to find a way to use k for one variable and some other symbol for another; both are using symbols that are widely accepted; and both choices are good. It's pretty sad that you can't come to an agreement. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

clearly having k_B as boltzman's constant and k as the wavenumber is a fairly standard and unambiguous notation when both are used together. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. VP : HeadBomb is a respected member of the physics community here on wikipedia and he has done nothing to deserve personal attacks and hostility on this talk page. In fact he has recognised that there was a consistency problem in the notation and tried to fix it. Really this is not something worth fighting over.Polyamorph (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

To those preferring the non-standard k_B, please provide references. In most of the thermal/blackbody/spectrographic references I have seen, k is Boltzman's constant, not k_B. Same for CODATA (see page 7). Either find a reference saying that k should no longer be used for Boltzman's constant or, lacking one, then NIST defines standard symbology. Or, if you prefer, the IUPAC Gold Book suggests nu_bar for wavenumber in a vacuum and k for the Boltzmann constant. Q Science (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

k_B is widely used, just google it [1]. In this context using k_B avoids confusion with the wavenumber k. NIST does not define standard symbology in physics. I don't see why what the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) use is relevant here. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) k is used in places where it's uncommon to encounter wavevectors. k_B is used when it is. See for example [2] or [3]. This is petty wikilawyering. The IUPAC goldbook is not the standard of science. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you want to bring in wavevectors? The wavevector concept is a power tool for understanding the wide variety of waves considered at Wave. Black body radiation is just simple electromagnetic radiation, and Planck's law is never treated as something more complex than that. If you can find a source that treats Planck's law as something more complicated, great, but until then I see no reason why the article needs to say anything different from what it said a week ago as far as wavevectors are concerned. To do otherwise constitutes original research. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

k_B is widely used, just google it [4] With 314,000 hits this was quite convincing until it occurred to me to try the same thing with k in place of kb. 3,850,000 hits. If you want Google to be the judge of this debate it's clear what the outcome has to be. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's difficult to gain meaningful results from a search engine in that manner because k is a common letter of the alphabet, so will appear on most websites anyway? I think the key point here, that has been highlighted several times, is that if wavevector and boltzmann constant are to be referred to in the same article, then they do need to be unambiguously defined. I'm a neutron scatterer by profession and always use k to define the magnitude of the wavevector and k_B for Boltzmann constant, as do my colleagues all the references on the theory of thermal neutron scattering that I can find. The Boltzmann constant is also given as k_B in the Ashcroft and Mermin Solid State Physics textbook, which I for one regard a one of the best introductory texts in solid state physics. I don't think there is a sound argument here that k_B is not used to denote Boltmann constant. However, that's not say k can't be used. It's really a question of whether the wavevector really needs to be defined in this article at all? If it should, the headbomb's notation is the right way to go. On the otherhand, if the wavevector doesn't need to be defined then I don't see any problem with using k as the Boltzmann constant. Polyamorph (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. (I was making essentially the same point about Google, though "boltzmann constant k" in quotes only finds k when it's the next word after "boltzmann constant", and in that case the hits are 53,100 for kb and 296,000 for k. But most certainly k needs something to disambiguate it when in the same article as another quantity called k, whether by subscript or context --- how ambiguous is kT? One disturbing sight is B as a subscript in a denominator of an exponent in a denominator.) But that's another story: my 8-point complaint below made no mention of either k/kB or location of history, both of which are relatively minor as you say and can be dealt with individually at another time once the larger complaints have been addressed. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Why do you want to bring in wavevectors?" Technically this is the wavenumber, but technicalities aside, because k (or k) is of paramount importance in about half the fields of physics, including but not limited to optics, semiconductor physics, spectroscopy, thermal physics, particle physics, and so on and so forth? You yourself recognize this when saying "the wavevector is a power tool". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, but you're proposing to use a power screwdriver to drive a nail. One cannot justify the use of a tool merely on the ground that it's a power tool. The wavevector power tool has nothing to offer thermal emission. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"The wavevector... has nothing to offer [to] thermal emission". Please, just go take a class on basic thermal physics. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific, Planck's law treats the functional dependence of a scalar, namely energy, on frequency. The wavevector is, as the name would suggest, not a scalar but a vector. Now if the radiation were being emitted from a hot electrical conductor, and you were studying the interaction of the thermal emission with the conductor, you would need to know the route being followed by every photon, which depending on the shape of the conductor could be quite complicated. In that case you most certainly would need a vector treatment. So if you are looking for a legitimate reason to introduce wavevectors, you could expand the Planck article with a treatment of a direction-specific phenomenon of this kind, and then I would agree with you that the wavevector concept was relevant. If however the article is merely treating the usual energy emitted, a scalar concept, no purpose is served by introducing vector concepts. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

And none are. Which is why it deals with wavenumbers, rather than wavevectors. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, but not with angular wavenumbers. If you have a source for the use of angular wavenumbers in conjunction with Planck's law then please produce it. Otherwise the formula you derived yourself is WP:OR, and claiming that it is used in conjunction with Planck's law is a false statement which therefore should not be in Wikipedia. Wavenumbers are very widely used in spectroscopy, but invariably in units of cm⁻¹, never in radians/cm as you have it. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh yes... For example, Caniou, J. (1999). Passive Infrared Detection: Theory and Applications. p. 117. Springer. ISBN 9780792385325. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet again you misquote me. I said "used." Caniou simply gave an exhaustive list of forms Planck's law can take, with no claim that anyone uses the one with angular wavenumber. (And furthermore he does not use the symbol k, though that's beside the main point.) If you have a source for the use then please produce it. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

edits by Headbomb

The page P. Blakiston's Son & Co. seems not to exist.

Exactly what is Planck's relation, in Headbomb's opinion? The term 'Planck's relation' is not widely used in reliable sources, as far as I can see. The article on Planck's constant uses the term but does not source it. I think it needs a reliable source.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's all over the web, but of course that's not reliable. I looked through a lot of physics textbooks on my shelf and finally found it in the following.

Cohen-Tannoudji, C, B. Diu, and F. Laloe, Quantum Mechanics, Wiley, 1977, ISBN 0-471-16432-1 (v. 1).

Section A.1 gives two equations collectively labeled (Planck-Einstein relations) (A-1):

$E=h\nu =\hbar \omega$

$p=\hbar k$

(p and k are bold in the text but latex barfs on {\bf p} and {\bf k}. Would love to know the fix.) As usual k is the wave vector. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Vaughan Pratt cites some formulas and a label, the "Planck-Einstein relations", without quoting a statement of the physical meaning of those formulas. Looking at the source, I see that they refer to photons as Einstein envisaged them. Planck did not refer to photons in this sense. The remark about the term 'Planck relation' in the present article does not refer to the formulas and physical meaning to which Vaughan Pratt's citation refers. Vaughan Pratt writes that he "looked through a lot of physics textbooks" and finally found what he cites above. This does not look like support for the use of the term 'Planck relation'. Vaughan Pratt has not cited a reliable source for the term 'Planck relation' that stands at present in the article on Planck's law.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I honestly cannot believe you seriously asked Exactly what is Planck's relation.... I'm even more appalled that you even refuse to acknowledge that Planck's relation refers to E = hν... Or that you contend that Claude Cohen-Tannoudji is not a reliable source. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to QM, Cohen-Tannoudji is as reliable as it comes. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not contend that Cohen-Tannoudji is not a reliable source. I wrote that he was not accurately cited for this purpose by Vaughan Pratt. I think a careful read of what I wrote should clarify things.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty with The remark about the term 'Planck relation' in the present article does not refer to the formulas and physical meaning to which Vaughan Pratt's citation refers. The remark in question is that $\epsilon =h\nu$ is known as Planck's relation, where $\epsilon$ is a "unit of energy." The main formula to which my citation referred is $E=h\nu =\hbar \omega$. Ignoring the hbar part, are you saying that the energy E in the book's formula is not the "unit of energy" $\epsilon$ in the article's historical reference? How would you characterize the difference? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So Chjoaygame, given that the "Planck relation" is commonly called the "Planck-Einstein relation," would you prefer that it be called the latter rather than the former? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I found the "Planck-Einstein relation" in a textbook too. And I even saw the same formula called "Planck's energy-frequency relation" by one from whom I might have expected better. I am concerned with the physical meanings of the terms of the formulas. "The remark in question is that $\epsilon =h\nu$ is known as Planck's relation, where $\epsilon$ is a "unit of energy."" This formula is about the unit of energy of one of Planck's virtual material oscillators. "The main formula to which my citation referred is $E=h\nu =\hbar \omega$." This formula is about freely propagating quanta of electromagnetic energy, which were Einstein's idea. The two look alike in mathematical symbols, but have different physical meanings. One formula is about virtual material oscillators, the other about freely propagating electromagnetic quanta of energy. So I still ask, what exactly is "it" that will be labelled?Chjoaygame (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What you're pointing out here may have been why Planck doesn't always get sole credit for it. However my own perspective on "freely propagating electromagnetic quanta of energy" is that they're like the proverbial tree that falls with no one to hear it, only even more so (since surely at least one squirrel or ant heard the tree). Photons (as I picture them) are what happens when EM radiation meets matter. Freely propagating EM radiation is just pure wave energy. Supposedly the one-photon double slit experiment disproves this point of view, but Feynman's path integral analysis yields the same outcome without having to postulate free photons as entities in any physically meaningful sense. I am equally comfortable calling it the Planck relation or the Planck-Einstein relation, both seem fair. On the one hand it's Planck's constant, not Einstein's, on the other, for years Planck doubted Einstein's particle interpretation of his 1905 photoelectric effect. I have no logical basis for choosing between those two names, Planck uncertainty if you will. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Vaughan Pratt for sharing your ideas. It may indeed be that here we are touching on people's basic outlooks.

As the article stands at present, the label is written as "the Planck relation". (It is, I suppose, generally accepted that one attributes the Bohr formula to Bohr.) You are raising a question, about the two possible labels "the Planck relation" and "the Planck-Einstein relation"? Dare I say that personally I do not see that either label is very well sourced (and even more daring, that I do not think either is helpful here)?

I am not pointing out something here. I am asking a question: which formula is to be labeled? The three apparent candidates are $\epsilon =h\nu \$ , $E=h\nu \$ , and $E=P\epsilon \$ ?Chjoaygame (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, clearly E = hν (= ħω), (a) because we have a respectable source for it, your misgivings about the Cohen-Tannoudji volume notwithstanding, and (b) because that's how the Planck or Planck-Einstein relation has been expressed for upwards of a century. If one considered discrete quanta of energy as qualitatively distinct from the continuous form one might write them as $\epsilon$ and E respectively, but that distinction does not seem to be in sufficiently wide use today to justify its inclusion. However I may have misunderstood you because I don't see the point of your third formula E = Pε. By my understanding P would have to be a dimensionless constant suggesting that you have different units in mind for E and $\epsilon$, such as joules and ergs. Earlier on this talk page I asked you "are you saying that the energy E in the book's formula is not the 'unit of energy' $\epsilon$ in the article's historical reference? How would you characterize the difference?" which I don't believe you've answered yet. To those let me add a third question: what does E = Pε mean? Very mysterious. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Planck (1900), as translated by ter Haar, writes:

"We consider, however – this is the most essential point of the whole calculation – $E\$ to be composed of a very definite number of equal parts and use thereto the constant of nature $h=6.55\times 10^{-27}\$ erg sec. This constant multiplied by the common frequency $\nu \$ of the resonators gives us the energy element $\epsilon \$ in erg, and dividing $E\$ by $\epsilon \$ we get the number $P\$ of energy elements which must be divided over the $N\$ resonators. If the ratio is not an integer, we take for $P\$ an integer in the neighbourhood."Chjoaygame (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, occupation or quantum numbers. Sure, then it's reasonable to distinguish ε_ν=hν from E_ν = n_νε_ν (more precisely (n_ν + ½)ε_ν). But Planck's relation doesn't have to make that distinction for a single photon considered in isolation, and the usual convention is just to write the relation as E = hν, which also appears exactly in that form in Leonard Schiff's classic 1949 text if you don't like Cohen-Tannoudji, though not under the name "Planck's relation" which I've been unable to source from any text besides Cohen-Tannoudji's (and I looked in a lot of quantum mechanics texts). --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A trip down Google books reveals plenty of hits. See e.g. [5]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Chandrasekhar reference

With respect to the following reference, I don't know what the standard is, but my copy of the Dover book does not have a publication date. The text was first published in 1950 and the first Dover printing was 1960. I see no reason to list the date as 2011. Is there a standard on how to reference reprints like this?

*cite book
|last=Chandrasekhar |first=S.
|year=2011
|title=Radiative Transfer
|publisher=Dover Publications
|isbn=978-0486605906
|ref=harv

Perhaps we should use

|origyear=First published 1950 

though setting the "year" to 1950 would make more sense when using the harvard system. BTW, why are we using that system for every reference, it makes no sense unless different pages are used in defferent parts of the article.

Also, the referenced equation

$B_{\nu }(T)={\frac {2h\nu ^{3}}{c^{2}}}{\frac {1}{e^{\frac {h\nu }{kT}}-1}}$

on page 8 of the book (and repeated on page 288) uses standard notation and does not agree with what is in the article. Q Science (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the way I originally wrote it:

cite book 
|title=Radiative Transfer 
|last=Chandrasekhar 
|first=S. 
|authorlink=Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar 
|year=2011 
|publisher=Dover Publications, Inc 
|location=New York 
|isbn=978-0486605906

This specifies a particular book, namely a reprint published in 2011. This particular reprint has its own unique isbn number. If necessary, a page option is availiable. Also, the equation written above matches that of the article and that of Chandrasekhar. The $B_{\lambda }$ function is not mentioned in Chandrasekhar. PAR (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The copy I got in 2009 has the same ISBN number. I have no idea why it was changed and the author link removed. Q Science (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? Well this upsets my understanding of ISBN. Maybe the same ISBN implies a verbatim copy, page by page, irrespective of year. Also, I have restored the authorlink. PAR (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it distressing that the super-efficient and super-practical improvements in writing up the citations destroy elementary information such as the publication dates, that is available in the silly old way.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb - Would you have a problem with my posting a request at Wikiprojects:Physics to see what other's opinions are about having all authorlinks or none? What are your reasons for this? I believe that authorlinks improve the article, and I see no advantage to the all-or-none approach. PAR (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally do not care if we link authors or not, but we need to be consistent in our practice. Chandrasekhar does not warrant a special treatment. If we don't link Rayleigh, Jeans, Einstein, Planck, Born, Wolf, etc..., then we shouldn't link to Chandrasekhar either. Either link them all (all notable people that is, I doubt Kragh should get his own article), or link none. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the advantage of consistency. I will start linking them. PAR (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a style issue. The same things should be treated in the same manner. One should not mix "Smith, JC" with "R. C. Thornbull". Pick either the style of "Smith, JC" or "R. C. Thornbull", and stick with it throughout the article. It's the same with wikilinks in authorsections. Either link all notable ones, or don't link anything. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, but its moot. The reference section is looking serious. This should be the way reference sections look on all technical articles. PAR (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

B_k?

Is this defined differently from B_lambda and B_nu? You would assume that in general:

|B_x dx| = |B_y dy|

where x and y are arbitrary functions of the frequency. But it seems that B_k is defined such that:

|B_nu dnu| = |B_k dk/(2 pi)|

If this is so, then it has to be mentioned clearly in the text. Count Iblis (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems that no one noticed my comment above about the argument of the "wavenumber" version. For the spectroscopist who requested it, the appropriate argument for the spectroscopists' wavenumber version is ${\tilde {\nu }}=1/\lambda =\nu /c$, not any kind of k. Besides its failing its purpose, the present $B_{k}$ version is unsourced and may be own research. The question about the subscript B evaporates with this.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did see the aguments about that above. What would matter for me in that respect is whether the B_k formula is sufficiently notable. Of course, if it isn't and it woudl turn out that not even a single source uses it, then it de-facto becomes the same as what you wrote. But I would not make a very big deal about this right now (we can always find out later what the issue, perhaps with input from more editors). What is more important for me is that the interpretation of the formula should be made clear, i.e. if the integration measure is dk or if it is dk/(2 pi). Count Iblis (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a missing 2π. I fixed it now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This reference uses L_sigma, where I prefer B_tilde_nu, and indicates that this formula is useful and hard to find. Q Science (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The various functions have various dimensions. Each is an energy per something. The somethings are various. It is true that some writers use a subscript B on the k for the Boltzmann constant, and some don't. Some that do are Loudon 2000, Mandel and Wolf 1995, Bohren and Clothiaux 2006. Some that don't are Chandrasekhar 1950, Paltridge and Platt 1976, Mihalas and Mihalas 1984, Eisberg and Resnick 1985, Goody and Yung 1989, Liou 2002, Rybicki and Lightman 2004; some of these use some other way of distinguishing the Boltzmann k. I don't think we are strictly bound to make any particular choice. I was just pointing out that the problem with the Boltzmann constant is not the main one here. As I mentioned, right now I am not intending to edit.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Angular wavenumber k is a concept from particle physics, and is only relevant when group velocity and $\hbar$ are relevant. This article concerns thermal emission, where the only particles are photons, there is no notion of group velocity, and angular wavenumber as wavenumber divided by 2π serves no purpose. One can formally define a notion $B_{k}$ but unless Headbomb can provide a citation where it appears it should be deleted as an unsourced concept. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Angular wavelength k is not restricted to particle physics. It is the most common notation in elementary physics texts and is standard in crystallography. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Angular wavenumber is used in more fields than just particle physics, e.g AMO. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. (I assume by "angular wavelength" RockM means "angular wavenumber.") I would have said "physics of particles" except that includes photons, which "particle physics" doesn't. Perhaps "interaction with matter" is a better way to put it. Angular wavenumber is generally associated with wavevectors, which represent coherent directional waves (in any medium). Planck's law governs thermal emission, which is neither coherent nor directional (at least near the emitter; starlight is highly directional). Either one of these two differences makes wavevectors irrelevant to Planck's law, contrary to Headbomb's claim. To make thermal radiation near the emitter either directional or coherent requires the intervention of matter, which is outside the scope of the Planck's law article. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb made a correction, but it still doesn't seem to be correct. We have:

${\frac {d\lambda }{\lambda ^{5}}}\rightarrow {\frac {k^{5}}{\left(2\pi \right)^{5}}}\left|{\frac {d\lambda }{dk}}\right|dk={\frac {k^{3}}{\left(2\pi \right)^{4}}}dk$

Check by dimensional analysis: assign a dimension to the angle associated with k, so that it has dimensions of angle/length. The extra factors of pi that appear are then also multiplied by the dimensions of that angle, so k^3 dk will have to appear together with a factor of 1/pi^4. Count Iblis (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are referring to the dimensions of the angles. Angles don't have units. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are free to assign a unit to them. They don't have units in the cgs system, but the whole notion of units and dimensions is a human construct anyway, you can e.g. consider everything to be dimensionless. So, you can make your own choice based on your own needs, and in this case by assigning a unit to the angle, we can check the computation. Count Iblis (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Weird, I set up to show my work my work was right and turns out all I achieved by doing that was prove that I was wrong (I think I multiplied by 2π rather than divide by 2π at some point, which would explain the difference of 4π²). Anyway, starting point, we all agree on

$B_{\lambda }=B_{k}|{\frac {dk}{d\lambda }}|$

From $k=2\pi /\lambda$, we have

$|{\frac {dk}{d\lambda }}|=2\pi /k^{2}$

So we have

$B_{k}=B_{\lambda }|{\frac {dk}{d\lambda }}|={\frac {2hc^{2}}{\lambda ^{5}}}{\frac {1}{e^{\frac {hc}{\lambda k_{\mathrm {B} }T}}-1}}{\frac {2\pi }{k^{2}}}.$

Substituting $\lambda =2\pi /k$, we get

$B_{k}={\frac {2hc^{2}}{32\pi ^{5}/k^{5}}}{\frac {1}{e^{\frac {hck}{2\pi k_{\mathrm {B} }T}}-1}}{\frac {2\pi }{k^{2}}}.$

Or simplified,

$B_{k}={\frac {hc^{2}k^{3}}{8\pi ^{4}}}{\frac {1}{e^{\frac {hck}{2\pi k_{\mathrm {B} }T}}-1}}.$

I should have gotten this right the first time, so apologies for the trouble and extra work. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Headbomb, this looks like a statement that the formula was own research.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but in the derivation above, first there is

$B_{\lambda }=B_{k}|{\frac {dk}{d\lambda }}|$

Then 2 lines down

$B_{k}=B_{\lambda }|{\frac {dk}{d\lambda }}|$

I assume that this is just a simple copy and paste error since

$|{\frac {dk}{d\lambda }}|=2\pi /\lambda ^{2}$

and not

$|{\frac {dk}{d\lambda }}|=2\pi /k^{2}$

I think. (It is easy to make mistakes editing equations.) Q Science (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A reference is given, he probably just doesn't have the particular book to hand. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have it to hand, and not surprisingly it has nothing about angular wavenumbers, for two reasons. First, wavevectors are overkill when it comes to simple electromagnetic radiation, which is all Planck's law deals with. There is a brief mention in the book of (non-angular) wavenumbers in the context of a graph where the units are given as cm⁻¹ (per standard practice), but there are no Planck laws having to do with wavenumbers of either kind. Second, what Headbomb has called $B_{k}$ is simply a constant times $B_{\nu }$. No purpose is served by having a separate function $B_{k}$ with its own defining equation when it can be defined more simply as just $sB_{\nu }$ for some scaling constant s. The literature contains exactly three versions of Planck's laws, for respectively frequency, wavelength, and frequency scaling. I can think of a couple more that would be quite useful and that aren't simply multiples of those three, but they don't appear in the literature whence even though they're useful Wikipedia would reject them as unsourced. Had it occurred to me to put them in Wikipedia in 2008 no one would have complained, but Wikipedia today is very different. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on your argument, one can just as easily argue that $B_{\tilde {\nu }}$ is simply $sB_{k}$ for some scaling constant s, and therefore, according to you, $B_{\tilde {\nu }}$ has no purpose. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, that's not what I said. $B_{\tilde {\nu }}$ is used all the time, what has no purpose is a separate formula from the one for $B_{\nu }$. All that's needed is $sB_{\nu }$, no need to repeat the whole formula for $B_{\nu }$ again. This is different from $B_{\lambda }$, which is not linearly related to $B_{\nu }$ and it is therefore customary (though not necessary) to express it from scratch with a formula as complex as the one for $B_{\nu }$. The article could easily be made clearer on this point, but not by me because according to you I first need to "take a class on basic thermal physics." As long as you continue with that attitude you will find something wrong in every contribution I make to the article, as you have done with everything I've said here, and will delete it. This is what I've been complaining about all along. It has to stop somehow, this is getting ridiculous! Currently there is no practical difference between what you're doing and Wikipedia simply banning me from editing this article. I've edited this article off and on since 2008, and prior to this past week I don't recall any edits that were reverted. Now it's the exact opposite. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Paltridge and Platt 1976 (converted to our notation) on page 38 define ${\tilde {\nu }}=1/\lambda$ where $\lambda \$ denotes wavelength. They indicate that they call ${\tilde {\nu }}\$ the wavenumber. This is the spectroscopists's wavenumber as defined in wavenumber#In spectroscopy, where it is written as just shown from Paltridge and Platt page 38. This is what one of our editors who was interested in spectroscopy seems to have wanted. I have participated in practical published calculations which use this definition. On page 43, Paltridge and Platt give a form of Planck's law for spectral radiance per unit argument spectral interval per steradian of solid angle. They (converted to our notation) write:

$B_{\tilde {\nu }}(T)=2hc^{2}{\tilde {\nu }}^{3}[exp(ch{\tilde {\nu }}/k_{B}T)-1]^{-1}$. The argument spectral interval is wavenumber, with SI units of m^-1. My use here of $k_{B}\$ rather than $k\$ is without prejudice, since I don't wish to enter that debate. (Their notation is not literally $k_{B}\$ ; it is literally ${\hat {k}}\$; and not literally ${\tilde {\nu }}\$, but literally $\nu \$.) I think that for the present purpose Paltridge and Platt 1976 is a reliable source. It seems that it is the only reliable source cited here?Chjoaygame (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, I lost track of when they were putting tildes and hats on and when not, and mistook their third formula for the frequency one instead of the wavenumber one because the subscript was plain $\nu$. Sorry about that, I should have been paying closer attention. [I lost track of what I lost track of. :) I reported this formula in my post below of 04:38, 17 October 2011 where I said "they do have the formula" though I dropped a superscript 3 in transcribing it.] So [as I said then] we have a source that spells out Planck's law separately for $B_{\nu }$ and $B_{\tilde {\nu }}$, justifying your inclusion of both formulas in the article (though P&P themselves make the point that the difference is just a constant factor). All that's needed to justify putting an explicit formula for $B_{k}$ in the article is a suitable source. The litmus test is whether the source has either π⁴ or π³ in the denominator (the latter in case the source gives Planck's law for spectral irradiance instead spectral radiance). --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The customer is always right. We had a perfectly reasonable request from a perfectly reasonable customer to put in the spectroscopists' perfectly reasonable formula. I do not see any reason why we should not do so, using an accepted reliable source. The addition of a further formula that is unsourced and that no customer seems to have requested seems to me otiose.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "customer is right," Wikipedia content is the responsibility of its editors, who shouldn't be transferring that responsibility to its users (but can certainly take guidance from them). The existence of a source is a necessary condition, so unlike the $B_{k}$ formula the $B_{\tilde {\nu }}$ formula from P&P at least meets that requirement.

What action do you recommend? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There is now a source reference for the k formula, to page 117 of a 1999 book by Caniou, which is unusually expensive and not in every library. That source gives basically six forms for the Planck law. The first is at equation (4.17) on page 112 for the $u_{\lambda }$ form. The second is at equation (4.20a) on page 113 for the $B_{\lambda }$ form. (Caniou actually uses formats such as $B_{\lambda }(\lambda ,T)$ which I think have something to recommend them for some purposes.) Then there is a table on pages 116-117 with five forms for the spectral radiance $L_{x}(x)$. The five forms in that table have as arguments: wavelength, $\lambda$ (repeating the previous); frequency, $\nu$ ; angular frequency, $\omega =2\pi \nu$ ; wavenumber $\sigma =1/{\lambda }$ ; photon energy, $W=h\nu$ . Caniou's $\sigma$ corresponds to the Wikipedia article wavenumber#in spectroscopy's ${\tilde {\nu }}$ . For Boltzmann's constant, Caniou uses $k$ where some writers use $k_{B}$ . I didn't find in Caniou a form for the argument $k$ . If my reading is right, then there is still no source, reliable or unreliable, for the $B_{k}$ form currently stated in the Wikipedia article of Planck's law. If that is so, it still seems like own research, as indicated above. I don't have an action to recommend.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The IUPAC Gold Book suggests ${\tilde {\nu }}=1/{\lambda }$ for wavenumber in a vacuum and $\sigma =1/{\lambda }$ in a medium. All of the standards I have seen use $k$, not $k_{B}$. I suggest restoring the symbology to be consistent with the standards. The fact that a couple of references use non-standard symbols should not force us to abandon well established standards. Q Science (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the IUPAC does have authority to dictate what symbols should be used regardless of context. You were shown many references which use k_B. One could make a case to use k instead of k_B when there's no possible confusion with another quantity, except this is not the case here. We have the wavenumber k = 2π/λ, and in situations when both the wavenumber and Boltzmann constant are present, it is customary to label the Boltzmann constant k_B, so it is not confused with k, the wavenumber. As for Chjoaygame, I'm done entertaining your petty Wikilawyering based on nonsense such as the cost and availability of a book. Go troll elswhere. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you provided no internationally recognized standards to support your position. I did. Your arguments are simply WP:OR and WP:OWN. It is time to change the article back to something reasonable. In addition, I find your personal attack of Chjoaygame quite despicable. Please consider yourself warned. Q Science (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That is because there is no internationally recognized standards for all of physics, because several people do things differently, according to their own preferences, as physics is not convention-dependent. For Boltzmann's constant, the two most common variables used are k and k_B. The first is used when no confusion is possible with another quantity which goes by the variable k, the second is used when there is. Here, there can be confusion with the wavenumber k and so we follow standard practice and disambiguate Boltzmann's constant by calling it k_B. How you repeatedly fail to grasp the simple notion of calling different things differently, or keep trying to make this an issue of ownership and original research, when it's an issue of clarity and professional-level writing, is beyond me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No. We either drop the angular wavenumber formulation of Planck's Law (which appears to be WP:OR because there are no references for it) or we use a different symbol for $2\pi /{\lambda }$. Q Science (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a reference for it, and the standard symbol for the wavenumber is k, as is k_B the standard symbol for the Boltzmann constant in these situations. You can disagree all you want, but the real world is what we follow, not your personal taste on the issue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Q Science's former option is the obvious one. Thanks to Chjoaygame it looks like we now have an actual instance of someone (Caniou) using his latter option (I'm very impressed, Chjoaygame). But in every treatment and application of Planck's law including Caniou's, k never refers to wavenumbers, only to Boltzmann's constant.

As I understand it, Headbomb is the only one claiming that "wavenumber" in the context of Planck's law standardly refers to angular wavenumber and not wavenumber. Since essentially every spectrogram in the world that uses wavenumber at all uses the kind whose unit is cm⁻¹, and since Headbomb is the only one here claiming otherwise, it would seem that Headbomb's repetition of his argument for angular wavenumber falls under item 2.9 of the Wikipedia guideline on tendentious editing, "One who repeats the same argument without convincing people." This has been going on for days. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there are many references for k_B, but not in Planck's equation. Above, you suggested using Caniou, J. (1999). Passive Infrared Detection: Theory and Applications. Equation 1.4 is E_c = 3/2 kT. Unfortunately, the free preview does not provide p. 117 which you referenced above. Q Science (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, those are a dime a dozen, see for example, Wolfgang Arendt, Wolfgang P. Schleich (2009) Mathematical analysis of evolution, information, and complexity, p. 12. Wiley-VCH. You have zero arguments against using k_B except that you don't just like it.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we please stick to the point here? The k vs. k_B disagreement is very minor compared to Headbomb's claim that the standard notion of wavenumber in spectroscopy is the angular one, and that the non-angular one has no place in the article. Since the exact opposite obtains in the real world, Headbomb is grossly misrepresenting the use of the wavenumber concept in conjunction with Planck's law (this article) but more generally in all applications of spectroscopy, for which cm⁻¹ is the standard unit for wavenumber and not radians/cm as Headbomb has been insisting for days, against all objections by everyone else. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Headbomb, I am sorry you were put off by my remark about the accessibility of the Caniou 1999 book. It seems perhaps that that remark led you to stop reading further in my comment. I looked up Caniou 1999 and did not find what I expected. The details are in my above comment starting "There is now a source ..." I think those details are substantial and deserve your attention. Perhaps those details in my above comment will turn out to be mistaken when you check them, and then you can tell us how they are mistaken.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Then look harder. It's written black on white, page 117, entry "angular wavenumber". My bad, seems I've copied the wrong reference. Gonna try to find the one I meant to cite.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

With this line of reasoning one could prove from the existence of a few black swans that all swans are black. As the article currently reads, wavenumbers as standardly used in Planck's law denote the angular kind. This is false, and it would not be made true by finding a spectrogram of thermal emission whose horizontal axis is in radians/cm, because all the others in the world that use wavenumbers at all are in cm⁻¹. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Headbomb, for your attention to this. Your finding and telling us your source will be awaited with interest.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Common forms

One question seems to be whether the $B_{k}$ form should be in the section Planck's law#Common forms? The evidence now seems to show that even if it can be found in some reliable source, it is not a common form. It seems unlikely that this evidence will be outweighed by evidence yet to be found in the present literature? I suppose this would mean that it should not be listed in the section Planck's law#Common forms? Perhaps another section could be started, for example Planck's law#various other forms ? Chjoaygame (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen it, and if other editors had a reference, I am sure it would have been reported by now. I have no problem deleting it since it appears to be the cause of most of the recent problems. If anyone can find some branch of science where it is useful, then we can consider adding it back. Q Science (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a need for other forms when they're just trivial variants of existing forms? One does not list sin(x), 2 sin(5x), e sin(x/9), π sin(x^2), etc. as variants of sin(x). What is it about Planck's law that makes it different from sin(x)?

If a particular variant of B_ν(T) is in wide use such as that based on cm⁻¹ instead of hertz, then wouldn't it suffice simply to give the relevant conversion factor, bearing in mind that spectral radiance is the derivative of radiance up to ν? Assuming CGS units throughout, by the chain rule for differentiation the wavenumber formula taking ν̃ is simply cB_cν̃(T). That is, if your library already has B_ν(T) as a function of ν and T and you have ν̃ cm⁻¹ instead of ν Hz, just pass cν̃ and T to the library function and multiply the result by c. (If working in MKS units, multiply both occurrences of c by 100 to get cm⁻¹.)

No one would duplicate the code for cos(x) (as the derivative of sin(x)) merely to obtain the function c cos(cx) (as the derivative of sin(cx)). --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point. However, the reference I provided before makes a point of showing all 3 derivations and, while I agree that any first year physics student should be able to make the conversion, I was real happy when I found the reference. That said, I won't push the point. Q Science (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood my point. Headbomb is the one who doesn't want a formula for B_ν̃(T), not me. I thought Chjoaygame's reason for explicitly giving such a formula, namely that spectroscopists would find it very useful, was an excellent one. Headbomb's attempts at deriving his notion of B_k show that asking the reader to do derivations of this kind is an unreasonable imposition. I was only saying that we should write the wavenumber formula as cB_cν̃(T). That way only two primitive formulas are needed, namely B_ν(T) and B_λ(T), which is how things were in the years leading up to last week. Other commonly used forms such as the logarithmic form νB_ν(T) can easily be obtained from these two primitives. (On the belt-and-suspenders principle we might want to go back to putting a prime on the wavelength form, writing it as B'_λ(T), to avoid possible ambiguities, though the units will always disambiguate even without the prime. Also one can reduce to just one formula by giving the common formula for νB_ν(T) and λB_λ(T), which in practical applications is preferable to either B_ν(T) or B_λ(T) though few users of Planck's law are aware even of the existence of this very useful logarithmic law, which would be mentioned in the article in some form if Headbomb would stop deleting it and all my other contributions.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that I brought up two questions at once. One was whether the $B_{k}$ form should be included as a common form? I suggested that the answer is no, on the basis of the available and likely future evidence.

If no, then the second question arises: should it be listed amongst various other forms. Perhaps the answer to that can wait till we have answered the first question?

So again, should the $B_{k}$ form be listed as a common form? Yes or no?Chjoaygame (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean in place of the form B_ν̃, which Headbomb has deleted? If so then the answer has to be no because this article would be making the false claim that the standard wavenumber unit used in conjunction with Planck's law is radians/cm and not cm⁻¹. If however you mean inclusion of both the wavenumber formula and Headbomb's angular wavenumber formula, then we have only two sources for the wavenumber formula, P&P and Caniou (the remaining many sources don't bother with it), so a weak yes for that, but no sources for the angular wavenumber formula Headbomb derived (Caniou doesn't have it). Eventually Headbomb did get it right after some false starts, and if there's a consensus that a correct but unsourced formula would improve the article then yes, but if Headbomb is the only one who thinks the article benefits from this unsourced formula then no. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Planck's law/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

On this page the following equations do not appear to agree. The wavelength is related to the frequency by \lambda = { c \over \nu }. The law is sometimes written in terms of the spectral energy density u(\nu,T) = { 4\pi \over c } I(\nu,T) = \frac{8\pi h\nu^3 }{c^3}~\frac{1}{e^{\frac{h\nu}{kT

Last edited at 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC).-1}

which has units of energy per unit volume per unit frequency (joule per cubic meter per hertz). Integrated over frequency, this expression yields the total energy density. The radiation field of a black body may be thought of as a photon gas, in which case this energy density would be one of the thermodynamic parameters of that gas.

The spectral energy density can also be expressed as a function of wavelength:

   u(\lambda,T) = {8\pi h c\over \lambda^5}{1\over e^{\frac{h c}{\lambda kT}}-1}

as shown in the derivation below.

??? nu3/c3 = c/lambda5 ???}} Substituted at 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)