Talk:Planck's law/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Waleswatcher's 'undo'

Waleswatcher 'undid' my edit here - undo

The main point of my edit was to distinguish between radiation and emission. Planck 'The Theory of Heat Radiation - p30 sec.32) distinguishes between radiation and emission. Emission is a non-equilibrium condition (as is absorption) radiation is merely the presence of photons or, if you will, EM waves, that is why it is necessary to specify 'equilibrium' for the Planck condition. (For some reason the physical impossibility of a 100% blackbody is seldom acknowledged!)

Since no credible argument has been presented for the 'undo', I think my edit should be restored. --Damorbel (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You justified your edit by asserting that a body in thermal equilibrium cannot emit radiation. That is false; bodies in equilibrium must simply absorb precisely as much as they emit. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

1/ I gave a reference to Planck who disagrees.

2/ Your definition of thermal equilibrium (bodies in equilibrium... ...absorb precisely as much as they emit) is not correct. Thermal equilibrium requires a uniform temperature. Your definition fails because the emission (and absorption) may well take place in different places, as with a planet illuminated by a star, where there is a temperature gradient between the equator and the poles.

3/ Your argument provides no reason to remove my edit. --Damorbel (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Waleswatcher's 'undo' #2

Waleswatcher, you deleted my edit [1]remarking:-

... Every body is above 0K, and the single most important thing about Planck's law is that it approximates the radiation from most things.

I don't think you make a good case for removing my edit. What do you mean by approximates and most things? Isn't this just your WP:POV, without a ref. to support it?

My edit should be restored, it makes an improvement to the article. --Damorbel (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A Fundamental Flaw in the Article

The article contains at least one fundamental flaw it treats radiation and absorption/emission as interachangeable e.g.:-

line 4 the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body

it should be the electromagnetic energy emitted/absorbed by a black body

In reality radiation in electromagneticss corresponds to temperature in kinetic theory, (the two are related by Wien's displacement law); while absorption/emission correspond to energy transfer (joules/s or watts). This should be easy to appreciate, in both cases there is no energy transfer without a temperature difference, in the case of emission/absorption of course energy transfer is proportional to the difference of the fourth power of the temperature as T⁴ - t⁴.

To drive the point home, the energy emitted by a body at any given temperature is proportional to its emissivity.

So please, before deleting my edits, take these matters into account. --Damorbel (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Long article

Four years ago this article was 25 kb. It's now twice as old but at 121 kb nearly five times as long. From the standpoint of those coming here to learn about Planck's law for the first time, is it better now at this length? Or would such readers be better served by an introductory article that succinctly conveyed the essential aspects of the law? I'm thinking in particular of readers that simply want to know what the law is, what it means, and how it bears on topics like climate for which an understanding of the law is necessary these days. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Some time ago I hived off the history, one of the longer parts, to a separate article, but someone promptly returned it to the main article.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

h or hbar, nu or omega

Is there a reason that these articles tend to use h rather than hbar. I think in the modern era, hbar is much more frequently used in these derivations and expressions. Similarly why nu rather than omega? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.66.137 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

undid edit which may perhaps be self-promotion

I have undone a plausible edit because it was unsigned and was from primary research, not a secondary source, and has a feel that it may be self-promotion. If I am wrong about this, please would the editor provide some kind of credible assurance that it was not self-or-related-party promotion, before re-posting it.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a problem with the formula (or the graph) here.

Specifically it doesn't produce the results shown on the graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_body.svg According to the graph, an object at a temperature of 4000K will emit the intensity of radiation at 700nm will be approximately 4 kW/squaremeter/nanometer at. which is 4000 W/squaremeter/nanometer. Unfortunately when I actually use the Planck's law formula shown on the page on which the graph is embedded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law I end up with a value that is approximately 4000000000000. That is a 10^9 times as high as it is SUPPOSED TO BE! Benhut1 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Without doing the calculation I would say check your units (1 nm=10^9 m) and be sure you used the wavelength formula, not the frequency formula. PAR (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the same problem. I think the formula for B(v,T) is wrong. When I try to derive it from the B(wl,T) formula, I get v to the 5th power instead of 3rd and c to 3rd power instead of 2nd.

The resulting formula I get is:

double B = 2*h*Math.pow(fq,5)/Math.pow(c,3) * 1/( Math.exp(h*fq/(k*T)) - 1);

Using this formula I get the correct graph.

I also notice that other formulas on the internet use coefficients of 8*Pi instead of 2. This difference can't be the result of the reduced value of h provided in the Plank Constant page. Eventually I will dig out my old physics books (in storage thanks to the convenience of Wikipedia) and sort out the answer. In the mean time I'm hoping that someone who has the answer, on the top of his head, will resolve the problem and save me the effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James65.pike (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I got no idea what your notation is there, but you can't go from B_nu to B_lambda by simple substitution. See this bit for why. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

OK I see your point. I was assuming, incorrectly, that both functions should get a peak for the same color of light. I now see that one gives results in units of w*m^-2*hz^-1 and the other gives results in units of w*m^-2*m^-1. The key being the trailing hz^-1 in one versus the trailing m^-1 in the other (I should have done my unit check). These two units do not have a linear correspondence. That's why B(Wavelength) gives a maximum in the green and B(Frequency) gives a maximum the infra red. I also found an article that spells this out: http://www.thulescientific.com/LYNCH%20&%20Soffer%20OPN%201999.pdf. Thanks for your help and sorry for the trouble.

Also the 4*pi issue is spelled out in the section below the one you referenced. I just needed to read further.James65.pike (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

edit to lead should be undone

An edit to the lead put in some comments which are true enough, but do not have a place in the lead. I undid it but it has been restored, with the edit cover note "I disagree. This makes it clearer the two formulas are different."

I don't want to edit war, so I am not right now undoing that restoration. The reason given in the cover note is inadequate. The two formulas are found in many many texts, and the particular sources cited in the edit are far redundant where they are placed. It is obvious that the two formulas are different. That is why they are both stated. The difference is not as to physical meaning, but as to formulation. That is to say, the difference is not a difference of opinion, but is a difference of expression. There is no suggestion of controversy or dispute in this. This is well set out in the body of the article, and should not be detailed in the lead as it is in the edit.

The restoration should be undone.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the edit should be reverted, and have done so. The associated discussion should not be in the lead section. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chjoaygame and Charles Matthews: apologies for missing this. This should probably be included somewhere (or at least a note they are different) in the lede, but I'll leave you lot to figure out the specifics. My attention to this was raised by an email sent to OTRS, as it seems to be causing a bit of confusion among a sector of the scientific community. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52, your comment is in code that I don't know how to read. I don't know what is OTRS, or what they would care about. I don't know what is "a sector of the scientific community". It is so obvious that the two formulas are different that I can't see why it would help to say it in so many words. The details of why and how they are different are spelt out in the article. If you have a concern, to get it fixed you will need to say more clearly what it is. Not in code, just plain language, and saying specifically what you mean, not asking us to guess. Chjoaygame (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the emailer in question is not being very specific. I will ask him to weigh in here. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Was this edit an intervention by a member of OTRS's info-en team (in response to an email to e.g. info-en@wikimedia.org from a non-editor)? According to WP:Contact OTRS, "established users have little need to contact the info-en team, as it cannot intervene in general content enquiries." But then how is the info-en team expected to handle such emails if not by intervening somehow? And does OTRS recommend any particular form of intervention, e.g. raising the matter at the talk page vs. editing the article? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as intervention, no. I made the edit in my personal capacity, as it seemed to make sense to me. As for the other issues, the simplest answer is that it depends; I personally treat it on a case-by-case basis. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I misunderstood "intervene". But then why shouldn't "established users" need to contact info-en? If to avoid overloading the team then that should be the reason, not the fact that they can't intervene (assuming that's even true). If that's not the reason either then emailing info-en might at times be a convenient alternative to editing or raising issues on talk pages. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a reader, not an established user. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, I got that. What I couldn't figure out from WP:Contact OTRS was whether info-en was as available to established users as to the rest of the world. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

sources

Most sources indicate the spectral domain by subscript, B_ν or B_λ. For argument values, the bracketing varies. Perhaps editors may add to the following lists.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

no argument shown in brackets

• Planck 1914Chjoaygame (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

no subscript indicating domain or temperature

• Bohren, Clothiaux 2006 (sometimes one, somtimes two bracketed argument values)Chjoaygame (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

only temperature shown as argument value in brackets

• Chandrasekhar 1950Chjoaygame (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Rybicki, Lightman 1979Chjoaygame (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Mihalas, Mihalas 1984Chjoaygame (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Goody, Yung 1989Chjoaygame (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Liou 2002Chjoaygame (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Mätzler 2006Chjoaygame (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

only spectral argument value shown in brackets

• Siegel 2001 (temperature not indicated, neither as subscript nor as bracketed argument value)Chjoaygame (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

both spectral variable and temperature argument values in brackets

• Brewster 1992Chjoaygame (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Caniou 1999Chjoaygame (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Siegel 2001Chjoaygame (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest using

I suggest using Wf instead of Bγ for the frequency formula then there should be no error assuming the two formula as calculating the same value User:33wantittrue 14 Nov 2014

I undid the reasonable good faith edit that had been made in accord with the immediately above suggestion. For two reasons.

A trivial reason is that the edit muddled its notation for frequency, between ν and f. This is fixable, but fixing it wouldn't rescue the edit. To rescue the edit, a thorough-going change of consensus would be needed. More on this below.

The non-trivial reason for my undoing the edit is that it was unconventional and contrary to a consensus previously settled on this page. This is a matter of just history, not logic or physics.

The settled convention here is faulty. It is a matter of speed and efficency. The principle is 'a pico second saved for the writer is worth more than a hundred years wasted for the reader; I am the writer, so I get to save my picosecond; forget the logic'.

A rational notation would be for example B_ν(ν,T), in which the domain element ν appears as a subscript in the function name, and is listed again in the brackets as the value of the first argument ν. But this does not conform to the above requirement for speed and efficiency for the writer.

I have no strong preference here. I leave it to the assembled company to consider or re-consider at their pleasure.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Chjoaygame that the spectral variable should be included in the arguments of the function. The subscript is saying "what spectral radiance is this function describing", the variable is "at what point in the spectrum". Because they are different things, they are both needed. A quick google suggests that other places where the topic is discussed take both approaches, so I think we can justifiably pick whichever we think is better here. I have gone ahead and done this in the main formulae in the lead and in the table in the "Different forms" section. I have no strong opinion about whether all the spectral radiances should be called B, or if different letters should be used. I prefer ν rather than f, but I realise that it's a matter of taste. Djr32 (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I went only as far as giving a possible example that would be rational.

I am very unhappy with "A quick google suggests that other places where the topic is discussed take both approaches, so I think we can justifiably pick whichever we think is better here."

I am also unhappy that the new edit acted on some but not all instances of the expressions.

I would like to see more opinions here.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend to make you very unhappy by agreeing with you! B_ν(ν,T) is both rational and better than what was there before, so I changed it in the most prominent places. Feel free change it anywhere else. Djr32 (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see more opinions here.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This question was debated rather vigorously here several years ago (2008?), at the time the article switched from I (for intensity) to the more widely used B (for brightness?). At the time I supported $B_{\nu }(T)$ over $B_{\nu }(\nu ,T)$ on the ground that arguments could go either within parentheses or as subscripts, a common practice.

What this reasoning overlooked however was that the functions $B_{\nu }$ and $B_{\lambda }$ are linearly independent and that the subscripts (as Greek letters) were part of the name, as distinct from parameters (as numeric values independently of choice of notation for them).

So today I'd happily go along with $B_{\nu }(\nu ,T)$ provided it is pointed out somewhere that the two instances of $\nu$ are serving very different purposes.

In hindsight I'm sorry no one thought to propose $B_{T}^{\nu }(\nu )$. In that form the superscript is part of the name while the subscript is a numeric parameter. This form is consistent with the idea that when plotting this function one picks a particular value of T and then plots a function solely of $\nu$ leaving T fixed. This one-parameter function is appropriately named $B_{T}^{\nu }$.

Furthermore given any two temperatures $T_{1}$ and $T_{2}$, the corresponding one-parameter Planck laws $B_{T_{1}}^{\nu }$ and $B_{T_{2}}^{\nu }$ are bilinearly related in the sense that there exist reals p and q, depending only on the ratio $T_{1}/T_{2}$, such that $B_{T_{1}}^{\nu }(p\nu )=qB_{T_{2}}^{\nu }(\nu )$. This formulates algebraically (and more precisely) the geometric statement "Wien's displacement law in its stronger form states that the shape of Planck's law is independent of temperature" at the beginning of the Planck's Law#Percentiles section. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

a devilish plot

The two formulas incrementally plot exactly the same law as functions of respectively frequency and wavelength. They look inexplicably different as formulas, they have different shapes when plotted, and they peak at very different points in the spectrum. This is the result of the interaction of two things: (i) wavelength varies inversely with frequency, and (ii) the formulas are incremental in the sense that they give the radiated intensity only within an infinitesimal frequency band and wavelength band respectively (the meaning of spectral radiance). This is spelled out in the section Planck's_law#Correspondence_between_spectral_variable_forms.

It's too bad the tradition for Planck's law is to plot the x-axis of the law linearly instead of logarithmically as traditionally done in depictions of the EM spectrum (e.g. the figures in that article). The latter would have eliminated all three of the above differences (the peak for both wavelength and frequency would then be at what the article calls the wavelength-frequency-neutral peak intermediate between the wavelength and frequency peaks), as well as allowing the distributions of the Sun and the Earth to be plotted side by side on a common x-axis (covering about four octaves) without one dwarfing the other horizontally (the vertical scales require adjusting). Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Vaughan Pratt has facile access to three similarly, nearly uniformly, plotted graphs that could be posted here, beside one another? On the left, with a linear wavelength abscissa, in the middle with a twice-labeled logarithmic abscissa, on the right, with a linear frequency abscissa?Chjoaygame (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out the virtues of a logarithmic abscissa in the article back in November 2011, but it was promptly deleted. Feel free to put it back if you disagree with the deleter. At about that time I also wrote User talk:Vaughan Pratt/Planck's Law as a basis for discussion, which included a graph with two of those curves superimposed, but this went nowhere despite much discussion. I have the third logarithmic plot somewhere, I'll dig it up.

In the meantime you've just now written "That peak location depends on variable choice is not physically significant, but is only an appearance. It can be made to disappear simply by plotting the spectral graph with a logarithmic abscissa scale." That's wrong on two counts.

1. The peak doesn't disappear, it simply moves to a point intermediate between the wavelength or Wien peak and the frequency peak.
2. None of those three peaks have any physical significance that I'm aware of, unlike the median or 50% peak, whose physical significance is that half the radiance (total, not spectral) in W/m2 lies above it and half below.

All four peaks are bold-faced in the section on percentiles. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I recall that you proposed the logarithmic plot some time ago, but I don't recall the details. I have now spent some time trying to find your logarithmic plots of that time, but not succeeded in finding them. Perhaps you will very kindly show exactly where I can see them?

I like the idea of three separate plots side by side. Just to make it easy to read. Linear frequency, log for both, linear for wavelength.

Sorry about the unresolved anaphoric 'it'. I have made a grammatical fix. You want to point out further that there is no physical significance in the peaks.

If you can find suitable plots I think it would be good. I reserve the right to an opinion about suitability.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I have changed my mind. I have removed my hastily added chat item from the article. I now think this matter needs more conceptual structure. As we now have it, it hardly has physical content, and is just chat. There is potential physical content in it, but to justify a place in the article, the potential needs to be made actual. Something well thought-out about Wien's structural resolution of the Kirchhoff function. Without that it would just be chatter, I think, with no place in the article.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not following. If you mean you've changed your mind about your "right to an opinion about suitability" then you have my whole-hearted support. Likewise if you mean the inadvisability of hastily added chat items: EBBOM. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean that I think that the logarithmic scale thing, by itself, is lacking in physical conceptual structure.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting. Does a linear scale have more "physical conceptual structure" than a logarithmic scale? Likewise for a scale in 1/x instead of log(x). Vaughan Pratt (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The keyboard of a piano realizes a logarithmic scale for frequency. Surely a keyboard is physical. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I will let that one pass to the wicket-keeper.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

a problem

Yes there is a problem with graphs plotted from the formula because even a professor of physics at a prominent US university has missed the stated fact that the two formula do in fact calulate different values and for this reason peak at different values and not because the absissa for one graph is expressed as wavelength instead of frequency.

I can send you his graphs and comment as proof without identifying him.posted 2014 November 12

(I have moved the above unsigned comment to the customary place here at the bottom of the page, with the customary new header for a new comment.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC))

Perhaps you need to take into account that the quantities are not just numbers. They have very different units, as you may check for youselfChjoaygame (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to take into account that the more relevant quantities $\nu B_{\nu }(T)$ and $\lambda B_{\lambda }(T)$ are equal. They have the same units, as you may check for yourself. I pointed this out in 2011 but it was promptly deleted, this article being a war zone at the time and as such immune to anything resembling rational discussion.

I'd been contributing to this article since 2008, but after a month of insane edit wars in 2011, with you and Headbomb being the main obstacles to progress, I gave this article up as a lost cause.

I therefore have no intention of resuming editing it as long as this situation continues. In the meantime the article has accumulated an absurd quantity of rubbish and is in urgent need of being trimmed down to something more sane. Under the circumstances there is no point trying to fix this.

Competently written articles don't suffer this fate, witness Planck's_law#Percentiles, Boolean algebra, and the lead of Hyperbola, each of which I wrote single-handedly many years ago and which have survived largely untouched since then because there's very little urgently needing fixing. Come to think of it, the other 30-odd articles I've created have done about as well, with the only one I had to seriously defend being Proof (truth), and that only because a high-energy editor was unable to accept that "proof" had any meaning outside mathematics and had to be shouted down by a bunch of non-mathematicians for whom "proof" meant more than just what logic textbooks defined it to be. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you have hard feelings about this article, but glad that you have good feelings about others.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me address your argument in more detail. You seem to be arguing that the peaks are at different points in the EM spectrum on the ground that "the quantities are not just numbers. They have very different units". However changing the units from MKS to CGS would result in different numbers with different units without however moving the peak. Hence a difference of units and values can't be the reason the peak moved.

The peak moved as a result of a nonlinear distortion of the x-axis. For example if you plot $B_{\nu }(T)$ on log-linear paper the peak moves to a different frequency in the EM spectrum, despite the fact that neither the numbers nor the units changed. Not surprisingly this also happens with $B_{\lambda }(T)$: plotting it on log-linear paper moves the peak to a different wavelength.

What is surprising, at least at first glance, is that the two peaks move to the same position in the EM spectrum, one given by frequency and the other by the corresponding wavelength.

This is true despite the fact that $B_{\nu }(T)$ and $B_{\lambda }(T)$ have different values with different units.

The common peak of these different curves, when each is plotted on log-linear paper, is the wavelength-frequency-neutral peak.

This is not so surprising once you notice that log(x) and log(1/x) differ only by a constant factor, namely −1. The plot of spectral intensity by log(frequency) is merely the mirror image of that by log(wavelength), a linear distortion.

It should also be pointed out that $B_{\nu }(T)$ and $B_{\lambda }(T)$ are really the same distribution in the sense that for any two points in the EM spectrum, whether represented as frequencies $\nu _{1}$ and $\nu _{2}$ or wavelengths $\lambda _{1}=c/\nu _{1}$ and $\lambda _{2}=c/\nu _{2}$, the areas under the two curves between those two points, defined as the respective integrals $\int _{\nu _{1}}^{\nu _{2}}B_{\nu }(T)d\nu$ and $\int _{\lambda _{2}}^{\lambda _{1}}B_{\lambda }(T)d\lambda$, are equal.

Given this equality, one might well conclude that the point in the EM spectrum where black body radiation at temperature T is most intense must be at the peak of the distribution. As explained above, this line of reasoning is fallacious because a nonlinear distortion of the x-axis, in this case reciprocation, can move the peak, though a linear one cannot. But two nonlinear distortions, namely log in each case, can bring the two peaks into coincidence. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Vaughan Pratt, what you said above:

"For example if you plot $B_{\nu }(T)$ on log-linear paper the peak moves to a different frequency in the EM spectrum, despite the fact that neither the numbers nor the units changed."

is not correct. To change the position of the peak you have to change the function being plotted. I think you're confusing energy emitted per unit area per unit solid angle per unit spectral measurement with emitted per unit area per unit solid angle per fractional change in spectral measurement. The peak in the latter function is at the same point whether the spectral measurement is wavelength or frequency, because the fractional change in wavelength is the same as the fractional change in frequency. Djr32 (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mea culpa, good catch. What I wrote near the top of this section, "the more relevant quantities $\nu B_{\nu }(T)$ and $\lambda B_{\lambda }(T)$ are equal", is correct, and is how $B_{\nu }(T)$ and $B_{\lambda }(T)$ must be scaled vertically in order to compensate for the horizontal compression of each curve at respectively high frequencies and long wavelengths when plotted logarithmically, if the integral is to be faithfully represented by the area under the curve. In a senior moment I pictured the compensation happening automatically when transferring to log-linear paper but of course it doesn't. The wavelength-frequency-neutral peak is the peak of $\nu B_{\nu }(T)$, and hence of $\lambda B_{\lambda }(T)$ since they're equal, with the common function being $2hr/E$ where $r=(\nu /\lambda )^{2}$ and $E=e^{h\nu /kT}-1=e^{hc/\lambda kT}-1$ (bearing in mind that $\lambda \nu =c$ when asking what it is a function of). Thanks for catching that! Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that $\nu B_{\nu }(T)$ and $\lambda B_{\lambda }(T)$ are the more relevant quantities, $B_{\nu }(T)$ is the fundamental quantity as the modes are quantised linearly in $\nu$. The area under the curve being proportional to the integral is a property of linear/linear graphs, not logarithmic axes, and if you're going to use a logarithmic axis I think it's a mistake to scale the B axis in some strange way to recover this property. I don't think there is a problem here: there are two (maybe even three) quantities of interest, they have peaks in different places, and the article correctly reflects this. Djr32 (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following. Are you saying that when the x-axis (the spectrum) is scaled logarithmically one should plot the same B-values as when the x-axis is scaled linearly? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that's what you're saying, it would indeed simplify things to take $B_{\nu }(T)$ as the fundamental quantity, and to plot it independently of how the x-axis is scaled, whether proportional to the logarithm of frequency, its reciprocal, or any other scaling. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I'd be opposed to any such simplification, whether plotting spectral intensity as a function of either the reciprocal of frequency or the logarithm thereof. You appear to be agreeing in the case of reciprocal but disagreeing in the case of logarithm. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

undid good faith edit; reason

The main thing about Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation is not that equality. It is that thermal equilibrium has underlying it the universal spectral distribution that is eventually expressed by Planck's law, but was not explicitly known to Kirchhoff, nor to anyone till Planck discovered it. Based on this, and derivative from it, one can define absorption and emission coefficients that have that equality under conditions of thermal equilibrium.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Which definition of Planck's constant is being used here?

Nowhere in this article does it say what definition of Planck's constant is being used. There are 2 possible ones that I can see from looking at the Wikipedia page for that constant. These are "6.626070040(81)×10−34" and "2π". And it's not just this one constant. This entire article has the problem that none of the constants refered to have the their values stated anywhere in this article. Please improve this article by including all the values for the constants that are used. Benhut1 (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

2π is not Planck's constant. I don't know where you saw that, but I suggest you recheck your sources. And if you want to know the value of Planck's constant, look up Planck's constant. That's why we link to it. We also don't mention the value of the speed of light or Boltzman's constant for the same reasons.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Formulas mistake

Both formulas for the spectral radiance have mistake and even the transition from the one to the other is wrong. look at Rybicki, G. and Lightman, A. P. "The Planck Spectrum." Radiative Processeys in Astrophysics. New York: Wiley-Interscience, pp. 3-4 and 20-23, 1979. for the right function — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantelis156 (talk • contribs) 8:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor Pantelis156 seems to find some discrepancy between the article's and Rybicki & Lightman's formulas for spectral radiance (which, by the way on their page 3 they call specific intensity or brightness). Their formulas are on their page 22, equations (1.51) and (1.52). By my reading there is no discrepancy, and so no need for me to copy their formulas into this talk page. Perhaps Editor Pantelis156 is confusing radiance with energy density? I don't think I have missed something there.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Pantelis156 (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)You are correct,I confused it with energy densityPantelis156 (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well it's not so much a mistake, as it is incomplete. The formula $B_{\lambda }(\lambda ,T)={\frac {2hc^{2}}{\lambda ^{5}}}{\frac {1}{e^{\frac {hc}{\lambda k_{\mathrm {B} }T}}-1}}$ has a numerator of 1 in the second fraction. What this means is the result of the equation is measured in units of "intensity per meter of spectrum". If you want the much more convenient units of "intensity per nanometer of spectrum", that numerator must be changed to 0.000000001. Or else, the result will need to be divided by 1000000000. This is not mentioned in the article, but should be. Benhut1 (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

And you'd have a different factor if you want the answer in ergs/(s·cm²) per angstrom of spectrum. Unit conversions don't belong in this article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Planck's law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006162543/http://theochem.kuchem.kyoto-u.ac.jp/Ando/planck1901.pdf to http://theochem.kuchem.kyoto-u.ac.jp/Ando/planck1901.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding pi factor to B(λ,T)

I used this equation and compared the output to actual data and things weren't lining up until I discovered that a factor of pi seems to be missing.

I first saw someone use a formula with pi here https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/241741/black-body-spectrum-plot (credit to John Rennie)

Then I found a reliable looking source including this pi (screenshot of a textbook) http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/according-planck-s-law-blackbody-radiation-spectral-energy-density-r-function-wavelength-l-q20256127

Plus my calculation became acceptably close to the standard data upon including pi, and I am seeing the pi factor in other places. Maybe someone can set up a proper citation to a text for the law to better honour Planck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic ant (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe someone should confirm the function in terms of frequency (pi factor?.) I might not be able to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic ant (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

A careful treatment in the text by M. F. Modest () explains the use of the pi factor. The equation shown here for blackbody intensity is correct. However, sometimes the Planck equation is expressed in terms of emissive power, which is the flux radiated from a flat surface into all directions. In this form, the Planck formula includes an extra factor of pi to account for the difference. Modest, in Section 1.6, derives this relationship based on Kirchhoff's law. Parveson (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Einstein coefficients

Quantwa (talk · contribs) changed this.

Based on [2] and [3], the 'old' version is correct.

Based on [4] and Einstein_coefficients#Detailed_balancing, Quantwa (talk · contribs) is correct.

There's something amiss here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Going to @PAR: here since they added the section back in 2011. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems the references that back the 'old' version assume that at thermal equilibrium, J = B_ν rather than J = 4π/c × B_ν. Or something to that effect. It could be a matter of different conventions in the references, but it could also be a plain old mistake. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

To make this article self-consistent, the 'old' version should be corrected to Quantwa (talk · contribs)'s revision.

Looking at the definition of the coefficients above that equation, A21/B21 is dimensionally equal to $u_{\nu }$ which is energy per volume per frequency or m/Lt (mass over (length x time)). The old way with $h\nu ^{3}/c^{2}$ is dimensionally m/t^{^2} and the new way $h\nu ^{3}/c^{3}$ is m/Lt, so there's something wrong with the old way. The factor of $4\pi$ usually comes from integrating something that is per unit solid angle, so for both reasons I tend to favor the second one. This is not to say its right, but I think the first is wrong. PAR (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The dimensional argument puts the nail in the coffin. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the second reference above, they define the B's in terms of "mean intensity" rather than spectral energy density. That makes all the difference. PAR (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Natural units h vs hbar

The formula in natural units (linking to Planck units) assumes h=1, the Wikipedia page for Planck units assumes hbar=1 though which changes everything by 2 Pi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.96.59 (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying to find physical explanation; unresolved sentence

So, Section "Trying to find physical explanation", paragraph 5, last sentence: "Some recent proposals in the possible physical explanation of the Planck constant suggest that, following de Broglie's spirit of wave-particle duality, if, regarding the radiation as a wave packet, the Planck constant is determined by the physical properties of the vacuum and a critical amount of disturbance in the electromagnetic field." ...Then what? We have a clause starting with "if", but unresolved by a resultant clause dependent on the if condition. Apparently a recent proposal suggests something dependent on this "if", but we are left hanging. I wonder what it is they propose? 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:A48C:FC4A:375F:E53D (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)JustSomeWikiReader

Internal inconsistency

The lead states that Planck's 1900 derivation of a formula was based on theoretical assumptions. But, according to the sections § Finding the empirical law and § Trying to find a physical explanation of the law, the empirical fitting formula published in 1900 had no theoretical basis. Planck's theoretical derivation using hypothetical oscillators came about later, in 1901.  --Lambiam 09:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

He did have the idea of the "energy element" size being h times the oscillator frequency by December 1900. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Percentiles

I removed the long equations from the Percentiles section; definite integrals can probably be understood without converting them into infinite sums. However, the motivation for the remaining section is not very clear to me. The text tries to motivate the introduction of percentiles by the strong version of Wien's displacement law (which states that the spectral density is of the form $u_{\nu }(\nu ,T)=\nu ^{3}g(\nu /T)$, with some universal function g. For reference, see [5]) But to discuss this, I do not see the usefulness of integrating the Planck's law. Should we cut this whole section?

Latter half of the section is also somewhat disconnected from the first half: it compares the solar spectrum to black body using percentiles. It does not seem highly relevant for this article, and does not make very easy reading. Approximate realizations of the black body would perhaps be better discussed at the articles Black body or Black body radiation. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"Old quantum theory" categorization

I confess I do not understand this revert. The Planck law belongs to the historical period known as the old quantum theory; indeed, it inaugurated that period. That the result is empirically correct doesn't change the historical fact that it was first deduced as what we would now call a semiclassical approximation. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"Old" in "Old quantum theory" refers not to a time range but to the fact that the said theory is no longer considered valid. Contrary to that, the Planck law remains perfectly sound. It doesn't matter how the equation was originally deduced/derived. Evgeny (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Evgeny here. Planck's law remains valid even after the development of Bose-Einstein statistics, while BKS theory has no application, also Bohr's model and Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization remain as very crude rules of thumb. The category should not be confused with Category:Foundational quantum physics--ReyHahn (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:Foundational quantum physics is an ill-defined and WP:SYNTH-y term that contradicts with the accepted term quantum foundations, whereas the literature classifies the Planck law as part of the old quantum theory, along with BKS and the like [6][7][8]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I cannot see in any of the links you provided that Planck's law (not his thoughts etc. at that time) is considered part of the old quantum theory; it's just your interpretation. Of course, one cannot give a historical description of the quantum mechanics development without mentioning Planck. But again, we are talking here not about his (early) *interpretation* of the postulated functional dependence between the temperature of black body and its radiation intensity, but the dependence (the law) itself. Which remains absolutely correct today. For a category like "*History* of quantum mechanics", perhaps this article might be OK to list. But not for the outdated theory that the old QM is. Evgeny (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This article has a lengthy "History" section which discusses exactly that. The page is about a topic that reaches from the beginning of quantum theory to the present day, so it qualifies for inclusion in a list or category covering the early decades of the subject. If it doesn't belong in Category:Old quantum theory, it doesn't belong in any other history category either. XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The foundational category could be modified into Category:quantum mechanics previous to 1926 or something like that. Of course any historical treatment of quantum mechanics that you provide would include Planck's law as it was originally derived heuristically. However this is no longer the case and the formula is still the result you get from modern quantum statitical mechanics. It think I would agree to add it to the category if it was clear that the article is about the heuristic version and not the modern one, but that's not the case so it is kind of confusing to add it to the old quantum category. Why would it need to belong to more categories? --ReyHahn (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

If the point of the category is to gather together articles that one should read in order to understand the area, then this is one of them, and it belongs. I think the confusion is minimal; a brief skim of the article itself is enough to tell why it'd be sorted that way. But the total benefit to fiddling around with the categories is perhaps minimal, too. XOR'easter (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

XOR'easter is right, old quantum theory is a term that refers to a period of physics, which does not imply obsolescence. Plank's law is one of the prototypical examples of old quantum theory, alongside the results of Debye, Sommerfeld, etc... See The Old Quantum Theory by Dirk ter Haar for an overview of topics, the very first one being Planck's Law. I've restored the category. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That book clearly addresses Planck's original paper (which is right away in the list of papers in section 2) not our current understanding of the formula. Note that contrary to the other items in the category, Plack's law is the only article that does not say it is obsolete or has been superseded right away by another theory. Does that mean that we also have to add Planck relation, the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering?. Also in one of the books cited earlier, Planck was a separate chapter from the chapter on the old quantum theory.--ReyHahn (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"Does that mean that we also have to add Planck relation, the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering?"

To have a more complete category, yes. Rutherford scattering, Zeeman effect, Stephan-Boltzmann law, etc... and pretty much every other first quantization results/theory from roughly 1900-1926 (when Heisenberg/Schrodinger got around). You can check the index of that book for a more complete list of topics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I sincerely think that it is not what people usually mean by old quantum theory. It was a theoretical framework and thus a set heuristic formulas that were used to predict some effects and that now it is rarely used. If we have a new version of it based on new quantum theory then it is certainly does not seem old quantum theory. As you currently put it sounds like we are going to end up with merge with Category:Foundational quantum physics and then it is going to remain as loosely defined as that category. Also Stefan-Boltzmann law is not quantum.--ReyHahn (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"that now it is rarely used" well yeah. There's been many advances since the time of old quantum theory, specifically second quantization and being able to use Schrodinger's equation. Not everything from it is obsolete, but science moves on and no one uses the Bohr-Sommerfeld model anymore when we can instead solve the relativistic Schrodinger equation directly with many-body perturbation theory and similar techniques. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Even if you use second quantization you still get Planck's law for a gas of photons. There is a clear distinction also between articles like BKS, Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization and old atomic models. They are a set of heuristics and rules on how to use them, Planck law is just a formula. If we decide to go that route, please discuss if we should merge both categories and throw in any physics article between 1900-1925.--ReyHahn (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb, you write that "old quantum theory is a term that refers to a period of physics". I strongly disagree. I believe this is the main point of the discussion. I admit that the respective WP article is not entirely clear about it; if so, it should be (slightly) amended. But if you read it in its entirety, it becomes very clear what is meant. E.g., see the section "Limitations": nothing in it applies to the Planck law. Evgeny (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You can disagree, but the sources back what I said, and Wikipedia goes by sources, not personal opinions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Which source says that the Planck law is old quantum theory? Evgeny (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

See The Old Quantum Theory by Dirk ter Haar mentioned above. It's the very first chapter of the book. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Cite an exact sentence. On the contrary, the preface of that book has this very clear: "ALTHOUGH it is well known that for a proper discussion of atomic properties one needs wave mechanics and that the old quantum theory developed by Bohr, Sommerfeld, Kramers and many others between 1913 and 1926 is not a proper basis, there are many atomic phenomena which receive at least a qualitative explanation in the old quantum theory." Where do you see Planck's law in the context of old QM? Yes, of course, Planck's law was what caused the whole QM revolution in physics, that first went through the semi-empiric old QM. But the black-body radiation law is not part of that.

Again, "old" is not about a specific time range, but about ideas and models that became outdated. If you write a paper based on those ideas and publish it in 2023 (assuming it passes the peer-review process...), it will still be the old QM. Evgeny (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

See also Pais (1979): Einstein's 1905 paper on light-quanta is the second of the revolutionary papers on the old quantum theory. The first one was of course Planck's paper (1900b) of December 1900. Helge Kragh is as much an expert on this period as anybody, and also puts Planck under that umbrella: Starting conventionally with Max Planck's work on black-body radiation in the 1890s, the book covers the development of the so-called old quantum theory until about 1923. So do da Costa and French: Thus, another striking example of inconsistency in the 'old' quantum theory is Planck's original derivation of the black body radiation law which involved contradictory classical and quantum hypotheses concerning the energy exchanges between the resonators of the black body and the radiation field itself. Likewise, Pié i Valls and Pérez write, The old quantum theory is considered to start with the appearance of the quantum hypothesis, in 1900, in Max Planck's hands. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Let us avoid continuing to go back and forth between old quantum theory is this or that. Xoreaster and Headbomb have made it clear that Planck original papers on black body radiation are part of the old quantum theory per references: another striking example of inconsistency in the 'old' quantum theory is Planck's original derivation of the black body radiation law (emphasis mine). Evgeny and I have it tried to convey that it is about the original framework used to derive it and not about Planck law itself (see emphasisized line), which remains valid even if using advanced quantum mechanics. The articles currently on Category:Old quantum theory talk about models or heuristics to make calculations, except for Planck's law, which is about the law itself independently of the method used. I find that if we only keep old models and frameworks in that section we would have a more clear idea on what should go in there. If not please discuss how should we handle that category with respect to Category:Foundational quantum physics and if we throw every term pre-1926 in there.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I'm failing to get, I think: This article isn't just about the law itself. It also goes into considerable depth about the history. So, why not include it in a category about history, as well as other categories? Conversely, is this article disqualified from any history-of-physics category because the topic reaches to the present day? Doesn't that just make topics essential for understanding the history of physics harder to find? If that is what we want, why is it in Category:Foundational quantum physics?

Actually, I'm pretty much flummoxed by Category:Foundational quantum physics, because that's not an established term, or rather, to the extent that it is established, it means something different. For example, take Tavakoli and Gisin, who derive simple Bell inequalities tailored to be maximally violated for measurement settings pointing towards the vertices of the Platonic solids. In this way, we connect beautiful mathematics with foundational quantum physics. Or Baggott, writing in Physics World: In the three decades since the publication of Bell's article in this magazine, we have witnessed a succession of extraordinary experiments designed to address issues in foundational quantum physics. It is an uncommon term, but when it does appear, it seems to be synonymous with quantum foundations. Bell's theorem would belong, for example, even though it was published in 1964. The Wikipedia category "Foundational quantum physics" was made up by a Wikipedian in 2005, and it has no real grounding in anything beyond Wikipedian whimsy. Is the intended scope really to have the plum pudding model at one end and hyperfine structure at the other? It's got Millikan's oil drop experiment and Dirac's transformation theory. The category description says that it's supposed to contain things that led to the development of quantum mechanics, but quantum mechanics was developed by the time of the Pocono, Shelter Island, and Oldstone Conferences. Is the category also intended to cover everything up through the maturation of QED? It also has some oddballs, like Sherman function and phase-space formulation, that don't fit with that remit either.

In contrast, old quantum theory is a term that scholars actually use, with a well-established time bracket. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok I see, I think you are right about that category, it think it is ok we remove foundational quantum physics category. What is your proposal for the criteria for an article to be in Category:Old quantum theory? --ReyHahn (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Foundational quantum physics is very ill-defined. Whereas 'old quantum theory' goes very clearly from Planck (1900) to Heisenberg (1926), 'new quantum theory' being whatever came after Heisenberg (not a very useful category if you ask me), 'Foundational quantum theory', as it exists seems to mostly mean 'historically important things that are related to quantum mechanics from late 1800s (maybe the Zeeman effect is the start of this?) until circa end of WWII/start of Cold War when nuclear/particle physics took off hard and physicists stop caring about the spectra of gases because they had shiny new toys. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I give up. Do whatever you want. Evgeny (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not kill 2 birds with one stone, and create a new article called History of Planck's Law (as the current history section is quite long) then add that article to Category:Old Quantum Theory instead of this one? 63.143.116.78 (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Old quantum theory is not a period. Terminology speaking yes, all formulas and experiments delivered by quantum physics 1900-1926 gave origin or were derived with old quantum theory, even if many of those phenomena are not part of old quantum theory now. However, putting the definitions aside, I can agree with that categorization if we add everything quantum physics in that time window (not including Schrödinger's equation) to Category:Old quantum theory then we will at least be consistent.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. XOR'easter (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Link to the CGS units

The link to the CGS units links to the page for Radiance rather than csg units. Lounls (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, per WP:EASTEREGG .--ReyHahn (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)