Talk:Max Planck

planck achievements should be mentioned more clearly

@Qcomp: i added in the intro the planck constant and what he made out of it by using it, in a simple language, without forcing people to open 5 different pages, and go to chatgpt to get a summary to understand approximately why that stuff is important. i know many of you study or studied physics, and for you it is so obvious that you feel that it is not worth mentioning. but mere mortals depend on being a little simpler here, and as well to state stuff more than once. the video reference is by multiple persons, amongst them joseph conlon, tony padilla, Geraint F. Lewis. ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

I made the change to remove the misleading statements mentioned above. I'm not convinced that even this shorter sentence belongs in the introduction. I think it gives undue weight to the units, while Planck's law, which is the more important achievement (the fact that he was able to solve the long-standing blackbody-radiation riddle gave weight to the constant and the notion of energy quanta associated with its derivation) is not mentioned. None of the big language versions of WP that I can read mentions Planck units in the introduction. Any other opinions? --Qcomp (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

two remarks. first, was not Planck's law why he got the nobel prize for, and is mentioned in the first sentence? where he noticed the energy of an oscillator depends on the freuqency times a small number which was then the planck constant? which makes it discrete? would you be able to put this in words which people can understand at one hand, and not misleading on the other? second, if that engergy thing is true, simplified, energy equals to frequency times planck constant, and heat is energy as a result of the movement of these tiny particles, how would you explain that there is no absolute heat, in the standard model? ThurnerRupert (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Von Jolly's quote

@DVdm: I see that you added a new source for von Jolly quote saying "In this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes." However this seems apocryphal. Here is an analysis of the original quote [1] by Planck about Jolly, that exact quote cannot be found. Maybe it is best to remove the quote. ReyHahn (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Missing clash

Planck was fundamental on turning the page on old physics. His debate with Ernst Mach] and the energerticists should be mentioned. ReyHahn (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Ref error

@BauhausFan89: please fill in a source for the Hartmann ref you added. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Max Planck believing in a personal God questioned

In the sentence "....believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (although not necessarily a personal one)" needs clarification. The text in brackets seems to contradict the preceding statement. I propose to eliminate it or to add a relevant citation. 150.214.192.127 (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)