Talk:Planck relation

comment on this article

It has been brought to my attention that I created this article with the title Planck–Einstein relation.

I want to add to its lead a comment that perhaps will not be pleasing to all.

My reason is that there is very little literature support for the eponym 'Planck–Einstein relation'. Upon a reasonably careful search and survey, I found only two very standard texts that use it. Doubtless there are many others that I didn't find. But, sad to say, scarce though that support is, there is perhaps even less, amongst very standard texts, for other eponyms, such as 'Planck relation', 'Einstein relation', whatever. I would summarize the factual situation by saying that there is no standard eponym for formulas such as this.

There has been what I regard as very regrettable enthusiasm amongst Wikipedia editors hereabouts to have some eponym here. I coined this present one because it seemed the least unsupported, not because it was well supported, amongst very standard texts. Doubtless there are scads and scads of Google searches that will turn up vastly more support for various other possible candidates, but I doubt that the support will be anything like strong or uniform amongst very standard or reliable texts.

There are many formulas like this one, each with a slightly different meaning. We are not looking at a uniform and well-defined species.

Planck did not believe in photons for many years, but this formula is often intended to refer to photons. On the other hand, it seems not quite right to call it the Einstein relation to the exclusion of Planck, especially since there was distressing enthusiasm amongst a very few Wikipedia editors to call it the 'Planck relation'.

My own view is that there is no standard eponym for formulas like this one. Wikipedia ought not create eponyms off its own bat. It should report, not synthesise or create such things. And it should set the bar high for evidence in support for any eponym, not accepting cases when evidence in support is poor.

Wikipedia is, I think, sad to say, already doing harm by giving the false impression that 'Planck–Einstein relation' has some semblance of standardness. I don't think a massive Google search and statistical survey would be helpful, because it is too hard to assess the quality of the findings. My observation is that the Google searches done so far have turned up more poor quality resources than good quality resources, and that would not be a good guide.

I would prefer to simply delete the article, full stop.

But, sad to say, I think that happening would be too good to be true. If there is support to delete the article, punto, please register it here, and perhaps we can make some progress.

Failing deletion of the article, I would like to put into the lead a clear statement that there is no standard eponym here.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the top of the page, I see this article is rated as of high importance. I think that is a crazy rating.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Found Another Standard Reference For This

In Herbert Kroemer's Quantum Mechanics (Prentice Hall, 1994) on page 3, this relation goes by the name "Planck-Einstein-de-Broglie (PEdB)" relations. 143.215.123.172 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)