Talk:Einstein relation (kinetic theory)
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Naming[edit]
This page needs a redirect from 'Stokes-Einstein Relation'. All American textbooks that I have read use this name. --70.167.203.179 03:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Symbols[edit]
The article does not define what is meant by the mu without a subscript in the electrical conduction section 66.188.130.252 (talk) 11 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Naming (2)[edit]
The usual name for the diffusion-viscosity relation is the 'Stokes-Einstein' relation (as an example, google gives 138000 hits for "Stokes-Einstein", and 9400 for "Einstein-Stokes"). I suggest renaming it here. Any objections? Isk s (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I object. Actually, William Sutherland has precedence in this discovery, as per [1]. In this strict sense, it would be possible to refer to this as the "Sutherland relation" or "Sutherland equation". However, the growing consensus is to use the phrase "Stokes–Einstein–Sutherland equation".
- —DIV (115.64.145.215 (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC))
- In your reference [1] (slides from a presentation by Peter Hänggi, not realy a peer reviewed source. The original paper is http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786440509463331) it states "It is not known, why the Stokes-Einstein equation is not known today as the Stokes-Einstein-Sutherland equation instead". As to your claim that the field is accepting the new name: A a google scholar search for articles since 2015 with Stokes-Einstein equation turns up 8.030 results. Stokes-Einstein-Sutherland equation only 60. I understand the desire to do justice to Sutherland, but wikipedia is not the place to change the name of an equation. We also don't change Newton's laws into Newton-Decartes laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.181.72 (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should say "slowly growing", on the logic that: (i) use of the 'SES' nomenclature would have been proportionally much less before (say) 2015 than after 2015; and (ii) many of the users of 'SE' nomenclature cannot be regarded as experts in the field (just as lots of papers may mention "Brownian motion", without the users necessarily understanding the fundamentals of it).
- You probably already know that search-engine tests have their own inherent problems.
- —DIV (115.64.145.215 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC))
- In your reference [1] (slides from a presentation by Peter Hänggi, not realy a peer reviewed source. The original paper is http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786440509463331) it states "It is not known, why the Stokes-Einstein equation is not known today as the Stokes-Einstein-Sutherland equation instead". As to your claim that the field is accepting the new name: A a google scholar search for articles since 2015 with Stokes-Einstein equation turns up 8.030 results. Stokes-Einstein-Sutherland equation only 60. I understand the desire to do justice to Sutherland, but wikipedia is not the place to change the name of an equation. We also don't change Newton's laws into Newton-Decartes laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.181.72 (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Further information on precedence: "Sutherland reported his solution to this problem in 1904 in a paper at the Dunedin ANZAAS conference, and published it [in a journal] the following year."[1] The original revelation (and indeed, arguably, 'publication') by Sutherland was thus in 1904, irrespective of the fact that this was not in the form of a journal article. —DIV (120.17.6.169 (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC))
References
- ^ World Year of Physics - William Sutherland at the University of Melbourne Essay by Prof. R Home (with contributions from Prof B. McKellar and A./Prof D. Jamieson) dated 2005. Accessed 2017-04-28.
Grammar[edit]
I've never heard of that researcher "Stokes-Einstein". Was that a woman, born a "Stokes" who married a fellow called "Einstein", and thereafter took the double-barrelled name "Stokes-Einstein"?
Because two researchers were being referred to, an en-dash would have been used, right?
—DIV (115.64.145.215 (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC))
It's getting worse[edit]
Now there's also a new person mentioned called "Nernst-Einstein". I wonder who they are?
Use an en-dash!
—DIV (1.144.109.245 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC))
Quantum case, relevant for metals[edit]
The existing article covers only the original Einstein relation valid in classical physics (for example, for Boltzmann gas.)
It is misleading not to discuss the quantum generalization (especially for electron mobility), because all normal metals are described by Fermi gas (liquid) rather then Boltzmann. In the most relevant case T << T_Fermi, temperature in the Einstein relation should be replaced by the Fermi energy. Daniel Antonenko (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, but the current version of the article simply said "TODO", so I have removed it for now until a full write up can be included. Georgeoshardo (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Mnemonics[edit]
It's a shame this page doesn't mention that this may be the only common formula that not only rhymes (dee over mu is kT over q), but whose reciprocal also rhymes. Makes it easy to remember. Mwistey (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)