Talk:Heinrich Hertz

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

Maxwell's theory

The article should make clear that for Hertz Maxwell's theory were just Maxwell equations and any other theory (such as L Lorenz) leading to the same equations were called by him as Maxwell equations (See Introduction of @Book{hert93,

 title     = {Electric waves},
 publisher = {MacMillan and Co},
 year      = {1893},
 author    = {Hertz, H},
 note      = {Translated by D E Jones with a preface by Lord Kevin},

} Lorenz 1861 (three years before Maxwell) have shown that light was made of transversal electromagnetic waves and gave the equation for them @Article{lore61,

 author    = {Lorenz, L},
 title     = {XLIX. On the determination of the direction of the vibrations of polarized light by means of diffraction},
 journal   = {The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science},
 year      = {1861},
 volume    = {21},
 number    = {141},
 pages     = {321--331},
 publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},

} and provided the complete relation to electromagnetism by 1867 (two years after Maxwell) but without "physical hypothesis" (like the æther) @Article{lore67,

 author    = {Lorenz, Ludvig},
 title     = {XXXVIII. On the identity of the vibrations of light with electric

al currents},

 journal   = {The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Jour

nal of Science},

 year      = {1867},
 date      = {June 1867},
 volume    = {34},
 number    = {230},
 pages     = {287--301},
 publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},

} Maxwell in his treatise recognized that Lorenz theory and his theory were identical in formulae. In conclusion. No matter what the "official history" says, Hertz did not confirm Maxwell's theory, and Maxwell could not possible predict something that was known by formula and experiment. It is about time to tell the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.22.19.21 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"Hertz (person)" listed at Redirects for discussion

File:Information.svg The redirect Hertz (person) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Template:Slink until a consensus is reached. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Figures party

Figures are all over the place. Can we decide which to keep and which to center? ReyHahn (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Subject: Proposal to Include Hertz’s Contributions to Radio/Telecom in Lead

1. Wikipedia:Lead Section Policy “The lead should identify the topic and summarize the most important points, including notable achievements, covered in the article body.”

— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section

Heinrich Hertz’s most historically and scientifically significant achievement was his experimental proof of electromagnetic waves — the direct physical validation of Maxwell’s equations. This discovery is universally cited by scientific and historical sources as the foundation upon which radio, radar, television, and wireless communication technologies were built. Therefore, per this policy, the lead must summarize this impact. Omitting that his discoveries laid the foundation for radio and telecommunications fails to reflect his most enduring legacy and undermines the purpose of the lead — which is to provide a concise, comprehensive summary of why Hertz is historically significant. (see included sources of my post)

2. Wikipedia:Due Weight “Articles should give appropriate weight to all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources.”

— Wikipedia:Due_weight

Reliable sources such as: IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/661899 Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Heinrich-Hertz) NobelPrize.org Physics history textbooks Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heinrich-hertz/)

...routinely present Heinrich Hertz’s confirmation of electromagnetic waves as the critical experimental basis for the development of radio and, more broadly, wireless telecommunications. Giving due weight to these widespread interpretations requires acknowledging this legacy prominently in the lead, not just buried in later sections.

3. Wikipedia:Verifiability “Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source.”

— Wikipedia:Verifiability

The statement that Hertz laid the foundation for radio and modern telecommunications is well-supported by reliable, published sources and is not a fringe claim. It is a basic element of the historical and scientific consensus. Including this verifiable summary in the lead is consistent with this policy and helps ensure the article reflects scholarly consensus.

4. Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View (NPOV) “Articles must represent fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.”

— Wikipedia:NPOV

Failing to acknowledge Hertz’s critical role in the origin of telecommunications technology risks downplaying the scientific importance of his work, violating the NPOV requirement to fairly represent major, well-supported viewpoints. His contributions are not just of historical interest, but of foundational technological importance — and this is broadly recognized.

so I followed "If someone reverts your edit, do not simply reinstate it without attempting discussion." — Wikipedia:Edit warring and will reinsert my edit due to all the mentions above and due to “The BRD cycle is an optional method for reaching consensus. It is not a policy or guideline. Editors are not required to follow it.” — WP:BRD. and “Consensus is a continuing process… It does not require all editors to agree on a single version. Editors may make bold edits at any time, but must be prepared to discuss them.” — WP:CONSENSUS so Im open to discuss my short inclusion but see myself on more than solid ground to proceed with it. BauhausFan89 (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not written in MOS:PUFFERY, i.e. instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it. We could just as easily say Maxwell "laid the foundation for television, radio and modern telecommunications" - its a subjective proclamation that is not encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Photo of Hertz's radio wave receiver

I enjoyed that the article had photos of his apparatus so I went to search for higher quality copies. Deutsches Museum has a high quality copy of the very photo used in this article, and also a modern colour photo released under CC-BY-SA, but the coil appears deformed and asymmetric in that photo. Which would be best?

Both photos are here, use the dropdown or arrows to see the other: Kreisförmiger Resonator mit Messingspirale von H. Hertz

--Relative Humidity (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)