Jump to content

Talk:Paul Dirac

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Desertphile (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 27 June 2019 (→‎Autism: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

If you have never used this tool before, I recommend it: http://can-we-link-it.nickj.org/. You just type (or copy) the name of an article in the box, and Nick rummages through your article, to end up by suggesting many different internal links which you might have overlooked. Most of them are good; some are not (you have to check). Nick won't make any suggestions until the syntax of your article is correct: Usually bad syntax is caused by stray brackets or apostrophes in the copy. Nick provides you with a list of the bad apples, but then you have to seek them out. A fairly easy way is to copy the text into a word processor and then search for the stray marks there. (The new links for this article are indicated here.) Of course one must be cautious in doing so and not engage in linking just for the sake of linking. I hope this has been helpful. Again, I recommend using Nick's very valuable tool. Yours sincerely,

Dirac denounced Quantum Field Theory

At 42:30 into this video, Dirac denounced Quantum Field Theory as an abomination. Should not this be reflected in Wikipedia's article? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPwo1XsKKXg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by dhburns on Religious views

It seems quite INSULTING to the memory of Dirac and the value of his work that THERE IS TWICE MORE SPACE DEDICATED TO HIS VIEWS ON RELIGION THAN TO HIS fundamental equation, CREEPING in something totally irrelevant, who cares what a quantum physicist thinks about Yaveh, WHAT IS THIS? THE ENCYCLOPEDIA JUDAICA?! are we nuts? CUT it down!

The comment below was placed on the article page by user dhburns on 6 August 2016, removed by user Hawkeye7 a few hours later with the comment "This belongs on the talk page" in the edit summary. Yesterday it was restored to the article yesterday by dhburns again. I agree with Hawkeye7 that it belongs on the talk page and not in the article, so I am now inserting it on the talk page. Those who wish to add comments may do so - here and not in the article please. Dirac66 (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(dispute: The quotation [at the start of the section Religious views] is not an "over quotation". It is succinct and to the point. To edit it out, would be a form of censorship. Just because it may conflict with the religious beliefs of a reader, it not a good reason to remove it. Most good science will conflict with primitive beliefs about reality.)

Category: People associated with the nuclear weapons programme of the United Kingdom

Today the Category People associated with the nuclear weapons programme of the United Kingdom was added to this article. However the article now contains no mention of the UK nuclear weapons programme. Also I checked some articles on the UK nuclear programme but found no mention of Dirac. Adding this category constitutes a claim that he was associated with that programme, so this claim should be supported by a (brief) explanation in the article with a source and/or a link to another relevant article. (I will add that I have not previously seen this claim, and I have no idea whether it is true or not, so I would like to know more, and so might other readers). Dirac66 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dirac's Britannica biography says "Unlike many physicists of his generation and expertise, Dirac did not switch to nuclear physics and only marginally participated in the development of the atomic bomb during World War II." As for his work on Britain's nuclear weapons programme, he doesn't seem to have been a major player here either. Categories should be clearly supported by text and citations in the article, and not go out on a limb, so I've removed this unless it is clearly sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not read one of Dirac's own articles? [1][2][3][4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if the article mentioned what Dirac did for the nuclear weapons programme in the UK, as the categories cannot mention this in an unsourced way. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was not created until 1954, and these research papers require original research to explain why they are linked to nuclear weapons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first three papers were written for Tube Alloys. I came across references to Dirac's wartime work while upgrading the article on Rudolf Peierls (cf Peierls, Bird of Passage, pp. 112-113; Gowing, Britain and Atomic Energy, pp. 235-238). Peierls discusses Dirac's role with Tube Alloys in detail in Biographical Memoirs, pp. 153-154. [5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Dalitz-Peierls paper does seem to answer the question. I suggest we add a sentence or two with Dalitz-Peierls as source. This paper is already cited in the article as Ref.4 Dirac66 (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Paul Dirac. 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:

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) 23:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autism

Is it worth the time and effort to mention autism in the main article? --Desertphile (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]