Talk:Ernst Stueckelberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Untitled[edit]

I'm of the opinion, he is genuinely written "Stueckelberg", not "Stückelberg", despite being this rather uncommon. It would be nice if someone can unearth a reference deciding this issue. --Pjacobi 11:06, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

The proper spelling seems to be "Stückelberg", as you would expect from a German sounding name. For instance see the following article from CERN Courier [1], or the following list of publications [2].Erkcan 09:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Stückelberg may be more correct, but in most of his scientific papers, the spelling Stueckelberg is used. Likebox's edit of October 10, 2007 indicates that he/she knows something that I do not. Stueckelberg's covariant perturbation theory has, as far as I know, not been adopted at all. If it is just that it has not been universally adopted, would he/she care to provide references? Cgoakley 00:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Although his work was highly respected, later work which was only superficially different and only marginally more advanced would win the Nobel prize for others" is the kind of comment that should never appear in Wikipedia. Like other readers I am not interested in the opinions of non-notable contributors, I am interested in facts. If Likebox wants people to believe this, then he/she would do much better just to present the evidence and then let readers decide for themselves! Cgoakley 12:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Stueckelberg's covariant P.T. has not been adopted by anyone, as far as I know, so I have removed the statement suggesting just that it has not been "universally" adopted. Also, the comment that Stueckelberg should have received the Nobel prize instead of Feynman, et al is a point of view and as such, does not belong in Wikipedia. Cgoakley (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that. There was no suggestion that Stuckelberg should have recieved the nobel prize, and especially there was no suggestion that it should have been instead of Feynman. Feynman deserved all the recognition he got. Feynman formulated the path integral, the diagrams, and the first covariant regulator. What more do you want? And that's just what he won for. He also did decoherence, polaron, liquid helium, V-A theory, ghosts, partons, quantum computing, and the 2+1 gauge vacuum, not to mention unpublished stuff like background field.
The statement that was erased was not a slight on anybody. It was a statement of fact: Stuckelberg did not recieve any prizes or recognition, other than a position and a belated Max Planck medal. This despite the fact that he invented the renormalization group, despite the intermediate bosons, despite covariant perturbation theory, and despite the first Abelian Higgs mechanism, in 1957, remember this is same year as BCS, before Anderson, before Brout. His lack of recognition is a notable and sad fact. It is important to note that the immensity of his accomplishments were overshadowed, without belittling other great physicists.Likebox (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Inventing the renormalization group is nothing to be proud of. But if you want to put something about Stueckelberg being passed over recognition-wise, go right ahead. But, even if it is hearsay please cite your sources. Cgoakley (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I just read the rest of the comments. First: Stuckelberg's covariant perturbation theory today is a done in several places, including one recent quantum field theory textbook. The method does not have a name anymore--- it's expanding the equations of motion in a power-series in e after a fourier transform. It was used in the 70's by statistical physicists, I worked it out too (badly) at some point, and so does everybody, it's a standard method. It's Feynman diagrams from an equations of motion point of view.
As far as the renormalization group--- the Nobel comittee has so far awarded two prizes for renormalization group work: Kenneth Wilson in 1980 and Gross Politzer and Wilczek just recently. Gell-Mann and Low formulated it in the modern way, but Stueckelberg and Peterman came up with the idea, and it is the greatest mathematical tool ever created by physics.Likebox (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Likebox - "one recent quantum field theory textbook" is not good enough. Which textbook? Where? I would like to know as I spent a lot of time on this. Cgoakley (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor from Canada with a Videotron IP address (96.22.153.11) has deleted my comment about Stückelberg's covariant perturbation theory with no explanation. Unless an explanation is forthcoming, I will treat this as vandalism and reinstate the comment shortly. Cgoakley (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision work[edit]

Having access to the Lacki et al biographical book, I'm now starting a major rewrite of this article. Any help greatly appreciatedRobma (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

CG Oakley[edit]

I have no idea why this person is getting to dominate this particular wikipedia entry. Who is this guy? His website is clear hint of something dodgy -- Renormalisation is a serious issue plaguing QFT that mathematical physicist would be seriously interested in. Yet, this man claims to have an equivalent of a braindead method to solve this problem. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it is even silly insinuating that the entirety of the QFT community failed to try the equivalent of "10-20-30" solution. Instead, I hear more of the "oppressed victim" trying to spread the word, which is why his links are spread over the page. 220.255.2.232 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone (can't remember who) wrote that being attacked by anonymous people on the internet is a bit like being assaulted by dwarfs in the dark. I concur. The article is about Stueckelberg, not me. Showing that at least one person (me) followed up on Stueckelberg's 1934 ideas, even if unintentionally, is worth mentioning as it helps demonstrate the value of those ideas. This accounts for just one link to my work which is the only self-promotion, or whatever you want to call it, here. Talk pages OTOH are more free format and interest in discussions is not necessarily just because I am looking for attention. Deal with it. Cgoakley (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)