Talk:Fritz Zwicky

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


"Zwicky **immediately** speculated (incorrectly, it turns out) that the effect was due not to motions of the galaxy, but to some **inexplicable** phenomena that **mysteriously** caused photons to lose energy"

That's a typical attempt at ridiculizing an explanation wich is not in line with what the maintream parrots. "Tired light" is a legitimate explanation and there's nothing "inexplicable" or "mysterious" about the mechanism. I suggest the sentence be reworded paying a bit more respect to objectivity.-- (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Isn't the "rap" a little inappropriate and also a copyvio? —Keenan Pepper 23:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This article needed a lot of work, and still needs more[edit]

Herbm 02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC) START: The article, especially the early section on Zwicky's life was argumentative and lacking the tone of an encyclopedia article. The thrust seemed to be that no one in the scientific establishment understood Zwicky, largely due to the incompetence of other scientists.

I toned this down, and remove some of the repetive claims to this effect. One small example is changing 'prophet' (in reference to Zwicky) to 'visionary'.

This article needs more work, and might easily become the basis of a revision war so the editors should be alerted (I could not quickly find a tag for this.)

One possibly controversial addition by me: I quoted the Science Channel (with attribution) broadcast which claimed Zwicky was a "borderline psychopath" and difficult to work with.

It was this reference on "Most of Our Universe is Missing" which led me to curiosity about Zwicky and it would be appropriate to either document the original sources of this claim, or refute them with facts.

END Herbm 02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Science Channel just reran the above cited program, and it did indeed call him a "borderline psychotic". Anyone have any citations for this? 09:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this sentence from the end of the "Life and Work" section. was a fitness freak and used to amaze onlookers by doing onearmed push ups.

"Fitness Freak"? Is this something that belongs in a so called encyclopedia? Plus the person who added the line did not put in a double space after the end of the previous sentence. And "onearmed" is not a real word.

I agree, it struck me as odd. I investigated two of the cited references and found no mention of this, so I've deleted it on the basis of not having been supported with a citation. If someone has a citation to offer, by all means restore it. Accounting4Taste 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is still a mess. There are indications that much has been written by a modern day advocates of the "tired light model", which has no serious standing in astronomy at all. I've already deleted a paragraph about an alleged Mössbauer effect on photons in deep space, which is as silly a notion as you can possibly imagine. It was proposed by an amateur critic of modern cosmology, Lyndon Ashmore. Nothing of the kind can be found in the scientific literature. There is still a paragraph called "Feynman's explanation, rehabilitation of Zwicky", which is also extremely silly. It is presented as if Feynman was supporting the tired light model, and Zwicky's ideas on tired light have regained credibility. This is ridiculous. The material cited to Feynman is makes no mention of Zwicky at all, but rather to the transmission of light in a medium like glass. This is also part of Lyndon Ashmore's confusions on Mössbauer effect, as he relates this to light passing through a thin plasma. The very first paragraph says that Zwicky is mainly known for tired light. That's false also. He's much better known for proposing dark matter; and probably better known for his observational work and for his proposal of gravitational lensing. Duae Quartunciae 10:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


I hope our club could help a bit to do so. 11:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove the section: Mössbauer effect prevents blurring[edit]

This has no place in the article. Nothing about Zwicky's tired light proposal bears the slightest relation to the Mössbauer effect, which only occurs in solid crystals. The section refers to Lyndon Ashmore, with whom I am very familiar. He is a high school teacher with an amateur interest in reinventing most of cosmology, and has no credibility anywhere. He speaks of a Mössbauer effect in deep space plasmas, which is physically ludicrous; it is part of his unique proposal for tired light which conflicts with very elementary physics on conservation of momentum and energy, and has nothing to do with Zwicky. I don't know who put this there, but it is nothing but a plug for Lyndon's ludicrously incorrect theory that fails elementary physics. I will remove this section after dinner; this gives a bit of time for anyone to comment. Duae Quartunciae 08:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. The deletion is done. Lyndon Ashmore showed up at the Bad Astronomy forum a couple of years ago, and had all the errors in his work explained to him at length by every other contributor. I was involved then, under the name "Sylas". You can see a sample post where I explain why Lyndon's work is unphysical, and unrelated to the Mössbauer effect. Check out msg #34 of thread and also read the rest of the thread if you really want to know more. Duae Quartunciae 09:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tired Light[edit]

We have a bad problem with this article in relation to tired light. I have deleted two sections which were especially badly supported and were, in fact, founded on totally unphysical crank science that has no publication record. There's lots more still here that is badly flawed. Tired light is a long since refuted idea in physics. It has no credibility. Modern day tired light advocates do not use Zwicky's model in any case; they propose unphysical interactions with matter particles in deep space. Frankly, nearly everything in this article starting from the section heading "Tired Light" right through to the section headed "Hubble's Meaning" should be deleted, and replaced with a brief description of what Zwicky himself actually proposed and the fact that it was never generally accepted and is now long since falsified. Most of the material I think should be deleted is actually an attempt to argue an extreme tired light model quite different to that of Zwicky, and one which is universally dismissed as nonsense by working astronomers. However, I don't want to do more drastic deletions until someone else can speak up -- preferably someone who is also at little bit familiar with astronomy. Or, if I get a vote of confidence from a few folks, I can go ahead with the deletion and the replacement as suggested here. Duae Quartunciae 11:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a concrete proposal for a replacement section, entitled Tired Light.

Zwicky proposed that the cosmological redshift apparent in distant galaxies was due to some physical process that caused photons to gradually loose energy as they traveled through space. He considered the most likely candidate process to be a gravitational drag effect; in which photons lose energy in some way to the gravitational fields through which they pass. (Ref here to Zwicky 1929)

No way has ever been discovered to make this work, and the effect is now understood to be a consequence of the cosmological expansion of space. (Ref here to the Wikipedia article Tired Light.)

If no one objects and anyone approves, I'll make the replacement. Duae Quartunciae 11:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has commented; I am going to take the advice of some of the guides and jump right in. Major edits will be taking place. Deletion of most of the tired light material for reasons given, some changes to formatting of the rest to clean it up and help my edits. Duae Quartunciae 01:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Finished all the edits, for now. I've worked it over pretty thoroughly, though I'm sure there's lots more improvement possible. Did a whole pile of edits, one at a time. Is that an ok way to work? Duae Quartunciae 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New user "Cosmic Relief" has come to make some further changes. I am relieved to see that I'm not alone here! The change to the accelerating expansion paragraph is very good; I approve. Thank you. I disagree with your change to the Tired light section. Can you please talk about it? For instance, you add the word "was" inappropriately. I had said of redshift "is now" understood to be a consequence of the cosmological expansion of space. You replaced "is now" with "was". That is incorrect. The redshift is far and away now understand to be due to cosmological expansion. The number of scientists disputing this is tiny. The correct term as an accurate and neutral account of current knowledge remains as I expressed it previously. It is now understood to be cosmological expansion. Duae Quartunciae 13:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tightened up a bit the sentence on accelerating expansion. It is not a conflict between theory and observation, but an indicator that of a non-zero cosmological constant. It is a new development and a refinement of theory; but not a conflict with theory. Duae Quartunciae 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another change by "Cosmic Relief" that I dispute in the tired light section. He adds a sentence as follows: "However, several workers (admittedly in the minority) have now taken this theory up again and proposed several possibilities." No citation is given. If you are referring to people like Lyndon Ashmore, who was cited in older versions of this page, then you are speaking of ideas that are trivially inconsistent with simple physics and invoke concepts that cannot apply in a plasma, and which have never been published in the scientific literature. Ashmore is a high school teacher with a self published book, a web page, and a paper riddled with very elementary errors published in a fringe journal with no credibility and no meaningful review process. This is not worthy of any mention at all. There are a few other mavericks like this; but as far as I know there is no credible process for tired light that has been proposed in recent years or which has had any impact whatsoever on the scientific community. I'm happy to talk about it, and don't doubt your sincerity. But I think this change is not warranted. Duae Quartunciae 13:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I need to tread carefully. "Cosmic Relief" is actually Lyndon Ashmore; spoke to me at the Bad Astronomy forum we both read. I am going to fix the changes to something I consider more reasonable, while taking some account of Cosmic relief's perspective. If we cannot reach an agreement then there are processes we can use to help arbitrate. Duae Quartunciae 13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ASHMORE gave User:Duae Quartunciae good stuff, where is it?[edit]

  • 2. Correctly! Feynman confessed not Zwicky - but his Physics:
  • First step FEYNMAN: Light in glass as Quantum effects, never been GR-related.
  • Second steo ASCHMORE: He compared CORRECTLY (see below) interstellar gas with glass.
  • Two (very hard?) steps to understand what was meant?
  • 3. Is insulting other meanings a WIKI-manner?
  • Reminder: ZWICKY must be treated with old physics - or not?
  • YOU (CITED): "I have deleted the section, based on CRANK PHYSICS and having nothing to do with Zwicky. Mössbauer effects occur in a rigid crystal; not a plasma."
  • Are and were all (physicians) not supporting new meanings CRANK (PHYSICIANS)?
  • 4. Was it fair to erase the CITED (!)part of Ashmore and THEN talking to him - only after it was erased? How could he see how he was cited? PLEASE BE FAIR...
  • Lyndon Ashmore was directly cited and your talk with him was completely negative for your meaning, because ZWICKY means (his and our) old physics - of course no Standard...
  • 5. YOU (CITED TALK): "Nothing about Zwicky's tired light proposal bears the slightest relation to the Mössbauer effect, which only occurs in solid crystals." - Please look in (better:) German WIKI to Mössbauer effect => [2] to learn how it is valid for gas, solids and liquids
  • 6. Is it fair to pervert what ASHMORE wrote (to you?)?:
  • "Originally Posted by Sylas View Post ... Wikipedia has a biography on Fritz Zwicky that I have just noticed. It seems to have been largely written by someone who is using it as a vehicle to push a modern day tired light model. I have taken it upon myself to delete a paragraph on Lyndon Ashmore's Mössbauer effect nonsense; and also a paragraph in which Feynman's lectures about light transmission in glass is associated with a supposed "rehabilitation" of Zwicky -- meaning tired light.
  • ASHMORE: Thanks for any help or comment -- Sylas

Thanks for drawing our attention to this article Sylas. I hadn't seen it before. However, there is nothing 'nonesensical' about Lyndonashmore's tired light model. Whilst we will not discuss it here, It remains THE most viable theory on the Hubble redshift."

  • 7. ASHMORE ORIGINALLY CITED: “How Do Photons Interact With The Electrons In Intergalactic (IG) Space?
  • To Answer this we must look at how light travels through a transparent medium such as glass. In a vacuum light travels at 3x108m/s. In a medium such as glass the light is slowed down. The reason for this is that the photons that make up the light are continually absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the atoms of the glass. The photon comes along, it is absorbed by the atom, the system of electrons is set into oscillation and then a new photon, identical to the first is emitted. However, this process is not instantaneous as there is a delay between the absorption of the old photon and the emission of the new one. The result of all the delays suffered by the photons as they pass through the glass is that the average speed of the photon is reduced. Photons travel at the speed of light in a vacuum ( 3x108m/s) between interactions with the atoms but their overall average speed is reduced because of the delays suffered whilst interacting with the atoms.

Is reading links a too hard work???

PLEASE BE FAIR AND READ SOURCES AND LINKS wfc_k for 3 Astro-clubs (we have 1 Prof. and about 15 Dres and skilled physicians) 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I require help here from the Wiki community. I am new to how we should handle this. I mean no personal offense to Lyndon Ashmore, but his material was incorrect and has no standing or recognition in the scientific community. His only publication is in an extreme fringe journal with no credible review process -- and a self published book. Neither has had any impact; they are neither used nor cited in the conventional scientific literature. The paper is riddled with very trivial errors in basic physics. There have been no experiments or observations to confirm this stuff, and it is described using words in ways that don't fit with the ways they are used in physics. For example, the appeal to Feynman is an appeal to the transmission of light through glass, which involves no redshift, and involves interactions with crystal lattice and electrons bound to atoms. Feynman's physics -- as well as that of anyone else -- does not relate this in any way to a process that could give tried light in space. NONE of it has anything to do with Zwicky. I think we need some form of arbitration process. Furthermore, I believe this stuff is so far out of the basic mainstream that I would request that please the edits that have been applied be removed UNTIL arbitration is permitted. No offense intended here; I and I respect your good intentions. Good intentions are not enough. Duae Quartunciae 21:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to each other. I will make a series of comments to different matters, under different headings.

Respect for Other Users[edit]

I have checked over my comments, and am satisfied that they are confined to accurate statements of facts with respect to substance of proposals and the standing of the various ideas in physics. I do respect your good intentions, and will avoid attacking anyone as individuals. I will not refrained from identifying risible physics as trivially erroneous. Please accept also my good intentions in this, and realize you will have to work within a context where I respect you as persons, but consider your physics to be full of very trivial and basic errors.Duae Quartunciae 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to appeal to the support of individuals never identified by name. You mention a club and a professor; but nothing that could identify them. If they are relevant, please identify. If not, please refrain. You may of course invite them or anyone to speak anonymously on their own individual behalf.Duae Quartunciae 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Light transmission in glass[edit]

The fundamental issue here is that this has no relevance to Zwicky's ideas. It has no place in this biography. We have your assertion only that it has any relevance to transmission of light in deep space. This is an example of bad physics. Transmission in light involves no redshift of a tired light form; and unless you see Feynman himself making that association, your association with Feynams work on light in a crystal lattice with interactions to a lattice of bound electrons is not something you should associate with free electrons in a plasma on no other basis than your own assertion. Duae Quartunciae 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look into by us only CITED links to understand an alternative philosophy, and our answer below to basic problems of any mainstream meanings without critics... - wfc_k 14:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Zwicky's own work[edit]

Incredibly, you guys have deleted outright the new material I provided that gave a link to Zwicky's own work in tired light in the references section! As a result of your deletion of all the work I provided, discussion of Zwicky's own papers are replaced with a lot of material developing proposals that Zwicky himself rejected on very basic physical grounds that remain valid today. The link you removed was On the Redshift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space, (Zwicky 1929). You now have that only in the list of papers, with no discussion of his work in the actual tired light section! On page 775, Zwicky considered the possibility of interactions with free electrons in interstallar space, and rejects this possibility because "any explanation based on a scattering processes like Compton effect or the Raman effect, etc, will be in a hopeless position..." THAT was Zwicky's view, and you have deleted the link and replaced with the very forms of process that Zwicky and indeed effectively the entire astronomical community consider to be physically impossible. Duae Quartunciae 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Addedum. The link is still in the new material, but no longer given through the references section. This link is accompanied by a very confused discussion, which in my opinion should be deleted completely and replaced with the brief paragraph I had given earlier. The only basis for the long discussion currently given at the start of the "Tired Light" section by a recent anonymous editor is a lead in to try and justify subsequent discussions of Lyndon's fringe theories in this biography, and an invalid association with various other mixed up physics explicitly in conflict with Zwicky's own rejection of electron interaction for reasons which remain valid today. There are other minor errors in the discussion; but correcting them is beside the point. I am awaiting help from a neutral third party, but I think the best way forward is to put back the short paragraph I had their previously, briefly describing Zwicky's own tired light ideas in informal terms, and then invite comment. Duae Quartunciae 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Different meanings are eliminated by all those who mean to know god's will?

  • HERE our article jumped fron infitniy to the fist page of all searchings exept GOOGLE where any strange redirected copy jumped from a kind of infinity number on place 13.
  • Now the articel shall go back to Nirvana because THE MAINSTREAM forbid alternative physics?
  • We are a German Astro-club, and I am the writer wfc_k

Mössbauer effect[edit]

The Mössbauer effect does not work in a plasma. It applies to gamma rays in solid crystal. The effects of the lattice are essential. If the German wiki says otherwise then it has a problem. One claim made by Lyndon Ashmore is that the Mössbauer effect involves straighline tranmissions. That's not true. Photons get scattered in the Mössbauer effect, and they are emitted at extreme angles, without recoil of the much heavier lattice. This section should be deleted. It is a series of basic errors in physics; not "new physics" at all; and it has no relevance to Zwicky -- who correctly recognized as do effectively the entire scientific community today that tired light cannot arise from interactions of photons and electrons. The paper (Zwicky 1929) that I cited explicit considers this possibility and dismisses it. The same reasoning remains valid today, and is accepted today.

I have looked at the German wiki page you cited on the Mössbauer effect. I cannot read German, but I got a rough idea using a translation tool. The German page seems fine; and it confirms that the effect involves solid state quantum effects. This cannot transpose to a rarified interstellar plasma; and in any case the Mössbauer effect DOES involve scattering of the photons that collide with the lattice... not a straightline transmission with energy loss as required for tired light. The diagram shows the detector picking up photons scattered at right angles. This is why Zwicky himself explicitly and correctly rejected scattering processes. The difference in the Mössbauer effect is that scattering occurs with no recoil in the scatterer, and hence no redshift in the scattered photon. The first paragraph of the German wiki (translated) includes this: By the Moessbauer effect ... one understands the recoilless emission or absorption of a gamma quantum by an atomic nucleus. In addition the core must be in a crystal lattice, which can take over the recoil ... Duae Quartunciae 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, read that German SECTION as linked: valid for GAS, SOLIDS, FLUIDS, see comment more below. wfc_k 14:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for a third party[edit]

I would like to propose that we invite a third party to join this discussion; it is an informal request and it is a standard part of how Wikipedia deals with issues such as we are having here. It would be best if we can mutually agree that an a third party from Wikipedia has some potential to help. Are you agreeable? If there is no answer I'll go ahead and request someone come and have a look, but I would prefer that we can both agree this is a good step first. Duae Quartunciae 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have already long since read the relevant papers and discussed the physics at length with Lyndon in other forums. We really do need third party help for how to manage this, and so I have placed a neutral request for someone to come and have a look. Duae Quartunciae 01:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you guys are talking about. I wonder if you'll derive any benefit from a 3PO because yout subject matter is extremely specific and very narrowly defined, and the contents of your dispute are not altogether cogent. Perhaps there is a slight language barrier of sorts (your use of certain words throws me off, even though everything is obviously in English), and this is even though I am a tremendous fan of Richard Feynman. I'm leaving it on the 3PO page and hopefully you will modify your request and subsequently receive some useful sort of suggestion on dispute resolution. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping for some help not only with technical matters, but with dispute resolution and Wikipedia guidelines. For example... I also am a huge fan of Feynman. The reference given here to Feynman makes no reference to tired light or to Zwicky. The linkage that is being made from Feynman's comments on the transmission of light through glass, to putative energy loss for light in a thin plasma in rarified space is a violation of WP:NOR, as I understand it. The anonymous editor can give no verifiable citation that links tired light to Feynman's lectures, or to the Mossbauer effect. Duae Quartunciae 03:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have flagged the tired light section as being subject to dispute. What I would like to do is replace the section as it stands, including all subsections, with the following two paragraphs:

Zwicky proposed that the cosmological redshift apparent in distant galaxies was due to some physical process that caused photons to gradually lose energy as they traveled through space. This is called tired light. He considered the most likely candidate process to be a gravitational drag effect; in which photons lose energy in some way to the gravitational fields through which they pass <ref>Zwicky, F. (1929). "On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space". PNAS. 15: 773—779.  Full article (PDF)</ref>.

The cosmological redshift is now understood to be a consequence of the cosmological expansion of space; a feature of Big Bang cosmology. There are a handful of individuals who are still proposing variations of the tired light model, but it is no longer something considered seriously within the mainstream of modern astronomy.

I believe this is simple, neutrally stated, backed up with references for Zwicky's own work, and the second paragraph is backed up with well established and heavily discussed wikipedia articles. This is pretty much what I had given previously, before an anonymous editor just reverted everything right back to the mess I was trying to fix. All the additional stuff that has been included by the anonymous editor is original research because it makes associations between light transmission in crystal lattices with tired light in deep space; an association which is not made anywhere in reliable sources, and it is subject to accuracy dispute because of its basic errors in elementary physics and inconsistency with observation data (Wright, E., Errors in Tired Light Cosmology, UCLA Div. of Astronomy and Astrophysics ). It seems to be an attempt to insert a modern fringe theory into a biography of an astronomer who never used them, and indeed who explicitly rejected the style of approach being pushed here now as a "hopeless position" (Zwicky 1929).

My understanding of wikipedia is the recent activity of the anonymous editor has been a Partial Revert, and should been discussed before being implemented. My proposed edit here is also a revert; and so I want to get some kind of agreement or authority before going ahead. I have linked extensively to Wikipedia editing guidelines, but I would also appreciate guidance here for how to manage this problem from an experienced Wikipedia editor. Duae Quartunciae 06:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

the whole tired light section after the first paragraph is original research - the best thing to do is to move it here to the talk page where its merits or lack can be dscussed - better still move it to the tired light talk page, as you have correctly pointed out it is too much detail for a biography independent of it being OR or not, kind regards sbandrews (t) 11:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Submillimeter[edit]

I did not read through all of the comments here, but I did briefly looked at this article. The "tired light" section has been given undue weight compared to the other material, especially since Zwicky is much better known now for his other contributions than for this specific theory. Moreover, most of this discussion is not about Zwicky's work in the field but instead about the theory in general, and it should be placed in the tired light article.

The paragraph proposed by Duae Quartunciae seems to be appropriate, although it could explain Zwicky's proposal in slightly more detail, and it could include a reference for the last paragraph. (I bet Peebles's book has something.) Once modified, this section should replace the current "Tired light" section in this article.

If the anonymous editor does not agree with this and does not discuss the issue here, then it may be appropriate to semi-protect the page (see WP:RFP). Dr. Submillimeter 11:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A look at the tired light talk page shows that a similar discussion has taken place there in the past, and was resolved, with pretty much the total removal of the kind of stuff that has been placed here by the anonymous editor. At least, that is how I see it. I guess further discussion there would be in order; but I strongly advise anyone to review the history on that page first. I have removed from this biography all the subsections within tired light, as this seems pretty basic. I still have major concerns about the paragraphs that remain; and will put together a new proposal extending what I proposed above and taking into account also Dr Submillimeter's thoughts and the current text by the anonymous editor. I will put it up for consideration here before editing further. -- Duae Quartunciae 12:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I almost wonder if this anonymous editor is actually a sock puppet. Anyhow, the removal of this material from this page was appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 13:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but we are many people in our Astro-club relatet with two others, and that is indeed a problem to be solved by us, but we are in vacancies now and I seem to be the last... wfc_k 14:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

The Ashmore-ideology should be excluded from this page because of WP:UNDUE. --Mainstream astronomy 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is only MAINSTREAM valid? WIKI meanwhile reduced to a "dedicated follower of fashion"? wfc_k 14:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To User:Duae Quartunciae, User:Dr. Submillimeter and others by wfc_k for our Astro-club:[edit]

  • The Article slept and was qualified as bad, and now such interest? In MNS search "TIRED LIGHT" AND WIKIPEDIA as in ALTAVISTA shootet from formerly some thousands to the first page, placed two and four. In GOOGLE a (well redirected?) copy shootet at least to place 13.
  • Was all our Astro-club's hard work not worth while and shall be erased?

To User:Duae Quartunciae[edit]

NOT SEEN?: Indeed Mössbauer effect is also in German WIKI priory seen in crystals, but only because therein it can be logically explained very good (see to this again below Feynman and Asmore in summary)! Feynma: It is NOT only valid in cristals, but also in ohter transparent media as glass!!! Nobody knows why he wrote!

  • YOUR FAULT?: Have you not seen the directly linked SECTION, trans. by PC: "The temperature of solids, liquids and gases is correlated with the speed of the particles in it (atoms, molecules). The higher the temperature, the faster the particles move in its means. However, the speed of all particles immediately is not equal, but statistically distributed, as well the movement directions of the particles.
  • The surprising result was..."

Structured now[edit]

1. ZWICKY is in the world mainly known for Tired light, less for only now relevant dark matter. He is no mainstream and according to WIKI alternatives and critcis should be mentioned and validated.

  • The precedent proposal to put it into Tired light or non- is good but will fail.
  • To User:Duae Quartunciae: Partly right to German WIKI, but mainly you have not seen our correct direct link to the relevant SECTION (trans. here below under 4.!).
  • To Duae Quartunciae you are right to put the MARK but nee all links to realize other serious menings. Our club worked for 3 month to make the formerly as bad qualified article better with serious links.
  • Duae Quartunciae: Please verify all imposed links to realize at least a very well-founded stuff.
  • It is a similar discussion as in Photons. Are (maistream) physicians no more educated to well-known alternatives?
  • gravitational redshift and gravitational potential is Zwicky's (and others) ground to se things from another view:

wfc_k 14:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

2. EINSTEIN, well known everywhere and already linked: He cannot understand PLANCK but PLANCK was right!

  • Einstein confessed - why not found in this WIKI? - a photons zero(!!!) rest mass but a non-zero (!!!) moving and everywhere so called relativistic mass of photons!
  • Is also that very strange, seriously founded and by two Einstein effects confirmed photon's mass not worth while to put it in WIKI for Photons, Bosons, Gravitons?
  • Indeed it was calculated rigidly and anyhow stupidly - everywhere and by ZWICKY - but quite correctly (e.g. but not only for a frequency of electrons): A photon's mass, calculated by the two simple equations from Einstein E=mc² = hf from Planck!
  • In talk photons you find how the ESA (European Space Agency writes that photon's mass is well known and a fact and this is ZWICKY's TIRED LIGHT. And you find linked: it seems to be the only serious solution for the Pioneer anomaly (sorry, but why erased it in ZWICKY).
  • Is such serious lack of physical general knowledge - not only in WIKI of course, but as (bad?) mainstream - one reason that valid physics must be eliminated (shall thus a “mainstream” of superior American scientists loose all their formerly good knowledge (e.g. known but bad mockery: “Are they no more able to visit the moon again?” But indeed: Must it become soon half a century?)? Indeed: If very good and well educated Americans are simply no more educated for old - obviusly SUCCESSFUL! - physics, others will win an "international contest", or not?
  • Experience showed since 1905 "his" Einstein effects - instead of Planck's effects! Until 1953(?) Einstein wrote that he cannot understand it but that it must be true (see above linked and only now confirmed Schrödinger's effect of quantum entanglement, by himself so-called "Spuk" now well-known as "Einstein's Spuk").
  • Can YOU ALL realize that there are by EINSTEIN and GR not calculable effects, but with Einstein's meaning then used by ZWICKY? As for "normals" simply better understandable physics?

3. FEYNMAN, indeed the best in physics I ever read at my German university DARMSTADT! He was better understandable, even in another language for me!

  • He wrote (see our CITED link to verify!): also he cannot understand why, as his students, but it is quantum physics that nobody can understand; * * Feynman writes in the link quite clearly: It is also valid in transparent glass and TRIED to explain it as quantum effect!!!

4. ZWICKY is no mainstream and is now defenseless like other good old physicians. We need certainly a revision to better English but also for a serious alternative content??? We would like to have your and others help!!! Experts in our clubs are only here weekly and now began vacancies, therefore I write you what I know meanwhile.

  • We have Big bang fans and the contrary and since a discussion with John Dobson and a French Professor we discuss at least alternatives!
  • Elder and (very) old people here who have learnt the physics in another manner. There is even an known rather old French Prof., formerly German, someone who still knew Feynman and Einstein; a pitty his 85 y.o., too sensible, more and more frustrated like Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, Margaret Burbidge and hundreds of others, as already linked more above: Physician's alternative meanings against the mainstream Big bang should not be called "krank! -??? Until about 1970 Physicians said (many until today), e.g. like John Dobson (recorded as MOV): Big-Bang peoples must have a "Big Bang in their head" with many arguments, some good, some not so good.
  • Not only ASHMORE cites (too extremely? Not all can be seen serious!): 30 Big bang faults!-???
  • OF COURSE ALL NON STANDARDS HAVE HAD FOREVER SIMILAR PROBLEMS!!! – But is converse no more worth while to write it at least correctly cited as really not only quite “’’KRANK’’” as simply non-conform remaining physicians meanings? Partly even better confirmed, e.g. linked: A kind of “Tired light” can declare (sole!?) the Pioneer anomaly)?

5. ASHMORE - a fan of TIRED LIGHT, defamed as Halton Arp and above linked hundreds of physicians as only only one against mainstream - he writes, correctly linked and cited in our article, resumed here:

  • Interstellar gas is transparent like (non-crystal, amorphic!) glass and the MÖSSBAUER-effects are also valid in interstellar gas. He tried to declare the strange thing rather clearly as a kind of gravitational redshift: The gravitational potential of energy increase statistically seen from each point in universe to another point. This kind of redshift is not only valid for a single object. The effects are known as two related (linked) Einstein effects for masses (in reality Einstein could not believe PLANCK and proposed tests to prove IF - not that that - photons are effected by masses.

Let us find a fair solution[edit]

...because the stubborn and very strange but - by all old physicians so seen - simply genial ZWICKY can no more defend himself and as dead he needs certainly a little bit objective help - or not?

I cannot always answer because it is the club's PC and vacancies began over here – since an awful extern computer attack now with dynamic IP, sorry!!!

Thanks for at least trying to be objective. Could you please see that non standard must not be defamed as nonsense because students only learn the Mainstream (especially, we badly affected Germans should be carefully and not swim always with the mainstreams)?

Thanks for trying to read all our links to understand that dead people need a little bit of help - or not? wfc_k 14:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This anonymous editor is wrong in his assessment of Zwicky. Zwicky is known for much more than his work on tired light. In my mind, Zwicky is best known for being one of the first people to suggest the theory of dark matter and for compiling large catalogs of irregular objects. He is hardly remembered in the astronomical community for his tired light theory.
Exactly! Please realize: Our club had pointed out what you say! 85% is our Astro-club's ORIGINAL RESEARCH, making that ZWICKY jumped meanwhile forward to first places in all above mentioned searches!!! wfc_k 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This anonymous editor should also review Wikipedia:Fringe theories, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not obliged to contain this astronomy club's research on tired light, especially since it flies in the face of conventional science. Similarly, the theory should not be given undo weight compared to conventional theories on light. If this user wants their material posted on the web, they can host it on their own website. Dr. Submillimeter 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The anonymous editor is also wrong to describe his material as a defense of Zwicky. In fact, it is invoking processes that Zwicky himself rejected. In the 1929 paper, he described interactions with electrons as a "hopeless position". He was right. Furthermore, you are simply not permitted, under the Wikipedia guidelines, to propose on your own authority some new idea relating the Mossbauer effect or anything else to Zwicky and tired light. You must provide a verifiable reliable reference that makes this association explicitly; and even then it would probably be out of place in this biography article. But no matter: you will not be able to find such a reference; it does not exist. -- Duae Quartunciae 14:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
: Please look all former links of former article, but seriously. 
Is not all ORIGINAL RESEARCH? (not completely anonymus - sorry, sorry, sorry - but our PC and HP of club was redirectet anyhow to strage sites and we were made responsible; I personally hope, our PC-administrator will change it in autumn) wfc_k 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Please realize that ZWICKY only found a more comprehensive way: If gravity in 4D is a curvature of space where light is not effected, Zwicky found in 3D simply another way to explain the facts. IN 4D GR IT IS THE SAME! Why struggles of scientists? - wfc_k84.158.251.223

Sorry, but our club had written in 3 months 85% of ZWICKY as your real truth!![edit]

See answers and links as evidences. wfc_k (not completely anonymous but our club-PC was affected by a hard attack, even redirected to some "sexy sites", sorry, sorry but I cannot change adminisrtator's caution) wfc_k 14:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have evidence for your viewpoint, then publish it in the Astrophysical Journal at . Again, please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not obligated to publish your club's material or to give undue weight to this alternative theory. Moreover, the material really does not belong in this article anyway because it strays off-topic. Dr. Submillimeter 14:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You're not getting this. The Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability and original research are quite clear and not open to debate. You may not use this page to argue with the Wikipedia guidelines. Your own proclamations or your club's presence on the web make no difference. The rule is: for this online encyclopedia you simply MUST provide a verifiable reliable reference, as defined in the Wikipedia guidelines, that makes explicit this link you perceive between Zwicky and Mossbauer effects or whatever else you want to invoke. If such a thing existed, it could be given in two lines. -- Duae Quartunciae 14:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) Sorry, but do you really mean that well known official publications must be published again now in [3]??? Please Read the former original ZWICKY jumping in 3 months to first research places and look to the poor man above missing the first serios information auout tired light (here becoming more and more serious alternative to Big bang) wfc_k84.158.223.153 15:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We really mean that you must follow the Wikipedia guidlines. You are NOT ALLOWED to put original research in an article. A search of all papers by Zwicky in PNAS is not what is needed either. At this point you are only cluttering up the talk page with irrelevancies. Please, just read and follow the guidelines. -- Duae Quartunciae 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

FINAL: Of course it is not allowed to PUT ORIGINAL RESEARCH[edit]

  • Is this a bare accusation of people never having made a university dissertation or even much more (see the end herein from a Prof. calling me)?
  • To realize that your accusation is oviously false invention, you have simply to read only many linked ORIGINALS and what we made from it with about 40 links, made to convince you!
  • We seriously LINKED SOURCES and RESUMED their content of LINKS OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
  • Sorry but can this be accused to be OWN ORIGINAL RESEARCH? - Oh oh.... what a perversion of logic?
  • Only one part I link again aa resume e.g. from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS)
  • OUR ORIGINAL RESEARCH? - Sorry but who is here silly or (cited) "krank"?
  • I will follow now the advice of our old Univ.-Prof. reminding me again to stop not to become really "krank":

THIRD PHONE IN 2 WEEKS: Our > 85 y.o old (now) French Professor (after near 2 years in other parts a known successful author and WIKI-initiator) phoned me now again and said: I should give up to fight against Big-bang-windmills to save my health. So I will do, will go home 20 miles away from our club, go in vacancy as well really to save my health. People of our 3 clubs had made or enhanced at least 30 WIKI articles and spent money to WIKI and now resign TO BE:BOLD. Sinc 3 month none wrote himself (frustration of steady rv?). - Sorry I am only a "normal" Ing. educated in Univ. Darmstadt in physics and electrotechnics, then systemprogrammer, now impeded by accident - but I was only the writer for a good will...

I must confirm now: I should myself join now the meanwhile about 200 scientists and related people in [An Open Letter to the Scientific Community]!-??? wfc_k 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is very simple. In order to place into the article a linkage between Mossbauer effect and tired light, you must be able to provide a verifiable reliable reference that makes this linkage explicit. You cannot cite articles which refer to Mossbauer effect, and other articles that refer to tired light, and claim a connection on your own behalf, or on the basis of Ashmore's private pages. See the policy section on Synthesis. -- Duae Quartunciae 16:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Tired Light Section[edit]

I submit for consideration the following as content in the Tired Light section. Note that I would ammend the references to be links to the Notes and References section:

Zwicky proposed that the cosmological redshift apparent in distant galaxies was due to some physical process that caused photons to gradually lose energy as they traveled through space. This is called tired light. He considered the most likely candidate process to be a drag effect in which photons transfer momentum to surrounding masses though gravitational interactions; and proposed that an attempt be made to put this effect on a sound theoretical footing with general relativity (Zwicky 1929). He also considered and rejected explanations involving interactions with free electrons, or the expansion of space (Zwicky 1929).

Zwicky had good reason to be skeptical of the expansion of space in 1929, because the rates measured at that time were far too large. It was not until 1956 that Walter Baade corrected the distance scale based on Cepheid variable stars, and ushered in the first accurate measures of the expansion rate (Baade 1956). Cosmological redshift is now conventionally understood to be a consequence of the expansion of space; a feature of Big Bang cosmology.

Zwicky, F. (1929). "On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space". PNAS. 15: 773—779.  Full article (PDF)

Baade, W. (1956), "The Period-Luminosity Relation of the Cepheids", Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 68 (400): 5—16 

-- Duae Quartunciae 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest using the footnote citation system rather than the Harvard citation system. While the Harvard system is good for scientific publications, the footnote system works better in Wikipedia in practice. I also recommend writing a little more before the first sentence to place it into context, and I still recommend adding a reference for the last sentence. Dr. Submillimeter 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! Actually, I do use the footnote system; indeed that was one of my major changes to the original. However; in submitting text for consideration in the talk page, I want to put proposed references in one place. This time I have marked them with numbers; but they will be footnotes to the Notes and References section if the text is acceptable. I have cited Simon Singh's excellent popular account as the basis for stating that the Big Bang is conventionally accepted. His book concludes: "There had been a revolution in cosmology, and the Big Bang model was now accepted. The paradigm shift was complete." I don't want to make too much of this in the biography. Here is the second try at suitable text.
When Edwin Hubble discovered a linear relationship between the distance to a galaxy and and its redshift expressed as a velocity[1], Zwicky immediately proposed that the effect was due not to motions of the galaxy, but to some physical process that caused photons to lose energy as they traveled through space. He considered the most likely candidate process to be a drag effect in which photons transfer momentum to surrounding masses though gravitational interactions; and proposed that an attempt be made to put this effect on a sound theoretical footing with general relativity. He also considered and rejected explanations involving interactions with free electrons, or the expansion of space[2].

Zwicky had good reason to be skeptical of the expansion of space in 1929, because the rates measured at that time were far too large. It was not until 1956 that Walter Baade corrected the distance scale based on Cepheid variable stars, and ushered in the first accurate measures of the expansion rate[3]. Cosmological redshift is now conventionally understood to be a consequence of the expansion of space; a feature of Big Bang cosmology[4].

[1] Hubble, E. (1929). "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae". PNAS. 15 (3): 168—173. 
[2] Zwicky, F. (1929). "On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space". PNAS. 15 (10): 773—779. 
[3] Baade, W. (1956). "The Period-Luminosity Relation of the Cepheids". Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 68 (400): 5—16. 
[4] Singh, S. (2004). Big Bang. Fourth Estate. 

(I hope this is an okay way to format a block of text proposed for use in the main page...) -- Duae Quartunciae 02:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this block of text is ready for the article. At this point, with the exception of the anonymous editor, the general consensus is to remove the existing material on tired light. If the anonymous editor reverts these changes or reposts his original research, then we should seek administrator intervention to block him.
One comment: Please spell out the full titles of the journals. This is so that the average reader can more easily identify the source. Dr. Submillimeter 20:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. I will leave it for some other contributor to remove the disputed tag, as a kind of confirmation that this exchange took place. I am off to make a few more cleanups, such as fixing PNAS throughout. -- Duae Quartunciae 22:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Publications list[edit]

I have removed the tag indicating that the tired light section is under dispute, because I have done a lot of work since then, and now consider that the whole biography is more or less fixed. I've added a couple of sections; in particular Zwicky's humanitarian work and the section "Guns and Goblins" which aims to look at some of his more unconventional ideas. The list of publications is perhaps too long; but basically this was the kind of material added in place when I started editing. I've subsectioned it, and put it all into a good citation formation, with links. This means I have stopped editing for the time being. -- Duae Quartunciae 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Far too many publications - no point putting them here, someone will just delete them! Nevertheless congratulations on a job well done. sbandrews (t) 15:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. So I've gone ahead and deleted most of them myself! This reduced the article size by about 25%. The article at 15:40, 15 July 2007 still has all the previous publications I'd given in citation form. If other editors feel that there is a significant work that would be good to include, you might find a copy of the citation from there. I'm suggesting the Publications list now has just a few representative works, each one with a one line comment of some kind. -- Duae Quartunciae 01:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

moved from comments[edit]

Tired light is an important part of Zwicky's work. What Sylas has done here is to censor the article to basically discredit Zwicky's brilliant idea. That is he wants to leave the prediction in but omit the evidence that later proved him correct. There are several new proposals on Zwicky's ideas - all of them published in peer reviewed, scientific journals. Why should Sylas call them 'crank?' If academics around the world have said they are of sufficient interest to be published, then why should he (Sylas) alone decide that he knows better and should delete these references? There are several popints here that Sylas has missed. i) Zwicky proposes a tired light theory and an exponential Hubble diagram. ii) He also proposes that Supernovae could act as standard candles. iii) other workers at a later date continue his work and come up with good physical explanations as to why tired light is responsible for the redsahift normally put down to expansion. iv) ashmore shows that the Hubble constant itself is related to electron parameters and explains why (ashmore's paradox) H = hr/m per cubic metre of space v) suopernovae data show an exponential Hubble diagram. Zwicky suggested tired light. He suggested supernovae as standard candles. It these supernovae that later prove his own theory correct. That is why these points must remain here on this site. Cosmic relief 11:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Lyndon's understanding of basic physics is incorrect, and has no standing or impact in the world of science. We don't need to argue the physics. The relevant standards are WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. At no point in this discussion was any reliable source provided that related Zwicky's ideas on tired light to Ashmore's ideas. The reference to Ashmore's website is WP:SPS. The linkage between conventional physics of solid state light transmission and tired light in deep space is WP:SYN. Ashmore's ideas are not proving Zwicky correct; they are actually in direct conflict with each other. Zwicky explicitly considered and rejected as hopeless the style of process that Ashmore is advocating, and this was substantiated from Zwicky's own papers. Zwicky's own ideas involving gravitational processes were never developed into a workable theory, but he was a first rate particle physicist who would never have made the trivial errors that are in Ashmore's writings. Ashmore's complaints are without merit, either as physics or by wikipedia standards. -- Duae Quartunciae 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia, and to Biography assessment. My apologies if the previous two comments were inappropriate here. I have put a lot of work into this biography to bring it up to standard, and would really appreciate help or guidance as to what more should be done. I think the article is a lot better than when this WPBiography box was first added; but further suggestions from Wikipedia biography experts would be very welcome! -- Duae Quartunciae 05:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tired light criticisms in Zwicky's own time[edit]

A new editor has made some useful changes to the tired light section. However, two of the changes are not accurate, I think, so I have done a partial revert. They could be restored if given a citation. -- Duae Quartunciae 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase saying that more accurate measurements of expansion rate effectively falsified tired light. It would be more correct that they restored the credibility of expanding space explanation, as they allowed for an older universe consistent with the age of the Earth and of stars. The reference associated with the sentence also does not support the added claim. Tired light was actually falsified by the lack of the any distortion in images and by observations of time stretching of the same scale of tired light; these are not really associated with more accurate measurement of the rate of expansion. (diff) -- Duae Quartunciae 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted a comment about Zwicky's original tired light proposal (partial revert). I could be wrong about this; but I'd like to see a citation before the proposed change is applied. The editor suggests that right back in 1929, Zwicky's tired light proposal was was dismissed by the scientific community. That could be true enough; but the reference given with that sentence does not support that claim. In fact, all explanations at that time were problematic, including expansion, due to the rate being measured incorrectly. I have for the time being reverted to a statement about the particular proposals Zwicky himself rejected, because this is supported in the reference. (diff) -- Duae Quartunciae 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Zwicky's poorely known contribution to general relativity[edit]

Hi, I added some poorely known contribution of Zwicky's mistaken hypothesis of tired light to understanding of general relativity. It might be kind of funny that a wrong idea provides a material to improve another theory but it's just like it is... Jim 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jim, but I have reverted that change entirely as WP:POV. Like it or not, the conventional explanation for redshift remains expansion of space; not tired light or any variant thereof. Your change made a number of blanket assertions, with no references, that relate to your own notions of the causes of cosmological redshift and which have no real currency at present. This is a BIOGRAPHY, people. It should be about Zwicky, and Zwicky's own ideas. It is not a suitable venue for people to add in their own ideas with a claim that it vindicates Zwicky in some way. This is also an example of synthesis, a particular kind of no original research conflict that arises when you propose a relationship between two ideas without citing a verifiable reference that makes that linkage explicit for you. Unless it is clearly verifiable with a good source that explicitly links the recent idea to Fritz Zwicky's own ideas, then it has no place in this biography. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 00:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A thing for his wife?[edit]

What's with the glowing description of his wife: "Extremely intelligent, independent, private, rich and beautiful"? Seriously, what a weird description for an encyclopedia. - 22:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes; that would be well rewritten. It is a very old bit of material, a survivor through all the edit wars dating back to December 2006, when it was added in this edit, by registered user Thingvold. The edit stands is his entire contribution to the encyclopedia. It is sourced to the social columns of a 1932 newspaper, and probably comes to us through the Mueller biography. There was a curious mention added of "personal recollections of DVG".
Now, eighteen months further on, it may be time to revert... Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed, by editing what was there and stripping out the unencyclopedic bits. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


"Fritz Zwicky was born in Varna, Bulgaria, to Swiss parents. His father was the Bulgarian ambassador to Norway. " Could there be some explanation of why the bulgarian ambassador to norway was swiss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Has been changed in the meantime to "honorary consul of Norway in Bulgaria", which is more plausible. --Bachforelle (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"of Bulgarian origin"[edit]

Hello. I'm wondering if we can tell that he is "of Bulgarian origin". Well, he was born in Varna, but his parents are Swiss, he moved to Switzerland at the age of 6, and he worked mainly in the US. Also, the categories "Bulgarian astronomers" and "Bulgarian Americans" look me inappropriate. --PetaRZ (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed the categories. Being born in a country doesn't necessarily make you that country's national, so to speak. He's still a Bulgarian born person, but his origins are Swiss and even upon moving to U.S., he was always a Swiss astrophysicist, having grown up and studied in Switzerland, the country of his family's roots. See a similar treatment in Issac Asimov article.--RossF18 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


The January 2009 issue of Discovery has an interview with Zwicky's daughter Barbarina. It would be good to add information from the interview to this article. She has attacked any and all critics of her father through her lawyers, basically trying to squelch any speech except that which praises her father and his work. She described her father's colleagues as scattering from him as he walked the halls of Caltech because "man can't stand in the light of God". Wow. She's clearly obssessed with her father, and may be doing his memory more harm than good with her lawsuits against his critics. Whatever excellent science Zwicky did should be able to stand on its own, and not protected by threat of legal action. I wonder of the origin of some of the incredibly fawning, un-encyclopedia-like tone of a lot of the material in this Wikipedia article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it seems a bit fawning. Like, "Zwicky portrays the hostility and resistance of the scientific community that he continually encountered as a scientific prophet and visionary....Zwicky addresses the mediocracy of so many in the scientific community, who failed to comprehend his theories, thus hindering the advancement of science for many years by rejecting the very theories they now so readily embrace...Zwicky was an extraordinarily original thinker." Maybe he really was a super-genius/visionary hobbled by mediocre minds, but I don't know. It seems a bit one-sided. Judging by what I read of the Discovery article he apparently liked to tout the idea he was a genius and visionary, which if done too much can be counterproductive to being accepted as such.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Urk. Yes. The really fawning bits appeared in October 2007, in these three edits. I have cleaned up somewhat, with these edits on Nov 2009. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I note that Barbarinaz has also removed without comment much of the material that refers to the difficulties that Zwicky had working with colleagues. I think there is a bad WP:COI here, and the article suffers from it. Both parts of the man need to appear in the biography. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Arrogance and self-importance have no place in the public information arena, especially by those who parrot the myriad of "anecdotes" floating around the public domain. Mediocrity often seeks an affiliation with greatness and certainly, Fritz Zwicky's work and legacy do not require your errant input and hearsay, nor are they appreciated. Since you have no direct knowledge of FZ and his character and persona, and have not met him, you appear to be just another self-promoter seeking to aggrandize yourself among many.

Stand corrected that the accurate record is that no legal action was ever taken in defense of my father's work but in defense of his legacy and name which was under literary assault.

I would not rely on the article in Discover not "Discovery." I have publicly renounced the article for the embellished and inflammatory piece that was a distortion of its original purpose. The author chose to make it an "interest piece" about me, and even brought in my under-age son into the mix, while emphasizing the very tales and embellishments I was trying to address. (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


You need one of those little speaker icons that pronounces Zwicky when you click it.

M0123042 (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


You need one of those little speaker icons that pronounces Zwicky when you click it.

M0123042 (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The IPA might also be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

why is it like thst[edit]

i was here and its pretty cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The 18-inch Schmidt[edit]

At some point the narrative arose that Fritz Zwicky obtained the Palomar's 18-inch corrector plate from Berhard Schmidt himself, but I cannot find an actual source that says he really did. If someone has it, please post a reference here. I started looking for sources about where exactly the optics for the 18-inch were built and I am finding conflicting accounts.

  1. Perfect Machine by R. Florence on p. 260, 2nd par: Mt. Wilson optical fabricated the 24" mirror and the 18" corrector plate.
  2. But a paper on Don Hendrix (see seems to contradict this, even though Hendrix was the wizard of Schmidts in the US in those days. See very beginning of p. 3.
  3. Book by Sandage, p. 387: Optics were figured at Caltech. (
  4. Zwicky himself says that the corrector plate was fabricated in Pasadena, p. 4, 4th par ( but he only mentions the mechanics on his 100 supernovae article, p. 2, 2nd column: (
  5. See this picture at the Caltech Archives. The image is labeled "Focograph of 18” Schmidt plate at beginning of figuring." (

I think Florence is wrong on that detail and the optics were *all* made at Caltech.

By looking at the history of the article, I see that it is a very contentious piece. Please rest assured I am not trying to step on any one's toes here, merely trying to find if anyone knows for sure.

Acmejia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fritz Zwicky. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)