Talk:Gerard 't Hooft

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


why was the cleanup IPA thing put down for something with no pronunciation at all? --Cheeesemonger 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Look at the first sentence. —Keenan Pepper 19:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Done --Slp1 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Gerardus t' Hooft at Harvard

I just saw this on the commons when I clicked "random image". Is it useful for the article? It is GFDL, so you could make a colour head shot out of it. The spelling mistake in the caption reflects the same spelling mistake in the file name.John Dalton 06:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I just realised the article picture is a monocrome crop of the above! Maybe make it colour? John Dalton 06:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This article says that he "will" retire on July 5th of 2011. Has he retired yet? -AMSMeier — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI[edit]

A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1016/0550-3213(78)90153-0 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

U(1) problem solve[edit]

It stated in the article that "In 1986, he was finally able to show that instanton contributions solve the Adler–Bell–Jackiw anomaly, the topic of his master's thesis.[24]". Not that I am an expert in this subject, but as far as I am aware the U(1) problem was solved by him 10 years earlier in the paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 8–11 (1976). Does anybody have more information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Mars One[edit]

This article links to Mars One claiming Hooft is a supporter but makes no other mention. Can this be expanded upon (with references of course).--RadioFan (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Re nav box and category see Talk:John_Traphagan#Mars_One. For a reference try (yesterday by coincidence). -Arb. (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gerard 't Hooft. 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) 19:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

't Hooft and the fringe[edit]

't Hooft's (perfectly legitimate) interest in the fundamental (philosophical, "metaphysical") concerns of physics has led to on-going polemics with several amateur scientists - by the latter I mean insufficiently qualified individuals who nonetheless want to weigh in. Explaining physics to such individuals has grown into an activity to which 't Hooft has devoted considerable attention. On the positive side, when the amateurs are of good will and eager to learn, this can be regarded as outreach. Unfortunately, the amateurs often develop a negative attitude (they become "cranks" or "crackpots") and then the exchange develops into a polemic. I think this topic deserves attention. I'm presenting my case here since I am well aware that many physicists do not consider the topic important enough, or beneath 't Hooft's dignity, and would probably remove an addition to the main page within hours of my adding it. The point is that he himself takes such matters seriously, and that makes it notable and relevant here. For instance, taking over as editor of Foundations of Physics he had to rescind that journal's support for ECE theory which of course gave rise to a bitter feud with the inventor of that theory, Myron W. Evans, which continues till today, 't Hooft ever the gentleman and Evans spewing insults and invective on his blog. A friend of Evans's, Stephen J. Crothers, has been pestering 't Hooft with angry emails and attack papers on vixra for many years now. Here is a recent exchange between all three dramatis personae:

On Saturday, 19 August 2017, 21:44, “Hooft, G. ‘t (Gerard)” <> wrote: Dear Mr C.. You and Mr Robitaille are the only ones having problems understanding Kirchhoff’s Law. Please keep studying it. If you do your exceptional best you may perhaps one day figure out how it works. G. ’t H --- On 19 Aug 2017, at 03:19, Stephen Crothers <thenarmis> wrote: t Hooft and Koberlein, Since you are birds of a feather, here is a simple experiment proving Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission false. This puts big bang cosmology and all its paraphernalia to the sword. Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Is Kirchhoff’s Law True? The Experiment! Crothers --- Evans: I agree with Stephen Crothers, ‘t Hooft in my opinion is a mediocrity.

I do realise and freely admit that this is sad stuff, but it is part of the life and work of 't Hooft. Note well: I am not arguing that 't Hooft is himself a crank. He does seem to have developed a mild case of "Nobel disease" but I believe the consensus is that he is still firmly on the sane side of speculative physics. (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The main problem I see with including anything on this is basing it on suitable reliable sources. We cannot base statements on this page on blog posts etc. We would have to base ourselves on published interviews etc, which may not even exist. And even then, it may still be very hard to appropriately satisfy WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.
A secondary problem is that mentioning any of this on this page will undoubtedly draw some of the above mentioned cranks to this page, and they will be unlikely to agree with a factual representation of the situation. This will end up wasting a lot of time and energy. (Of course, on its own this is not an argument against inclusion, but it certainly strengthens the first point.)TR 14:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)