Talk:John Archibald Wheeler
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Archibald Wheeler article.|
|John Archibald Wheeler has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
- 1 Biography, 1990, 'it from bit'
- 2 Einstein Collaborator
- 3 Quotation
- 4 No-hair quotation
- 5 Wheeler books
- 6 Removal of James Hartle
- 7 Participatory Anthropic Principle
- 8 information regarding geometrodynamics is not accurate
- 9 One electron in the universe
- 10 Reversion of photo
- 11 Confusing typo, please unambiguously clarify --
Biography, 1990, 'it from bit'
Wheeler knew Einstein and like to visit him and have conversations. He would also send his students to talk to Einstein. But, I have never heard of Wheeler as being characterized as a collaborator of Einstein's before, and having worked on unified field theory. I suspect this is not correct. At a minimum, whoever put this in needs to provide a citation. Else, this passage should be corrected or expunged. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the following paragraph:
He is also known for making interesting quotes; one of the best known is: "Time is what prevents everything from happening at once."
While Wheeler is definitely known for turning a phrase, he attributes this quotation to "a graffito that [he] once saw in the men's room of the Pecan Street Cafe in Austin, Texas". Wheeler, Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics, p. 351. Finell (Talk) 05:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe I read in one of Kip Thorne's books that Wheeler coined the term: "Black holes have no hair." Is this correct? David618 02:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I can not locate a book titled Law Without Law as listed in Wheeler's booklist. Is the title incorrect, or should it be deleted from the list? --Blainster 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Removal of James Hartle
I have removed the incorrect statement that James Hartle was a doctoral student of Wheeler. He was the student of Gell-Mann. Evidence of this can be found at the Math Genealogy Project bunix 12:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Participatory Anthropic Principle
Wheeler is also came up with the Participatory Anthropic Principle. Why is this not mentioned in his article?
I cite here: http://home.btconnect.com/scimah/anthropism.htm
This theory is known as the Participatory Anthropic Principle and was first put forward by the physicist John A.Wheeler in 1983. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
I added a bit on PAP, with a direct quote by Wheeler. In the same radio interview Martin Redfern says: "David Deutsch once studied under the great quantum physicist John Wheeler. It was Wheeler who coined the next term - the participatory anthropic principle. That grew out of his understanding of the role of observation actually making us participators in the quantum universe." But I didn't think it was necessary to attribute that Wheeler coined the term. N.B. The link above is broken, but here's another: http://kwelos.tripod.com/anthropism.htm Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
information regarding geometrodynamics is not accurate
This is a good article on J.A. Wheeler. However, the information regarding geometrodynamics is not accurate, especially the following statement: "Wheeler abandoned it as fruitless in the 1970s".As a matter of fact, Wheeler kept using the term "geometrodynamics" to describe Einstein's theory of general relativity till his last days. For example, in Gravitation and Inertia, a book written with the Italian physicist I.Ciufolini in 1995(and which was missing from the bibliography), the authors keep referring to "Einstein Geometrodynamics"(the title of Chapter 2) throughout the the book: Chapter 3 is entitled " Tests ofEinstein Geometrodynamics", Chapter 5 is "The Initial-Value Problem in Einstein Geometrodynamics" and Chapter 7:"Some Highlights of the past and a Summary of Geometrodynamics and Inertia".This proves that Wheeler did not abandon the concept at all in the 1970s! 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Gemb47
One electron in the universe
Seth Lloyd mentioned in a class that John Wheeler, on the phone to a colleague, claimed he had discovered why every electron in the universe has the same weight, charge, etc... because they are the same electron simply interacting with itself forward and backward through time. Lloyd went on to say this has been proven as unlikely, however was this in jest on Wheeler's part? Did he have a theorem and maths to substantiate some part of the claim? Even if not meant in earnest, the concept as a fleeting fancy seems notable enough to me to make a mention of here in this article. If it stands alone as it's own theory by some virtue then even an article would be called for. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Reversion of photo
I reverted the photo because there is some doubt over whether the new image  is J.A.Wheeler (link) or John P. Wheeler III (link). More seriously there is doubt about whether the photo is in the public domain. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics for more discussion. CodeTheorist (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, I can now confirm that the photo I reverted is J.A.Wheeler (Emilio Segrè Visual Archives). The copyright status is still very uncertain. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Confusing typo, please unambiguously clarify --
-- and thank you in advance for your attention.
"He also suggested the use of muons as a nuclear probe. This paper, written in 1949 but not published in 1953, resulted in a series of measurements of the Chang radiation emitted by muons."
Sorry, but I'm in "Hard Physics Mode" working on an illustration for John Cramer (UW) involving Dr. Wheeler and that second sentence makes no sense. It's implied that it was written in 1949, but if it weren't published in 1953, why should that matter? (It also wasn't published last year!) Was there some controversy preventing his publication in 1953? Was it published in 1949? Or was it not published until 1953 / published in 1953? (One of the words, "not" or the following, second "in" in that sentence, is a poor choice in an article about spooky actions happening at a distance. We need less Heisenberg in the King's English!)
Your word to Wikipedia's ear ... I recognize that it's grammatically incorrect, but I'm not qualified to fix it accurately, depending upon the intent. Thanks!
- A footnote in  says "The present note was written in October 1949 while the author was John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellow on leave of absence from Princeton, and was circulated privately." I suggest "This paper, circulated privately in 1949, but not published until 1953," --Kkmurray (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)