Talk:Laurent Nottale

Gravitational structures

Hi,

I added references to a claim about gravitational structures which was unspecific. Regarding the NPOV issue raised by this [user], claiming: "article short on detail, long on hype; needs POV balance". I do largely agree that the article is short on details about the theory of scale relativity, which it is not about. Could you be more specific about your judgement "long on hype", and propose concrete solutions to restore POV balance? Thanks. Clementvidal (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge Scale relativity in Laurent Nottale

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposing merging Scale relativity in this article per WP:FTN#Scale relativity again. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Heptor (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per FTN discussion, because the topics are closely related, and the fact that WP:Due content is small enough to easily fit both within one page. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support as there's really only enough material for one page and the BLP is the more natural of the two to retain in this case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support The theory lacks widespread acceptance and any WP:DUE content can easily be covered here. –dlthewave ☎ 19:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• SNOW SUPPORT. jps (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Snow Support per FTN discussion. It seems "Scale relativity" is UNDUE as a standalone topic. The proposed merge solves this issue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support proposal and snow closure. VQuakr (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further discussion regarding article merger

This discussion is not productive. I propose reversal to a minimal article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.65.90 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

To all: I made changes to the biographical sketch of Dr. Nottale CLEARLY separating his contributions from further claims and contributions of other authors developing or extending Scale relativity. As a bio page this follows the guidelines of Wikipedia. I do not accept excuses of "too short a paragraph", because such comments do not address the substance of the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.65.90 (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for continuing the discussion here. Please sign your Talk page posts as noted at the bottom of the edit screen, thanks. While it appears to me at first glance that your argument may carry weight, can you show proof, here, via a reliable source or sources per WP:RS that others besides Dr. Nottale have or are currently making notable contributions in the field of Scale relativity? If you included such references elsewhere, or if you have other references, please include them here, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking, nobody has developed or extended scale relativity, because it's a content-free fringe theory, full of equations and terminology but signifying nothing. Every working physicist gets theories just as "revolutionary" in their email on a weekly basis. They fly under the radar, avoiding serious scrutiny in print because there's nothing substantive to criticize, sometimes picking up a superficial veneer of respectability by getting promoted in pop-science books (an industry that will publish anything), or by passing off appearances at unrefereed conferences as "publications", or by publishing in scam journals (like Chaos, Solitons and Fractals). Secondary sources, if they do exist, are passing mentions of the "this person also said a thing" variety, in venues not known for being reliable on the topic, like physics being commented on in Technological Forecasting and Social Change. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: A quick search on google scholar for recent papers yields (those are just the first results):

• The Mathematical Principles of Scale Relativity Physics: The Concept of Interpretation - N Mazilu, M Agop
• Riccati Equations as a Scale‐Relativistic Gateway to Quantum Mechanics Saeed Naif Turki Al‐Rashid1 · Mohammed A. Z. Habeeb2 · Tugdual S. LeBohec
• Resolution-scale relativistic formulation of non-differentiable mechanics - Mei-Hui Teh, Laurent Nottale & Stephan LeBohec

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The first two are uncited, and thus either haven't been evaluated by the community to judge whether they are actually notable contributions, or have been implicitly judged as not worth paying attention to. (The first starts off with overheated claims about how scale relativity "targets in fact the very foundations of our positive knowledge", then goes on to castigate Feynman for not recognizing that "'average density' itself is only a fictitious concept", etc. It's hard to imagine many physicists bothering to read past all the red flags of the introduction to see if there's anything worthwhile, so I expect that one to remain obscure. I've read the second, and I doubt anyone beyond the authors will care about it much; it's more of the "use fractals as an excuse to bring in imaginary numbers and say you've gotten quantum mechanics" stuff, which amounts to very little. But who am I to judge?) The third is coauthored by Nottale. The second and the third have LeBohec in common as a coauthor, so the second is not as "independent" a source as it might first appear. XOR'easter (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

One can distinguish two periods...

This paragraph as written in the version here needs a rewrite to get rid of the weasel wording and attribute the analysis of Nottale's career to the author making the analysis. The single source used in the paragraph is paywalled so I am not sure exactly how much of this is attributable to the source provided. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be taken from the source, e.g.

Sur la Figure 1, qui retrace l’évolution des publications scientifiques de Nottale au cours des trente dernières années (1975–2005), on observe, malgré une certaine superposition, deux phases distinctes. La première correspond à une trajectoire ‘classique’ qui débute en 1975 et s’achève en 1991, même si dans les années suivantes l’auteur publie encore quelques textes de vulgarisation sur son premier thème de recherche. La seconde définit une trajectoire qu’on qualifiera de ‘nonclassique’, qui commence avec le premier article consacré à l’espacetemps fractal (Nottale et Schneider, 1984) et se poursuit à l’heure actuelle.

There's 45 pages of French and I don't want to quote too much. but you get the general idea. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing! VQuakr (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Over detailed material

I have reverted a large addition of material which is over detailed, over technical, and sourced only to primary sources, essentially academic papers by the Nottale. You need independent secondary sources to justify this sort of addition to a WP:BLP. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Would the following additional secundary source be enough ?

Mazilu Nicolae, Agop Maricel et Merches Ioan, "The Mathematical Principles of Scale Relativity Physics : The Concept of Interpretation", vol. 315(1), Lavoisier S.A.S., 2019, 256 p. JulienFoerster (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That would be a slighty better source for the section "The theory of scale relativity" than the current references, which are all journal articles by Nottale, but it wouldn't justify any large expansion. See also the comments in the section "Further discussion regarding article merger" above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Putting articles of Nottale on an article about him and his work should not be a problem, why is it ? How many secundary sources would justify an expansion on the topic then ? Is there a specific number wikipedia gives ? This does not make a lot of sense. I do think there is a need for an expansion summarizing technical aspects of the theory just like many wikipedia pages on physics are doing. JulienFoerster (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm dealing with a similar thing at Talk:György_Paál; "what about this citation to a junk book?". Nottale's work is fringe and not notable; the authors of your linked book posted a similarly titled article on vixra, which tells us that real publishers aren't accepting their nonsense. There is no reason to summarize "technical aspects of the theory" when the rest of the field thinks it's bunk. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to use phrases like "fringe", never mind "junk", but I would note that for mainstream physics topics with significant technical coverage in our articles one can generally point to dozens if not hundreds of texts which cover the material in detail and at a wide range of levels of technicality. Here we have nothing except WP:PRIMARY sources and one book by authors who as you indicate apparently can't even get stuff published on ArXiv. It's not promising. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)