Talk:Paul Dirac

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

Internal links and syntax[edit]

If you have never used this tool before, I recommend it: http://can-we-link-it.nickj.org/. You just type (or copy) the name of an article in the box, and Nick rummages through your article, to end up by suggesting many different internal links which you might have overlooked. Most of them are good; some are not (you have to check). Nick won't make any suggestions until the syntax of your article is correct: Usually bad syntax is caused by stray brackets or apostrophes in the copy. Nick provides you with a list of the bad apples, but then you have to seek them out. A fairly easy way is to copy the text into a word processor and then search for the stray marks there. (The new links for this article are indicated here.) Of course one must be cautious in doing so and not engage in linking just for the sake of linking. I hope this has been helpful. Again, I recommend using Nick's very valuable tool. Yours sincerely,

Requested Citation for Dirac's magnetic monopole claim[edit]

Hi,

It's quite weird that I was required to post here, as you have forbidden unregistered users from making (productive) edits.

But, I digress. I would like to tidy up the statement for which a citation was requested by User:Ashiataka and also, of course, provide the citation.

The claim is "In 1933, following his 1931 paper on magnetic monopoles, Dirac showed that the existence of a single magnetic monopole in the universe would suffice to explain the observed quantisation of electrical charge"

However I think this is slightly incorrect. I do not think the year 1933 is involved at all.

From what I can gather, Dirac was saying the existence of any magnetic charge implies that electric charge is quantised. The introduction of the theoretical construct of a magnetic monopole merely facilitated a framework where one could assume such a charge exists. Indeed, if User:Ashiataka took a few minutes (if that) to read the magnetic monopole page, a similar argument to the one above is provided (with additional citations). I therefore believe the passage should therefore read something like:

"In 1931, Dirac proposed that the existence of a single magnetic monopole in the universe would suffice to explain the quantisation of electrical charge" [1]

Cheers! 31.168.200.84 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this citation, which I have now added to the article. The block on nonregistered users has been placed because of past vandalism of this article. The simplest way to get permission to edit protected pages is to register. Dirac66 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dirac denounced Quantum Field Theory[edit]

At 42:30 into this video, Dirac denounced Quantum Field Theory as an abomination. Should not this be reflected in Wikipedia's article? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPwo1XsKKXg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment by dhburns on Religious views[edit]

The comment below was placed on the article page by user dhburns on 6 August 2016, removed by user Hawkeye7 a few hours later with the comment "This belongs on the talk page" in the edit summary. Yesterday it was restored to the article yesterday by dhburns again. I agree with Hawkeye7 that it belongs on the talk page and not in the article, so I am now inserting it on the talk page. Those who wish to add comments may do so - here and not in the article please. Dirac66 (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

(dispute: The quotation [at the start of the section Religious views] is not an "over quotation". It is succinct and to the point. To edit it out, would be a form of censorship. Just because it may conflict with the religious beliefs of a reader, it not a good reason to remove it. Most good science will conflict with primitive beliefs about reality.)

Category: People associated with the nuclear weapons programme of the United Kingdom[edit]

Today the Category People associated with the nuclear weapons programme of the United Kingdom was added to this article. However the article now contains no mention of the UK nuclear weapons programme. Also I checked some articles on the UK nuclear programme but found no mention of Dirac. Adding this category constitutes a claim that he was associated with that programme, so this claim should be supported by a (brief) explanation in the article with a source and/or a link to another relevant article. (I will add that I have not previously seen this claim, and I have no idea whether it is true or not, so I would like to know more, and so might other readers). Dirac66 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Dirac's Britannica biography says "Unlike many physicists of his generation and expertise, Dirac did not switch to nuclear physics and only marginally participated in the development of the atomic bomb during World War II." As for his work on Britain's nuclear weapons programme, he doesn't seem to have been a major player here either. Categories should be clearly supported by text and citations in the article, and not go out on a limb, so I've removed this unless it is clearly sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Why not read one of Dirac's own articles? [1][2][3][4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
It would help if the article mentioned what Dirac did for the nuclear weapons programme in the UK, as the categories cannot mention this in an unsourced way. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was not created until 1954, and these research papers require original research to explain why they are linked to nuclear weapons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The first three papers were written for Tube Alloys. I came across references to Dirac's wartime work while upgrading the article on Rudolf Peierls (cf Peierls, Bird of Passage, pp. 112-113; Gowing, Britain and Atomic Energy, pp. 235-238). Peierls discusses Dirac's role with Tube Alloys in detail in Biographical Memoirs, pp. 153-154. [5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The Dalitz-Peierls paper does seem to answer the question. I suggest we add a sentence or two with Dalitz-Peierls as source. This paper is already cited in the article as Ref.4 Dirac66 (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)