Loading AI tools
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Is it generally acceptable to have hidden discussions about an article off of it's talk page? I'm concerned that this article is being railroaded by certain editors. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm moving this text from the article to the talk page, as it seems to be more related to Maxwell's equations than the article topic, spacetime. I'm leaving a paragraph that focuses on the relation between Maxwell's equations and spacetime, as that is on-topic. I'm not quite sure how to use the content that is being moved while staying on-topic. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The ancient idea of the cosmos gradually was described mathematically with differential equations[further explanation needed], differential geometry[further explanation needed], and abstract algebra[further explanation needed]. These mathematical articulations blossomed in the nineteenth century as electrical technology stimulated men like Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell to describe the reciprocal relations of electric and magnetic fields. Daniel Siegel phrased Maxwell's role in relativity as follows:
[...] the idea of the propagation of forces at the velocity of light through the electromagnetic field as described by Maxwell's equations—rather than instantaneously at a distance—formed the necessary basis for relativity theory.[1]: 189
Maxwell used vortex models in his papers on On Physical Lines of Force, but ultimately gave up on any substance but the electromagnetic field. Pierre Duhem wrote:
[Maxwell] was not able to create the theory that he envisaged except by giving up the use of any model, and by extending by means of analogy the abstract system of electrodynamics to displacement currents.[2]
In Siegel's estimation, "this very abstract view of the electromagnetic fields, involving no visualizable picture of what is going on out there in the field, is Maxwell's legacy."[1]: 191
References
Under the provisions of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I have performed a BOLD revert of Spacetime version of 00:38, 29 May 2017 to a version which is close to 22:30, 13 May 2017 version of 22:30, 13 May 2017 except for incorporating consensus changes agreed upon between myself and several other editors, along with a few corrections and enhancements.
On 23 March 2017, I had read the following Talk Discussion: This article needs a complete redo where three editors agreed that "this is just about the worst article [that the editor had ever] seen". Seeing that, I began an effort to completely rewrite the article:
I was out of the country from May 14 to May 21. During my absence, the anonymous IP 47.32.217.164 decided that he wanted to completely rearrange the article. In addition to completely rearranging my work, he tore apart Greg L's carefully composed lede.
here is an interesting discussion.
YohanN7 has called the IP a crank
Both Greg and I tried to work collaboratively with the IP, but the IP has been non-cooperative. When I tried to make a few minor changes, the IP immediately reverted them. When I tried to explain to him my vision for an article that progressed in difficulty from an almost completely non-mathematical introduction to an algebra-based presentation to a planned calculus-based presentation, the IP dismissed my vision as not being the only way to write an article.
I decided to take a breather and to see just what sort of vision that the IP had for this article. As I wrote to Greg, "I'm curious how Anon's vision for the article will shape up .... Anon needs a chance to prove that he is really interested in the quality of the article."
The IP had introduced too many poorly thought-out edits for me to document them all. I merely report here on a representative sampling.
My discussion here will be based on Spacetime version of 00:38, 29 May 2017.
In other words, the article started off with a totally incoherent set of non-informative, disconnected stub sections that threw out jargon terms and offered little or no useful information, except where it quoted from my original version of the article.
The IP completely removed figure numbers from the figures, while leaving them in the text. An important figure on the light cone in the Galilean frames section 3.3.1 is required by the Light cone section 5.2.2 a third of the article away.
Galilean transformations was not followed by Lorentz transformations, as might be expected, but instead was followed by Four dimensional description discussing eighteenth and nineteenth speculations by d'Alembert, Lagrange, Clifford and Edgar Allan Poe.
In Maxwell's equations, the IP placed the statement "It is the intermingling of electric and magnetic manifestations, described by Maxwell's equations, that give spacetime its structure." Spacetime does not arise from Maxwell's equations.
In a 24 May 2017 edit, the IP placed a "dubious" tag on the statement, "But special relativity provides a new invariant[dubious – discuss], called the spacetime interval", demonstrating himself to be ignorant of basic facts.
Although the IP is possibly well-meaning, his edits have amounted to serious vandalism. There is no evidence that he/she has any bona fide understanding of the material in this article. His IP should be blocked. If it is possible to identify him, he should be banned.
Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
{Someone new to the discussion here} My 2¢. The I.P. editor was not in any fashion engaging in WP:vandalism. Anyone using that term should read up on what it means.
However, as I noted above, I.P.'s editing style wasn’t in the least bit in a collaborative manner. The I.P. was only paying lip service to “discussion” on this page… and even that amounted to after-the-fact declarations of what he or she did and was going to do; it was far from “developing the article through consensus,” which is central to making anything work on Wikipedia. As User:Graeme Bartlett said here on his talk page (perma-link), where we were discussing what to do about this article:
“ | WP:BRD applies to this situation. The IP has made a bold change that someone disagrees with. You can then revert, or partially revert. Then discussion can take place as to where to go next. | ” |
I think the newly reverted version of the article is the best starting point. I am satisfied that Stigmatella aurantiaca knows his material, which is a good start to any article this technical. However, as often happens when a semi-expert wades into an article for too long, this article has grown too complex. About the only sections that are “accessible” to a general-interest readership (assuming they have some facility in relativity before coming here) are the lede, definitions, and history. Beyond that, the article rapidly gets too arcane, with far too much of a time commitment required to master the next level of escalation.
It would be helpful if the I.P. editor created an account so he or she can be better integrated into the community and the decision making that underlies changes; other editors can leave messages and a variety of other benefits that help in the collaborative writing environment that is Wikipedia.
Something we can also do is create a sandbox page specifically for this article, where draft proposals of text can be massaged, collaborated upon, and discussed. I've done that sort of thing before, and suggest only that we not create an associated talk page for the sandbox; it is best to have discussion in only one place (here). Greg L (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
“ | Convince me that it will be used to address my concerns, and I may be interested. | ” |
“ | I feel it would be best if you stayed out of this discussion until my concerns have been addressed adequately. | ” |
{Someone new to the discussion here} My 2¢. The I.P. editor was not in any fashion engaging in WP:vandalism. Anyone using that term should read up on what it means.
However, as I noted above, I.P.'s editing style wasn’t in the least bit in a collaborative manner. The I.P. was only paying lip service to “discussion” on this page… and even that amounted to after-the-fact declarations of what he or she did and was going to do; it was far from “developing the article through consensus,” which is central to making anything work on Wikipedia. As User:Graeme Bartlett said here on his talk page (perma-link), where we were discussing what to do about this article:
“ | WP:BRD applies to this situation. The IP has made a bold change that someone disagrees with. You can then revert, or partially revert. Then discussion can take place as to where to go next. | ” |
I think the newly reverted version of the article is the best starting point. I am satisfied that Stigmatella aurantiaca knows his material, which is a good start to any article this technical. However, as often happens when a semi-expert wades into an article for too long, this article has grown too complex. About the only sections that are “accessible” to a general-interest readership (assuming they have some facility in relativity before coming here) are the lede, definitions, and history. Beyond that, the article rapidly gets too arcane, with far too much of a time commitment required to master the next level of escalation.
It would be helpful if the I.P. editor created an account so he or she can be better integrated into the community and the decision making that underlies changes; other editors can leave messages and a variety of other benefits that help in the collaborative writing environment that is Wikipedia.
Something we can also do is create a sandbox page specifically for this article, where draft proposals of text can be massaged, collaborated upon, and discussed. I've done that sort of thing before, and suggest only that we not create an associated talk page for the sandbox; it is best to have discussion in only one place (here). Greg L (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
It’s worth noting that user:Stigmatella aurantiaca has produced a great number of the graphics on this article. There are more than 30 by my count. Of the first ten illustrations and animations I examined, eight had been produced by Stigmatella aurantiaca. Having personally produced animations and graphics for many articles on Wikipedia, I know first hand…
After all, a picture is worth a thousand words. In the case of illustrating an abstruse concept like spacetime, a graph is worth more than a thousand words.
For this reason, I intend to give Stigmatella aurantiaca ample discretion on this article for a while. He has done a huge amount of heavy lifting—greatly benefiting the project—and to invest so much time, the journey must be interesting and rewarding.
Having said that, I firmly believe this article requires that Stigmatella aurantiaca receive good-faith, constructive suggestions and feedback from the community as he labors on it. I make a living doing technical writing and always run drafts by others for feedback. In the case of this article, I also have the advantage of not understanding the subject matter beyond the lede and can therefore serve as the “fool” in “foolproof” in hopes of making the article as easy as practicable to understand.
There's a lot of work still to do; it won’t be truly ready for prime time for a while yet.
Despite my best efforts to write an accessible, mostly non-mathematical Introduction for this article, it still represents 50,000 characters of fairly dense reading. Off-the-record, I have gotten some pretty sharp remarks about this.
I want to make it easier for the typical user to wade through this introductory material.
I am trying an experiment in my (I removed the direct link to my Sandbox version of the Spacetime article since the experiment is now implemented in main article space) of adding summaries for each subsection of the Introduction section.
You will see internal links that look like this in the sandbox Introduction:
I would much appreciate comments on whether the experiment is successful, how I could improve it, or alternative means of achieving my purpose.
Thanks, Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
(*sound of crickets chirping*) It looks like it's just you and me to figure any of this out. I see you went ahead after a pregnant pause there. Good. Greg L (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Purgy!
You've made some good suggestions in the past, but English does not appear to be your native language. So I've taken your suggested changes here where you and User:Greg L can work on them together. Hope you don't mind too much?
Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
is a near esoteric term. I tried to reuse 'interweaving', and to achieve a more direct (elegant?) expression, but certainly there is a better verb (?connect?). Shifting the imprecision from the noun to the verb is a smaller violation of veracity than the original attributed noun. Specifying the dimensionalities of the involved spaces is no big deal in this place and leads the reader gently to a 4-space, by being hinted to time being something 1-dimensional. Purgy (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
of space and time is at the core of Newton's (Galileo's, ...) physics, and therefore, I think, this word should occur when talking about pre-20th century's physics. I think it is important, especially for newbies in relativity, to start at the elementary measurements of "where" and "when". "Shapes, distances, and directions" are all derived notions, dependent on the "where". So addressing these elementary measurements, at least in parens, seems appropriate, whereas the "shape" of a space is to me something yet undefined. Purgy (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it is worth mentioning that establishing a distinguished velocity, measured in space/time-units, delivers a connection of previously independent entities of space and time to the topic of this article: spacetime. Purgy (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
is the core of relativity. I tried to carve out this in more precise detail. I think talking here about "shape" of a space is without any foundation, and length contraction and time dilation are not the reason for this invariant, but rather their consequence. In fact, the postulated invariance of the spacetime interval (to make physics meaningful in all frames of reference) gives rise to the Lorentz transformation. Purgy (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
are two notions for the same thing, and I am convinced that the (quite ubiquitous) phrase of "observers in different frames of reference" should be avoided. (I see no chance to eliminate one of the two from the lingo. Beware also the "observables" in QM, ...) The observers are more personalizing, and frames of reference, especially when graduated with the "scientific" term "inertial", add some formal weight. OTOH, observers induce sometimes the mistaking of "observing" from the origin vs. "taking coordinates" in this frame. Purgy (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
are, imho, notions that fit very good together. I think that talking of the shape of a (pseudo-) euclidian space, calling it a manifold (which it is) is sort of an overkill. I tried to sort this out in a most gentle way, in the same vain as I edited some remarks on tensors earlier, and also mentioned therefore the Minkowski space being flat, and the flawed idea of luminiferous ether. (See also the remark of YohanN7 below) Purgy (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is using this draft area, so I just blanked to save real estate. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I have only ten minutes at the moment to touch on this since I must juggle real-world demands with Wikipedia.
I’m seeing that since English is a second language for Purgy Purgatorio, and because he is interested and highly engaged in this subject matter, any passages he finds unclear requires scrutiny to get to the root of why he was dissatisfied and sought improvement.
Take the example of the very first paragraph: Whereas I found Purgy’s proposed solution to be unnecessarily verbose, his above proposal made it clear there was a shortcoming in the prior version of the text. I had unwisely assumed that the visiting readership would know that “space” is 3-D and “time” is a single added dimension (3+1=4). Indeed, any article must be written with a certain readership in mind (their educational level and familiarity with essential basics). But for a first sentence, the specificity of ‘how many dimensions’ helps. So I added that. Thanks.
I also expanded that first paragraph with the essential point of what one does with spacetime (how it is useful). Please make sure I’ve correctly captured and summarized the essential part—the important lion’s share—of that concept (perma-link).
I’ve gone far over my allotted ten minutes. I’ll be back this evening (U.S. Pacific time). Greg L (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
How well have we addressed Purgy's concerns so far?
I ran across this article in Phys. Rev. D. I thought it a paradigm of how to sound very smart-smart but be wholly unsuitable for a scientific article in an encyclopedia directed to a general interest readership. This is something that, unfortunately, often occurs on the project.
“ | We argue that the Lorentzian path integral is a better starting point for quantum cosmology than its Euclidean counterpart. In particular, we revisit the minisuperspace calculation of the Feynman path integral for quantum gravity with a positive cosmological constant. Instead of rotating to Euclidean time, we deform the contour of integration over metrics into the complex plane, exploiting Picard-Lefschetz theory to transform the path integral from a conditionally convergent integral into an absolutely convergent one. We show that this procedure unambiguously determines which semiclassical saddle point solutions are relevant to the quantum mechanical amplitude. Imposing “no-boundary” initial conditions, i.e., restricting attention to regular, complex metrics with no initial boundary, we find that the dominant saddle contributes a semiclassical exponential factor which is precisely the inverse of the famous Hartle-Hawking result. | ” |
Wow. It looks like one of those gibberish generators. Is that techno-babble real??
What the above supposedly says is this:
“ | As an alternative to theories that the Big Bang began at infinite density—and physics and math utterly break down at infinity—we posit that the universe arose from nothing via quantum tunneling and subsequently grew into the universe we see today. While the density of the universe and the curvature of spacetime would have been large, it would have been decidedly finite. Furthermore, its geometry would have been smooth. | ” |
Yeah. Much better. Greg L (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that your concern, "I think that talking of the shape of a (pseudo-) euclidian space, calling it a manifold (which it is) is sort of an overkill", is the same point that Sławomir made when he wrote, "At the same time it is misleading to refer to Minkowski space as a manifold." So that concern has probably been addressed, I think. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Spacetime is a portal to mathematical physics. A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (1873) advanced a theory of fields that depend on x,y,z,t, so spacetime calculations began with electromagnetic measurement. Describing transformations requires linear algebra, a subject that has developed alongside relativity. The fact that light speed is finite crushed the naïve vector theory of velocity. Much of spacetime theory involves the shift to rapidity instead of velocity. Relativity of simultaneity is formalized by hyperbolic orthogonality to the worldline of a given rapidity. These ideas can be approached by the unit hyperbola, and pictured with split-complex numbers. The mathematical physics of spacetime cosmology used biquaternion arithmetic, as detailed by Ludwik Silberstein in 1914, but was also explained by Arthur Conway, and much earlier by Alexander Macfarlane. The revamping of this article has removed many useful historic links, and does damage by replacing spacetime diagram with diagram. Some observers notice the degradation. — Rgdboer (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for a response. Spacetime is a modern concept that has simple essentials, such as the unit "meter second". The Lorentz transformations leave this measure invariant. The interval is a signed area in these units. I agree that the Encyclopedia must serve its readers. Perpetuation of obfuscation is not desirable, but justified by sources say. One of the best references for elementary considerations was written by Wilson & Lewis (1912) and published in the Proceeding of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 48: (see affine geometry). Wilson & Lewis not only used the synthetic geometry method, but also noted squeeze mapping applied by Lorentz. Simple ideas will serve the likely reader of this article. — Rgdboer (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone. While undoubtedly User:Stigmatella aurantiaca must be commended (so too should User:YohanN7) on their efforts to improve this page, I find it is much more disorganised and hard to follow compared to versions prior. Nonetheless I have one specific issue, since it is my transformation you are seeking to explain (yes, mine. it should be clear as to who the author [me] is)
I have nothing against Lorentz, but I do think that certain people whose work is in this area are so priced-in (if you will) regarding the intracacies of this transformation, that they are seeking to make it something more than it is.
I don't get why you guys are so hung up on that transformation anyways. It is wrong; I mean, it was probably useful at the time, but it was never going to be sufficient, nor rich enough (in a Set theoretic context) to describe reality since much of the mathematics were solidifed by David Hilbert and company in the next ten years.
All I want to say is: chill. I respect your guys' hustle and everything, but continuing about the path that involves reviving or attempting to shoehorn Lorentz' work into Roweis and I's contribution is just not cool.
Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.14.253.156 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
So it appears that I.P. 47.32.217.164 and I.P. 123.14.253 are on in the same. Yes? If so, that explains a lot and is bullshit, because I.P. coyly holds himself out as an “expert” who has a tangential theory (Non-relativistic spacetime) he wants to shoehorn into this article.
Here are the facts as I see them:
Greg L (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The IP user in Fort Worth, Texas has proven that this article is a battlefront of information warfare. This article is viewed about 2400 times a day, has over 700 watchers, of whom more than 100 are reviewing recent changes. Major revisions of high profile article like this can expect pushback. As mentioned above, affine geometry pertains here as one of our presumptions is that parallelism is a useful concept in decoding the universe. (The Fort Worth person likes general covariance where even affine structure is foreign.) We scientists do well to note that Spacetime has not been a particularly useful concept, as relativistic electromagnetism has not supplanted other approaches to electromagnetism. However, the effort has stimulated the development of differential geometry so some progress has been made. Most importantly, Spacetime has provided university physics departments with a course to teach since Ludwik Silberstein provided a textbook in 1914. But ignorance flourishes, and most instructors and WP editors on this article haven’t the foggiest. If a prospective editor doesn’t understand hyperbolic angle, then he or she is not ready for rapidity, and should not contribute to this article. — Rgdboer (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Definitely consensus. Besides the five contributors (myself, Greg, Purdy, Yohan, Sławomir) on this page, I can easily bring on at least two other Wikipedia editors whom I am friends with, have worked with, and who monitor the Spacetime page (I see their edits), and two outside professional physicists whom I have relied upon to check my work, and who would be willing to disclose their true names so that you can check up on their credentials. One of these outside reviewers is a Norwegian physicist, the other is associated with Fermilab. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
For the time being I stop trying to contribute to this article. Even when being sure that I wont be missed, I do want to give some of my prevalent reasons as personally perceived.
This got too much for me to carry on. All the best to you all and especially to the article. Purgy (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Having a sandbox would be the easiest way to keep your thoughts and proposals organized. To do so, you would need to create a login. There are various other benefits to having a login. For example, on various projects, you need a login before you have voting rights. For instance, I've participated in the nomination, editing, and bringing to featured picture status figures such as this wonderful set of images by Dr. Fabien Baron of the University of Michigan. (I was responsible for adding the phase legends at the lower left.) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Question: Why are my edits harassment, while your disruptive edits are not? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It is clear, I.P. 47.32.217.164, that your only purpose on this talk page is to ignore rules of conduct and badger others unless you get your way. Your behavior here is nothing but disruptive. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about your tendentious behavior. Greg L (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Update: The above-mentioned ANI is now resolved. For the record, here is a perma-link to the ANI regarding I.P. 47.32.217.164. Greg L (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.