Talk:Quantum gravity/Archive for 2009

Expert?

Am I expert enough? While not a PhD. I am a pretty accomplished graduate student in theoretical physics. I was a non-degree student at UIC for three years. Where I took quantum field theory, particle physics, and general relativity with a 3.28 GPA. I have written a book, based on research I worked on by myself largely independently Quantum Space-Time Dynamics, ISBN-13: 9780578007328 I would not write about anything of my own, that would be tacky. However I am versed in the whole area of quantum gravity.

The thing is I don't have a PhD. and I know how credentialist wikipedia's policies can be. I understand why they are that way. So what is the definition of an expert here? a PhD. in any kind of physics, a PhD. with a history of publishing on this topic, or anyone who has studied it extensively (i.e. me)? --Hfarmer (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi - my personal take: An "expert" has sufficient knowledge about the general field, and a comprehensive overview over notable history, references, and influences. Furthermore, he or she is able to separate a personal point of view, from what might be considered a neutral and objective view and representation about all the possibilities. Finally, this person can digest all information and references into a readable, structured article ... tricky. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait for a bit more feedback before I act though.

From a Wikipedian perspective a big problem with this article is how much does not rely on secondary sources. I think a good wikipedia article could be made on this topic using only a couple of popular books on the topic, and a handful of scholarly papers on the subject. The article needs to be shorter, simpler and more to the point. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're planning to make a major overhaul of an article, a good way I've found for it is to make a draft at something like User:Hfarmer/QGravityDraft, and then to post on the main article's talk page (here) giving reasons for proposed changes and asking for comments on your draft version. The draft gets modified (by you) in response to comments, until everyone's reasonably satisfied with it. Then the changes are ported back to the main article. For less-severe overhauls, just proposing changes here and then implementing them after consensus works. But in both cases, the key is being able to show that you consulted with the other regular editors of the article and took their comments into account when performing the revision. Happy editing! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started that process. I don't forsee working on it too much over the next several days as it is the fourth of july weekend. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikification of Scholaropedia Article

I am thinking that we should simply wikifi the Schlaropedia article [1]. As I have thought about what I would write I would write an article largely similar to this. It would need alteration to conform to the norms of Wikipedia. However it would make for a good starting point for this article.Hfarmer (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You should probably start a Request for Comment about whether or not to do this, and post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics asking people to contribute opinions. While Scholarpedia does seem to have a compatible license (GFDL/CC, like Wikipedia), this would be a major change that would step on toes of editors here (toes are pretty easy to step on). What it'll probably boil down to after the dust settles is wikifying selected parts of that article, or making changes inspired by it, vs. wholesale replacement. A good phrasing of the RFC would be something along the lines of, "this article has many features that would benefit Wikipedia's article, and is under a compatible license; how should we adapt the Wikipedia article to incorporate these features?". In that scenario, your own statement in the RFC thread (posted here) would probably be along the lines of, "I think that X, Y, and Z structural and factual components are handled better, and we'd be better off just wikifying the Scholarpedia article than trying to fix Wikipedia's". The point is to set things up so that it looks like you're willing to negotiate (and hopefully, you are).

I hope this advice is useful to you! You certainly seem to have put a lot of careful thought into improving this article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi - a quick correction: The copyright for the Scholarpedia article (in whole and for all parts) is held solely by Prof Carlo Rovelli. See the copyright disclaimer here. Unfortunately, we can't even copy sections from there without explicit permission by the copyright holder. Thanks, Koeplinger (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I'd misread that page (I'd thought it indicated multi-licensing under all of the above). I apologize for this error; good catch! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Darn it. The reason that looked like a good idea to me is because I could side step the problem of WP:OR in writing this. The problem of being an expert on wikipedia is that well... This is the way I would like to rewrite this article and could rewrite it in 8 hours if it would not be a problem. I would write the article, in a sandbox, based on my own expertise on the subject without looking for a reference that says X Y or Z as a quote. Then I would look for references to basically back up what I say. All published peer reviewed matterials of course.

It's just the last time I got involved with WP's coverage of Quantum gravity it was a biggg controversy. I don't want that to happen. If the process I described above is cool with you all I can do it.Hfarmer (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The references cited by the current Wikipedia article and by the Scholarpedia article will probably cover the lion's share of the referencing you need to do, so the literature search isn't a huge problem. The problem is that by rewriting the entire article without discussion, you'd be telling everyone else that their version of the article was trash, and they'll react badly. The RFC and formal debate process I outlined above will produce a sub-optimal article (it's design-by-committee), but it does give a result that's endorsed by many of the editors involved with this article. I can't stress enough how important that is as a secondary goal. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not the searching for references that will be hard, it's the writing of a coherent article. I am sure that those references will have everything I say in them. However as I am writing I cannot be concerned with needing to find a verbatim quote to back up my every sentence. Hfarmer (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is, you can use the references to guide the writing, reducing the amount of hassle needed in order to find quotes to backup statements. Per WP:V, finding these quotes is probably not optional. Think of this as being like writing a journal paper in that regard. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that WP:V requieres that every word be a quote of someone else in an article like this. What it requiers is that the facts, figures, and theories presented be published in a WP:RS, and that's as V as they need to be. The sources that write about QG are generally not in plain language, this article will be. At least it will be plain language if I write it. I mean what's the use of a bunch of words like Diffeomorphism, D-brane, compactification, gauge symmetry etc to someone who just wants a overview? At least most of this article needs to be just that a relatively non-technical overview of the area, while the articles about specific theories ought to be more technical.

Another thing I will change is the whole splitting of theories into "main contenders" and "also ran's". It's not neutral.Hfarmer (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Many years ago my first Prof in physics-a Prof Dodd here in Dunedin NZ told me that if it seemed too difficult then it was probably wrong. I have never forgotten that. Simplistically thus it would seem that much of particle physics may be straying a little. I came across a paper recently in Physics Essays written by a Dr Andrew Worsley that gave my heart a palpitation. (Reading re Expert then perhaps -Hfarmer may comment). The paper is " String Quintessence and the formulation of advanced quantum gravity " Physics Essays Vol 22 No.3. It seems pretty interesting to me. A google search shows a series of three books written by this author the last of which titled " Soaring on the Wings of Genius " addresses this same issue although not always in perfect prose .ISBN: 1-58112-948-3 Universal Publishers, Florida USA 2006. Two earlier books from the same author set out a philosophy that is no less than a unified view of physics and the Math looks pretty solid! Book One-" On the Wings of Genius " appears to be co authored by Prof Thomas Maibaum of McMasters University, Canada. If this author is correct then the implications of his work are staggering.Musictime4me (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musictime4me (talk • contribs)