Talk:Herbert Callen/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Herbert Callen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005024954/http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v47/i8/p74_s1?bypassSSO=1 to http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v47/i8/p74_s1?bypassSSO=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005033802/http://www.gf.org/fellows/2167-herbert-b-callen to http://www.gf.org/fellows/2167-herbert-b-callen

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Does not do justice to a great physicist

"proof of fluctuation-dissipation theorem" is changed to "origination and proof of fluctuation-dissipation theorem" Wikibearwithme (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It was not "originated" from him, it was by Nyquist decades earlier. And how does adding that word "do a great physicist justice", and how was he a "great" physicist? What did he do other than this proof and his thermodynamics book, whose importance seems to be extremely exaggerated here? Dr. Universe (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Universe's take on this history is incorrect. The theorem as a completely general result was originated by Callen and Welton in their 1951 Physical Review article. The importance here is in the generality, for which Nyquist is not responsible. Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that Nyquist gave the first example of a particular fluctuation-dissipation relation, that was done by Einstein in 1905 with his Brownian motion paper. Pwfen (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Extremely exaggerated

Everything here seems to be exaggerated. The importance of his work, his greatness, etc. The article has a feel of being written by someone close to him despite him dying probably too long ago for that to be true. Some help is needed. See for example the section below called "Does not do justice to a great physicist" which turns out to be far from true. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that this biographical article is extremely exaggerated. While I disagree with the article that his textbook will be his most lasting contribution, he did publish the first general proof of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, a landmark result of 20th Century physics. While Callen may have no popular cachet, the FDT is highly significant. There are other physicists who did not receive major popular accolades in their lifetime even after achieving highly significant scientific results, but that doesn't mean the article is exaggerated. Cf. Emmy Noether and Noether's theorem. No, I never met Callen, nor did I write this article. Pwfen (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thermodynamics and…

His Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatics (1985) contains an “interesting” statement

“ The uranium hexafluoride is a gas at room temperature and atmospheric pressure ”

in 4.5 Example 2, on p. 108. Could U.S. authorities encourage inducing deliberate mistakes about nuclear materials to textbooks in order to fool foreign powers? Contrary, if the mistake is genuinely due to the author’s knowledge, then how could the guy lend “his services [to] the theoretical division of the Manhattan Project”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Or perhaps it was just a typo. The boiling point for that substance at atmospheric pressure is about 332 K. He should have not said "room temperature." Also keep in mind that by the time he died in 1993, he had been battling Alzheimer's disease for 11 years. Nerd271 (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not merely a typo. Callen further relates about “separation process carried out at a temperature of 300 K and a pressure of 1 atm”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Did he say to anything about ideal gases later on? That would explain it. Nerd271 (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, “can be represented approximately as… simple ideal gas with c = 7/2” and later “U = 7/2 NRT” (an idiot’s use of math notation with an intended meaning of ${\frac {7}{2}}NRT$, but I used to see such insanities even in PhD theses). But, speaking seriously, the UF₆ gas is unlikely even kinetically stable under specified conditions (let alone thermodynamical stability), and the ideal gas approximation is egregiously inadequate anyway. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

Hey Nerd271, I appreciate you contributing a lot of content towards this physicist who is one of my favorites. You reverted my edit of removing a line `According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Alzheimer's remained a leading cause of death in the United States in 2016.[10]'. My edit was with the notion that this line belongs to the page of Alzheimer's disease and not here.

Your explanation of reverting was `Previous edition was better'. Could you please tell me how writing about Alzheimer's disease in Herbert Callen's page is relevant to Herbert Callen? Mahesh gandikota (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mahesh gandikota: It puts things on context for us, at least those of us who are curious. It remains a rather common cause of death in the U.S. today. Nerd271 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: This is one of the pillars of wikipedia - neutrality: ``Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia."

Maybe you imply by `at least those of us who are curious' that I am not curious. Everyone of us are curious. That's why you provided the link to Alzheimer's in this article. I totally agree with you on that. However, I still do not agree with you adding the line about Alzheimer's diseases in USA on the page of a physicist.

Again, I appreciate the work you have put for this page. That still stands. Mahesh gandikota (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mahesh gandikota: Nope, I never said anything about you not being curious. It is there to provide some context for those who are curious. Whether or not a reader cares is up to him. In any case, besides this point, your revision is not better because it is simply not more neutral. He died and left behind some family. The end. How is that not neutral? Nerd271 (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: I agree with you stating the death and leaving behind some family. That is completely neutral. My contention with you is just about one line. That Alzheimer's disease is a leading cause of death in USA. Again, my contention is not even with that line. It is a very important piece of information. However, it does not belong to this page but to the Alzhiemer's page.

In the limiting case, for example, if we start adding such lines to every paragraph, you could maybe see how out of shape this page would become. ``Manhattan project - the project which resulted in the death of thousands of Hiroshima and Nagasaki residents." I would agree that that is an important line. However that line would not belong to this page. And so on and so forth. Would you agree that such kind of tails to all paragraphs in this article would make this article look bad? Mahesh gandikota (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

...and helped end the Second World War in the Pacific. Sure. But certain factions are going to be engaging in polemics about it, so it is better to leave it out. Wikipedia is not intended to be a battlefield. This bit about Alzheimer's disease is a true and directly relevant and is not contested. Nerd271 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that we are not agreeing, is it fine with you if I put this up for a third opinion? This is not personal to me. I would respect other editors' opinions. It will bring more substance to the debate. Mahesh gandikota (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: I have now placed the request in WP:3. Hope that's fine with you. Mahesh gandikota (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem for me. Nerd271 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Herbert Callen/Archive 1 and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'."

Opinion: The "According to the Center for Disease Control..." sentence is, for purpose of this article, improper editorializing. Though supported by an apparently reliable source, its introduction into this article amounts to original research about Herbert Callen as it amounts to a Wikipedia editor's comment upon the facts of the article. Readers who want more information about Alzheimer's Disease can click through the link to the article about it. On the other hand, the use of the word "suffered" in the first sentence of the paragraph is also original research and "battled" is preferable since it is supported by "struggle" in the New York Times obituary. I hate to be so cold-blooded as to say this but if Callen struggled, he probably suffered - as do most Alzheimer's victims (including my mother, who also died from it) - but we don't know that as a fact as to Callen in particular so it's original research and a word that says what the source says is the proper choice.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 18:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, fine. I'll remove the "extra" bit about Alzheimer's disease. But the rest shall stay. 11 years is a long time to fight a disease that happens to be a leading cause of death in his country. Nerd271 (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Thanks for weighing in. I agree that using the word `battled' is preferable than `suffered' given that there is a reference for the former. Mahesh gandikota (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)