Talk:Spin–statistics theorem

Microcausality

Would be nice to know what Microcausality is. The Wiki article Causality_(physics) does NOT even mention Microcausality. Have removed the useless link. Jamesdowallen (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove the "bogus proof" (again)

Unlike the original comment on this talk page, I don't see a problem with discussing incorrect theories or ideas which have been disproven. But bogus is a pejorative and inflammatory term, which should not be used in an encyclopedia. I'd like to change that to incorrect or some other less biased word. If I don't see anyone objecting in the next few weeks, I'll make that change. Fcrary (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I intend to delete the entire "General discussion" section as WP:OR.The two references are not related to the argument. It's blog post material not encyclopedic. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent comprehensive reference

I'm most of the way through this book. Advanced to be sure, as you nee know some QM and classical mechanics, but covers everything after than.

• Pauli and the Spin-Statistics Theorem https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1142/3457 | March 1998 Pages: 524 By (author): Ian Duck (Rice University, Texas, Houston, USA) and E C G Sudarshan (University of Texas at Austin, USA)

Johnjbarton (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Schwinger's Proof

I plan to delete section now called "Schwinger's Proof"

• The single ref lists the primary source and a comment that the proof has been changed (WP:OR?)
• The text refers to content elsewhere that no longer seems to exist (some kind of QFT intro?)
• The text has two lists, a list of pre-conditions and what seems to be commentary on the first list in the form of a similarly numbered list. This is unclear.
• The text refs to proofs (Chern–Simons theory) and physics (quarks, QCD) not known at the time of Schwinger's proof.
• No secondary ref.
• The Duck Sudarshan book discusses the Schwinger proof as historically notable but not the most rigorous, complete, or intuitive. The description here is not historical.
• QFT texts don't normally give this proof AFAIK.

Johnjbarton (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)