Talk:Robert H. Dicke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
[edit] Confusing...
I read this, but I'm not sure what to make of it:
"He spent the remainder of his career developing a program of precision tests of general relativity using the framework of the equivalence principle. With Carl H. Brans, he developed Brans-Dicke theory, an equivalence-principle violating modification of general relativity inspired by Paul Dirac's large numbers hypothesis and Mach's principle. He made measurements of solar oblateness which were useful in understanding the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit, one of the classical tests of general relativity."
Am I correct in thinking the second sentence is out of place? It seems to be suggesting that he developed an alternate theory that violates the equivalence-principle, but then goes on to talk about an experiment that supports mainstream GR. Was the experiment in question run in order to test the B-D theory, but instead supported classical GR? If so, this seems like something worth mentioning. If not, it seems this section needs a good edit.
Maury 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
