Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Special relativity/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Special relativity

Found this one while surfing, we could use more featured articles on physics and this one looks pretty sweet.GeneralPatton 06:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support. This looks great. The only thing I'd say is it would be nice to see a few references throughout the text and also compiled in a References section at the end. But otherwise, it's a great piece of work. Slim 09:55, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I took at look around the Internet tonight and the consensus on physics website seems to be that the second postulate has been experimentally verified, though none of the websites cited a source. On Usenet, there is a fierce debate about this issue, which seems to boil down to lack of a clear definition of "verified". Those who argue it has been verified (and that seems to be the vast majority) say no experiment has produced an effect that is inconsistent with what you'd expect the consequences of the second postulate to be, and that's what they mean by "verified." So it's not verified in the way that 2 plus 2 equals 4 is. Some people cite the Michelson Morley experiment, as Jeff does below, as having verified the second postulate. The only problem there is that the MM experiment was in 1881, before Einstein wrote his SP theory, and yet Einstein, as I understand it, doesn't refer to it; also, the fact that he called it a "postulate" (assuming that word was used by him) would indicate that he felt the MM experiment, if he knew about it, did not act as verification. There should probably be a fully referenced explanation of this debate in the article, unless it's confined to angry people on Usenet, in which case the doubts would count as original research and wouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia. So the question is: Has any peer-reviewed journal published an article challenging the widely accepted claim that the second postulate has been experimentally verified? I'm tentatively withdrawing my support until the issue is clarified a little, because the second postulate is central to SR and I didn't realize there were physicists who objected to it. I still love the article though; clearly people have put a lot of work into it. Slim 06:39, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

In general experiments don't and can't verify theories, they can only falsify them. Repeated attempts to falsify the predictions of a theory constitute not proof of, but evidence for a theory. In the case of special relativity there is a considerable body of experimental evidence consistent with the predictions of special relativity. There might be (and some claim there are) other theories which are also consistent with this body of experimental evidence. To say that the second "postulate has been verified experimentally" is sloppy and misleading at best. It should be removed, in favor of a section titled something like "experimental evidence for special relativity". Paul August 23:00, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the statement that the second "postulate has been verified experimentally". Paul August ☎ 14:28, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now: good article but the lead is two short and an article as prone to error as this absolutely needs references. Were the external links used as references? I believe Einstein wrote a book on this subject which might also have been referred to? Filiocht 11:10, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Agree with above. A subject like this has many very solid references and they should be consulted and cited. Einstein's original paper is available in German here, and even translations are available. You can buy an ebook of English translations here for $10, but it is also available as a dead tree book. All of his available personal notes, including his correspondence and some of what he was thinking while proposing the theory are available digitized here. Check the local library, I'm sure you'll find other great ones. Those should provide great material for fact checking. The lead section is a bit short, but otherwise the article looks very good, though I cannot personally verify the accuracy of the material. - Taxman 16:02, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Refer to peer review. This article has a serious error, namely, the falsehood that the basis of special relativity, the second postulate, has been confirmed experimentally. (No one has ever used two clocks in the same frame to measure light's one-way speed, and the postulate claims that the result must be c in all frames in all directions.) 66.147.55.213, Dec 7, 2004
• Refer to peer review. I concur with the above; there has been no experiment to even test the second postulate, much less to confirm it! Note the utter lack of any who, where, when, and how in the article regarding the alleged experimental confirmation of the postulate. 4.152.255.86, 12-7-2004

• Anonymous objections? I feel the two "refer to peer review" entries above should be ignored. IP address 66.147.55.213's edit history [1] shows s/he has made only anonymous edits to the Special Relativity page, and one involved the deletion of previous discussions. The second IP address 4.152.255.86 has made only the edit above. [2] Slim 04:51, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Object for now: I don't think the article is mature enough yet. The organization is a bit too scattered, and besides, apparently SR is a contentious topic on the net (although it's in no way contested in academia). Shouldn't this page be protected (from vandalism and shady sources) before being advertised widely? novakyu 02:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Anonymous objections, so what? "Slim," "anonymous" does not always indicate "wrong." Again, where is the reference for the alleged experimental confirmation of Einstein's second postulate? Cadwgan Gedrych Dec 9 2004

You're also anonymous: no user page, no talk page and only this one edit, so it's fair to assume you're the same person as the two "refer to peer review" entries above. It's not a question of right or wrong, true or false. It's a question of attributable and verifiable. If you want to make a comment, sign in under your regular user name and stand by your words. Slim 18:14, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

"attributable and verifiable" were exactly my point (and I did sign in under my regular user name, for whatever that is worth). But it not my words that are in question, it's the unverified (and unverifiable) words of whoever wrote "This postulate has been verified experimentally" re the second postulate. The article needs to be correct, expecially regarding the most important point. (And speaking of anonymity, I have no idea who you may be really.) Cadwgan Gedrych Dec 9, 2004

It's a fair point you make that you don't know who I am, but at least I don't pretend to be more than one person, as you have clearly done above. Featured article status tends to be awarded based on numbers of objections, so if you're pretending to lodge more than one, you're cheating. Anyway, I see you've set up a User page now, so I will drop you a further note there instead of here. Slim 21:37, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Cadwgan Gedrych, SlimVirgin is a Wikipedia contributor in good standing, that's all we need to know. Your "regular" user name, on the other hand, came into being today, for the sole purpose of objecting here. "For whatever that is worth"? It's worth zero. Please don't troll WP:FAC, you won't do yourself or your cause any good by it.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 21:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, "all you need to know" is that the article's main part is dead wrong, just as you are about this being some sort of "troll."Cadwgan_Gedrych

I think that the second postulate of special relativity was verified by the Michelson Morley experiment [3]. Jeff8765 04:42, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

The Michelson Morley experiment predates special relativity by nearly twenty years. It does not "verify" special relativity. Paul August 05:12, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Object until a decent bibliography is added. Online references are all very well, but there must be dozens of useful and significant books about this topic. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\^talk ]] 00:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object - it is just not there yet. I may help it along if/when I have time. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)