Talk:Freeman Dyson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I removed the "on tv" section because it repeats what was already said in the part about the dyson sphere. Also, this article is about FREEMAN Dyson, NOT the Dyson Sphere. There IS a difference, and while the Dyson Sphere was shown on Star Trek, the physicist was not...unless i recall that episode entirely wrong. Either way, it's still repetitive. Archtemplar 08:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems.

1) "It is not so well known he is among the most renowned Hardy's students." - Who? What?

2) "Dyson was first physicist who realised Q.E.D. theory has 2 different faces." - What does this mean?

3) "His drive with Feynmann and spending a night in a "hotel" is very anecdotal." - Could use details.

4) "Dyson also studied the faith of the Universe, a subject which is very active again today." - What the heck?

5) "His daughter is the well-known Esther Dyson." - Well known for what, if one may be permitted to ask.

An answer:

1) The Hardy referred to was probably G.H. Hardy (author of "A Mathematician's Apology") He preceded Freeman Dyson at Winchester. Both of them disliked the place, but were thankful for the space it gave them to study maths as they wanted (-- the school organised a lecturer from a nearby university to teach the clever pupils weekly). I seem to remember Dyson making reference to Hardy at the beginning of one of his collection of papers -- he had spent his time studying some epic maths foundation work which he liked to believe Hardy had left behind for the next budding mathematician in need of escape from the world of a public school. I don't think Hardy ever taught him. J

2) Julian Schwinger's formal mathematics and Richard Feynman's intuitive mathematics were both correct representations of Quantum Electrodynamics.Lestrade 01:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Another answer:

4) that's the FATE of the universe, a somewhat different thing. Speculation on the long-term evolution of the universe and how long life can survive within it

I believe (I think Freeman mentions it somewhere in one of his books) that he was the son of a well known musician, George Dyson. I think that would be Sir George Dyson, who should perhaps get his own entry in the Wikipedia. Malcolm Farmer 18:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5) Esther Dyson is an expert on the effect of technology on businesses and society.Lestrade 01:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Contents

[edit] Infobox ?

This page could use an infobox. Someone who is knowledgeable about Freeman Dyson should create it

[edit] Emphasis, etc

Dyson was an original thinker, no doubt about that. The problem with the text is that the selection you've chosen makes FD seem like an eccentric. What about mentioning his work for the military? - that would give a boost to his down to earth credentials.

Like many theorists, Dyson had a philosophical turn of mind. He never felt at easy about the existence of dimensionless constants derived from fundamental physical constants. Dyson speculated that alpha (approximately equal to 1/137) was really a variable proportionate to the age of the universe.

There is more that I could mention, and perhaps I will..


--Philopedia 18:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)



[edit] Institute for Advanced Study, Not Princeton!

The article incorrectly said Dyson served on the faculty at Princeton University. In reality, he was a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), where he is now professor emeritus. IAS is in Princeton, NJ but is wholly independent of Princeton University. I have made the correction.

Freeman Dyson was on the Physics faculty of Princeton University during the 1960s.Lestrade 01:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Educational Background Misleading

The statement "Dyson received a Sc.D. from Bates College in 1990" is very misleading. He does not possess an earned doctorate (look at the date, for creeps sake!). This in an honorary doctorate, and should be so noted. He graduated from Cambridge University in 1945 with a BA degree in mathematics. He went on to Cornell University as a graduate student in 1947 and studied with Bethe. He did not get a degree, however. This is not meant to be derogatory. Dyson took over Feynman's professorship at Cornell, and could easily have shared the Nobel Prize in physics for QED if the recipient list for the prize wasn't limited to three persons. Never-the-less, this is his true educational background, and it should be stated correctly if this article is going to purport to be a legitimate biography of this individual.

[edit] Fliegernsympathie

How could one introduce into the article the fact that Dyson totally supported the German bombers who were destroying British cities? He stated that his hatred of British colonialism resulted in his unstated support of Nazi aggression.Lestrade 14:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

The following excerpt is from Freeman Dyson's statement at http://www.edge.org/documents/whatnow_print.html#dysonf

"The events of September 11 brought to mind another vivid and uncomfortable memory. I am sixteen years old, lying in bed at my home in London on a noisy night in September 1940. I am violently hostile to the British Empire and everything it stands for. I hate London, the citadel of oppression, with its grandiose buildings sucking the wealth from every corner of the world. I lie in bed listening to the bombs exploding and the buildings crumbling. What joy to hear, after each explosion, the delicious sound of buildings falling down, the great British Empire audibly crumbling. The joy far outweighs any fear that my own home might be hit, or any pity for the people in the falling buildings. How many sixteen-year-olds all over the world are now seeing on television the pictures of the World Trade Center buildings collapsing, and feeling the same joy that I felt in 1940. I find it easy to imagine the state of mind of the young men who so resolutely smashed those planes into the buildings. Almost, I could have been one of them myself."

Lestrade 19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

I'm pretty sure that you're misreading that quote. Clearly he is saying that sixteen-year-olds have some pretty stupid ideas. While that's an obvious idea, what is unique is Freeman's exposition of his ideas at sixteen. RussNelson 17:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I am not misreading that quote. Clearly he is saying exactly what he is saying, not what User:RussNelson thinks that it would be nice for him to be saying.Lestrade 13:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Why don't you ask him? RussNelson 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why ask him? Dyson made his thoughts as clear as the noonday sun in his written statement. It takes some creative talent, though, and strong intention, to take his quoted words and turn them until they can be understood in a totally different or opposite way. Usually, only academics are adept at such exercises. Besides, User:RussNelson, do you think that it is a simple matter to impose upon Dyson and ask a question, even if it is about a matter in which he made himself perfectly clear? Lestrade 00:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

It is very simple to ask Dyson. Just send him an email. The reason to ask him is equal parts courtesy and accuracy. Courtesy is making him aware of this before doing anything and making sure he has no objections to being so categorized. Accuracy is making sure what is said in the article is representative of his present views. I think Freeman deserves at least that much respect. Michaelbusch 00:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The quote is from the prestigious Edge Foundation website. This leads me to accept it as being accurate. The thoughts that are communicated in the quote are as utterly clear as pure spring water in a crystal chalice. There is no ambiguity and no obscurity.Lestrade 00:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
When it comes to Freeman's opinions, the only source I trust is Freeman himself. I have sent him an email. I will let you know if/when he responds. Michaelbusch 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Freeman does not object to having this material included in the article. However, it must be very clear that he did not support the Nazis: he merely hated the British empire. Michaelbusch 16:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghastly Image

I saw Prof. Dyson on Wednesday. He is a small, frail, kindly-looking elderly man with a pleasant, polite manner. The photo of him in the article looks like it is out of a 1934 James Whale movie.Lestrade 12:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Yes, it's not the best picture. I'm not sure my picture is any better, but at least he's smiling in it, so we'll run it up the flagpole and see who shoots at it. RussNelson 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Much better, IMHO. Kla'quot 02:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Much should be added to this entry

This entry does not do justice to one of the great original minds of the 20th century. Freeman Dyson is, I think, far more interesting than, say, Buckminster Fuller, Stephen Hawking, Alvin Toffler. And he really knows modern physics.

I should add that Dyson wrote re 9/11, quoted above, was probably very honest, but still dismays. His reaction to the bombing of London was a lot like the reaction of most Irish to the fact that Germany and England were at war; they secretly hoped for a German victory. To fail to see that a Nazi victory over the UK was a far greater evil than the British Empire is deplorable in the extreme. It is also easy to forget that hundreds of Pakistanis, presumably all Muslim, died in 9.11. It would seem that Dyson has a radical streak. If so, why did he do so much work on nuclear weapons and missiles? And does anyone out there know that Dyson is a devoted Presbyterian?

The 2004 Tarski biography discusses the affair between Georg Kreisel and Dyson's first wife, Verena Huber, who went on to be quite friendly with Tarski himself.

Only today did I read that Freeman was the son of composer George, one of whose works I have performed. George Dyson was a solid workaday tonal composer, not much performed nowadays, and probably destined to be forgotten. The son far, far outstrips the father.202.36.179.65 10:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Could we please reserve this talk page for discussion of the article? — goethean ॐ 20:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


"Dyson says (20 minutes into a video) that he used the word "artificial biosphere" in the article meaning a habitat, not a shape. Imaginitive science fiction writers (specifically Olaf Stapledon) then expanded on what Dyson says was really his humor tacked on at the end of the article. Dyson says it should really be called the Stapledon Sphere". When your talking about this and Olaf Stapledon you say it was written in 1960 but Olaf Stapledon died in 1950 so doesnt this need a better explaination

Olaf Stapledon came up with his, similar, concept earlier than Dyson did in the book Star Maker. As he wrote this in 1937 he couldn't have been basing it off anything Dyson said unless Dyson thought it up when he was 14 and somehow managed to tell Stapledon. (This seems unlikely) However Bob Shaw had a Dyson sphere in his book Orbitsville and in his case he was inspired by Dyson.--T. Anthony 06:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay I dealt with that.--T. Anthony 06:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a number of juicy quotes from Dyson re space exploration & colonization, and genetic engineering. I'll get back to the article itself when I have Dyson's books at hand.

Pete Tillman 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

I note the intro states he is "British-American", I doubt this is how he would describe himself, at least in "From Eros to Gaia" he repeatedly states he is from England, not Britain. Ideally I'd like to remove the ethnicity altogether from the intro, a man with such a hatred of nationalism as he had would probably prefer to be described as a world citizen if anything.

Anyway, are there any sources saying he declares himself "British-American"? If not we should go with "English-American" or remove it altogether (my preferred option). - FrancisTyers · 10:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Workshop page for expanding this article

It would be good to have more about Dyson's views, scientific and otherwise. He is one of the great thinkers of our time, IMHO (although I disagree with him strongly on the urgency of climate change). His views require some context and explanations, so I'd rather not add them randomly. I'm starting a workshop page here for working on them. Please add to:

/Freeman Dyson's Views

- Clayoquot Sound 05:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Global warming skeptics

Of course as a scientist, Dyson is skeptical about everything. Yes, he has questioned the models of climate change and, yes, he has said we have bigger problems. However, his own words are include, I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does." We have to be conservative when assigning categories to living people. Kla'quot 18:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that including people into categories should be biased - or "conservative", as you say. I think you misunderstand what it means to be a global warming skeptic - look at this page. Prof Dyson fits in between others very smoothly. Concerning your comment that a scientist is skeptical about everything - well, yes, this is the point of being a scientific skeptic. If someone is not a global warming skeptic, it means that he is not a scientific skeptic in the climate context. The number of the people who have abandoned the scientific method in the context of the climate is huge, these people are very irrational, but Freeman Dyson is not one of them. He is a global warming skeptic, and your out-of-context quote about "causing problems" can't change anything about it. He has opinions very much like I have, and I am a clear skeptic. The models can't be trusted, the media hysteria about it is scientifically unfounded and exaggerated, and the very concept of focusing on the global character of the climate, instead of the local research, is fundamentally flawed. This is global warming skepticism. I ask someone who reads these sentences to return the category. --Lumidek 19:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please be mindful of WP:COI when assigning people you believe agree with you to categories. Michaelbusch 19:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd be more comfortable with it if the page Category:Global warming skeptics listed its criteria for inclusion. The category currently includes right-wing politicians, creationists, etc. whose skepticism is on a wholly different level from Dyson's. We are required by WP:BLP to be careful about including information about a living person that can be seen as negative. Kla'quot 20:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that only extremely unreasonable people would think that it is negative to be a global warming skeptic. And the list of global warming skeptics is mostly list of rather exceptional decent people, scientists, economists, journalists, former US presidents, Czech presidents, and so forth. Not sure what "creationists" are being discussed here. Concerning Michael Busch: I am absolutely certain that I am not violating any rules, and your indication otherwise is an unsubstantiated insult. I am just emphasizing that there is a mistake on Freeman Dyson's page caused by people who have an agenda, as they admitted, and I ask someone else to correct the error later when the dust settles. --Lumidek 19:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I was not implying that you were violating the rules. I was simply requesting that you be mindful of them. Michaelbusch 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The page Global_warming_skeptic divides such skeptics into 4 categories: 1 The Earth is not warming -- 2 The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown -- 3 The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes -- 4 Global warming is good for human society.

Not one of these matches up to the quote from Dyson here. His skepticism seems to consist in believing that other (very serious) problems are more pressing. OTOH, in support of Lumidek, Dyson recently described himself as a global warming skeptic:

"Freeman admitted he was a skeptic on global warming. His problem was not change in the climate. 'In the long view we ARE changing the climate.' He felt that climate was hugely complex, that we understand very little of it and many people are reducing this unknown complexity into one data point -- the average temperature somewhere. Until we understand what kind of changes we are making in our 'solutions' he says he believes the best action on global climate change right now is inaction." [1]

Maybe the solution is to create a new category of skeptic tailored to what Dyson himself believes? We could all agree that Dyson is pretty unique. betsythedevine 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed Freeman concerning this matter. He does not object to being called a gloabl warming skeptic, but as you say his views are heretical from many different viewpoints, so creating him his own subcategory would work. Michaelbusch 16:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
How about a new category "Critics of climate change models" or the existing category Category:Climate change assessment and attribution?Kla'quot 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I rather like the last one, but that seems to be reserved for the ICCC and reports on climate change. Michaelbusch 06:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought... Wikipedia:Categorization says, "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." It also says, "An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article." Dyson is in nineteen categories already. If we were to add more categories, there are many that are way more pertinent to his interests, considering his views on disarmament, scientific research, education, the environment, women in science, biotechnology... But honestly, we should be pruning that category list vigorously, not adding to it. Kla'quot 06:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, though I'm sympathetic to the argument that skeptic != derogatory.

Cheers, Pete Tillman 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've returned the category. See another quote by Dyson here [2]. "Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models." I think it's fair to say that he doesn't believe that the warming is "primarily" man-made, and more importantly, he questions whether the warming will actually exist in the future. He is a self-described skeptic, and he is treated as one by the promoters of the global warming theory, see [3], [4]. --Lumidek 15:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't both of those articles the same thing? RussNelson 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if someone has already seen it. But is there any controversy about the statement that Dyson's opinions about the climate are more or less identical to other skeptics such as Michael Crichton? What's exactly the difference? I think that the attempt to remove the category from Freeman Dyson is an attempt of proponents of the global warming theory to pretend that skepticism among well-known scientists is smaller than it actually is. --90.176.185.73 07:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that Dyson is skeptical of the conclusion that the most serious problem facing the world today is global warming. When you get old, you've experienced a lot of idiots running around saying "The End Is Near" and at some point you say "Well, no, it isn't." RussNelson 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dyson's views on nationalism

In the opening paragraph, the article presently reads: "He is a lifelong opponent of nationalism..."

I just finished rereading the Stewart Brand and Monte Davis interviews, my own notes on some of his books, other online resources, and thumbing through Disturbing the Universe, which happens to be the only Dyson book at hand. I don't find any support for such a bald statement. Am I missing something? Surely there should be some documentation in the article for this.

Similarly, "... and proponent of nuclear disarmament and international cooperation" seems so oversimplified as to be cartoonish. I know we're struggling here to present an accurate summary of Dyson's complex views...

Perhaps we need a more neutral statement to replace this sentence.
Pete Tillman 05:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On English academics

The article seems to imply he thinks English academics are "gloomy", when the cite provided says he thinks that of all Western academics. Why is England singled out?

"Gloomy" is an adjective that reflects someone's point of view. It has no objective value in a sentence. Maybe some English academics are gloomy, maybe some are merry, maybe some are cheerful. It depends on when you look at them. Who can get inside their minds and know for sure what mood they are in?Lestrade (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Dyson's Transformation?

Dyson also has some credits in Elementary number theory. His concept "Dyson's transform" led to one of the most important lemmas of Olivier Ramaré's theorem that every even integer is a sum of at most six primes.

I think the above should read, "...that every even integer can be written as a sume of at most six primes."

It seems to imply that no even integer is a sum of seven primes, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.133 (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Michaelbusch 21:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dyson's media appearances

I'm responding to the inclusion of the Wild River Review article (external link and biographical note added). I'm new to Wikipedia so if there is a better way to post this please advise. Mr. Dyson is socially aware of how science should be used and encouraged. Knowing something about his parents background is useful. His parents were not scientists. His mother was socially active. The WWR article/interview illuminates some of the reasons he's socially active, some of the things he'd like to see science do, one of the projects he's working on (Quarkpark - finished now) to make science more accessible and why he loves mathematics. josephglantz@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephglantz (talk • contribs) .

The problem is that Freeman gives so many interviews that we can't possibly include all of them. So a reference that doesn't provide substantial new information shouldn't be added. See Wikipedia:Notability and WP:BLP. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear weapons design.

I do not believe Dyson ever worked on the development of nuclear weapons - he was, as the article reflects, a strong advocate of nuclear disarmament.

Dyson has/had close friendships and working relationships with notable physicists who worked on nuclear weapons, such as Ted Taylor and Feynman, and worked on several famous pursuits in nuclear engineering during his time at General Atomics, including Project Orion and the TRIGA, so that's perhaps where the confusion arises from.

I think he might have briefly visited the Livermore Lawrence lab, after working with Taylor at General Atomics, and he might have investigated nuclear explosive design for Orion use - but I doubt very strongly that he ever contributed to the development of nuclear explosives as weapons systems. AWeishaupt (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surrender followed, but was not caused by, bombs

In answering Edge.org's annual question [5], Freeman Dyson has made an unusual assertion. In spite of Emperor Hirohito's own words, as broadcast by radio to his people, Dyson claims that the two atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan did not contribute to its unconditional surrender. Hirohito declared,"…the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers." Dyson proposes the notion that the imminent shortage of rice had more of an effect than the bombs. Does this recent statement diminish or increase Dyson's credibility? Lestrade (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

The use of the A-Bombs by the US in WWII is somewhat political now. It would be mere rhetoric to say that the bombs were irrelevant to the surrender, IMO, but there were certainly other contributing factors; the biggest is that the USSR had recently begun to invade China and Korea and people had to think about whether they wanted to be conquered by the US or by Stalin (e.g. during Germany's final days some groups fighting against the Soviets on the eastern front retreated west, so as to surrender to American and British troops, hoping for better treatment). There won't be an easy answer to this but I suggest it is better to argue over which contributing factors were more significant, rather than say Japan surrendered solely for any one reason. The recent coup attempt may have influenced the Emperor's decisions also. It's much easier to second guess decisions in such a difficult situation, than to make them. Pete St.John (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
My father was in the army that was going to be transported from Europe to the Pacific in the winter of 1945. He and a few others were of the opinion that the two atomic bombs allowed them to return home in early 1946. Wasn't that naïve?Lestrade (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Naive? no. The purpose of the bombs, the intent, was certainly to shorten the war, and Japan surrendered shortly afterwards, so it was perfectly reasonable at the time to construe causality. IMO it's political revisionism to assert the bombs were irrelevant to the surrender, by people who fear that any perceived past utilty of the bomb would encourage future use; but it's also good history to broaden context, and many other things influenced such huge decisions, such as the effective blockade from Japan's losses at sea, the pending invasion from Russia, the coup, who knows what all. The only naive thing is thinking that globe-spanning, generation-spanning, multinational, multicultural, wars involving millions of combatants and untold thousands of politicians, is simple. Pete St.John (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pauli Exclusion

I have trouble understanding the 3rd paragraph under "Career", that the Pauli Exclusion Principle is the reason, or a bigger reason, that macroscopic solid objects don't merge, vs electric repulsion: "Hence, it is not the electromagnetic repulsion between electrons and nuclei that is responsible for two wood blocks that are left on top of each other not coalescing into a single piece, but rather it is the exclusion principle applied to electrons and protons that generates the classical macrosopic normal force." The reason that is confusing is that many lay persons (such as myself) imagine the objects (such as wood blocks) as mostly empty, e.g. that the ratio of the diameter of a nucleus to the diameter of a nodal surface (roughly speaking) is very small; so there seems plenty of room for atoms of two objects to move next to each other, except for electrical repulsion. Can something more be said here, to explain it better? Should I ask at the Pauli Exclusion page? (but they don't seem to mention this effect). Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is wrong when it asserts that the Pauli Exclusion Principle generates a force. A principle is a conceptual rule that humans create to explain their experiences. A force is an assumed physical source of motion. There is no influence between concepts and physical motions. Physicists like to misapply words in order to impress non–physicists. This is an old tradition that goes back to the time when Egyptian hieratic priests maintained power over demotic non–priests or lay people. There is nothing that can be done to compel scientists to explain themselves in conventional language. If you protest that their words make no sense, they will reply that you are simply incapable of understanding them. A statement such as "the Pauli Exclusion Principle generates a force" cannot be proven wrong. It is expected to be taken on the authority of eminent, usually Nobel Prize–winning, physicists.Lestrade (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Every profession has jargon. Many mathematicians, such as myself, regret the use of the term imaginary for complex numbers; it's confused countless undergraduates but it's embedded tradition now. When you punch a wall, your hand will hurt; the kinetic energy was generated by the ATP in the muscles in your arm and shoulder, but the wall is relevant to the experience :-) so can be considered as a force (displacing your fist). Physicists aren't trying to fool us, but like all of us, as the generations go by we gradually come up with somewhat better ways of explaining things in words, all of which are imperfect. Pete St.John (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not using jargon to say that the Pauli Exclusion Principle generates a force. It is an ignorant error. Physicists delight in ambiguity and paradox. Instead of creating new words to signify new concepts, they appropriate existing words that already have a conventional meaning, regardless of the confusion that results. Examples are color, flavor, (mem)brane, dark, spectrum, spin, atom, work, entanglement, and quantum. At least Gell–Mann borrowed the non–word quark from James Joyce. That is the exception that confirms the rule.Lestrade (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I'm not a physicist, but I'll try to be more specific. Your reasoning is falacious, as follows: you say:

The article is wrong when it asserts that the Pauli Exclusion Principle generates a force. A principle is a conceptual rule that humans create to explain their experiences. A force is an assumed physical source of motion. There is no influence between concepts and physical motions...."

You are confusing the name of a thing, with the thing. The word "Principle" in the phrase "Pauli Exclusion Principle" is like "law" in "Law of Gravity". It isn't the concept that generates acceleration, it's the thing which our concept helps us grasp. The Law of Gravity explains something real, which really makes apples fall to the ground. The Paul Exclusion Principle explains something real, which really prevents two things from being in the same place at the same time. Pete St.John (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The article states that the exclusion principle generates a force. This brings us back to Medieval Realism, according to which the exclusion principle would be an entity that is an independent agency which is reponsible for the occurrence of forces. As such, the exclusion principle would exist in a world or realm of ontological being that is separate and apart from physical objects, including human brains. The article doesn't say that the exclusion principle explains something real. The article implies that the exclusion principle is something real that generates some other real thing.Lestrade (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Consider this parallel: "Gravity" (the word) describes gravity (the force of nature). The Law of Gravity does not make apples fall, gravity does; the Law of Gravity describes gravity. Newton did not discuss the word "gravity" or the phrase "Law of Gravity" as he wrote about gravity, not about the words that describe gravity. Now, faking parallel nomenclature to minimize confusion, let's say: The Pauli Exclusion Effect causes displacement, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle describes the effect. The article isn't about the nomenclature (which may be imperfect pedagically), it describes the effect. Gravity is a concept, and concepts aren't physical forces, nonethelss gravity is a physical force; you have to distinguish the use of the word, from the word, and what the use of the word describes, etc. Please think about a good way to say that yes, Gravity works, despite the fact that The Law of Gravity is a mere concept; then use the same reasoning to apply to the Pauli Exclusion Principple. Pete St.John (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Work on the exclusion principle

"Hence, it is not the electromagnetic repulsion between electrons and nuclei..."

Er, there is an electromagnetic attraction between electrons and nuclei. Perhaps "electromagnetic repulsion between atoms" was meant? -CKL —Preceding comment was added at 16:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Cquotes

I notice that this article is using loads of cquotes, which according to Template:Cquote are "meant for pull quotes", i.e. "to lead readers into an article and to highlight a key topic". Also according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations, cquote should only be used for pull quotes, not for quotations. A proper template for quotations is quote or quotation. Ulifahrenberg (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)