Talk:Josiah Willard Gibbs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] Cemmemorative stamp

Gibbs was honored with a commemorative stamp by the United States Postal Service in May 2005 in the series celebrating great american scientists. A link is here:

Would anyone want to update the article with this information? Also, the brief introduction on the top seems to understate his contributions to thermodynamics. Finally, when you use the GO navigation button on "Gibbs" you are brought to a description of a location in the US. Could we put a disambiguation page up instead?

I've uploaded an image of the stamp to be added to the article Image:Willard Gibbs 2005.JPG. --nixie 03:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

In the introduction, I have elaborated on Gibbs' significant contributions to chemical thermodynamics. I also have classified him as a mathematical physicist to represent his broader research interests, while adding to the article more on his founding of physical chemistry. (Note: Most sources I have read classify him as a physicist, mathematician, or both (e.g. mathematician and physicist or mathematical physicist), as his research is far more extensive than physicochemical phenomena (i.e. physical chemistry).) --User:24.253.120.206

[edit] Gibbs and Heaviside

Something needs to be put in this article about Gibbs and Heaviside. These two reformulated maxwell's theories but Heaviside had a more expansive revision and Gibbs a more limited one ... this primarily was from Heaviside being a electrician and Gibbs a chemist. Sincerely, JDR

[edit] All hail to Willard Gibbs

Rewriting this article so that it meets my standard for polished use of the English language is the least I can do to honor a great American scientist who to this day is too little known and honored. I have read that the time is ripe for a new scholarly biography of Gibbs. You scientists seem not to know that Muriel Rukeyser was a significant American poet and woman of letters. Her fascination with Gibbs is a curious one, a fitting subject for an article in the likes of Daedalus or The American Scholar.

I discovered Gibbs's name while doing the chemical thermodynamics part of freshman chemistry. Only much later did I learn that we also largely owe to Gibbs the vector language into which so much of 20th century physics was cast.

I should check the Oliver Heaviside entry as well. He too is insufficiently appreciated.202.36.179.65 22:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isolated at Yale?

As it stands today, this article has the POV that Gibbs was isolated at Yale. The opposite POV is held by Gian-Carlo Rota in his book Indiscrete Thoughts (p.25):

I used to walk through the mathematical stacks of the Sterling Library and pull out books from here and there, as we do in childhood….There were some course notes by Gibbs, presumably handwritten. A few additional sheets were glued to one of these volumes, listing all the notable scientists of Gibb’s time: from Poincaré, Hilbert, Boltzmann and Mach to individuals now all but forgotten. Altogether more than two hundred names and addresses were alphabetized in a beautiful, faded handwriting. Those sheets were a copy of Gibbs’ mailing list. Leafing through in amazement, I realized at last how Gibbs had succeeded in getting himself known in a short time…

Can someone compose an NPOV description including the opposing POVs ?Rgdboer 00:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Good contribution Rgdboer. The majority of the sources, however, do support the argument that Gibbs was essentially unknown, in the greater scientific community. He had a good relationship with Maxwell. Between 1873-1900, his works were obscure to most, and it was only after translation into other languages (about the year 1900), by two different people, that he became known. I'll try, however, to neutral-point-of-view-ify the article, a bit, down the road (using your nice contribution). Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Guys -- I stumbled onto this entry. Yale College is thinking of building two new "colleges" and Gibbs' name was one of many suggested as a name. I had never heard of him, so it was off to Google with me, and here is where I ended up.

I just wanted to say, I have often been discouraged by the pettiness and difficulty of writing/editing Wikipedia articles. This beautifully researched and written article was a bit of an inspiration to me. Thank all of you so much.

I'll do a quick draft to incorporate the Rota passage. Feel free to do whatever with it. Apollo

Done. I also rewrote the Copley/Nobel passage to emphasize the importance of the award he received. Starting with "he didn't win a Nobel prize but . . ." seemed a bit too defensive to me. Those of you who have done all the work on this article: feel free to revert or edit any of this. Apollo 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Good work Apollo. --Sadi Carnot 00:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nobelists derived from Gibbs

I'm building this section. I'm guessing there are at least 10 Nobel Prize winners who based their work on Gibbs or whose contributions to humanity owe their debts to Gibbs. Leave tips if you have any. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 08:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted material and suggestions

I've removed this statement from the introduction: "The Technical Alliance later known as Technocracy Incorporated, cite Gibbs as their scientific and intellectual forefather." Both the Technical Alliance and Technocracy Incorporated are so obscure (dated) that their mention adds little to this article. In contrast, the American Mathematical Society and Paul Samuelson, which are both mentioned, carry sufficient and recognized authority to convey Gibbs's importance to the reader. -- Instead of reinserting the deleted sentence, consider using the time to improve this article in other ways. For example, the Tributes section has no references. Can more be said about Gibbs's personal life? His health? His religion? His teaching abilities? -- Astrochemist (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that the Technical Alliance cite this in the person of Howard Scott is extremely important information. Why do you suggest to another editor to talk about religion here ? Please do not delete this information again. Technocracy contrary to your statement is very much alive and not obscure. This is not dated unless you consider thermodynamics dated also ? http://www.technocracy.org/origins-1.htm The Origins of Technocracy. Perhaps you could watch this video. Or perhaps you could read this. http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy - As one of the most important social movements the United States has ever produced, it is very fitting that Gibbs should be given credit for inspiring it. Please take your own suggestions as to the material you suggested for others to do to improve this article. skip sievert (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I won't be drawn into a discussion here of things (technocracy, etc.) that appear to be important to you, but are of doubtful relevance to Josiah Willard Gibbs. I've seen (i) your spirited discussions with several other users, (ii) the blocks on your user page (i.e., 27 June 2007), and (iii) that you've added similar material to this Gibbs page about five times following changes by others. I've also seen that in your contributions here you've failed to cite widely-recognized historians and scholars, as opposed to simply a few web pages. As User Itub pointed out in his recent Gibbs edit, Wikipedia:V applies ("The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."). Concerning your question about religion, religion can be a powerful motivator in the life of a scientist and is often critical for understanding his or her motivations (e.g., Michael Faraday). -- Please consider these comments in the constructive spirit in which they are intended. -- Astrochemist (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we find a reasonable solution?

The above discussion as well as recent edit summaries are becoming rather angry on both sides. Perhaps I can consider what seem to be the issues and help to find a reasonable compromise.

1. Citation: Several edit summaries have indicated that Scott's comment is unreferenced, while Skipsievert has repeatedly claimed that he provided one. On checking I find that his Dec.10 edit summary did provide a lead to find the citation, but the problem is that the citation should also be in THIS article for easy access by readers. After reading the articles on the Technocracy movement and Howard Scott and some of their references, and also watching the video mentioned by Skipsievert, I think that the video and one other reference are relevant, so I will copy links to them into this article.

2. Importance to Gibbs article: Is there a middle ground between "so obscure (dated) that their mention adds little to this article" and "one of the most important social movements the United States has ever produced"? I would say that Technocracy is now obscure (I had never heard of it prior to this debate), but its article indicates a greater importance in the early 20th century. If this role included popularizing the academic ideas of Gibbs about energy and thermodynamics, then the movement is relevant to Gibbs or at least to his reputation. Also, I am impressed that the movement included M. King Hubbert who first proposed the oil peak which we are all aware of today - it certainly seems important that his ideas on energy stemmed from Gibbs.

3. Place in Gibbs article: Part of the opposition to the mention of Scott may stem from its prominent place in the introduction. I would suggest that the introduction be limited to Gibbs' work and recognition during his lifetime, and that all the posthumous stuff (yes, including Samuelson) be placed either in Scientific recognition or in Tributes. Please note also that Skipsievert is only trying to include two lines about Technocracy; this does not change the focus of the article in any significant way.

4. Other suggestions: Astrochemist has suggested several other topics for this article. These topics certainly may also be of interest, including religion since Gibbs' father was a professor of theology. But I see no reason for the suggestion that they be included INSTEAD of the reference to Technocracy. The article has room for both and it seems logical that Skipsievert should contribute the item that interests him, and others can contribute the items that interest them (and will probably require some researh).

And once again - everyone please calm down. Joyeux Noël. Dirac66 (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)