Talk:Paul Dirac/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pronunciation

How does one pronounce the name "Dirac"? --84.163.89.120 12:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't vouch for the correct Swiss pronunciation, but physicists say "Dee-RAK." -- Eb.hoop 06:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

• Dirac never worked as an engineer for a living (all he did was a few weeks’ research one summer, directly after his engineering degree).
• His PhD thesis did not mention Schrodinger’s quantum theory, so the characterization of Dirac’s early QM is not correct.
• Dirac first became interested in general relativity as a student in Bristol, not at Cambridge.
• His role in the discovery of field theory is not mentioned.
• Nor is his extremely important work in the least-action formulation of QM, now very important in modern field theory.
• I was surprised to see nothing at all about Dirac’s large number hypothesis (1937)
• Dirac did speak publicy about his early family life in his interview to the Archives of the History of Quantum Physics.
• He did not ‘derive’ the Dirac equation – he guessed it.
• He was not a committed atheist in later life. I’d describe him as agnostic.

I've gone ahead and fixed the errors identified. Someone else might want to add more about Dirac's role in the development of quantum field theory. -- Eb.hoop 21:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if Nature cited some verifiable sources for its factual statements and critiques:

• While it is nice to know that the unnamed Nature reviewer says, "I’d describe him as agnostic," I would much rather hear Dirac's own religeous views, to the extent that he stated them. Just my hunch: the reviewer is not, or at least prefers not to characterize him- or herself as, an athiest.
• Also, the criticism that Dirac "guessed" rather than "derived" his namesake equation is less than a quibble. Yes, I have read that he said that. However, unless one is attempting to describe Dirac's own perception of his internal mental process, the public is in no way misled by the statement that he "derived" it. Indeed "derived" may be the more accurate, objective description, given the constant subconscious mental processing that goes on in the minds mathematicians and other highly creative indivicuals.

I did not write either of these items into the Dirac article, so this is not self-justification. Finell (Talk) 22:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the least-action stuff? William M. Connolley 21:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, as Aloan points out, its there under "path integral" William M. Connolley 17:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Views

Removed: Dirac believed privately that God was a great mathematician. This underlied his belief that correct formulations of fundamental physical laws would be mathematically beautiful and simple.

A quick check on several physics biography websites revealed nothing like this about his "private" thoughts. If Xanaguy would like to produce an authoritative reference to the assertion, we can put it back in.--Oscar Bravo 13:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Commemorative garden in St. Maurice

After visiting St. Maurice on a ski-trip in April 2006, I thought it worthwhile to add a sentence mentioning the commemorative garden there. My intial addition was:

A commemorative garden, in his honour, has been established opposite the railway station in Saint-Maurice, the town of birth of his father.

I was a bit surprised, however, by a line on the plaque which described Dirac as, "un originaire de Saint-Maurice". With my limited grasp of French, I took this to mean they were claiming he was born there, so I (unwisely!) added this line to the article:

Despite being born in Bristol, England of an English mother, the plaque in the garden rather cheekily describes him as originating in Saint-Maurice.

Of course, this started a chain of edits as various people pointed out that an originaire doesn't necessarily need to have been born in a certain place, and that parental lineage is sufficient. This is all very interesting but rather irrelevant to M. Dirac. So I removed the whole thing. If anyone is interested, apparently,

Under Swiss law, every child born to a father who is a Swiss national also has Swiss citizenship, in the case of Diracs, they are citizens of Saint-Maurice in Canton Valais. Since Paul Dirac's father, Charles, only renounced his Swiss citizenship in 1919, Paul also had Swiss citizenship until 1919, when he was 17.

--Oscar Bravo 07:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

but/and

I reverted Dirac became unsatisfied ... but his work on the subject moved increasingly out of the mainstream. to Dirac became unsatisfied ... and his work... for semantic reasons. The two clauses are in a causal relationship - because he became dissatisfied, his work moved out of the mainstream. So they should be connected with and (even and so!). Using but to connect the two implies that the second clause is in dissonance with the first, but it isn't... --Oscar Bravo 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this section relevant to Paul Dirac

Eugene Wigner, Dirac's brother-in-law, once described Richard Feynman as "a second Dirac, only this time human"..

This is nothing to do with Dirac himself so I suggest that this should be deleted.

--pizza1512 ^{Talk Autograph} 15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Statue of Dirac at FSU

It seems like it might be worth mentioning that outside of the science library dedicated to Dirac at FSU there is a full-sized statue of him sitting on a bench? I don't know how to write it well, but... it's there. Also, I can get a good picture of said statue (and/or the library) if anything thinks it'd be useful. Luthwyhn 05:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Discovered ?

Has wikipedia standarized the term for discovering/developing mathematical objects ?. I think not all mathematicans agree that things are discovered, but rather think they are developed.

The question as to whether mathematics has any objective reality or whether it is just a construct of the human mind is an interesting philosohpical one. My POV is that, it depends on the maths: For example, if we imagine an alien race on the other side of the galaxy, they would have to know that the area of a circle = $\pi r^{2}$ if they were to make any progress with their crop circles. I'm sure we could recognise that part of their mathematics, if we saw it. That strongly implies that $A=\pi r^{2}$ exists out there and that intellects discover it.

However, I'm not so sure they would necessarily have a Dirac equation. They might have something similar that allowed them to model anti-particles but they wouldn't have anything familiar enough to our Dirac equation that we could immediately recognise it.

As an analogy, consider how it would work with technological objects: the aliens might have levers and gears but they probably wouldn't have a 4-cylinder, overhead-cam, 12-valve internal combustion engine. If you go along with that, then perhaps you'd have to say that Dirac invented his eponymous equation.--Oscar Bravo 13:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ho there, we don't mention that he taught at the University of Miami from 1969 to 1971 (this is a fact). It says that he taught at Cambridge until 1969 and then mentions that he spent the last 10 years of his life (1974-1984, I would presume) at FSU. That's a 5-year gap. Just to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr33n0r4cl3 (talk • contribs) 23:16, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

He did not teach at the University of Miami. He held an academic research position there. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

Wigner

I got this from the wiginer article, "In Princeton in 1934 Wigner introduced his sister Manci to the physicist Paul Dirac. They married, and the ties between Wigner and Dirac deepened. Wigner also spent time with Einstein, who had come to Princeton to join the Institute For Advanced Study." However, in this article it claims it is Wiginer's daughter and a different name. Which is correct?

Sister is correct, not daughter. The Wigner page has already been fixed. Manci is a nickname for Margit, so you will often see both names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leodirac (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What are they anyway?

Nature found 9 errors. You think they could tell us what they are so we can fix them? --24.63.36.180 18:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, guys. what did Dirac say? that science makes difficult things simple whereas poetry is much about nothing? Apparently Art and Literature were too difficult for him. If Einstein, Schodinger, Oppenheimer and others liked philosophy and literature, there was probably a point there. Great minds are usually attracted towards several and divergent domains of intellectual activity. Also when he said that he never started a sentence if he was unsure abiut its ending he was probably one of the many people who would say this, it has nothing exceptional and is probably even wrong (maybe that's why he never liked art). And God is a product of our imagination? what an unimaginative person. He should look, once again, to all great scientists including Newton.

The other thing that may happens is that Dirac was simply honest. It is very well known that students who have a talent for languages never liked maths, and vice versa. Schopenhauer, and other philosophers and great poets, hated maths. It is certainly true that great minds have many interests, but maybe those two, maths and art, rarely go together.

Perhaps what is even more important is that we cannot understand people's beliefs from their statements. Nobody knows the secrets of a human soul, and those great minds were as much prone to contradiction and doubt as anybody else. Even among believers, who has not woken up one morning and said that maube god does not exist? Or which atheist is really an atheist? Maybe truth is self-contradictory by nature, and our statements do not explain anything. But is this not the case with mathematics too? Thanks, Panos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.71.209 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

When did the bra-ket notation came ?

In Dirac : a scientific biography, p. 177, we are told it is in 1939 [1], while the article suggests 1930 and in the fr wiki, 1925 is suggested... The biography seems to trace it back to an article, but I only have the google online version with limited content, so if someone could check and eventually correct, it would be great! --67.71.75.220 (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, the biographer was right, and this 1939 article has an explicit title : A New Notation for Quantum Mechanics. The reason the article is wrong is probably given in François Gieres, Rep. Prog. Phys. 63:1893 (2000) arXiv:

“ ...the bra and ket notation that Dirac developed from 1939 on, and that he introduced in the third edition of his celebrated textbook on the principles of quantum mechanics ”

So it is probable that the person writing the article did not have the original edition of Dirac's textbook, and believed it was written using bra-ket notation ever since the first edition. I'm going to fix this, now. --67.71.75.220 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The bra ket notation indeed originates from Dirac's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics". Torricelli01 (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dirac codec

The BBC has developed a video compression codec named after Dirac. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/10/bbc_develops_codec/ mparaz

• In my opinion, somebody should add (beacuse I don't know how do it) 'Dirac' word to disambiguation page, like it has done in polish Wikipedia for this word: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac
  --Jedrzej s (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In-line references in Career section

There are several references within the text of the Career section. The section would be easier to read if these references were replaced by footnotes.

Examples include:

1. "Reminiscences about a great physicist" 1990 p98 ed Kursunoglu & Wigner, Cambridge:CUP
2. Schweber SS 1994 "QED and the men who made it: Dyson,Feynman,Schwinger and Tomonaga", Princeton :PUP
3. Cand J Math 1950 vol 2, 129; 1951 vol 3, 1
4. 1951 “The Hamiltonian Form of Field Dynamics” Cand Jour Math, vol 3 ,1
5. Proc Roy Soc 1958,A vol 246, 333,Phys Rev 1959,vol 114, 924

Is there a good reason for keeping these in the text?

--TraceyR (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Personality section

Too many anecdotes and too much trivia in this section. Revision and expansion is needed, see "Quantum Theory's Silent Pioneer", Science, Vol 326, 27 November 2009, pp. 1191-1192. Johnfos (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I read a review of the recent Farmelo book on Dirac and apparently the book says Dirac probably had autism, presumably Aspergers. Has anyone got the book and can confirm this? It seems worth adding. Malick78 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just finished Farmelo's excellent biography; I'm not sure that he comes down on the side of Dirac "probably" having autism, which presents such a wide spectrum of symptoms. I would say that Farmelo's verdict is that it is inconclusive on the evidence now available. --TraceyR (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

...but, having had another look at the book, I should quote the following: "Yet again, it is possible that this correlation between autistic characteristics and Dirac's behaviour is a coincidence, but, in the light of other such correlations, this seems unlikely. I believe it to be almost certain that Dirac's behavioural traits as a person with autism were crucial to his success as a theoretical physicist: his ability to order information about mathematics and physics in an systematic way, his visual imagination, his self-centeredness, his concentration and determination. These traits certainly do not explain his talent but they give some insight into his unique way of looking at the world". So perhaps my memory played tricks with me! --TraceyR (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

I have commented out the following text from the Main Article: A review of the 2009 biography states that Dirac's work "laid the foundations for today's micro-electronics industry," without further elaboration. Similar text appeared in another review of Graham Farmelo's biography of Dirac: ... the unique characteristics of electrons that make such devices as transistors, mobile phones and solid-state lasers possible are known as Fermi-Dirac statistics.

I think that we should rely on something better than a newspaper or journal review. Unfortunately I do not have the book so I cannot fill in the right information.

TomyDuby (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WRT Farmelo, Fermi-Dirac statistics are mentioned three times in the index but none of the passages referred to mentions microelectronics explicitly, although (on p. 104) he writes: "The formulae Dirac derived that summer" (i.e. 1926) "are now used every day by researchers who study metals and semiconductors". Elsewhere (1) in the Proloque (pp.1-2), Dirac is described as "one of the pre-eminent pioneers of quantum mechanics"...(which) "underpins the whole of modern microelectronics"; (2) in the chapter entitled "Legacy" (p.429) Farmelo writes: "Every day, tens of thousands of researchers in the microelectronics industry routinely employ the techniques developed by Dirac and his colleagues; ideas that took years to clarify are used without a thought for the headaches they once caused their creators."

Page numbers refer to the Faber & Faber 2010 UK paperback edition, ISBN 978-0-571-22286-5. Perhaps the commented-out statement could be reinstated using these references, acknowledging that QM was not solely Dirac's work. --TraceyR (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are unpublished ArXiv papers a RS?

Does an unpublished and non peer-reviewed paper on the ArXiv constitute a reliable source? The ArXiv has the advantage of being freely accessible but standards of inclusion of papers in the ArXiv, although they do exist, are very low, and once a person is admitted as a contributor, often because of historical reasons or because of institutional affiliation, they can submit almost anything without challenge. If a paper were published in an established refereed journal, that would make it a reliable source and an ArXiv paper that had been published in such a venue could be accepted as a RS. The issue comes up in the Paul Dirac article where an IP from Slovenia has inserted an unpublished Arxiv paper from authors in Slovenia. Of course, the issue of something being a RS is quite different to the issue of whether the item is notable or relevant. What do editors think in general and in respect to the Dirac article? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

This could be discussed also on reliable source noticeboad, but imho it appears as as problematic considering its non peer-reviewed nature. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, there is a useful discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Consensus seems to be that ArXiv is not a reliable source in most circumstances. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Typo in the long quote

There's a typo in the first sentence of the long quote about religion. However, since the source is not viewable, I don't know what the sentence should say. Could someone please fix it? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Farmelo (in "The Strangest Man", 2009) doubts the word-for-word accuracy of this long quote anyway, since it was repeated by Heisenberg years after the event. IMHO it would be OK to correct the typo ("idly" for "idle"?) while waiting for someone with access to the source to confirm it or not, as the case may be. --TraceyR (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Atheist Citation?

I see this question was brought up once already, but are there any citations indicating Dirac was an atheist. I was actively looking for any information on his religious views, but I could not find much. The item that came up the most was this quote:

“God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world" [2]

Unless someone can provide good evidence for him being an atheist I think it should be removed. --Scott 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Using Google I did mange to find this:

Brian, Denis (Editor). The Voice of Genius. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Publishing, 1995.

PAUL DIRAC (Nobel, physics, 1933) (Interview with his wife.)

What was your husband’s attitude toward religion?
He was a Christian. He went to church on Sundays.
You mean he believed in Jesus Christ?
Perhaps sometimes, and sometimes not. You know, most people are like that.
Most people I contacted are atheists.
My husband wasn’t an atheist
Did he feel there was an intelligent creator?
Yes, yes.

(P. 69)[3]

If anyone has the above mentioned book out there to confirm this, it should be case closed. --Scott 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This website [4] is bias towards believers. Many informations in the website are FALSE. For example, Einstein did not believed in a personal god. But in the website [5] we are told that Einstein had absolute certainty in God's existence, deep reverence for His creative powers, and a total acceptance of His sovereignty!!

The interview was with Dirac's wife. Paul Dirac has never said that he believed in a personal God. As far as I know, from what I have read, Dirac was an atheist. If you guys have other proof, please show me. User: Devraj

Your objection is confused. It is possible, and quite common, to not believe in a personal God, yet not be an atheist. Examples include deists, pantheists, and panentheists. Since we don't really know which of these Dirac was, I'm just changing it to the indisputable "did not believe in a personal God", rather than trying to pin an unverifiable label on him. Djcastel 13:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Djcastel, you are wrong. Deists do believe in a personal God. And, pantheists are just politically correct atheists. User:devraj5000

Some self-identified deists emphatically do not believe in a personal God. See for example, this link.[6] And the judgment that pantheists are really atheists is POV. It would be hard to peg Spinoza as an atheist. Djcastel 19:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this Talk and can perhaps shed some light. In a recently discovered 1934 letter from Dirac to Isobel Whitehead, mother of J. H. C., he writes, "I do not think my decision [whether to marry Margit] would be influenced by my believing in God, so I do not know why you are bringing up this point so forcibly. I do not know Lady Hoskins at all well. I am mainly guided in my philosophical beliefs by Niels Bohr, with whom I always feel in complete agreement." The letter is now in the library of St John's College, Cambridge. Dirac's first sentence, with its 'would', suggests that he's discussing a hypothetical rather than real belief in God. I don't know for sure if Bohr was an atheist, but if he was, and Dirac agreed completely with him, that would suggest that Dirac was an atheist too. Sosayso 15:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but it is not our role to do original research to decide this question. Djcastel 19:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this. I expect a reputable source will appear in due course that offers new arguments based on the 1934 Dirac letter and other material. Sosayso 20:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Reputable sources for Dirac's atheism have been in List of atheists for quite some time. See the following:

Werner Heisenberg recollects a friendly conversation among young participants at the 1927 Solvay Conference about Einstein's and Planck's views on religion. Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg and Dirac took part in it. Among other things, Dirac said: "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest — and as scientists honesty is our precise duty — we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination.[...] I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another.[...]" Pauli jokingly said: "Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is: God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet." Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations Harper & Row New York isbn=0061316229

"... I [Pauling] am not, however, militant in my atheism. The great English theoretical physicist Paul Dirac is a militant atheist. I suppose he is interested in arguing about the existence of God. I am not. It was once quipped that there is no God and Dirac is his prophet." Linus Pauling & Daisaku Ikeda A Lifeling Quest for Peace: A Dialogue 1992 Jones & Bartlett isbn = 0867202777 pages = page 22

Nick Graves 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul Dirac was indeed an atheist when he was young, but later in life he became a Christian and attended church on Sundays. He also became a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. "The Voice of Genius" has an interview with his wife, who confirms this claim. This book is not a biased account, as it is full of interviews with renowned scientists who are/were atheists. The interview with Mrs. Paul Dirac can be read here: http://books.google.ca/books?id=x1BYMA-8oq8C&pg=RA1-PA72&lpg=RA1-PA72&dq=the+voice+of+genius+paul+dirac&source=web&ots=pwm9Umt_Na&sig=QUgpkPVNEPxUoioMKG703qm6iGA&hl=en#PRA1-PA69,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.73.231 (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mrs Dirac is quoted as saying that, the quote is above. She also replied to a question about George Gamow's comment re Dirac in his book Thirty Years that Shook Physics with "I don't read science fiction." The interview is interesting indeed. Vsmith (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the British Newspaper, 'The Telegraph', Helen Brown writes: "Dirac’s story ends with a whimper. As a young man he had joked that physicists were all washed up by 30 and as he aged his powers waned. The Cambridge physics department took away his parking space and an outraged Manci insisted he take up a fellowship at Florida State University. He died in 1984, aged 82. An atheist, he was buried under a gravestone chosen by Manci. It read “because God said it should be so.”" Here is a link, The Strangest Man: the Hidden Life of Paul Dirac by Graham Farmelo - review. Unless there is more evidence, that states that Dirac was a Christian, he should stay labeled as an atheist. Ninmacer20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC).

Failed

"Failed to parse" has appeared. Others might look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.25.93 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Dirac's decision to turn down knighthood

This was removed here, with the edit summary "I am Barbara Dirac Svejstrup Dirac’s granddaughter- this section cites someone reviewing Formal’s book - I find the content speculative and irrelevant". It is hard to prove one's identity over the Internet, and the citation given is in Farmelo's book.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

religious views - irrelevant

when I saw a whole long section about his religious views, I presumed he must've started a cult or something. No, he's just an ordinary atheist. I found nothing unique or noteworthy in that section, I fail to see why it's written. Surely we could just say "Paul Dirac was atheist". We don't talk about his favourite teddy bear when he was 5 because some information just isn't worthy of being recorded in an encyclopaedia. Owen214 (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A big deal was made about it when they wanted to add a plaque with the Dirac equation in Westminster Abbey. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Heisenberg quote "There is no God and Paul Dirac is His prophet" is one of the famous anecdotes about Dirac. Axing the entire section might look like trying to make a point.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

+1 for retention; if someone deletes it I'll just put it back. The issue is not just that Dirac apparently didn't believe in any deity, but that his work on the standard model was clearly believed (possibly jokingly) by at least one of his peers to reinforce that belief. SteveLoughran (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

+1 for retention. Heisenberg, Pauli and Dirac are all notable and Dirac's views are too. He's not "just an ordinary atheist" but one of the 20th century's greatest scientists. The section is also important in that it provides an insight into Dirac as a thinker in another area; it also shows that this sort of discussion took place among top level scientists. You or I may not agree with his views but that's not a reason to delete the section. --TraceyR (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't question his scientific ability and neither did I challenge his opinion; I made it quite clear that in the scope of religious leaders, I got the impression from the article that he was "just an ordinary atheist". If it's regarded as important or somehow surprising that religious views were discussed amongst top scientists, then that would be better discussed on the Atheism page than a biographical page, as the topic just isn't notable here.Owen214 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

+1 for retention. As one of the most important thinkers of the 20 th. century his views on religion are notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

+1 for retention. I think there's more to this particular story than captured here, but as I have nothing more than OR to base this on, I won't be putting it into the article. But I am curious to see what verifiable information others can dig up on the subject. Leopd (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

+1 for retention. Chienlit (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I presume I start off with putting '-1 for retention'. A comment above says *Heisenberg, Pauli and Dirac are all notable*: if so in a religious views context, then why don't the other 2 mentioned have mirroring religious sections in their wiki bios? Just because they might not have a massive quote to 'kick-start' such a section shouldn't negate such a section existing. As for another comment above regarding his cosmological views 'influencing' his work, again when I read a wiki bio of a scientist's contributions I don't for an instant give an ounce of thought to what that individual believed spiritually, and here's why: Not all scientists 'influenced' by their existent or non-existent/anti- religious/spiritual views are going to be right in said views (God either exists or doesn't exist), so that means those whose views ultimately turn out to be wrong were influenced by unreality (so if Dirac as an athiest found himself encountering the divine after he passed away, those athiestic views which 'influenced' him were ultimately a crock of hooey). Therefore, who cares what cosmological views influenced any particular scientist UNLESS those views were INTEGRAL to their work. Unless it can be demonstrated that atheistic views were integral to Dirac's scientific contrbutions, and not simply, for example, a by-product of his autistic personality, then I don't see this section having merit in his bio, or in any other bio of any other scientist under the same stipulation (with that stipulation naturally cutting both ways: just because a scientist may believe in God doesn't bare mentioning unless, again, it's integral to their work finding/having found a manifest existence at all). All that said, what this section does smack of, is the current trend of 'New Atheists' trying to claim every notable name under the sun as 'one of their own', as if such an individual's genius in one area lends some weighted credence/legitimacy to holding atheistic views because they themselves held them (the unspoken implication being geniuses know better than ordinary people, so you've got to weigh their perceptions of reality more heavily than ordinary folk). If a scientist's contributions are notable enough to have a wiki bio at all, then either every one of them should have a religious views section, or none of them should have one (again unless, in the latter instance, those views were INTEGRAL to the very contribution they made). A scientist dealing with stuff as 'dry' as what Dirac did, I fail to see how anyone can make a case for such integrality - he could've believed in the flying spaghetti monster, and how would've such a clearly false belief derailed his work? The point being what he believed cosmologically to be the case, had no such integral bearing on his contributions.

I think a key issue here is that Dirac pushed the standard model way beyond where it was known before, so arguably he was delving into a new view of the universe. The issue of whether or not that conflicts with the world view of any specific religion/belief system is up to that specific set of beliefs -and if Dirac's work does clash, given the fact that antiprotons and positrons can be created for short periods of time puts the onus on the belief system to adapt to the facts, not the other way around -adaptation to the evidence being the core of the scientific method. What is important about Dirac is that the quote by Pauli, "Es gibt keinen Gott und Dirac ist sein Prophet", shows that some of his peers not only recognised Dirac's atheist outlook, but -at least jokingly- felt that there was some correlation between his works and this.Furthermore, Pauli's comment was apparently made at the 1927 Solvay Conference, famous for the Copenhagen Interpretation, which is possibly the closest that physics has come to reaching some conclusions about the nature of the universe -or universes-. To say that Dirac was perceived as being a prophet of atheism at the time the implications of wave/particle duality was covered does matter to me, for historical reasons alone.

Replying to the specific claims about "New Atheists", not knowing what that means, I can't make any claims. I will note that whenever someone comes to my door to convince me that their set of beliefs are valid, I tend to raise Dirac's residence 50 metres downhill as the evidence-driven view; the burning alive of protestants 100 metres up hill (under Queen Mary) as the belief-driven wold view. I then leave it to the doorsteppers which path they choose [[7]]. It certainly ends conversations. SteveLoughran (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Dirac's contributions in and of themselves do nothing to undermine (belief/s in) the possible existence of, variously, divinity/the divine/a Creator (had they done so, they WOULD make him a REAL prophet for atheism, and debating the existence of this section would be futile. A(ny) new view of the physical universe negates nothing about the potential existence of the divine, if not specific dogma from a particular religion). To return to the hypothetical scenario offered previously: he may have believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he may have held such a belief so deeply his colleagues couldn't help but comment on it, but unless that belief was integral to what he uncovered/forumlated (ie, without said belief, he simply wouldn't have managed the fact), why would it bare a mention any more than, say - hypothetically speaking - his belief that women belong in the kitchen but not in the workforce (reading his bio, I wouldn't know or not if he actually held that belief, which is the way it should be: it's not relevant to his work)? His atheistic belief is no more real or unreal than any belief in the divine, since neither position can be substantiated as definitively the case (as is the case with beliefs in the FSM), so its inclusion here isn't the inclusion of belief in a definitive fact, it's that of a subjectively held position. So, again, why does that bare a mention over any other subjective position he held that similarly wasn't integral to uncovering/formulating what he did? Why don't we get to have sections in all scientists bios for all the quirky/subjective beliefs they held away from those integral with the specific work that justifies their having a bio in the first place? Is the answer to be just because a few of his friends noted/joked it was marked aspect of his psychology? Do we get a 'sexual life' section for all those scientists whose friends noted/joked they liked screwing around a lot/that their libido was a marked aspect of their psychology, when as a fact it wasn't integral to their work? I fail to see how the aforementioned observations can be any plainer. He's done nothing definitive to advance any 'belief in' atheism (irrespective of whether or not his contributions have done 'damage' to the dogma of any specific religion/s - unless someone is trying to make the bizarre case that delivering a blow to a specific religion somehow delivers a blow to all belief in the divine), and atheism wasn't integral to his achievements. So why is it mentioned when the subjectively-held-beliefs-not-integral-with-life's-work benchmark isn't present in other scientists bios? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.96.4 (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Richard Feynman was prone to flying off the handle if religion was mentioned, although his article does not currently mention this. The question is one of notability and sourcing. The Heisenberg quote "There is no God and Dirac is his prophet" is a must for this article, because it is so famous.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep: The article later touches upon the objection raised by the Dean of Westminster that Dirac, as an atheist, should not be buried in Westminster Abbey. His atheism was therefore notable.--TraceyR (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dean Of Westminster objection could easily be worked into the death & commemoration section, and if Pauli's quote as related by Heisenberg is so noteworthy, then there's no reason why this paragraph couldn't appear in his personality section (presumably following the Heisenberg anecdote paragraph for continuity's sakes) - ***Heisenberg also recollected a conversation among participants at the 1927 Solvay Conference about Einstein and Planck's views on religion. Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg and Dirac (a self-confessed atheist) took part in it. Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli, raised as a Catholic, had kept silent after some initial remarks, but when finally he was asked for his opinion, said in response to Dirac's offering: "Well, our friend Dirac has got a religion and its guiding principle is 'There is no God and Paul Dirac is His prophet.'" Everybody, including Dirac, burst into laughter.*** I fail to see how the observations from Ian & TraceyR soldify a case for the continued existence of the self-standing religious views section, the crux of which is the propagation (via an elongated quote) of Dirac's subjective views which serve what purpose in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.96.4 (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be OK with me too - it's the fact of his atheism and the Heisenberg / Pauli anecdote which are notable; where they are presented is not so important. I'm not certain about "self-confessed atheist" - how about "professed"? --TraceyR (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I was writing on the fly, but you are correct: 'professed' would be the more appropriate term for Dirac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.96.4 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I see things are unchanged in the 2 weeks since the above discussion played out: if nothing is offered inside the next week as to why his religious views should be highlighted where there's no patent need for them to be so, then I will make the adjustments offered above (which maintain the famous quote and the burial rejection). --203.79.96.4 (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been made quite clear above why his religious views are of interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC).

Has it? That must've passed me by. How so, again? Because they're not needed in order to produce the quote as related by Heisenberg, so that as an 'excuse' for their presence doesn't fly.--203.79.96.4 (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)--203.79.96.4 (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not put a draft of what you propose here -it can be discussed and improved before editing the site. That way we don't get into a revision war.

Unfortunately the above post isn't signed, so I have no idea who I'm addressing. That aside, the request it contains has already been dealt with (at least in rough form of what might appear) in my entry here dated 12:44, 31 August 2011. As for any 'revision war', I've made no attempt at any point thus far to revise anything in the main article, as I'm well aware major undiscussed changes get reverted (hence my input into this section). --203.79.96.4 (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The anecdote relating Dirac's opinions on religion has been raised in this discussion thread, and the majority seem to have voted for retaining it as a valuable and enlightening (excuse the pun) bit of information. I've come across this incident in numerous sources, Werner Heisenberg's book physics and beyond relates this story through the eyes of a spiritual man. Whoever thinks this incident is not relevant for this page should try reading up on this subject. Physicists' views on religion and spirituality are fascinating, those with and without. Max Planck provides fascinating insights into symbolism and spirituality, and Niels Bohr's almost awed appreciation of symmetry extended to his coat of arms. If someone doesn't understand the relevance of something they should look it up before trying to tear it down. Apologies for my acerbic tone. 124.169.14.43 (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bohr's wiki profile mentions nothing of his religious views (pro, anti- or both) except of some influence from Kierkegaard (and in so being mentioned, says nothing at all about the specific nature of that influence), which is then also immediately mentioned as an influence that is disputed (so in all honesty, why THAT section exists at all I have no idea. It seems to say something without really saying anything). Planck has a section on relgious views, but since he both lectured & wrote about them for a wider consumption then that activity can be seen to warrant a section of its own. This discussion isn't about excluding the fact of Dirac having an atheistic outlook, or 'suppressing' this quote or the realities that gave rise to it, it's about asking why these realities warrant an individual section when the information could be worked into already existing areas of his bio (notably the personality section). As stated by someone above, Richard Feynman had strong views on religion that don't get a mention in his wiki profile - why not? Are Feynman's views on said topic less worthy & fascinating than Dirac's? Could it be because wiki simply isn't the place for such an extended/in-depth take on ALL the content (however fascinating) that goes into making up an individual's life? (obv. rhetorical Q alert). It is with some inner mirth that I see that since I've entered into this discussion thread, a new addition has been made to the religious section (re 1963 article). A couple more of those and maybe there'll finally be enough material there to make it look as though an individual section is warranted (lol).--203.79.96.4 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in understanding that you didn't look at any sources outside of wikipedia regarding Bohr and Planck? The fact that their pages need more work is hardly of any relevance to this section, since what we have here is a situation where the vast majority of editors have supported the retention of information illustrating Dirac's views about religion, as well as parts of his personality and thought process. You have made the observation that more information relating to his views on religion are being added to the page, a source of apparent mirth. I find it admirable that editors are doing research and fleshing out sections on this page and on others, whether to applause or to derision. Ninahexan (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) As far as Bohr & Planck go, why would I look at sources outside wiki when it's wiki's very treatment of this issue re their lives/bios which is what casts the appropriate mirror on the wiki treatment Dirac was/is getting? As for their pages somehow *needing more work*, I don't see any official note on their bios suggesting such, when it's a simple fact that such notes are left when wiki's powers-that-be consider a bio to be unsubstantiated to the degree desired. So, as it stands, THEIR bios are currently considered sufficient, there's no *needing more work* pov taken regarding them (except it seems, by those asserting such to substantiate another of their pov's elsewhere). (2) The reason for mirth is obvious, but seems to have escaped you. The section concerned has only been added to since this discussion thread came into existence. What's been added wasn't top secret stuff that was hard to find, and could've been included the day the bio was created (& would've been had it been deemed to be so important, but obviously wasn't back then). But no, it's been added only after the validity of the section concerned's independence has been questioned (hence the lo(l)gic: adding more to it = justifies that independent existence). (3) Any argument for NOT including the event which led to the notable quotation regarding Dirac has never been the main thrust of this discussion. The main point has always been, why didn't it get put in an already pre-existing section (Personality would've done just fine, esp. given his personal bents fitted perfectly with the world views he held) rather than have a new one created entirely devoted to the (rather slight) event itself, a section framed in such a way as made it seem like (the point which moved Hawkeye7 to start this discussion in the first place) Dirac's existential views (& contributions) are & were wholly more notable amongst all those with wiki bios (be they physicists or otherwise) who haven't devoted any significant part of their lives to the field concerned (which Dirac didn't). Feynman had strong views on religion, yet those don't warrant a single mention in his entire bio, let alone get a flimsy independent section devoted to them. If not Feynman (as but 1 example), why Dirac? I'm beyond caring at this point. Agendas are what they are. --203.79.96.4 (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You might look up sources outside of wikipedia if you were inclined to improve the article, which is how articles get started and evolve. I don't see anything constructive in your reply, so I'll leave it at that. Ninahexan (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I could look up *a billion* things not yet represented in various wiki articles (that look to be basically complete to this point), and *improve* them all (since extra factual information can't do anything but enhance an article, can it?). But before I did that I'd say to myself, nothing I'm looking up is something someone else hasn't been capable of looking up already, and if they (that is, the collective they, since anyone can edit wiki blah blah) decided not to *insert* said information into the particular looks-basically-completed article I'm concerned with, then I'd bow to the extrapolative logic that if well accesible and well-known information wasn't already present in that looks-basically-completed article, then it wasn't there for a reason (possibly it had been included, and it got deleted upon being seen as unnecessary). The only time I'd not apply that logic would be if (1) what I knew or found I knew to be especially obscure in its relevancy, or (2) the article concerned was clearly/visibly underdone. Relating all of that to Feynman's article, his views on Christianity are hardly obscure/known only to a few that he held them, and (as such) aren't especially hard to come across. Yet they rate not a single mention in his bio which is rather thorough (/complete), hardly underdone. Could it be the people who gave their efforts to crafting his article didn't think those views necessary to *shout from the rooftops* because they were hardly novel/original/groundbreaking, hardly centre stage in his life, had at best a tenuous connection with why he warrants/warranted a wiki article at all (or did think they warranted a mention & included them, that were then deleted by admin for the aforementioned reasons)? In light of all that, your retort to my previous point (about using other wiki Physcist articles to hold up as a mirror to Dirac's), is meaningless. Once again I ask - in light of my using, in this instance, Feynman's bio as a mirror - why has it been long seen/felt that Feynman *doesn't deserve* a religious section of his own where Dirac does, when any religiously related facts/attitudes connected with Dirac could easily be fitted into another, already relevant & pre-existing section (personality)? Dirac's religious views are neither novel or original (paraphrasing: God is of and for primitive people/s), and certain individuals beat him to various of his ruminations by decades-to-centuries (I'm sure his opium line had nothing to do with Marx). Still the only really relevant thing in that currently existing section is the famous quote. But all this is a mere FTR effort. I realise agendas don't concern themselves with objective facts or logic. Nothing about the irrelevancy of that section being independent (instead of the fluff being cut down or even out, and the hard stuff being incorporated into the relevant pre-existing section: I note here the fact Feynman was an atheist is incorporated into a section not devoted solely to his holding that viewpoint) is going to/will change. Thou my effort here might prompt someone to now go and create an equally meaningless independent religious section for Feynman's article, which would then undermine my observations here (Hey, suddenly Feynman warrants one, must mean Dirac's is warranted too!). 203.79.96.4 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant Paragraph?

The penultimate paragraph of the "career" section, starting "If one considers waves.." seems totally out of place in a summary of Dirac's life and work. If in fact it does describe some contribution to the theory of gravitons made by Dirac it needs to be reduced to a a simple statement to that effect.Redcliffe maven (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC) No response from anywhere, so I deleted this para. If you know what the original author of this paragraph was trying to say, please insert a simple verbal description of it.Redcliffe maven (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes

I have made some changes which have been reverted. I personally think they are the way forward, but if somebody else has an idea, I am more than open to suggestion. My hunch is that this should be almost entirely non-technical - think what pages like Einstein and Feynman would look like if we tried to include all of what they did. Jamesx12345 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Readers will want to be given an idea of the technical natures of Dirac's work. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you removed the internal link to Poisson brackets. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC).

I think I moved it to an earlier instance, which was then deleted. I can't say I know much of the technical stuff - if that is one of your areas, you will probably make a better job of it! Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Four x 1 hour lectures on youtube

First: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwYs8tTLZ24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maasha (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a very important video of Dirac's history of Quantum Mechanics in his own words. Hopefully it can be added. Youtube playlist of all 4 Dirac lectures on Quantum Mechanics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwYs8tTLZ24&list=PLjNexov924eRr3L8aCirRyVCRN5rGi29W 173.181.71.103 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a rare and quite possibly unique chance to watch Dirac delivering a lecture on video, recorded in 1975 in Christchurch, New Zealand. The image quality is a bit wobbly, but it is fascinating to see Dirac in action. The concern is who the copyright holder is, which is always an issue with YouTube videos.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

These were added to the article. There is an explanation of how the videos came about here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

incomprehensible "sentence"

can someone explain what the tail end of this following 'sentence' is supposed to mean? (hint: it's not a sentence). "He found a rather novel way of deriving the anomalous magnetic moment "Schwinger term" and also the Lamb shift, afresh, using the Heisenberg picture and without using the joining method used by Weisskopf and French, the two pioneers of modern QED, Schwinger and Feynman, in 1963." (in the seventh paragraph of the 'Career' section.) It reads initially as if Weisskopf and French are being called 'the two pioneers of modern QED', but that's followed by a hanging orphan clause "Schwinger and Feynman, in 1963". As far as I knew the two pioneers of QED are indeed Schwinger and Feynman, but the sentence refers to the joining method of Weisskopt and French, and ends naturally after 'and French'. There should be full stop at that point, no? And if that's the intent, where do Schwinger and Feynman come in as regards the topic discussed ('a rather novel way') here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.71.128 (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The original version of this "sentence" was added on 19 March 2010 by editor 203.81.64.36, and included the word "and" before "the two pioneers", as well as some minor details which have since been deleted. This implies that the sentence means that the joining method was used by the 4 authors - Weisskopf, French, Schwinger and Feynman. Also the 1963 in the original version refers to Dirac who derived the results "afresh", not to Schwinger and Feynman. I'll edit it to restore this meaning. I have not checked original sources to find a reference though, so it would be good if someone did that. Dirac66 (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sir title

pretty sure it's Sir Paul Dirac, given that he has received the Order of Merit (see Sir Roger Penrose or other great Commonwealth scientists) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I3roly (talk • contribs) 22:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the Order of Merit bestows the postnominal letters OM, and a specific position in the order of precedence, but no other title. Penrose has a knighthood in addition to being an OM, which is why he has the title Sir. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

oic, never knew that. good to know! thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by I3roly (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Magnetic monopoles experimentally established

This Nature article publishes the first experimental evidence of magnetic monopoles:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7485/full/nature12954.html

Since the page is locked I cannot update the "Magnetic Monopoles" section accordingly, which now falsely states that no such experimental evidence exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.189.230 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Monopoles are established only in the minds of those who cannot understand the difference between an elementary particle and a quasiparticle. So it is a good thing that the page is locked to IPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

This is in the news at the moment.[8] It refers to a monopole in a Bose–Einstein condensate. It is mentioned at Magnetic_monopole#.22Monopoles.22_in_condensed-matter_systems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Nature article says otherwise.

Quoting the abstract of the Nature article that Xxanthippe obviously failed to read:

"Here we demonstrate the controlled creation of Dirac monopoles in the synthetic magnetic field produced by a spinor Bose–Einstein condensate. Monopoles are identified, in both experiments and matching numerical simulations, at the termini of vortex lines within the condensate. By directly imaging such a vortex line, the presence of a monopole may be discerned from the experimental data alone. These real-space images provide conclusive and long-awaited experimental evidence of the existence of Dirac monopoles."

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2014

Synthetic magnetic monopoles have been created, as published in Nature 30/01/14 81.152.38.100 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Talk:Magnetic monopole#Discovery and included in Magnetic monopole. The article you cite refers to a monopole in a condensed matter system, which is not the same as the elementary particle considered by Paul Dirac. The details of this difference are too complex for this article, but I will add a note pointing to the Magnetic monopole article, for readers who may be interested. Dirac66 (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dirac66. Quite correct. I have been explaining the same matter ad nauseam to others who wanted to make the same edit. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC).

Very minor point: Career opening paragraph

In the first paragraph of the career portion, the positron to the electron should be given as an example (e.g.) Also, I could be mistaken, but i was under the impression Dirac's work only implies antiparticles for all fermions (and composite bosons I suppose)? [Comment by 86.183.64.110]

Yes, I think you are correct. I have made the changes. Dirac66 (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014

In the "External links" section the url for "Free online access to Dirac's classic 1920s papers from Royal Society's Proceedings A" is no longer correct, please change it to: http://royalsocietypublishing.org/search/author1%3ADirac%20limit_from%3A1925-01-01%20limit_to%3A2014-01-11%20numresults%3A50%20sort%3Apublication-date%20direction%3Aascending%20format_result%3Astandard 109.150.25.246 (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for the update - Arjayay (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2014

• The Paul Dirac Collection at Florida State University

This is a correction to the URL for the Dirac Collection at Florida State University in the external links section.

Kmccormick47 (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done - thanks. Vsmith (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Known for: Dirac's Theory on Chordal Graphs?

Under the "Known for" section in the biography box, it links to Dirac's Theory on Chordal Graphs. However, on the article that it links to, the citation is of G. A. Dirac, P. A. M. Dirac's stepson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.129.247 (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Dirac66 (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC) (And I am neither Paul nor Gabriel!)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2014

In the hertzian radiation mechanism, the antiparticle is nothing else than an electron flowing back in the opposite direction to the one it was initially injected from. Hence, the minus sign of one of the two Dirac's equation solutions indicates the negative direction of the particle and not a negative charge of it. 194.242.230.21 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

addition to grave info

I added the fact that their daughter Mary Elizabeth is buried next to them. This is personal observation, so I do not have a proper reference. I could take a photo and add it, but I sort of don't want to, because she has no proper grave marker, just a temporary one that's not in very good condition. Also, it's really a bit too much for a caption, but I don't know what else to do with it (and if the best thing is just not to include it, well, so be it). Paleolith (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paul Dirac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130715154411/http://www.lib.fsu.edu:80/dirac/collection.html to http://www.lib.fsu.edu/dirac/collection.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links

The external link page seems to have moved OK. I searched around a little and fixed it.

The link the rhe Royal Society Proceedings A papers for Dirac gives invalid links now, it needs to be changed to this http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/search/author1%3Adirac%20jcode%3Aroyprsa%20limit_from%3A1925-01-01%20limit_to%3A1982-01-01%20numresults%3A100%20sort%3Apublication-date%20direction%3Aascending%20format_result%3Astandard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceblink (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2015

In the External links section, please change the link for "Free online access to Dirac's classic 1920s papers from Royal Society's Proceedings A"

from

http://royalsocietypublishing.org/search/author1%3ADirac%20limit_from%3A1925-01-01%20limit_to%3A2014-01-11%20numresults%3A50%20sort%3Apublication-date%20direction%3Aascending%20format_result%3Astandard

to

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/search/author1%3Adirac%20jcode%3Aroyprsa%20limit_from%3A1925-01-01%20limit_to%3A1982-01-01%20numresults%3A100%20sort%3Apublication-date%20direction%3Aascending%20format_result%3Astandard

(the current link is obsolete and gives a page with non-working links to the actual papers)

Iceblink (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for finding the new URL. Dirac66 (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Bristol upbringing

I've stuck up on flickr one pic of a house in Bristol (Cotham Road, Bristol, BS6) which has a [9] under a CC, license; anyone is free to stick it up on wikimedia and then link to it from here. There's another house in bishopston where he apparently grew up, 15 monk road, which is on streetview [10]. I could try getting a photo of that one too.

What I don't have is reliable data on when he lived in these houses, indeed, it's not clear that paul himself lived in cotham road, or whether it was just his parents and elder brother.

According to Farmelo's biography, the move to Monk Road took place in April 1913, when Paul Dirac was 10.Redcliffe maven (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested Citation for Dirac's magnetic monopole claim

Hi,

It's quite weird that I was required to post here, as you have forbidden unregistered users from making (productive) edits.

But, I digress. I would like to tidy up the statement for which a citation was requested by User:Ashiataka and also, of course, provide the citation.

The claim is "In 1933, following his 1931 paper on magnetic monopoles, Dirac showed that the existence of a single magnetic monopole in the universe would suffice to explain the observed quantisation of electrical charge"

However I think this is slightly incorrect. I do not think the year 1933 is involved at all.

From what I can gather, Dirac was saying the existence of any magnetic charge implies that electric charge is quantised. The introduction of the theoretical construct of a magnetic monopole merely facilitated a framework where one could assume such a charge exists. Indeed, if User:Ashiataka took a few minutes (if that) to read the magnetic monopole page, a similar argument to the one above is provided (with additional citations). I therefore believe the passage should therefore read something like:

"In 1931, Dirac proposed that the existence of a single magnetic monopole in the universe would suffice to explain the quantisation of electrical charge"

Cheers! 31.168.200.84 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this citation, which I have now added to the article. The block on nonregistered users has been placed because of past vandalism of this article. The simplest way to get permission to edit protected pages is to register. Dirac66 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dirac denounced Quantum Field Theory

At 42:30 into this video, Dirac denounced Quantum Field Theory as an abomination. Should not this be reflected in Wikipedia's article? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPwo1XsKKXg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)