Talk:Alexander Friedmann

Claim
The following claim:

"This dynamical cosmological model of general relativity would come to form the standard for the Big Bang and steady state theories. Friedman's work supports both theories equally, so it was not until the detection of the cosmic microwave background radiation that the steady state theory was abandoned in favor of the current favorite Big Bang paradigm."

seems to be false. I'll remove it if no one wants to defend it. Gene Ward Smith 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In 'Cycles of Time', Roger Penrose writes "However, towards the end of my time at Cambridge, detailed counts of distant galaxies carried out at the Mullard Radio Observatory by (Sir) Martin Ryle (also in Cambridge) were beginning to provide clear observational evidence against the steady-state model." (Penrose's italics.) The report Penrose refers to is available online: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955MmRAS..67..106S But see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Cambridge_Catalogue_of_Radio_Sources. Penrose's wording "were beginning to provide" may be a hint at the epistemological complication of using non-conclusive reasoning to infer something that is confirmed only much later by acceptable reasoning. I seem to remember that something of that sort applied to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_29,_1919 as well, but can't remember right now where I read it. --84.177.62.38 (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim IS questionable, because it suggests that the Steady State Theory was generally accepted until the CMB was discovered. In fact, few physicists still clung to the Steady State Theory in 1964 when the CMB was discovered by accident. The discovery was the first direct confirmation of the generally accepted Big Bang Theory. Somebody should fix that, as Gene Ward Smith suggested.77Mike77 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Dates of birth and death inaccurate??
The date of his birth is unclear, but if 1888 as the article states and the date of his death was 1996, he did not die at age 84 unless he discovered the secret of using time dialation in his personal life.

I have no knowledge of the accurate dates, but I can add and subtract without paper and a pencil.

So some attention to this arithmetical detail should be devoted.

thanks, a lover of wiki and learning physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.6.103 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bomber What?
Along with the chronological oversight already noted goes the "bomber" business in the opening graph.

Friedman, I am sure, once held the world altitude record for a balloon flight--23,000 feet. I infer from that that it is a safe bet that he could have flown in the Russian air force--but please, he may have been a bomber PILOT or a bomber CREWMAN, but hardly a "bomber," as stated. I figured that out w/o pencil or paper too. :) Does anyone have the details of his service record?

Terry J. Carter 76.170.95.226 (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Friedman → Friedmann?
I think we should spell his name "Friedmann" because:


 * Of the two papers by Friedmann linked in the article, the earlier one spells it "Friedman" and the later one spells it "Friedmann". I don't know why the spelling changed, but at least one can't argue that he preferred the single-n spelling on the basis of his published papers.
 * The spelling "Friedmann" is overwhelmingly more common in modern references to his work (e.g. Friedmann equations).
 * Every online encyclopedia and biography that I checked spells it "Friedmann" except for Wikipedia.

Does anyone object? If not, I'll move the article and change the spelling. (There's also the question of Alexander versus Alexandr. I have no opinion on that and I'll just leave it as is unless someone objects.) -- BenRG (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * F's real name was "Александр Александрович Фридман", i.e. there is the Cyrillic equivalent of the Latin "n", not "nn". The change from Friedman 1922 to Friedmann 1924 has been attributed to the German tendency to have names ending in "...mann". Zeitschrift für Physik is (or at least was) a German-language journal. It's a bit like the much worse problem of translitering Arabic-Persian script names, since vowels are not normally written: Al-Friedman or al Freedman or al-Fridmen or Fridman? :) Since this was Cyrillic, the ambiguity is only between "n" and "nn". It's clear that "nn" is what is most widely used at present. i've only seen Michał Chodorowski adopt "n": http://arXiv.org/abs/0601171v2, http://arXiv.org/abs/0610590v3, http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.3972v1.


 * From the wikipedia POV, IMHO the argument favours "nn" based on usage, since we don't have any sources on what F himself wished, which could potentially override usage.


 * Externally, and for something that would be usable by wikipedia, how about we ask the IAU Cosmology Division to issue a decision on this? i don't see much point in trying to force the "correct" spelling by arguing about what "should" be the correct spelling. Boud (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of his life in Leningrad?
Curious, but how could he live most of his life in Leningrad, when the city was named such in 1924. That was the year before he died.

64.210.19.234 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Rick Patterson


 * also married in 23 but no honeymoon until 25?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.38.155.134 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Professor at Penn State University
Nonsense. He didn't even set foot there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.15.66 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Title is inaccurate
... because this is a very common name, so Alexander Friedmann (physicist) is required. See for instance Alexander Friedman, the architect from Germany who designed important buildings in Jerusalem and was, of course, wrongly linked to this page on List of Jewish architects. Thanks, ArmindenArminden (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

History of idea of eternal universe
Under the heading "Professorship", the article mentions "a static eternal Universe as believed in Newton's time". This is as per the 22 April 2020‎ edit by user 103.21.127.60‎. It would be good to have a reference to support the prevalence of this idea in Newton's time. Snowfallout (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)