Talk:California Institute of Technology/Archive 2

Nobel Peace Prize not a true Nobel Prize
Hey guys, the Nobel Peace Prize does not count as a true Nobel Prize. This should be reflected in discussing Linus Pauling having won one Nobel Prize for science, and one additional prize for peace -- i.e the current statement needs to be qualified, as it is extremely misleading by suggesting Pauling won two real Nobel Prizes. Great examples of individuals who actually won two Nobel Prizes are Marie Curie and Fred Sanger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.173.127.108 (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC) '''In any case Pauling was one of the greatest scientists ever. Also John Bardeen received two Nobel Prizes. The University rankings often have little relevance to academics. Caltech surely has an academic edge over MIT if you take the size and creativity.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:A180:F700:655F:2BF9:3C4E:F988 (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

'''Caltech along with Rockefeller has the highest concentration of geniuses at work. Two small institutes yet huge amount of genuine Nobel Prizes: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:A180:F700:9DB2:47FD:7194:C80D (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a WP:RS to say that it isn't a real Nobel prize? Or even one saying that there is controversy about it? Gah4 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a WP:RS to say that it isn't a real Nobel prize? Or even one saying that there is controversy about it? Gah4 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Popular culture edits reverted
I want to explain why I've been reverting edits by IP editor Tigerjean888. As I explained in one of my earlier edit summaries, the popular culture section is meant to be brief and to the point, as opposed to a collection of random trivia. I compromised with Tigerjean888 and integrated a mention of Caltech's apperance in one episode of the miniseries From the Earth to the Moon, but Tigerjean888 came back and reinserted the text and more, resulting in the following problems:
 * 1) Harrison Schmitt is already mentioned as a Caltech alum elsewhere in the article. In any case, such a connection is pretty tenuous for a pop-culture section; why not add Infinity, because it tells the early life of Caltech's own Richard Feynman? (No, that's not an invitation for anyone to do so.)
 * 2) The name of the Caltech geology professor is unimportant; the important thing is his affiliation, not his name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Institute_of_Technology
 * 3) The paragraph of the section that Tigerjean888 keeps putting his edit back into deals with documentaries. From the Earth to the Moon, as fine a minieries as it was, was fiction or, if you prefer, a docudrama. Not a true documentary.

If we wanted a horrible fanwanking list of every single Caltech mention in the history of media we'd (for example) go into exhaustive detail on how Numb3rs is set on a very, very, very lightly-disguised Caltech, but there's a very good reason why the section only mentions the connection in passing. Let's keep it that way. YLee (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're being very nice, YLee. I don't think this "trivia" belongs in the article at all, even in a truncated form. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The name Caltech was emphasized throughout several episodes, as NASA lunar missions increasingly focused on science experiments instead of just the feat of landing on the moon. Professor Silver inspired the astronauts, while alum Harrison Schmitt was the first AND last scientist to ever visit the moon. None of this was really explained in the rest of the article. --tigerjean888 (talk) 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But your addition doesn't say any of that. Your addition says,
 * "In the HBO mini-series From the Earth to the Moon, a geology professor from Caltech met with Apollo 15 astronauts, and helped to raise their interest in the history and origin of granite. He pointed out that without a deep sense of observation, the astronauts would just be as good as small robots sent to the moon to collect rock samples."
 * All this says is "some Caltech professor explained rocks and the importance of human observation to the astronauts". It certainly doesn't put across the degree of emphasis you suggest here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually my last edition was the following. Anyways, Ylee keeps on deleting my text and I have better things to do.


 * "In From the Earth to the Moon, Caltech professor Lee Silvertutors the crew of Apollo 15, and Caltech alumnus Harrison Schmitt takes part in Apollo 17, the last lunar mission to date."


 * --tigerjean888 (talk) 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A year after the above debate, I've revisited this section. In particular, The Big Bang Theory is an excellent new example of both "Caltech as setting" and "Caltech background = smart". I've kept Numb3rs as it also fits both roles well. By contrast, trivialities like a Caltech jacket, or the alma mater of Joey Tribbiani's nephew, are just that; trivial. I hope other editors join me in remaining vigilant against other minor mentions creeping into the article. YLee (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, Caltech is in way too many movies and TV shows, but not so many novels. It is too much to list some of the books? (Until they are made into a movie.) Gah4 (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead
I completely revised the lead to better summarize and contextualize the university. I have also made a point to remove the rankings from the lead and place them under the academics section. Please do not reintroduce rankings into the lead as this gives undue weight to only certain rankings and overemphasizes a minor facet of the university. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. As long as it's not undue weight towards rankings, a single-liner should be fine. I've went through some articles with FA status and a one-liner seems to be fine over there. Why the difference in attitude? 121.7.225.237 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of article
Would someone who has the relevant information regarding the sections that need to be expanded please help out? There is limited information online regarding those sections. Thanks! 203.116.59.28 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)chuams

Debate
I noticed that user Madcoverboy has radically redesigned the lead to this article along the lines of the views he laid out on the talk page for Amherst College and that an IP editor immediately put the U.S. News and World Report rankings back in the lead. I'm concerned about this article disintegrating into another edit war like the one that got the Amherst College page edit-protected and started a serious argument on the talk page there, so I'm starting this section to discuss the lead before we make any further changes to it.Rppeabody (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I object to your bad faith characterization of my bold edits to this article as a "radical redesign". No fewer than 37,000 pageviews have occurred since I introduced them and almost 20 other editors have contributed to this article with nary an objection only one minor objection above. There is no edit war for this article to disintegrate into because no one has an agenda to push or an axe to grind here. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused as to why you find my choice of words "bad faith." To me, at least, the term "radical redesign" is a fairly neutral way of indicating that a change is both bold and major, and the first Google result for the phrase uses it to praise a particular business practice.  Does this term mean something different to you?  In any case, I'd prefer if you wouldn't assume I'm acting in "bad faith" unless you have hard evidence.  As to your second point, I appreciate that you think I should've just changed the lead to be the way I wanted it without worrying about starting an edit war.  But I do think there was a risk because the rankings were the thing that had been instantly reverted, and the whole issue of the rankings has proven explosive before.Rppeabody (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me lay out a few objections I have to the current version:

It's too wordy. The lead should consist of a few succinct lines summarizing the basic information that a typical site visitor would want to know. I really don't think this includes things like the details of how the school was founded, the number of degrees granted, the fact that there is an honor code (all schools have one), where Pasadena is, the number of sports the school plays, or anything of that ilk.Rppeabody (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD clearly states that for articles over 30,000 characters (such as this one), a lead of approximately 4 paragraphs is appropriate. The lead is 4 paragraphs. What content would you propose removing? Madcoverboy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking for; I thought my original post outlined several places where I felt there was unnecessary content. And although there are only four paragraphs, these paragraphs are longer than standard lead paragraphs, making this the second longest college article out of the fifteen or so I checked (Haverford's was longer before I condensed it).  Anyway, my objection was not primarily to the length, but to the details I felt were unnecessary.Rppeabody (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It contains an egregious amount of punctuation errors. I will correct these in minor edits, but please do check for correct punctuation before you write something as important as the lead.Rppeabody (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing them! Madcoverboy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not report the acceptance rate. This is a very important statistic, and it can provide useful unbiased information on the reputation of the school.Rppeabody (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The acceptance rate is not an important statistic. "[The lede] should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic." The ratio of undergraduate students admitted over the number who apply provides no context, does not distinguish the university, and is not important enough relative to other information in the lede. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're coming from. Acceptance rates do distinguish a university; they are the main statistic most rankings systems use to distinguish universities. In fact, they're the main statistic USN&WR reports on its rankings website.  As such, they "establish context" and "explain why the subject is interesting or notable." (The reason I think acceptance rates are better to report than the rankings themselves is because there are multiple ranking systems, and I feel that they all have problems, notably a bias towards wealthier schools.  And the acceptance rate is, of course, unbiased.) But the main reason the acceptance rate is one of the "most important points" is that it says how difficult it is to get into a school, which is a crucial piece of information for a potential applicant to know.Rppeabody (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't quite buy all of that. First, it's instructive to examine how the experts at the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) present information about institutions. This is their information for CalTech.  Note how acceptance rate is not one of the critical pieces of information immediately presented to readers; it's in the "Admissions" drop-down and even there it's not highlighted in any way but simply listed between number of applicants and yield.  There is so much self-selection involved in the college application process that acceptance rates - a number directly linked to number of applicants - are not a terribly good measure of anything except percentage of applicants accepted.  For example, it's well known that institutions commonly see an increase after a particularly successful, highly-visible athletic season (I'm eager to see the numbers for Butler University after their improbable advance to the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball final) and surely no one can argue that the quality of an institution immediately increases in one year because of success in athletics?
 * But I think this boat has already sailed and I agree that right now many in the public do believe that acceptance rate is a viable measure of institutional quality. The question on the table is whether we should perpetuate that mistaken belief or if we should follow the lead of the Department of Education and rely on a better measure like student:faculty ratio. ElKevbo (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (By the way, it looks like acceptance rate is only worth 1.5% in the ranking formula used by USN&WR.) ElKevbo (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems a touch boosterish in places: "Despite its historically small size, 31 Caltech alumni and faculty have won the Nobel Prize, 66 have won the National Medal of Science or Technology, and 110 have been elected to the National Academies. Caltech managed $357 million in sponsored research in 2009 and a $1.4 billion endowment.[1][7] US News and World Report ranked Caltech's undergraduate program 4th in the nation based on peer assessment, student selectivity, financial resources, and other factors.[8]" While I think Caltech's high reputation for undergraduate education and even higher reputation for scientific research should be reflected somehow in the lead, this current version sounds like boasting to me. Myriad sources have widely criticized the US News rankings, and citing them without noting that Caltech was in a four-way tie for fourth place is quite disingenuous. It should also be noted that Caltech's US News ranking is just for national universities; the current version makes it sound like US News had been ranking all undergraduate programs. I also feel that the long list of stats showing off Caltech's research credentials is a bit much. These are important statistics, but they should be moved to somewhere else in the article. Why don't we limit this list in the lead to just one statistic?Rppeabody (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means take the US News ranking out. I always have and I'm always rebuffed by other editors. I don't think the other information can be characterized as boosterism because these are neutrally-reported facts. I don't think the long list of stats is showing off at all, it's neutrally substantianting Caltech's accomplishments without reliance on imperfect measures (US News rankings) and abstract classifications ("more selective") and ultimately allows the reader to assess the quality of the university far more effectively. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We could probably do a better job at the lead, but I feel that the length of the lead is just about right. The statistics on degrees granted seem too detailed for something in the lead, and that the sports section might be too wordy. I suggest we keep the Nobel Prize stats, and that we consider the inclusion of some sort of ranking, as it would allow first-time visitors to gauge the quality of the institution just by reading the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon.vs.nikon (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the degrees granted could potentially be removed and sports summarized, but I don't support inclusion of rankings in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree.Rppeabody (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the lead as it stands is fairly good, with the exception of the third paragraph&mdash;a lot of this information is already right in the infobox or should really go elsewhere. I don't think exact statistics are important for the lead, but I would retain mention the unusually small size of the school. We should probably retain just the Nobel Prize sentence but start it with "Despite its historically small size (currently around 900 undergraduates and 1100 graduates students)..." and move the other statistics elsewhere.

I also think that slightly more explanation should be given to the honor code (which is very unique to Caltech in that it is one sentence long and allows almost all exams to be take-home) and to the pranking culture. Antony-22 (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree.Rppeabody (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposals
How about this, for the last two paragraphs of the lead?


 * Caltech enrols just under 900 undergraduate and 1200 graduate students and employs about 300 professorial faculty.[3] Despite the historically small size of Caltech, the alumni and faculty have gone on to win 32 Nobel Prizes. Caltech managed $357 million in sponsored research and a $1.4 billion endowment for 2009.[1][7]


 * Undergraduates live in a house system, and although student life is governed by an honor code, Caltech has a strong tradition of practical jokes and pranks.[8] The honor code also allows take-home tests and assignments, which is widely practised. The Caltech Beavers compete in 13 intercollegiate sports in the NCAA Division III's Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference.Canon.vs.nikon (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to privilege Nobel laureates over similar accomplishments such as National Medals of Science and National Ccademy membership, so I'd like to keep the sentence as-is. I also think the losing streaks are very notable while providing some insight into the (lack of a) role of athletics on campus, but could probably be removed from the lede if push came to shove. Re: honor code, perhaps: "First year students are required to live on campus and 95% of undergraduates remain in the house system. Although Caltech has a strong tradition of practical jokes and pranks, student life is governed by an honor code which allows faculty to assign take-home examinations." Madcoverboy (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. But the inclusion of sports performance seems slightly awkward. Anyone else? How about we keep the numbers of Nobels, but keep NAS/NAE and NMS as a more general statement? The feeling is that it gets too statistical, imo. The Honor Code statement is alright, but I believe there is a significant number of colleges that "allow" take-home tests, but they don't actively practice that. Canon.vs.nikon (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's something substantive you can point to regarding the prevalence of the activity, by all means let's try to include it. But it has to be more than a feeling that Caltech does it more than other schools with take-home policies. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What's with the "Despite the historically small size of Caltech.."? It seems a recurring notion that we need to stress out just how SMALL Caltech is, but really in the context this sentence seems to have the single goal of boasting. Sure Columbia has 22000 students, but also got 94 Nobel Prizes. Cambridge has 18000 students and 84 prizes. But really, why is the "size" of an institute relevant to its achievements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.78.209 (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that the number of students isn't so important, but the size of the faculty could be. Though more students often means more faculty. Gah4 (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Edwin McMillan.jpg
The image File:Edwin McMillan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-neutral view point
I'm sorry, I'm a fan of Feynman, too, but the section on People/Faculty is just over the top. I assert this Caltech wikipedia page would serve as a good case for paper encyclopedias like Britainaca. I appreciate a lot of what's written here, photos, too, but the page is largely as a whole written from the perspective of your typical Tech physics undergrad. It perpetuates Murray Gell-Mann's comments about Richard upon the latter's death. Feynman was respected for his Red books, but he caught the eye of the humanists in the humanities (Two Cultures) with Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and What Do You Care What Other People Think?. That's why Richard became popular. But I seriously doubt that Richard is the best known Caltech faculty. I saw the Engineering & Science article which considered Linus Pauling. But without too much question, I think perhaps the best known name from Caltech and not even mentioned anywhere on this page is probably Charles Richter for all the earthquakes and times the TV trucks double park outside S. Mudd. Every time a big earthquake happens, the media invoke Richter and commonly mention Caltech along with that. And he might not the most famous. The section is just written in a rather tacky way. Not that I was a GPS staffer. The page needs a make over. Caltech deserves a better wikipedia page. 198.123.50.85 (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Much of what you say has validity - "best known" is always arguable, and Richter's name is highly recognizable. That said, what you describe of media coverage and earthquakes is obviously the perspective of a California resident, as your IP address corroborates.  I doubt people from other states and countries share that experience with the media.  -- Scray (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't think Richter's scale is used in Japan, Peru, Chile, the DR, Russia, ...etc.? Richter never used his name as an adjective to describe his scale. Never introduced to the guy; his office was down the hall from a friend's in S. Mudd. Have exchanged email long time ago with Lucy and Andy Michael in Menlo Park. Neither a seismologist, nor even a degreed earth scientist, but called "honorary" in other geophysical areas. 66.122.34.11 (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The best-known Southern California seismologist today is probably Lucy Jones, whose Caltech title is the humble "Visiting Research Associate". Anyway, yes, I agree, we should lose the "best known" characterization as to Feynman and perhaps give more attention to rewriting that section to discuss more members of the faculty.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just raised this issue with the son of one of the ex-Provosts. He suggested google trends. His graph has Richter over Richard Feynman. Richter's scale isn't confined to California. Other seismologists are at Tech (e.g., Clarence Allen) as well as in the Bay Area (e.g., Stanford, USGS, Berkeley, LLNL) and else where (UCLA, USC, UCSB, UCSD, private Beltway bandits).  The question of notability could be some other field. Other parts of the page could use some polishing.  Worse pages exist. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another notable alum and ex-faculty member is Donald Knuth. 171.66.84.125 (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Graduation rate - citation and rounding-correction
The graduation rate mentioned is 80.6%. It should be 80.7%. At http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2011%20FINAL%204_28_11.pdf one can see one page 6 that 167/207 graduated = 80.7% (so the rounding is off in the current version). The citation should also be updated-- http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2011%20FINAL%204_28_11.pdf -- for that statistic because the current citation link leads to a 404. This is the latest report whose link was found from http://finance.caltech.edu/budget.htm. The 6-year graduation rate is 90%, correctly mentioned in the article and pdf. A citation for this should also be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.168.87 (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Main entrance to Caltech
Hello there! Long time reader, first time commenter. It occurred to me that even though the official street address of Caltech is 1200 E California, it doesn't feel like the "spiritual" main entrance of the school. The picture in the article of the main entrance at 1200 E California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caltech_Entrance.jpg), while not incorrect, does not evoke, at least to me, a sense of magnificence and statuesque grandeur that a main entrance ought to have. Having spent four years at Caltech as an undergrad, if you had asked me where the main entrance to the school was, I doubt I would have pointed towards 1200 E California. Then again, I'm not sure where I would have pointed; and even now, I'm still not sure. Beckman, the Athenaeum, Millikan, the wedding cake? I bring this up because it pains me a little to see that the beauty of the Caltech campus is hidden behind a suboptimal street address. Anyone else feel the same way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mztan1 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, 1200 California is K. Spalding, which is not what is in the linked picture anyway. There are many entrances to the Caltech campus, of which the pictured entrance is one.  I'm not sure that the other entrances are any more picturesque; your options are probably limited to either end of the Olive, San Pasqual, or Moore Walks.  (But if you want to contribute pictures of any of these, feel free to go ahead!)  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought it was 1201, and there are still Google hits for 1201. In any case, the post office is in Spaulding, and Caltech has two zipcodes (91125 and 91126) such that mail will get there, no matter what address you put on it. But tradition for mail is to put the mail code on, and no street address, MSC for student box numbers. Mail will get to students with a name, box number, and 91126. As for an actual entrance gate, I don't know of one. Gah4 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Caltechian omni-singularity
about the homogeneity of energy in the Universe:

The reason is defaultness. Big Bangs explode ONLY Big Bang way!!!

Big Bang is the default state of space. Our universe expands acceleratively. Nowadays afar galaxies recede relativistically (if compared reciprocally) superluminaly (faster than the speed of light in the void). The universal acceleration of expansion will continue. Each arbitrary point in the Universe may (is allowed to) communicate (to exchange quantum information) ONLY with points within the reach of a virtual surrounding sphere of sublumic (or subluminal not subliminal: under the speed of light in the void) expansion. Quantum information travels only at sublumic or lumic (light-speed) levels. Each arbitrarily selected beholding point has its own personal Quantum Information Transmission Sphere. Due to the universal accelerative expansion, each QITS shrinks, until all QITSes become singularities, thus we have an omni-singularity (because we don't have Alan Guth's mono-singularities but instead Sean M. Carroll's universal omni-singularity) and a new Big Bang. Big Bangs occur at the threshold of universal quantum decohesion and are "defaulting mechanisms", no thermal energy is needed to be transmitted for defaultness is something specific, the default state of all fields (or of the omnifield/the chromodynamic field of the strong force, all other forces are secondary chromodynamic harmonics).

All fermions are imperfect Banach-Tarski spheres. At degenerate levels of energy, specifically during superluminal Big Bang expansion and superluminal black hole compression we have respectively fermi-birth (or fermi-doubling) and fermi-merger (different fermions degeneratively identified as one, no energy lost but transmitted through the black hole jets, or via quantum tunneling) demand superluminal changes of holographic volume (space volume).

For example during the omni-singularity (universal singularity instead of Alan Guth's mono-singularity where only a single point explodes separately) Big Bang, we have fermi-bith or fermion doubling. (the compression or the expansion should be superluminal in order the quantum information violation reaches the permissible threshold level).

Big Bang cycles are eternal. The Universe didn't begun from nothing as Stephen Hawking suggested. The farther we diverge from the here-and-now (it applies to both spatial and temporal divergence) the more probabilistic becomes (to us) the afar spatiotemporal point we examine. If relativistically examined in comparison to us, afar points accumulate probabilistic variation, and after some divergence, they become totally probabilistic to the beholder, thus googolplex possible solutions are probable.

In simple words, if one goes zillion light years afar from home, she constitutes her house totally probabilistic (totally probabilistic means it exists as one option out of infinite others), so if she returns, the probability of her finding it is exactly zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410C:9D00:490C:3750:44F4:A905 (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this has anything to do with CalTech, except that of course CalTech is inside the universe. Elwoz (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on California Institute of Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822014407/http://news.sciencemag.org:80/sciencenow/2010/08/fields-medals-other-top-math-pri.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/08/fields-medals-other-top-math-pri.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California Institute of Technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717002058/http://one.caltech.edu/homepage/campaign_brochure.pdf to http://one.caltech.edu/homepage/campaign_brochure.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/08/fields-medals-other-top-math-pri.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

protests
I don't have a WP:RS, but before he was nominated, a "Harold Brown for Secretary of Defense" banner was hung on Millikan library. Gah4 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Feynman
The article says: '' Broad Center for Biological Sciences Richard Feynman was among the most well-known physicists associated with Caltech'' which suggests that he isn't anymore. In that case, who is? I suspect it is still Feynman, though I don't have a WP:RS for it. Gah4 (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobel prizes
A fair and objective analysis: Two institutes which stand out globally and are unique with the largest concentration of Nobel Laureates considering the small numbers of students and faculty are Caltech and the Rockefeller University. Very small institutes with very large brains. Note the number of genuine Nobel Prize winners in both: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:A180:F700:90FD:68E7:DED5:4909 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What specific change to this article are you requesting or suggesting? ElKevbo (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Named professorships
I do not find any information of this program at Caltech. What are these? How long ago they exist. How many of them exist? One Faculty can have only one named title? Who sponsors it? Are they equally gifted or they differ one by one? Who and how can get it (after x years of being a professor, need to be applyed for, committee to decide etc.) For example: 2001:4C4C:20A1:C400:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Richard P. Feynman Professor
 * George Grant Hoag Professor
 * Bren Professor etc.

Bitcoin
I agree that Hal Finney should go here. It says co-creator of Bitcoin which is presumably what the WP:RS say. But some suspect, and that includes me, that he is the only creator. That Satoshi doesn't exist. But maybe we will never know. Gah4 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The name of the Board's chair needs to be updated.
The text says, "The current board is chaired by David L. Lee, co-founder of Global Crossing Ltd."

According to this announcement by Caltech, David Lee has stepped down, and the new chair is David Thompson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abenter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

name of the Board's chair needs updating

 * The name of the current chair of the Board of Directors needs to be updated. :
 * The previous chair, David Lee, has stepped down, and the new chair is David Thompson.:
 * https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/david-lee-steps-down-as-chair-of-the-board-of-trustees:

Abenter (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making this request. This information seems to be unnecessary in the article so I've just removed it entirely. ElKevbo (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Charles W. Gates
Curious whether trustee Charles W. Gates mentioned under History, Throop College, is the same Charles W. Gates with a Wikipedia article. Looks doubtful geographically and nobody else has linked it. The Gates (surname) is widespread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD89:8710:359A:408:9444:BA15 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a different person, Charles Warner Gates (not Charles Winslow Gates) . Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)