Talk:Herbert Callen/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Herbert Callen. 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/20131005024954/http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v47/i8/p74_s1?bypassSSO=1 to http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v47/i8/p74_s1?bypassSSO=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005033802/http://www.gf.org/fellows/2167-herbert-b-callen to http://www.gf.org/fellows/2167-herbert-b-callen

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) 18:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Does not do justice to a great physicist
"proof of fluctuation-dissipation theorem" is changed to "origination and proof of fluctuation-dissipation theorem" Wikibearwithme (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It was not "originated" from him, it was by Nyquist decades earlier. And how does adding that word "do a great physicist justice", and how was he a "great" physicist? What did he do other than this proof and his thermodynamics book, whose importance seems to be extremely exaggerated here? Dr. Universe (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Dr. Universe's take on this history is incorrect. The theorem as a completely general result was originated by Callen and Welton in their 1951 Physical Review article. The importance here is in the generality, for which Nyquist is not responsible. Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that Nyquist gave the first example of a particular fluctuation-dissipation relation, that was done by Einstein in 1905 with his Brownian motion paper. Pwfen (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Extremely exaggerated
Everything here seems to be exaggerated. The importance of his work, his greatness, etc. The article has a feel of being written by someone close to him despite him dying probably too long ago for that to be true. Some help is needed. See for example the section below called "Does not do justice to a great physicist" which turns out to be far from true. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree that this biographical article is extremely exaggerated. While I disagree with the article that his textbook will be his most lasting contribution, he did publish the first general proof of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, a landmark result of 20th Century physics. While Callen may have no popular cachet, the FDT is highly significant. There are other physicists who did not receive major popular accolades in their lifetime even after achieving highly significant scientific results, but that doesn't mean the article is exaggerated. Cf. Emmy Noether and Noether's theorem. No, I never met Callen, nor did I write this article. Pwfen (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thermodynamics and…
His Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatics (1985) contains an “interesting” statement The uranium hexafluoride is a gas at room temperature and atmospheric pressure in 4.5 Example 2, on p. 108. Could U.S. authorities encourage inducing deliberate mistakes about nuclear materials to textbooks in order to fool foreign powers? Contrary, if the mistake is genuinely due to the author’s knowledge, then how could the guy lend “his services [to] the theoretical division of the Manhattan Project”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps it was just a typo. The boiling point for that substance at atmospheric pressure is about 332 K. He should have not said "room temperature." Also keep in mind that by the time he died in 1993, he had been battling Alzheimer's disease for 11 years. Nerd271 (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely not merely a typo. Callen further relates about “separation process carried out at a temperature of 300 K and a pressure of 1 atm”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Did he say to anything about ideal gases later on? That would explain it. Nerd271 (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, “can be represented approximately as… simple ideal gas with $c = 7/2$” and later “$U = 7/2 NRT$” (an idiot’s use of math notation with an intended meaning of $$\frac{7}{2}NRT$$, but used to see such insanities even in PhD theses). But, speaking seriously, the UF6 gas is unlikely even kinetically stable under specified conditions (let alone thermodynamical stability), and the ideal gas approximation is egregiously inadequate anyway. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)