Talk:Paul Dirac/Archive 2

Comment by dhburns on Religious views
It seems quite INSULTING to the memory of Dirac and the value of his work that THERE IS TWICE MORE SPACE DEDICATED TO HIS VIEWS ON RELIGION THAN TO HIS fundamental equation, CREEPING in something totally irrelevant, who cares what a quantum physicist thinks about Yaveh, WHAT IS THIS? THE ENCYCLOPEDIA JUDAICA?! are we nuts? CUT it down!

The comment below was placed on the article page by user dhburns on 6 August 2016, removed by user Hawkeye7 a few hours later with the comment "This belongs on the talk page" in the edit summary. Yesterday it was restored to the article yesterday by dhburns again. I agree with Hawkeye7 that it belongs on the talk page and not in the article, so I am now inserting it on the talk page. Those who wish to add comments may do so - here and not in the article please. Dirac66 (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

(dispute: The quotation [at the start of the section Religious views] is not an "over quotation". It is succinct and to the point.  To edit it out, would be a form of censorship.  Just because it may conflict with the religious beliefs of a reader, it not a good reason to remove it.  Most good science will conflict with primitive beliefs about reality.)

Category: People associated with the nuclear weapons programme of the United Kingdom
Today the Category People associated with the nuclear weapons programme of the United Kingdom was added to this article. However the article now contains no mention of the UK nuclear weapons programme. Also I checked some articles on the UK nuclear programme but found no mention of Dirac. Adding this category constitutes a claim that he was associated with that programme, so this claim should be supported by a (brief) explanation in the article with a source and/or a link to another relevant article. (I will add that I have not previously seen this claim, and I have no idea whether it is true or not, so I would like to know more, and so might other readers). Dirac66 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Dirac's Britannica biography says "Unlike many physicists of his generation and expertise, Dirac did not switch to nuclear physics and only marginally participated in the development of the atomic bomb during World War II." As for his work on Britain's nuclear weapons programme, he doesn't seem to have been a major player here either. Categories should be clearly supported by text and citations in the article, and not go out on a limb, so I've removed this unless it is clearly sourced.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Why not read one of Dirac's own articles?   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It would help if the article mentioned what Dirac did for the nuclear weapons programme in the UK, as the categories cannot mention this in an unsourced way. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was not created until 1954, and these research papers require original research to explain why they are linked to nuclear weapons.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The first three papers were written for Tube Alloys. I came across references to Dirac's wartime work while upgrading the article on Rudolf Peierls (cf Peierls, Bird of Passage, pp. 112-113; Gowing, Britain and Atomic Energy, pp. 235-238). Peierls discusses Dirac's role with Tube Alloys in detail in Biographical Memoirs, pp. 153-154.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Dalitz-Peierls paper does seem to answer the question. I suggest we add a sentence or two with Dalitz-Peierls as source. This paper is already cited in the article as Ref.4 Dirac66 (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Paul Dirac. 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/19970427191316/http://www.fsu.edu/~fstime/FS-Times/Volume1/Issue1/Dirac.html to http://www.fsu.edu/~fstime/FS-Times/Volume1/Issue1/Dirac.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130412032421/http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/ANNUAL_REPORTS/2004/school7.html to http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/ANNUAL_REPORTS/2004/school7.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130412191942/http://www.physics.fsu.edu/undergrads/UndergraduateAwards.htm to http://www.physics.fsu.edu/undergrads/UndergraduateAwards.htm

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) 23:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Autism
Is it worth the time and effort to mention autism in the main article? --Desertphile (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020
change connexion to connection 93.35.160.107 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. It seems to be part of a quotation. Gap9551 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020
change connexion to connection 93.35.160.107 (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done thank you - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Connexion" is the spelling in the source, screenshot here. This is an archaic spelling but it is not incorrect.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the heads up. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020
"... a paper entitled ..." -> "... a paper titled ..."

"His last paper (1984), entitled ..." -> "His last paper (1984), titled ..." 67.171.68.192 (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Had to check for advice on this here and here. They both agree that there is no real difference between titled and entitled, although some people may prefer one over the other.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Religious development
"Later in life, Dirac's views towards the idea of God were less acerbic", the "Religious views" section says between two quotations. But their contexts are too different to assume that: the first a conversation with friends, the second a didactic metaphor in an article. What we know (unless someone has more information) is that the latter statement is less critical (a more neutral word than "acerbic") and also happens to be later. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Worth pointing out, and visible in the photo here on Wikipedia: Dirac's tombstone carries the inscription, "...because God made it that way." Related reference:  here. --2600:1700:80:5AD0:CD57:4CC:4BFE:892B (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Might still be a figure of speech (cf. the 1971 quote), he might have wavered or seen it differently from different angles, it's not a simple question, his development was probably not so simple either and is in any case not described. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I remember reading in Graham Farmelo's excellent biography that Dirac, towards the end of his life (it always is!) once made remarks to the effect that the existence of God is 'one of the most important questions in physics today'. This may well be relevant here, and I can fish it out from my old paperback copy if necessary. I suppose one of the intergalactic wizards here at Wikipedia could find it online, but my tech skills aren't up to scratch. I'm sure Dirac was a committed atheist, but it seems relevant. Daedalus 96 (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not change direct quotes


I notice that your recent copyedits of this article have modified several direct quotes. As a general rule, words within quotation marks should be modified at all, even to correct grammar or clarify the meaning, because the quotation marks indicate that the words within are supposed to be the original words of the person quoted, here Paul Dirac. So could you please verify which edits modified quotes and restore the original. I checked quickly and found 3 examples, including the (original) words "in an incomprehensible way", "we have no need for such solutions", and "risen up against injustice". Thank you. Dirac66 (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC) (not Paul :-))


 * kk thanks for the heads-up uwu

Gravity subsection in Career section
The subsection "Gravity" looks out of place in the "Career" Section, it is both anachronistic in the sense that Dirac's work on Quantum theory came first, and also wrongly placed in the sense of what Dirac is most notable for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomQuant (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. I have now moved "Gravity" to after "Magnetic Monopoles", as per the chronological order given in the book source by Shifman. Dirac66 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Autism
I am wondering why there is no mention of autism on the article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertphile (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The article does not say that Dirac had autism or Asperger syndrome because he was never formally diagnosed with these conditions. It was Graham Farmelo who claimed in his biography that Dirac may have had these conditions. This is something that would have to be made clear if it was mentioned.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Oral History interview transcript with Dirac
Down in External links there is a DEAD External link: "Oral History interview transcript with Dirac 1 April 1962, 6, 7, 10, & 14 May 1963, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives" These microfilms supposedly have have been placed with The American Philosophical Society Library in Philadelphia. Search there yields nothing - https://search.amphilsoc.org/collections/search If an editor is adequately interested in correcting the dead link (I am not) one could call the Library at 215-440-3400 and ask about Oral History interview transcript with Dirac. - 66.102.220.134 (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a good example of WP:LINKROT in action. The transcript is available here on the Wayback Machine so the external link has been updated.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nationality
The article states that Dirac's nationality was Swiss from 1902 to 1919 and British from 1919 onwards.

1. Before 1983, being born in Britain automatically made one a British citizen, with a couple of exceptions (born to a diplomat, etc) none of which apply to Dirac. So he was a British citizen from birth.

2. Acquiring British citizenship (by birth or otherwise) does not necessarily cause the loss of any other citizenship(s) a person holds. Both Britain and Switzerland permit their citizens to hold other citizenships. I don't know whether Swiss law at that time would have removed Dirac's Swiss citizenship. If the article is going to state that he stopped being Swiss in 1919 then I think that should be justified by a reliable reference.

3. There is a reference to Farmelo's book which states that Dirac's father, Charles, was naturalised in 1919 (with a reference to an official record of Charles' naturalisation), and Farmelo goes on to assert - with no supporting reference - that Charles' children became British on that day. But there is no reference to any naturalisation document for P.A.M. Dirac - because he was never naturalised, he was British from birth. (Farmelo seems to think, or to imply, that when a person is naturalised, all his existing children automatically acquire the father's new citizenship, which is nonsense.) Longitude2 (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This source says "Although Paul was born in the UK and his mother was British, his father made sure his children were Swiss rather than British citizens. Paul only became a British citizen at age 17, on October 22, 1919, when his father also took citizenship"; there are various sources saying this. However, since he was born in Britain to a British mother, it is almost certain that he would have had British citizenship automatically at birth. This may mean that he had dual nationality, but this needs further sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * According to History of British nationality law, the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 would have given British subject status to anyone who was born within His Majesty's dominions, so there would have been no need for naturalisation in 1919. Dirac's father may have naturalised to British citizenship in 1919, but his children, being born in Britain, would have had British citizenship automatically. This is known in legalese as Jus soli, and was accepted in English common law before 1914. The sourcing in Graham Farmelo's book may be confused over this issue; possibly Charles Dirac registered his children as Swiss citizens so that they had dual nationality and Charles became a naturalised British citizen in 1919. Paul Dirac could not have had only Swiss citizenship from 1902 to 1919, because being born in Britain would have given him British citizenship automatically.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a parallel with Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Brunel's father Marc Isambard Brunel was born in France while his mother was English. Brunel was born in Portsmouth and I've never seen a source saying that he was French simply because his father was French.--20:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The sourcing for this is page 34 of Graham Farmelo's book. The quote is "In the spring of 1919, for reasons that are not clear, Charles Dirac sought British nationality for the first time... Whatever his motivation, Charles swore allegiance to George V in front of a justice of the peace in Bristol on 22 October 1919. On that day, his children also became Britons, having previously been classed as Swiss, a status that, according to Betty's [Paul's younger sister Béatrice, born in Bristol in 1906] later recollections, caused her to be teased in the playground for being 'one of those Europeans'. Paul Dirac was no longer a foreigner, but, to many British eyes, he would always have the air of one." (fuller version of the quote here). It makes sense that Charles Dirac wanted to naturalise as a British citizen, but the children born in Britain would have had British nationality already, whatever the playground teasers might have assumed. Farmelo's book seems to be confused over this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Briefly, I asked the author who stated that in writing the book he followed Dirac's own view that on the basis of their fathers nationality, he and his siblings were Swiss until Charles took British nationality. So the book can be used to source Dirac's belief that he was Swiss until 1919. There could be a number of reasons why Dirac was legally British or Swiss or both but despite the apparent legal situation, we have to follow the sources and avoid original research. Polyamorph (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why we have to "follow the sources" when the source is demonstrably incorrect. As a matter of law, as Dirac was born in Britain in 1902 he was a British subject from birth. Mr Slant (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I stated, "the book can be used to source Dirac's belief that he was Swiss until 1919". Polyamorph (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

weisskopf et al.
"Weisskopf and French (FW) were the first to obtain the correct result for the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. At first FW results did not agree with the incorrect but independent results of Feynman and Schwinger" if the FW results are correct, why even mention that they differ from the FS results? if FS is wrong, of course they differ, and not just "at first". could someone clarify this? 84.215.194.30 (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * One open-access reference which may help is . Dirac66 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Correction of Misleading Paragraph in Lede
In the final paragraph of the Lede, I corrected an unfortunate translation and subtle misinterpretation of quoted statements in Einstein's correspondence to Ehrenfest. The "trouble" bit is a mistranslation of "toiling over", trying to appreciate Dirac's paper, and not a sweeping statement on Dirac's mind. ("Ich plage mich mit Dirac. Dies Balancieren auf schwindelndem Pfad zwischen Genie und Wahnsinn ist schrecklich.".) The comment in the HSMSE question linked provides primary sources of the correspondence. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2023
Fix the spelling mistakes in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the education section. Currently the sentence reads "Under the influence of Peter Fraser, whom Dirac called the best mathematics teacher, he had the most interest in prjective geometry, and began applying it to the geometrical version of relativity Minkowski developped". The words "projective" and "developed" are misspelled. Hp 1215 (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ AnnaMankad (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)