Jump to content

Talk:Spin–statistics theorem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Microcausality

[edit]

Would be nice to know what Microcausality is. The Wiki article Causality_(physics) does NOT even mention Microcausality. Have removed the useless link. Jamesdowallen (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the "bogus proof" (again)

[edit]

Unlike the original comment on this talk page, I don't see a problem with discussing incorrect theories or ideas which have been disproven. But bogus is a pejorative and inflammatory term, which should not be used in an encyclopedia. I'd like to change that to incorrect or some other less biased word. If I don't see anyone objecting in the next few weeks, I'll make that change. Fcrary (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to delete the entire "General discussion" section as WP:OR.The two references are not related to the argument. It's blog post material not encyclopedic. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent comprehensive reference

[edit]

I'm most of the way through this book. Advanced to be sure, as you nee know some QM and classical mechanics, but covers everything after than.

Johnjbarton (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schwinger's Proof

[edit]

I plan to delete section now called "Schwinger's Proof"

  • The single ref lists the primary source and a comment that the proof has been changed (WP:OR?)
  • The text refers to content elsewhere that no longer seems to exist (some kind of QFT intro?)
  • The text has two lists, a list of pre-conditions and what seems to be commentary on the first list in the form of a similarly numbered list. This is unclear.
  • The text refs to proofs (Chern–Simons theory) and physics (quarks, QCD) not known at the time of Schwinger's proof.
  • No secondary ref.
  • The Duck Sudarshan book discusses the Schwinger proof as historically notable but not the most rigorous, complete, or intuitive. The description here is not historical.
  • QFT texts don't normally give this proof AFAIK.

Johnjbarton (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]