This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It would be good to add a reference to the original Physics Today review (if one exists). If anybody has access to a library, please look up the month/year, issue number, reviewer, etc. Jason Quinn ( talk) 17:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I made some obviously necessary and utterly uncontroversial edits, which have been reverted for no sensible reason. It seems scarcely believable that someone would question the necessity of the changes. Nevertheless, for the hard of thinking, here are explanations of the changes.
Reverting these obviously necessary changes was utterly pointless and highly disruptive. 82.132.227.38 ( talk) 18:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Replying to the IP:
All of these are encyclopedic. But given the IPs extreme obsession of fighting over the silly removal of useful/correct information, on top of his rude accusations to others like "rude disruptive behavior" and "hard of thinking", I give up. An apology to the IP is not called for. M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 21:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Amended M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 11:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
To summarize the recent additions I have made to the article (here is the current version at the time of writing):
For those looking in the edit history confused about these two edits, which were chaos on my part, the explanation (not excuse) was that my computer was slowing down and it was agonizingly difficult to edit and I thought Foster & Nightingale had been removed but it hadn't, it was just in the wrong place. Anyway its sorted now.
It would be nice, if possible, to know about the editorial development, and the history of the book's creation and publication in general.
These changes qualify as encyclopedic, but just in case others object they can say so here. M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 22:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I have reluctantly removed the citation from the lead, and put it into a separate section where editions, reprints, and translations into other languages can be described and listed. I did want it to stay near the beginning, either the lead or first section, but it will keep being removed and the edit wars will be ongoing. Hopefully this satisfies everyone. M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 12:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yet more annoying deletions have occurred from this edit onwards by the same/another IP who effectively owns this article, deleting things he/she does not find interesting or useful, but others may. I will not be adding them back. M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 11:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gravitation (book). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It is necessary to note in the article that in § 43.4, p.1192 "Fluctuations in geometry", and in § 44.2, p.1200, of readers are misleading. Indeed, in the book, by analogy with electrodynamics, the following formula (43.29) is obtained for the fluctuations of the gravitational potential:
Here is the gravitational potential, is the so-called Planck length, is the region of dimension.
However, the analogy of geometrodynamics with electrodynamics is erroneous (because of the equivalence principle). A detailed analysis shows (see T. Regge, Nuovo Cim. 7, 215 (1958). Gravitational fields and quantum mechanics) that the formula for the gravitational potential fluctuations should have the form:
This formula also follows from the Bohr- Rosenfeld uncertainty relation (see here, chapter 5, p.12): .
178.120.10.65 ( talk) 07:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. There's been a slow-moving edit war occurring on this page for some time now. User:Nerd271 insists on keeping the section "Table of contents (2017 Edition)". This section is just a list of the table of contents, with zero editorial commentary or significance, and has almost no encyclopedic value. I informed them such a list should not be included per the Wikiproject guideline, but they remain unconvinced and continue to re-add the section. Pinging Diannaa who seemed to share my view last year. Sro23 ( talk) 01:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Personally I think the table of contents should be removed, because the notion that this is something an encyclopaedia article should provide is absurd. But I'm afraid I see a consensus against this view.
User:Favonian (
[1]) and
User:Sro23(
[2]) have both added it. So that makes 3 users adding it, 2 removing it. Quite why
User:Sro23 is in both camps, I can't imagine, but either way it's a majority for including it.
46.233.112.99 (
talk) 21:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't "widely adopted", "highly valued", and mentioning specific editions strike anyone else as being overly promotional? – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 17:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
IP, your recent edit removing content via WP:RELTIME, which doesn't apply at all to the content you removed. But it debatably isn't encyclopedic. Why do you not consider this encyclopedic? I can do stuff! ( talk) 17:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It would be good to add a reference to the original Physics Today review (if one exists). If anybody has access to a library, please look up the month/year, issue number, reviewer, etc. Jason Quinn ( talk) 17:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I made some obviously necessary and utterly uncontroversial edits, which have been reverted for no sensible reason. It seems scarcely believable that someone would question the necessity of the changes. Nevertheless, for the hard of thinking, here are explanations of the changes.
Reverting these obviously necessary changes was utterly pointless and highly disruptive. 82.132.227.38 ( talk) 18:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Replying to the IP:
All of these are encyclopedic. But given the IPs extreme obsession of fighting over the silly removal of useful/correct information, on top of his rude accusations to others like "rude disruptive behavior" and "hard of thinking", I give up. An apology to the IP is not called for. M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 21:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Amended M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 11:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
To summarize the recent additions I have made to the article (here is the current version at the time of writing):
For those looking in the edit history confused about these two edits, which were chaos on my part, the explanation (not excuse) was that my computer was slowing down and it was agonizingly difficult to edit and I thought Foster & Nightingale had been removed but it hadn't, it was just in the wrong place. Anyway its sorted now.
It would be nice, if possible, to know about the editorial development, and the history of the book's creation and publication in general.
These changes qualify as encyclopedic, but just in case others object they can say so here. M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 22:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I have reluctantly removed the citation from the lead, and put it into a separate section where editions, reprints, and translations into other languages can be described and listed. I did want it to stay near the beginning, either the lead or first section, but it will keep being removed and the edit wars will be ongoing. Hopefully this satisfies everyone. M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 12:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yet more annoying deletions have occurred from this edit onwards by the same/another IP who effectively owns this article, deleting things he/she does not find interesting or useful, but others may. I will not be adding them back. M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 11:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gravitation (book). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It is necessary to note in the article that in § 43.4, p.1192 "Fluctuations in geometry", and in § 44.2, p.1200, of readers are misleading. Indeed, in the book, by analogy with electrodynamics, the following formula (43.29) is obtained for the fluctuations of the gravitational potential:
Here is the gravitational potential, is the so-called Planck length, is the region of dimension.
However, the analogy of geometrodynamics with electrodynamics is erroneous (because of the equivalence principle). A detailed analysis shows (see T. Regge, Nuovo Cim. 7, 215 (1958). Gravitational fields and quantum mechanics) that the formula for the gravitational potential fluctuations should have the form:
This formula also follows from the Bohr- Rosenfeld uncertainty relation (see here, chapter 5, p.12): .
178.120.10.65 ( talk) 07:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. There's been a slow-moving edit war occurring on this page for some time now. User:Nerd271 insists on keeping the section "Table of contents (2017 Edition)". This section is just a list of the table of contents, with zero editorial commentary or significance, and has almost no encyclopedic value. I informed them such a list should not be included per the Wikiproject guideline, but they remain unconvinced and continue to re-add the section. Pinging Diannaa who seemed to share my view last year. Sro23 ( talk) 01:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Personally I think the table of contents should be removed, because the notion that this is something an encyclopaedia article should provide is absurd. But I'm afraid I see a consensus against this view.
User:Favonian (
[1]) and
User:Sro23(
[2]) have both added it. So that makes 3 users adding it, 2 removing it. Quite why
User:Sro23 is in both camps, I can't imagine, but either way it's a majority for including it.
46.233.112.99 (
talk) 21:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't "widely adopted", "highly valued", and mentioning specific editions strike anyone else as being overly promotional? – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 17:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
IP, your recent edit removing content via WP:RELTIME, which doesn't apply at all to the content you removed. But it debatably isn't encyclopedic. Why do you not consider this encyclopedic? I can do stuff! ( talk) 17:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)