This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Astronomy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Scale relativity page were merged into Laurent Nottale on 2020-04-18. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Hi,

I added references to a claim about gravitational structures which was unspecific. Regarding the NPOV issue raised by this [ user], claiming: "article short on detail, long on hype; needs POV balance". I do largely agree that the article is short on details about the theory of scale relativity, which it is not about. Could you be more specific about your judgement "long on hype", and propose concrete solutions to restore POV balance? Thanks. Clementvidal ( talk) 11:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

This discussion is not productive. I propose reversal to a minimal article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.65.90 ( talk) 21:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply

To all: I made changes to the biographical sketch of Dr. Nottale CLEARLY separating his contributions from further claims and contributions of other authors developing or extending Scale relativity. As a bio page this follows the guidelines of Wikipedia. I do not accept excuses of "too short a paragraph", because such comments do not address the substance of the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.65.90 ( talk) 16:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for continuing the discussion here. Please sign your Talk page posts as noted at the bottom of the edit screen, thanks. While it appears to me at first glance that your argument may carry weight, can you show proof, here, via a reliable source or sources per WP:RS that others besides Dr. Nottale have or are currently making notable contributions in the field of Scale relativity? If you included such references elsewhere, or if you have other references, please include them here, thanks. Jusdafax ( talk) 17:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strictly speaking, nobody has developed or extended scale relativity, because it's a content-free fringe theory, full of equations and terminology but signifying nothing. Every working physicist gets theories just as "revolutionary" in their email on a weekly basis. They fly under the radar, avoiding serious scrutiny in print because there's nothing substantive to criticize, sometimes picking up a superficial veneer of respectability by getting promoted in pop-science books (an industry that will publish anything), or by passing off appearances at unrefereed conferences as "publications", or by publishing in scam journals (like Chaos, Solitons and Fractals). Secondary sources, if they do exist, are passing mentions of the "this person also said a thing" variety, in venues not known for being reliable on the topic, like physics being commented on in Technological Forecasting and Social Change. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Jusdafax: A quick search on google scholar for recent papers yields (those are just the first results):

• The Mathematical Principles of Scale Relativity Physics: The Concept of Interpretation - N Mazilu, M Agop
• Riccati Equations as a Scale‐Relativistic Gateway to Quantum Mechanics Saeed Naif Turki Al‐Rashid1 · Mohammed A. Z. Habeeb2 · Tugdual S. LeBohec
• Resolution-scale relativistic formulation of non-differentiable mechanics - Mei-Hui Teh, Laurent Nottale & Stephan LeBohec

-- {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 22:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The first two are uncited, and thus either haven't been evaluated by the community to judge whether they are actually notable contributions, or have been implicitly judged as not worth paying attention to. (The first starts off with overheated claims about how scale relativity "targets in fact the very foundations of our positive knowledge", then goes on to castigate Feynman for not recognizing that "'average density' itself is only a fictitious concept", etc. It's hard to imagine many physicists bothering to read past all the red flags of the introduction to see if there's anything worthwhile, so I expect that one to remain obscure. I've read the second, and I doubt anyone beyond the authors will care about it much; it's more of the "use fractals as an excuse to bring in imaginary numbers and say you've gotten quantum mechanics" stuff, which amounts to very little. But who am I to judge?) The third is coauthored by Nottale. The second and the third have LeBohec in common as a coauthor, so the second is not as "independent" a source as it might first appear. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

This paragraph as written in the version here needs a rewrite to get rid of the weasel wording and attribute the analysis of Nottale's career to the author making the analysis. The single source used in the paragraph is paywalled so I am not sure exactly how much of this is attributable to the source provided. VQuakr ( talk) 20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply

It seems to be taken from the source, e.g.

Sur la Figure 1, qui retrace l’évolution des publications scientifiques de Nottale au cours des trente dernières années (1975–2005), on observe, malgré une certaine superposition, deux phases distinctes. La première correspond à une trajectoire ‘classique’ qui débute en 1975 et s’achève en 1991, même si dans les années suivantes l’auteur publie encore quelques textes de vulgarisation sur son premier thème de recherche. La seconde définit une trajectoire qu’on qualifiera de ‘nonclassique’, qui commence avec le premier article consacré à l’espacetemps fractal (Nottale et Schneider, 1984) et se poursuit à l’heure actuelle.

There's 45 pages of French and I don't want to quote too much. but you get the general idea. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 21:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for fixing! VQuakr ( talk) 23:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I have reverted a large addition of material which is over detailed, over technical, and sourced only to primary sources, essentially academic papers by the Nottale. You need independent secondary sources to justify this sort of addition to a WP:BLP. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 08:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Would the following additional secundary source be enough ?

Mazilu Nicolae, Agop Maricel et Merches Ioan, "The Mathematical Principles of Scale Relativity Physics : The Concept of Interpretation", vol. 315(1), Lavoisier S.A.S., 2019, 256 p. JulienFoerster ( talk) 16:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

That would be a slighty better source for the section "The theory of scale relativity" than the current references, which are all journal articles by Nottale, but it wouldn't justify any large expansion. See also the comments in the section "Further discussion regarding article merger" above. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Putting articles of Nottale on an article about him and his work should not be a problem, why is it ? How many secundary sources would justify an expansion on the topic then ? Is there a specific number wikipedia gives ? This does not make a lot of sense. I do think there is a need for an expansion summarizing technical aspects of the theory just like many wikipedia pages on physics are doing. JulienFoerster ( talk) 17:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm dealing with a similar thing at Talk:György_Paál; "what about this citation to a junk book?". Nottale's work is fringe and not notable; the authors of your linked book posted a similarly titled article on vixra, which tells us that real publishers aren't accepting their nonsense. There is no reason to summarize "technical aspects of the theory" when the rest of the field thinks it's bunk. - Parejkoj ( talk) 18:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm reluctant to use phrases like "fringe", never mind "junk", but I would note that for mainstream physics topics with significant technical coverage in our articles one can generally point to dozens if not hundreds of texts which cover the material in detail and at a wide range of levels of technicality. Here we have nothing except WP:PRIMARY sources and one book by authors who as you indicate apparently can't even get stuff published on ArXiv. It's not promising. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 19:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply