Talk:Spin–statistics theorem
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. | |
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)
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)
- 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)
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.
- Pauli and the Spin-Statistics Theorem https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1142/3457 | March 1998 Pages: 524 By (author): Ian Duck (Rice University, Texas, Houston, USA) and E C G Sudarshan (University of Texas at Austin, USA)
Johnjbarton (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
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.