Talk:Flipped SU(5)

Untitled

Would someone dumb this down for a layperson like myself? I have some vague general understanding of string theory as a GUT candidate. What is Flipped SU(5)?

Whaaaaa?????

Yeah, this thing needs a What the Bleep Do We Know? version. Can anyone translate this into something that makes sense to a Discover reader? This is the Scientific American Grad Student version.

Revert of Stenger/Origins

You do not remove reliably-sourced information. If you think that the source is wrong, then go find a source that suppports what you think and put it in with a reference. Just because you disagree with the source is no basis to remove it!!!Fladrif (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the source say that Barr invented it? Also, there are very different versions of this model. I don't think this article describes Barr's model. Whoever wrote it cited the 1987 version. I think you should have a better source than a popular book by a debunker who has no expertise in this area and who did little more than observe that the term flipped SU(5) appeared as early as 1982. Doesn't he simply say that that's the first appearance he could find? He's careful not to say it's THE first. I just don't see how you can interpret what he says to say that Barr invented flipped SU(5). And I don't think your addition is relevant to the article, unless you find a better source that knowledgeably describes the history of Flipped SU(5). By the way, look at WP:TALK, which says not to use a person's username in a heading. TimidGuy (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If Barr is the first, then he's first. Again, as I said on the Hagelin talk page. Accordng to who are there two different versions of the Flipped SU(5) model? Nothing in the article on Flipped SU(5) says anything about two different versions. You cite no sources, so I can only assume that you are relying on your own opinion? You claim that Stenger is a "debunker" with no expertise. According to who? Stenger is a prominent physicist in his own right. You cite no sources, so again I must assume that you are relying solely on your own opinion. Who are you to claim to know better? And regardless of who you are, that's not how Wikipedia works. You don't get to substitute your opinion for reliably-sourced secondary sources. If you think Stenger is wrong, go find a reliable, verifiable, independent source and cite it. And, I didn't know about not using a username in talk subheadings. Seems a sensible policy. Fixed it.Fladrif (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Does your source say Barr invented it? It only says that Barr's paper was the FIRST HE COULD FIND, right? TimidGuy (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First described would more accurately reflect the source. Changed it. Fladrif (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I provided a more complete discussion of the historical context based on I think these resources help explain Stephen Barr's contribution, while doing justice to the supersymmetric version of the theory, which gave it prominence as a leading GUT. I hope these edits give the needed perspective. And I think that until some of the principals take the time to write a definitive history, the resources I referenced are probably the best we have at this time.Hickorybark (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hickory. This is great. I took out some of the info about Hagelin's primary role. It seems too major of a claim to include in Wikipedia based an the source. I would think that we'd need a stronger source for this kind of claim. TimidGuy (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted The Iowa Source. It's a free magazine focused on popular culture and local events, and is closely associated with Hagelin's university. It's not a suitable source for an article of this type, unless we describe as giving Hagelin's opinion.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Plagarism removed

Parts of this article appear to have been directly plagarized from an non Reliable Source - an article by MUM Physics professor David Scharf on DO-J's self-published website. [1]Fladrif (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The editort who added the unattributed, copied material was Hickorybark.[2] I was just compiling evidence concerning other instances of plagiarism in other, related articles. This is inappropriate, especially in a scientific/academic topic.   Will Beback  talk  10:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There was more plagarized text from Hickorybark, which I also removed.Fladrif (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Still more from Scharf article at Orme-Johnson website removed.Fladrif (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What's particularly disturbing is that what is being plagiarized is a ranting, emotionally-charged screed against Victor Stenger that Scharf posted in various incarnations all over the interwebs, but apparently can't get published anywhere legitimate. Scharf, sporting his philosophy degrees (how he get on a science faculty?) displays a depth of comprehension of the hard science comparable to March's infamous Physics for Poets[3] while claiming that Stenger, a prominent and well-respected real physicist has everything wrong. Fladrif (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

--- Re. "Scharf not scientist" --- Well, except that Philosophy of Physics (PhD) uses the ultimate tool of science, in the most precise ways possible -- ie. logic. It is the only true science, that can actually make sense of discoveries. Only logic can do that, and that is what philosophy of science is. Not only do all university science departments have philosophers of science on their faculty, but the credibility of such an institution is lowered if they do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.125.98 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)