Talk:Josiah Willard Gibbs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cemmemorative stamp

Gibbs was honored with a commemorative stamp by the United States Postal Service in May 2005 in the series celebrating great american scientists. A link is here:

• Stamp link

Would anyone want to update the article with this information? Also, the brief introduction on the top seems to understate his contributions to thermodynamics. Finally, when you use the GO navigation button on "Gibbs" you are brought to a description of a location in the US. Could we put a disambiguation page up instead?

I've uploaded an image of the stamp to be added to the article Image:Willard Gibbs 2005.JPG. --nixie 03:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

In the introduction, I have elaborated on Gibbs' significant contributions to chemical thermodynamics. I also have classified him as a mathematical physicist to represent his broader research interests, while adding to the article more on his founding of physical chemistry. (Note: Most sources I have read classify him as a physicist, mathematician, or both (e.g. mathematician and physicist or mathematical physicist), as his research is far more extensive than physicochemical phenomena (i.e. physical chemistry).) --User:24.253.120.206

Gibbs and Heaviside

Something needs to be put in this article about Gibbs and Heaviside. These two reformulated maxwell's theories but Heaviside had a more expansive revision and Gibbs a more limited one ... this primarily was from Heaviside being a electrician and Gibbs a chemist. Sincerely, JDR

All hail to Willard Gibbs

Rewriting this article so that it meets my standard for polished use of the English language is the least I can do to honor a great American scientist who to this day is too little known and honored. I have read that the time is ripe for a new scholarly biography of Gibbs. You scientists seem not to know that Muriel Rukeyser was a significant American poet and woman of letters. Her fascination with Gibbs is a curious one, a fitting subject for an article in the likes of Daedalus or The American Scholar.

I discovered Gibbs's name while doing the chemical thermodynamics part of freshman chemistry. Only much later did I learn that we also largely owe to Gibbs the vector language into which so much of 20th century physics was cast.

I should check the Oliver Heaviside entry as well. He too is insufficiently appreciated.202.36.179.65 22:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Isolated at Yale?

As it stands today, this article has the POV that Gibbs was isolated at Yale. The opposite POV is held by Gian-Carlo Rota in his book Indiscrete Thoughts (p.25):

I used to walk through the mathematical stacks of the Sterling Library and pull out books from here and there, as we do in childhood….There were some course notes by Gibbs, presumably handwritten. A few additional sheets were glued to one of these volumes, listing all the notable scientists of Gibb’s time: from Poincaré, Hilbert, Boltzmann and Mach to individuals now all but forgotten. Altogether more than two hundred names and addresses were alphabetized in a beautiful, faded handwriting. Those sheets were a copy of Gibbs’ mailing list. Leafing through in amazement, I realized at last how Gibbs had succeeded in getting himself known in a short time…

Can someone compose an NPOV description including the opposing POVs ?Rgdboer 00:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Good contribution Rgdboer. The majority of the sources, however, do support the argument that Gibbs was essentially unknown, in the greater scientific community. He had a good relationship with Maxwell. Between 1873-1900, his works were obscure to most, and it was only after translation into other languages (about the year 1900), by two different people, that he became known. I'll try, however, to neutral-point-of-view-ify the article, a bit, down the road (using your nice contribution). Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Guys -- I stumbled onto this entry. Yale College is thinking of building two new "colleges" and Gibbs' name was one of many suggested as a name. I had never heard of him, so it was off to Google with me, and here is where I ended up.

I just wanted to say, I have often been discouraged by the pettiness and difficulty of writing/editing Wikipedia articles. This beautifully researched and written article was a bit of an inspiration to me. Thank all of you so much.

I'll do a quick draft to incorporate the Rota passage. Feel free to do whatever with it. Apollo

Done. I also rewrote the Copley/Nobel passage to emphasize the importance of the award he received. Starting with "he didn't win a Nobel prize but . . ." seemed a bit too defensive to me. Those of you who have done all the work on this article: feel free to revert or edit any of this. Apollo 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work Apollo. --Sadi Carnot 00:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobelists derived from Gibbs

I'm building this section. I'm guessing there are at least 10 Nobel Prize winners who based their work on Gibbs or whose contributions to humanity owe their debts to Gibbs. Leave tips if you have any. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 08:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted material and suggestions

I've removed this statement from the introduction: "The Technical Alliance later known as Technocracy Incorporated, cite Gibbs as their scientific and intellectual forefather." Both the Technical Alliance and Technocracy Incorporated are so obscure (dated) that their mention adds little to this article. In contrast, the American Mathematical Society and Paul Samuelson, which are both mentioned, carry sufficient and recognized authority to convey Gibbs's importance to the reader. -- Instead of reinserting the deleted sentence, consider using the time to improve this article in other ways. For example, the Tributes section has no references. Can more be said about Gibbs's personal life? His health? His religion? His teaching abilities? -- Astrochemist (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that the Technical Alliance cite this in the person of Howard Scott is extremely important information. Why do you suggest to another editor to talk about religion here ? Please do not delete this information again. Technocracy contrary to your statement is very much alive and not obscure. This is not dated unless you consider thermodynamics dated also ? http://www.technocracy.org/origins-1.htm The Origins of Technocracy. Perhaps you could watch this video. Or perhaps you could read this. http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy - As one of the most important social movements the United States has ever produced, it is very fitting that Gibbs should be given credit for inspiring it. Please take your own suggestions as to the material you suggested for others to do to improve this article. skip sievert (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I won't be drawn into a discussion here of things (technocracy, etc.) that appear to be important to you, but are of doubtful relevance to Josiah Willard Gibbs. I've seen (i) your spirited discussions with several other users, (ii) the blocks on your user page (i.e., 27 June 2007), and (iii) that you've added similar material to this Gibbs page about five times following changes by others. I've also seen that in your contributions here you've failed to cite widely-recognized historians and scholars, as opposed to simply a few web pages. As User Itub pointed out in his recent Gibbs edit, Wikipedia:V applies ("The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."). Concerning your question about religion, religion can be a powerful motivator in the life of a scientist and is often critical for understanding his or her motivations (e.g., Michael Faraday). -- Please consider these comments in the constructive spirit in which they are intended. -- Astrochemist (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we find a reasonable solution?

The above discussion as well as recent edit summaries are becoming rather angry on both sides. Perhaps I can consider what seem to be the issues and help to find a reasonable compromise.

1. Citation: Several edit summaries have indicated that Scott's comment is unreferenced, while Skipsievert has repeatedly claimed that he provided one. On checking I find that his Dec.10 edit summary did provide a lead to find the citation, but the problem is that the citation should also be in THIS article for easy access by readers. After reading the articles on the Technocracy movement and Howard Scott and some of their references, and also watching the video mentioned by Skipsievert, I think that the video and one other reference are relevant, so I will copy links to them into this article.

2. Importance to Gibbs article: Is there a middle ground between "so obscure (dated) that their mention adds little to this article" and "one of the most important social movements the United States has ever produced"? I would say that Technocracy is now obscure (I had never heard of it prior to this debate), but its article indicates a greater importance in the early 20th century. If this role included popularizing the academic ideas of Gibbs about energy and thermodynamics, then the movement is relevant to Gibbs or at least to his reputation. Also, I am impressed that the movement included M. King Hubbert who first proposed the oil peak which we are all aware of today - it certainly seems important that his ideas on energy stemmed from Gibbs.

3. Place in Gibbs article: Part of the opposition to the mention of Scott may stem from its prominent place in the introduction. I would suggest that the introduction be limited to Gibbs' work and recognition during his lifetime, and that all the posthumous stuff (yes, including Samuelson) be placed either in Scientific recognition or in Tributes. Please note also that Skipsievert is only trying to include two lines about Technocracy; this does not change the focus of the article in any significant way.

4. Other suggestions: Astrochemist has suggested several other topics for this article. These topics certainly may also be of interest, including religion since Gibbs' father was a professor of theology. But I see no reason for the suggestion that they be included INSTEAD of the reference to Technocracy. The article has room for both and it seems logical that Skipsievert should contribute the item that interests him, and others can contribute the items that interest them (and will probably require some researh).

And once again - everyone please calm down. Joyeux Noël. Dirac66 (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinion?

I think this should be edited or found some kind of reference:

One of the greatest American scientists of all time,

--Ashpotter (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Wikipedia articles should not contain unsourced opinions. I will delete the sentence for now. If someone wants to search for an appropriate source, it would be all right to add something like "X and Y considered that Gibbs was one of the greatest American scientists of all time", with a reference of course. I have also moved this point to the end of the discussion since it is the most recent. Dirac66 (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I’ll spit a few quotes to corroborate this well-known fact:

• Ludwig Boltzmann: "The greatest synthetic philosopher since Newton".
• Wilhelm Ostwald: “The greatest thermodynamicist since Clausius”.
• J.J. Thomson: “One of the greatest molecular physicists in the world.”
• Henry Adams: “"Greatest of Americans, judged by his rank in science."
• Albert Einstein: "One of the most important and creative minds in the field of science America has produced.”
• John Fenn: "The greatest thermodynamicist of them all"
• Richard Hughes: “Perhaps the greatest American scientist, ever."

The references for all these are here. --Libb Thims (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations

I added {{morefootnote}} message box to the article, it has enough number of resources but they are impossible to follow (esp. life section). I am trying to translate it into turkish but it would be extremenly hard for me to pin point all of the footnotes from the references given.--OnurGuvenc (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Three Nobel laureates too many

The section "Nobel laureates influenced by the work of Gibbs" needs rewording. As now worded, it includes G.N.Lewis, Merle Randall and Edwin Wilson in the list of "Nobel laureates influenced by the work of Gibbs". Influenced certainly, but unfortunately none of these 3 actually received a Nobel prize. Dirac66 (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I rephrased the title and lead of the section. Kbrose (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

When did G become G?

The See Also section mentions a bunch of things named after Gibbs (including Gibbs Free Energy and the variable G). but there's nothing in Influence or Commemoration about how and when in particular his name came to be attached to any of those concepts, or his initial to the symbol for free energy. If those are questions that admit of ready answers, I for one would be interested in knowing them. Anyone able to add something to the article on that? I'd look into it more, but it's very much outside my field. Jbening (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that the "Gibbs free energy" must've been named as such by Lewis and Randall in their Thermodynamics and the Free Energy of Chemical Substances. But they represented it by the letter F (see [1]). The use of G must've been introduced by later writers. - Eb.hoop (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As I remember it, in the early-to-mid-20th century the symbol F and the term free energy meant H-TS for chemists and U-TS for physicists. Chemists called U-TS the work function. After a few decades of arguing, the ambiguity was resolved by the recommendation (of IUPAC and IUPAP ?) that everyone abandon the use of F and use instead G (for Gibbs) = H-TS and A (for Arbeitsfonktion) for U-TS. Also it was recommended to replace the term free energy by Gibbs energy for G and Helmholtz energy for A. Dirac66 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Seeger (p. 96) the symbol G for the Gibbs free energy (H-TS) was introduced by E. A. Guggenheim in Modern Thermodynamics by the Methods of Willard Gibbs (1933) and later again by Dirk ter Haar in Elements of Thermostatistics. - Eb.hoop (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Very good, I'm glad you have tracked down this information. I agree with Jbening above that it should be included in the article. I would put the first use (Guggenheim) in the Commemoration section. Also does Seeger mention whether Guggenheim introduced the name Gibbs free energy as well as the symbol?

My answer above is less relevant, since presumably IUPAC and IUPAP merely recommended what Guggenheim and others later had already initiated, plus I don't have a source.

And another item for Commemoration (if you can find a source) might be the use of gibbs (no capital) for the old unit of entropy cal/K, although now this has been replaced by the SI unit J/K. Dirac66 (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The quote from Seeger is "the function has been called the Gibbs 'free energy' (symbol G by E. A. Guggenheim and D. ter Haar)", with refs. to the books mentioned. It seems very likely that if Guggenheim first used G (and mentioned Gibbs by name in the title of his book), he would've also called it "Gibbs free energy," but I'll look into it more carefully, time permitting. I wasn't aware that the cal/K had ever been called a "gibbs." It'd be great if you could find a source for that usage. - Eb.hoop (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the information to the "Commemoration" section. I found the original proposal to call cal. / K the "gibbs" (it was by Giauque and collaborators). - Eb.hoop (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you found a source. My memory is better than my library, so I cannot always find sources. Dirac66 (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Why the category "Monte Carlo methodologists" ?

I've been wondering why Gibbs is included in the category of "Monte Carlo methodologists." I've recently finished reading L.P. Wheeler's biography of Gibbs, and I see no evidence that Gibbs had any interest in Monte Carlo simulations. Quite the opposite, he seems to have disagreed with Kelvin as to the usefulness of testing the equipartition theorem by what were then called "lottery trials." It's also rather interesting to note that Kelvin associated to those tests the name of "Monte Carlo," long before it was used for the work of von Neumann, Ulam, et al. at Los Alamos.

I think you would find it interesting to actually go through lottery trials such as those I made, with modifications which would naturally occur to anyone retrying the subject. If you put it into the hands of some of your young students I think it may be incidentally beneficial to them; especially to any who may be likely to become millionaires, and may not carry away enough from Yale, if that be possible, to preserve them throughout life from the want of occupation of time and thought which leads to the incredible choice of the gaming tables of Monte Carlo or Aix-les-Bains.

— Letter from Kelvin to Gibbs, quoted by Wheeler, p. 160

Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, I will eventually proceed to remove the category. - Eb.hoop (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Josiah Willard Gibbs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 09:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC) I'll be taking the review.

Initial comments

• Lead seems good
• There's an inline PDF. This should be avoided, using a reference or note if necessary.

I've removed the offending link. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• In general the references badly need more information. Consider using the {{Cite web}}, {{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal}} templates or use them as a guide to the sort of thing you need to include in a reference. This is a priority to ensure proper verifiability.

Most of the references to books and articles do use the citation templates and give full bibliographical info. The issue is only with links to webpages like this one, which lack an author, date of publication, etc. I will try to use the cite web template on them consistently. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

43–48, for example, need an access/retrieval date; one should eb "Chicago"; another has a date; Rutgers has a department. That sort of thing.

I've gone ahead and applied the "Cite web" template to the websites used in the refs. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why is #43 a reliable source?

The webpage linked to is mostly just a collection of uncontroversial info. on the Gibbs stamp, with references to reliable sources. I'm not sure whether our policy should be to exclude it because the hmolpedia website in general might be considered suspect. I can leave this decision to you. In any case, this reference can be deleted without any significant loss to the article. I had included it because I was trying to document the fact that the Gibbs stamp was sufficiently notable on its own to justify a fair-use of the corresponding image, but the editors still ended up removing the image because it seems to be the accepted (though, I think, unwritten) policy to allow fair-use images of stamps only in philatelic articles. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You have #42, is #43 necessary?

We could do without it. I kind of like it, though, because it gives a nice illustration of the stamp (which is especially useful now that the free-use illustration on Wikipedia has been deleted) and a good list of references. I leave it to you whether it should be removed or not. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Whilst I appreciate the challenge you've undertaken with this article, something for which you should be praised, I have indicated many places where I would expect to find citations that aren't present (about a dozen). This is a serious problem and it needs to be resolved; had the tags been present it would have been grounds for a quickfail but since I've started I'll go on. The article is on hold for seven days for this reason. I have some concerns about the coverage but these can be seen to (after some further consideration on my part as well) after. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've provided all the citations that you flagged as needed. For some of the personal info., I referenced the biography by Muriel Rukeyser, which I read recently but need to get from the library again in order to provide page numbers. Otherwise I think we can go ahead and discuss your concerns about the coverage. - Eb.hoop (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've now checked Rukeyser's bio. and added the page numbers as needed. I've also added the other refs. you requested, plus a few others. Dirac66 has removed the ref. to Hmolpedia that you were concerned about. - Eb.hoop (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has come on a long way under the review; I've fixed the image licensing for you and I am passing the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

...

all yankee people like u...man famous... dont worry i come in pease...second law has to go...aaah...just kidding..no im not...aa kidding..

we'll see..depends on ur behavior..all yankee making trouble all the time..:))))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.158.89 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1