Jump to content

Talk:Murray Gell-Mann/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

A recent (high school) philosophy class

I studied Murray Gell-Mann in a recent (high school) philosophy class. Our text was a series of interviews conducted by Bill Moyers. I don't see any mention of that here, nor do I see any reference to his "basins of attraction" idea. Any possibility of expansion on Gell-Mann's article? --Writingrights 20:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to be a lot less vague. Gell-Mann certainly didn't invent the notion of a "basin of attraction". What do you think he did with it? -- Xerxes 05:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Boston University

According to the Boston University faculty page, Gell-Mann is or was at one time on the staff there. However, I see no reference to that in this article.

Although Gell-Mann has been on staff at a large number of universities, the BU page appears to be in error. See, for example Gell-Mann's CV at Santa Fe. -- Xerxes 16:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That which is not forbidden is mandatory

One of my favorite quotes, attributed to Gell-Mann, is a phrase to the effect that, "That which is not forbidden is mandatory."

Does anyone know if it is correctly attributed to Gell-Mann? If so, what did he actually say. And if so, what is the reference?

Thanks - Williamborg 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming quarks

The Finnegans Wake page says not from there. Any citation one way or the other ? -- Beardo 13:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

w/r/t the naming of quarks, the phrase "Three quarks for Muster Mark" comes at the beginning of book 2, episode 4 of Finnegans Wake. However, in a private letter from 1978, cited by the OED for the etymology of quark, Gell-Mann writes:

"In 1963, when I assigned the name "quark" to the fundamental constituents of the nucleon, I had the sound first, without the spelling, which could have been "kwork." Then, in one of my occasional perusals of Finnegans Wake, by James Joyce, I came across the word "quark" in the phrase "Three quarks for Muster Mark."

In my opinion, this is a case of coincidental creation. If you browse Finnegans Wake long enough, you'll probably come across a string that matches whatever funny sounds are bouncing around in your head.

Infobox Discussion

An infobox was removed from the Gell-Mann page. Please discuss reasons for retaining or removal in order to acheive consensus. Here is what it looked like for your reference:

bunix 23:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Over a week has passed by and there have been no dissenting voices. Therefore I am now replacing this infobox. In future, please discuss here first before removal of larges chunks of information. This is wiki policy. bunix 00:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tone?

From the article:

Propelled by an intense boyhood curiosity and love for nature, he entered Yale [...] By age twenty-three he had ignited a revolution, laying bare in his groundbreaking work the strange beauty of the minute particles that make up reality.

I am sure this is true (I know Gell-Mann is a great man), but it doesn't sound very encyclopedic... -- 131.111.8.99 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Handedness?

The trivia section states that Gell-Mann is lefthanded but in the only pictures I can find of him writing he is using his right hand. What is the source for the lefthandedness claim? --85.197.229.167 19:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

recently discovered kaons

I think this sentence:

Gell-Mann's work in the 1950s involved recently discovered cosmic ray particles that came to be called kaons and hyperons.

is misleading. The existence of kaons and hyperons was confirmed almost 50 years ago. Therefore I do not think, that "recently" is a good term to use.

91.19.153.111 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Recently" is relativized to the "1950s", so is OK. RandomTool2 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

References and further reading

The following link needs to be updated because Peoples Archive has now been moved to a new website called Web of Stories:

  • Murray Gell-Mann video at the Peoples Archive

The correct link to the Web of Stories website (http://webofstories.com) should be:

Fitzrovia calling (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeming contradiction

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leonard_Susskind#Seeming_contradiction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.78.94 (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Atheist?

Does anybody happen to know for certain whether Gell-Mann is an atheist? Everything I know about him points to that conclusion, but I haven't seen anything definitive. Cgingold 02:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He comes close to it here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONiWmzrmfuY . 124.149.51.75 (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

He ridicules religious beliefs both specifically and generally in TQATJ, but I'll have to scan it again to find out if he does so specifically so that he ticks the boxes required for atheist. I'm pretty sure it does Seblopedia (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source indicating that; unless the subject has stated his inclination outright, you can't determine it for yourself by scanning his works. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

linguistics

I see Gell-Mann mentioned on linguistics page, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borean_languages - if this is accurate then some mention would be called for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.57.72 (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is actually a reference to Murray's linguistic ideas in the current version of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.7.129 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Opposition

Murray seems to be aware of opposition to his ideas, in linguistics as well as in physics. See his site at www.santafe.edu/~mgm/Site/Front_Page.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.49.237 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, alas... he is a sad example of the rule that Nobel Prize winners immediately turn into crackpots that can get their crap in high-impact journals.88.110.122.195 (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I have only the greatest respect for him, as my relative attended school with him as an undergrad. They were both physics majors. But you are correct, User 88.110.122.195, though I didn't realize until I tried to clean up the issue with a lack of inline citations here. Sigh... but he does seem to be very aware of the opposition to some of his ideas, in linguistics and in physics. That sort of self-awareness is rare in those elevated scholarly sorts, so that helps, in my unsolicited opinion. It is not easy to verify certain important portions of the article; there are many NPOV sources, but a lot of them are contradictory.--FeralOink (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Stolen Peruvian artifacts collected by Gell-Mann

No mention of the numbers of stolen Peruvian artifacts seized from Gell-Mann's collection in Pasadena in 1988? Whether he knew of their status or not, it was a major event in his life that should be documented like everything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.161.35.73 (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

V–A

It strikes me that V–A should use an NDASH (if the V and the A represent elements of equal weight, and one doesn't modify the other) but I see that V MINUS_SIGN A has been used here. It could perhaps designate a formula so I left it alone. Many web sites use V HYPHEN_MINUS A (probably for convenience), but a couple of formally typeset physics books on the second page of Google results use V NDASH A. There's also a redirect from V-A which should be brought into line with the final determination. — MaxEnt 04:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

While there has been a lot of blood shed across Wikipedia with regard to em dashes vs. en dashes vs. hyphens, the general guideline is to reflect what the preponderance of reliable sources use. Although this can be tricky for typographical minutiae like this, it's unlikely to be controversial as long as you're not proposing a huge change across many articles and the sources for this topic are respected. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible items for inclusion?

I'm new to Wikipedia, and stumbled across this article. I noticed that the 'Talk' page here has several mentions of controversies -- in the field of linguistics, apparently? -- in which Gell-Mann was involved late in his life, after the Nobel Prize. About a year ago, there was a comment by an IP editor that "There is actually a reference to Murray's linguistic ideas in the current version of this article" -- yet reading the article now and I can't find anything. Was this earlier reference scrubbed, and should it be reinstated? Besides a statement that "Gell-Mann has interests in... historical linguistics," there's nothing in the article as far as I can tell that would indicate his 'extracurricular' work. I don't know anything in particular about either the man or the apparent controversy, so pardon me for not writing more specifics.
The other item I would propose would be for the article to include a brief reference to the "Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect," coined by Michael Crichton in a 2002 speech to the International Leadership Forum. It's entirely unrelated to Gell-Mann himself -- Crichton himself admitted it was entirely tongue-in-cheek ("I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.") So I'm not sure what the right wording would be, but considering that this article is one of the first results from the search string, it would seem fitting to include here. I'd propose to make it a disambiguation, but frankly I'm not convinced Crichton's term is WP:Notable enough for a page on its own. PublicolaMinor (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi PublicolaMinor— Gell-Mann's involvement with linguistics is typical of polymaths getting involved with various fields of science. If there's significant discussion around his contributions to the field, then it is worth including. My own five-minute quick search shows that most discussion easily findable by a guy sitting at home (i.e. I haven't checked the journals) seems to be meta-discussion about his interest rather than his core contributions. Yet to be honest, I did go to linguistics school and I did hear his name but that's because I attended an institution that he taught at. So happy researching! To your second point, I enjoy early Crichton as much as the next editor but unless his namedropping has generated some significant secondary discussion, it's probably best to leave it out. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Doctor's Appointment at the Smithsonian Institute

Perhaps mention of the doctor's appointment as citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, for two 6 year terms, 1974-1988; perhaps in the category of awards and honors? Public Law 93-401, August 30, 1974 refers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Murray Gell-Mann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

2011 publication in linguistics

  • Gell-Mann, Murray; Ruhlen, Merritt (10 October 2011). "The origin and evolution of word order". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (42): 17290–17295. doi:10.1073/pnas.1113716108.

The article peters out after the 1980s; it appears he's still doing academic work. (Abstract at http://www.pnas.org/content/108/42/17290.abstract; looking for full text.) 23.83.37.241 (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murray_Gell-Mann/Archive_1&oldid=1132012622"