It is an interesting discussion topic, people are confined to their houses for many days now and naturally experience existential issues. And, because noone sees the world the same way, HN relies on a sophisticated algorithm that tries to minimize bias on what is a good and what is a bad submission. A more constructive approach would be to point out why you think it is an awful article and share some knowledge on the topic.
back
2 comments
I have nothing against the topic, I think the Wikipedia article is incredibly poor. It does little to explain the topic and presents a one-sided viewpoint authoritatively when it seems anything but. It’s clearly lacking an encyclopedic tone. There’s a couple of warnings for its poor quality both in the article itself and on the talk page.
Just to add to what saagarjha said; there's large parts of the article that just don't seem to make sense on their own. I only have a Master's degree in Physics, and haven't specialized in general relativity - nevertheless I usually have enough background to at least follow along with Wikipedia.
In particular, the "Overturning of absolute time in general relativity" section is very hard to follow, and I suspect would only make passing sense to a reader already very familiar with the subject matter. It has a very stream-of-consciousness feel to it, it doesn't introduce concepts as it moves along, and it makes unexplained logical leaps from one idea to another.
I'm glad someone took the time to start the article and it sounds like an interesting subject; but it could certainly see improvement from someone with the right knowledge.
I think that the article which supports its definition of the problem with the article written by an author who "obtained a bachelor's degree in physics" and then "left graduate school during the first year in order to pursue a career in science journalism, and "has never looked back"" (1) should just not exist.
In my perception, even that article is such a "popularization" of the topics on which physicists work that it stopped "being even true." The Wikipedia article just continues in that direction.
The "problem" that exists should not even be present as a Wikipedia entry under that specific name. As far as I see it, even the name is wrong.
---
TBH, >95% of the commentators here don't reach the education level of the editor of the article by far in terms of the specific domain, but still this doesn't stop them from criticizing it.
Not meant to be snarky, and in general imho it is good the be critical always - but this should include oneself. The latter part is often lacking, and the amount of lacking very often appears to be proportional to the lack of knowledge of the commentator.
> The latter part is often lacking, and the amount of lacking very often appears to be proportional to the lack of knowledge of the commentator.
Very good: how does your comment fare using that frame?
And since you commented under my comment, what parts of my comment do you agree with and what do you thing you can correct, and based on which sources? I've given mine.
Maybe i misunderstood your comment, if so I like to apologize.
In any case, would you please explain to me how you consider the title "The problem of time" being wrong. It appears to me as one of the most fundamental questions in physics. The wikipedia article does - from my PoV - a reasonably good try to explain the problem at hand in laymans terms. It touches the relevant aspects of the problem (no absolute time, time/space interdependency) and expands to a more speculative theory (thermal time hypothesis).
I will not at all claim to have even a basic understanding of the covered topics, despite being an avid reader of related bloggers and papers.
I just am astonished how people disregard work of others even without (basic) knowledge of the domain. Maybe I'm wrong, but noone in this thread even tried to show her/his accomplishments in the mentioned domain.
And thanks for replying without simply downvoting.
And please don't think i automatically included you in the perceived group not having "even a basic understanding o the topic". Maybe you have, but since this is even less recognizable than the merits of the wikipedia author it is - from an outside PoV - even less credible.
> how you consider the title "The problem of time" being wrong.
Because as far as I understand it is not commonly accepted name among the physicists for the issues that prevents them developing the "Theory of Everything"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
It's just how only a few authors name their articles and books. The title would be OK if it would be a title of the article about the specific book, but not as a title for the "problem" of physics. Because, as far as I know, it's not commonly called as such among the physicists, and that's why even the very support for the whole wikipedia article is a reference to the Quanta article and not some physics textbook, and that is what then confuses readers who don't have "even a basic understanding of the covered topics."
Reducing all the issues about "TOE" to the "problem of time" is not correct, from the perspective of physics. It is probably "fun" for "philosophers" though.