Talk:Fizeau experiment
 | Fizeau experiment has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 26, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Fizeau experiment (setup pictured) was one of the key experimental results that shaped Einstein's thinking about relativity? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 4. | |
Is the "Derivation in special relativity" correct?
editWhat about this video that states that special relativity does not explain Fizeau experiment?
Youtube - Ask Us Whatever - E9.3 - Confirmation bias in physics. The embarrassing Von Laue, Einstein, Fizeau blunder. 2800:2131:5400:FB2:A5A8:26FE:B5E0:A625 (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- See wp:Talk page guidelines: we can discuss the article here, based on wp:reliable sources. Youtube doesn't qualify. - DVdm (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
GA concerns: "Controversy" section
editI am concerned that this article might not meet the good article criteria anymore, mostly due to the "Controversy" section. While the section describes various expert's disagreements with the experiment, it does not give any sources verifying this. Since this is historical information, and not mathematical concepts, their disagreements will need to be sourced (especially the block quotes). I also think the section should be remained as "Controversy" is probably against WP:NPOV (as explained in WP:CONTROVERSY) and I think another name might better describe that this section is describing the disagreement or opposition to the hypothesis.
Is anyone willing to address the above concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The "Controversy" section is mostly uncited: there are mentions of the works where others disagreed (with a year placed in parenthesis) but these will need to be converted into citations and the prose afterwards also cited to their works. The section also has several, long block quotes. Even though many of these quotes are from the 1800s, and probably do not fall under copyright anymore, I think the information can be better explained and more easily understood by the reader as summarised prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The content in the "Controversy" section seems to be directly out of the John Stachel reference, which uses quotes and the parenthesis. I think the section size is undue or at least it is unclear: the controversy was about Fresnel's justification for his formula, not about Fizeau's experiment. Stachel needed these quotes to build his case, but we only need the Stachel reference to give the case he has built.
- I propose to reorganize the article by converting the Controversy section to a section on "Impact" which would include the Stachel story line about Fizeau's result as well as Einstein's use of the Fizeau result. I would would change the "derivation from special relativity" to "Modern interpretation". I think there should be a Background or Context section before "Experimental setup" outlining why the experiment was undertaken.
- @ReyHahn any thoughts? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720 I worked this article over. Please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: I added "citation needed" tags to places where I feel a statement is provided without the equation or demonstration verifying the information. Please take a look at them and add the citation if it is necessary, or let me know why a citation is not needed in that ___location. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I fixed those you marked. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720 thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep I have no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Z1720 thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I fixed those you marked. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: I added "citation needed" tags to places where I feel a statement is provided without the equation or demonstration verifying the information. Please take a look at them and add the citation if it is necessary, or let me know why a citation is not needed in that ___location. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Proposal to delete the section "Controversy"
editI have reworked the article to add a series of experimental confirmations of Fizeau's results into Confirmations. Each one has a comment about the issues Fresnel's partial aether drag model. This makes the Controversy redundant. It is poorly sourced, overly reliant on quotations and in my opinion it is confusing. I propose to delete it now.
As far as I can tell the word "controversy" here has two applications. First Fresnel's formula was successful while its physical model seemed inconsistent. That much is now captured in the Confirmations section. Second the historian John Stachel has claimed that other historians misread the history of the era, giving too little weight to the first controversy. I don't think this fine point of history belongs here and if it does one or two sentences is all we need. Stachel's history of the Fizeau experiment is excellent, but his evidence of a historical misreading is weak in my opinion. The other historians seem to just have different emphasis. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Done I did this already. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
