Talk:Action at a distance

Electromagnetism.

The last paragraph of electromagnetism is ambiguous.

"Various proofs, beginning with that of Dirac have shown that direct interaction theories (under reasonable assumptions) do not admit Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulations (these are the so-called No Interaction Theorems). Consequently, the Fokker-Tetrode action is mainly of historic interest. Still, attempts to recapture action at a distance without a field, which is often difficult to quantize, lead directly to the development of the quantum electrodynamics of Feynman and Schwinger."

I believe a reference or two are needed here on the various proofs, and the sentence has to be more precise. The field is still live and active, see for example a not that historic article: Hoyle, F., & Narkilar, J. V. (1995). Cosmolgy and action at a distance electrodynamics. Rev. Modern Phys., 67(1), 113. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BahramH (talk • contribs) 06:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Quantum nonlocality hyperlink

I advocate the removal of the "nonlocality" hyperlink to the "Quantum nonlocality" article from the body of the "Quantum mechanics" section. I found that link confusing. plus the "Quantum nonlocality" main article is linked to at the beginning of the section already anyway, and too many hyperlinks can be dispersive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.139.114.220 (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

TNT?

@Johnjbarton: this article might interest you. It is a hot mess, many facts are stated without a clear goal and unrelated things are compared. Maybe it deserves some WP:TNT. ReyHahn (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

TNT completed. Please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Great article as always. I left a templates to indicate that it is not clear what is meant. For example when it is written Action at a distance and actions in a continuous medium may be easily distinguished when the medium has properties other than transmitting force, such as being visible, like water or an elastic solid what do you have in mind? Two other mentions that I think might be missing are Heinrich Hertz's experiments and Poincaré prediction of gravitational waves in analogy with electromagnetism. Additionally, what should we do with the discussion of action at a distance in principle of locality? (If I do not respond, it is because I have a blocked proxy problem, I might get it solved soon).--ReyHahn (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I tried rewriting the sentence to be more straight forward. Is this version better? The point is: why aren't fields obvious? Oh, because they are invisible and thus have to be inferred.

I understand Hertz's critical role in showing the electron + field, but what is the action at a distance angle? Similarly Poincare. Over all I feel that the history section has to fight flowing off into a history. It feels choppy in places, because I was trying to avoid this pull. I tried always to focus on "what is the action at a distance aspect".

I realize a final bit on Yukawa QFT force mediation is missing. That is why the two/three issue in the categories. With a force mediation section, the categories can have an action-at-distance vs mediation, if I can find sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

In the end is that what seals the deal for electromagnetism and gravitation to be action-with-retardation theories is the existence of electromagnetic and gravitational waves. Hertz also wrote extensively against Newton's action at distance, if I find something I will share it.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Make technical articles understandable

Action at a distance is a technical article so the guidance material at WP:Make technical articles understandable is highly relevant. At present the article does not perform satisfactorily when assessed using the criteria in this guidance document.

At WP:EXPLAINLEAD there is valuable advice regarding the lead section in any technical article. For example, it says: It is particularly important for the "lead" section to be understandable to a broad readership.

It also says: In general, the lead should not assume that the reader is well acquainted with the subject of the article. Terminology in the lead section should be understandable on sight to general readers whenever this can be done in a way that still adequately summarizes the article, and should not depend on a link to another article.

The lead section fails against these criteria. Any teenager who is conversant with the concept of Earth’s gravity, or who has played with a magnet, is likely to be curious about action at a distance. Such a teenager is capable of reading and comprehending a well-written lead section in this article. Unfortunately the lead section at present implies that to begin to comprehend the concept, a reader must first have adequate knowledge of:

1. the distinction between an actual (rotational) field and a potential (irrotational) field
2. quanta of angular momentum called quanta of action
3. the concept of “whose transfer through space is limited by the speed of light”
4. negative energy
5. a negative number of quanta of action.

Action is required by a User competent in physics, not to make the lead section more esoteric or to maintain the present level of pretentiousness, but to make the lead accessible to as wide an audience as possible. Dolphin (t) 08:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dolphin51 The recently added lead was not appropriate. I reverted and your tag. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was pretty strange. I couldn't even figure out most of it. As noted, one should understand the lead without so much understanding of the subject of the article. Often, though, one does need to understand some other things. Many article require some understanding of quantum mechanics, even when that isn't the subject. Gah4 (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)