Stefan-Bolzmann law in n-dimensions, what is wrong

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter exponent137
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the deletion of the n-dimensional derivation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law from Wikipedia, which was removed by a theoretical physicist citing its lack of physical relevance and minimal citations. The original derivation, while straightforward, lacks empirical support for extra dimensions, rendering it unsuitable for inclusion in general-purpose encyclopedias or textbooks. The associated paper by Giddings has only five citations on Google Scholar, further emphasizing its limited impact in the scientific community.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann law
  • Familiarity with n-dimensional physics concepts
  • Knowledge of citation metrics in academic publishing
  • Basic principles of theoretical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Stefan-Boltzmann law in higher dimensions
  • Explore the significance of citation counts in evaluating scientific relevance
  • Investigate alternative theories regarding extra dimensions in physics
  • Study the criteria for content inclusion in academic encyclopedias
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for theoretical physicists, researchers in higher-dimensional physics, and anyone interested in the standards for academic content in encyclopedias.

exponent137
Messages
563
Reaction score
35
In one old version in wikipedia, the Stefan-Boltzmann law was derived in n-dimensions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...Stefan–Boltzmann's_law_in_n-dimensional_space

Then one theoretical physicist come and deleted it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan–Boltzmann_law&oldid=758438490

His reason was:
Deleted section on law in n-dimensional space; little physical relevance; hardly belongs in a textbook, certainly not an encyclopedia. Associated paper by Giddings has a total of 5 citations on Google scholar to date..

What is really the problem with this derivation that it cannot belong to wikipedia or to a textbook? We cannot test it, but the derivation is straightforward, are there any alternative?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
Hm, on the first glance it looks right to me. Only indeed the reason given is valid. As long as there's no clear evidence for extra dimensions (and afaik there are indeed none today at all) it's pretty irrelevant for a general-purpose encyclopedia (or even a physics textbook).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier and exponent137

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
27K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
18K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K