This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article is written vaguely, as if by someone who was widely read and copying without quite understanding what they had read. It is ridiculous to have a citation from Bertrand Russell off-topic, and the sentence "The difficulty with a realistic regularization is that so far there is none, although nothing could be destroyed by its bottom-up approach; and there is no experimental basis for it" is so ungrammatical it is incomprehensible, although a very vague impression gets across that the parson is agin' it... 64.105.137.249 (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
The Bertrand Russell citation seems to be part of a quote from Salam. The citation might be off topic but the quote isn't and the citation cannot be removed from the quote without seriously altering it. I don't know about the other phrase you objected to. Dauto (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could you please add a simpler example to this article? I landed here vian-body problem, which cites the use of regularization to handle collisions in the n=3 case. The examples here all treat quantum mechanics, whereas the mathematical situation evidently also arises in far more familiar Newtonian situations. 83.160.106.234 (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
