Talk:John William Strutt, 3rd Baron Rayleigh

Physics: Fluid Dynamics / Biographies High‑importance

	Physics portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pronunciation

How his family name ('Strutt') is pronounced? Mir76 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that it's pronounced like the verb 'to strut.' For my part, I'd like to know how his title is pronounced. I've heard the 'y' pronounced as a 'w'. --Smack (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smack: not according to the OED. They have /ˈreɪlɪ/ (see IPA). — DIV (128.250.204.118 08:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

My physics book says that Rayleigh was the last person to understand all of physics and all of mathematics. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.175.97 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard a similar thing said of Hilbert. It's almost certainly not possible to know for sure - what would we include in 'mathematics' and 'physics'? 7daysahead (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most physics types call it ral-lee, as in rally race. Upper class Englishers call it raw-lee, as they have speech impediments caused by 1000yrs of inbreeding. Always some dispute over the last true universalist. It is generally considered to be Henri Poincare (pwarn/car/rey). 220.244.84.219 (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rayleigh's son

Rayleigh's son, Robert John Strutt, 4th Baron Rayleigh, was also a well known physicist. I've added a link to his page. It was Robert John Strutt who discovered active nitrogen in 1910, and I've moved references active nitrogen to Robert John's page. --Ijf3 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

I've heard it "Ray lee", "Rah lee", "Rye lih", and several other variations and combinations. Anyone know how it should be? DMacks (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Barony of Rayleigh doesn't explain the origin of the title, but the family came from Essex, so I would *guess* that there is an ancestral connection with the town of Rayleigh in Essex, even though the family seat is closer to Chelmsford. The town name of Rayleigh is, and presumably has been for many years, pronounced 'Ray-lee'. Other pronunciations may arise from confusion with Sir Walter Raleigh, who is completely unconnected either with Rayleigh in Essex or with the Strutt family.109.150.7.208 (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'I was born 7 kilometres from Rayleigh, and have always heard it pronounced 'Ray lee', as in 'ray of light'- Astrophile

The pronunciation is definitely "ray-lee"; this is how all historians of science and biographers pronounce the name. But why so little on his revolutionary discovery (joint with Ramsay) of the first noble gas, argon? The discovery had enormous implications for both physics and chemistry.Ajrocke (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religious views

Are Rayleigh's views on religion so important that it warrants 1/3 of the content of this page? Surely, there are many more important aspects of his life that could be expanded. 130.237.175.78 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They probably were important. Strutt was mentioned on Thought for the Day on January 21 2019. Vorbee (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really bad article

This has got to be about the worst article in WP. Rayleigh's place in maths/physics is hardly done justice. The separation principle (applicable in optics, statistics, and all spectral analysis) has not been mentioned. Rayleigh terms in the Lagrangian formulation for fluids not mentioned, still unproven. The religious views are simply a nonsense. I'm a physicist who has reviewed the works papers of Kelvin and Rayleigh, and they are NOT religious in any way. Rayleigh is best know for his work on wave theory.220.240.253.34 (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it may be undue; sources like that below stress such aspects and may be the reason this article was edited in relation to religion. —Paleo Neonate – 00:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this phrase quoted at at least a couple dozen sites using Google search, attributed to Rayleigh: "When I was bringing out my Scientific Papers ...." Groovamos (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of Faith Vol. 1: Hydrogen to Tin: Faith Facts and Learning Lessons

I have removed this source as unreliable and promoting evolution-denialism (published by Institute for Creation Research, see p. 69 for instance, confusing spontaneous generation with evolution and claiming that DNA disproved it rather than confirming and improving it; then also see p. 28 as an example of how it is "illuminated" in general). New Leaf Publishing can also be discussed at this reliable sources noticeboard thread. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 00:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]