Talk:Scalar–tensor theory

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The clearly appropriate name for this page is "Scalar-tensor theory." I think it might be equally reasonable to merge it to Brans-Dicke theory, but I'd like to hear people's opinions on the latter before I make a move to do anything. –Joke 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. —Nightst a llion (?) 08:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

Merge with Brans-Dicke theory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think "Scalar-tensor theory" is indeed the appropriate name. Now about merging and Brans-dicke´s theory:

Actually, the Brans-Dicke theory is a kind of scalar-tensor theory, as it is a special case of the older theory of Jordan (which Brans and Dicke did not know) (that´s why the better name for Brans-Dicke theory is Jordan-Brans-Dicke (JBD) theory.Brans and Dicke came to the postulation of the scalar field for explaining Mach´s principle within gravitation, Jordan following geometrical thoughts (in his Projective Geometry theory). Nevertheless, Jordan´s theory becomes Brans-Dicke´s, if energy conservation has to be given.

However, although the JBD theory is a scalar-tensor theory, I cannot say that every such theory goes through JBD at some moment. The JBD theories are usually defined as possessing massless scalar fields, while a scalr-tensor theory might as well possess massive scalar fields. This should then have consequences in the coupling of the scalar field with the curvature scalar (for physical means). This might as well change the behaviour for a massless limit of the theory (now only as a thought and not saying anything neither about the physical reasons it might have nor about the physicality of such limit). That´s why I think, it should not be necessary to merge the sites (and if yes, then many changes should be made for not losing information). And as I have seen, there are many sites in Wikipedia that are alike but not merged and that might not have to be merged, maybe for purposes of completeness. Important is that the pages are well-linked and that the reader can make himself an idea of how the tree looks like.

N.M.B.R.Nbez 11:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: In this context, "scalar-tensor theory" should be an introduction for "Brans-Dicke" as is seen in pages about countries, introducing the history, which is better explained in another site. In this page, other specific models should be referred or introduced (or linked). For example a reference to Zee´s model with symmetry breakdown or Dehnen´s one with Higgs field as scalar field (these are less popular or known theories than Brans-Dicke´s), as long as it is relevant for Wikipedia and its completeness. Then, the most important case is JBD, which now has another site, especially for it being (or having been many years) an important competitor to usual General Relativity.

N.M.B.R.Nbez 11:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the articles should be merged, as there are other theories that include a scalar and a tensor field (such as the modern Tensor-vector-scalar gravity theory - and other similar ones). MP (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be merged. As 'scalar-tensor theory' is a title that includes the Brans Dicke theory, and others such as the self-creation cosmology, but the reverse is not true, if merged then it should be the Brans Dicke article that is subsumed by the scalar tensor theory article. As many people will want to look up the specific Brans Dicke article they both should be separate.Garthbarber 14:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

References are not numbered?

I count citations up to number 8 but I see 9 references and these are not numbered? What gives? TonyMath (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]