Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive December 2010

Need quick help

here, as as author does not understand basic WP policies of notability and WP:RS, and I am not in the mood for 3RR. In short, Amnov has already been criticized in 2008 for his "discoveries" of new elements, and here comes another one. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't be serious. You were unwilling to actually engage in discussion and/or come to a compromise so you tried to call in the reinforcements? - Danjel (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Need_quick_help - Danjel (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem highlighting such a problem to the wider community, it is up to individual editors to assess if any action is warranted. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And fair enough, mate. But he's attempted to sway the situation in his favour by (a) engaging in ad hominem by saying that I do "not understand basic WP policies and WP:RS"; (b) misrepresenting the basis of my argument (I'm still not saying that Amnov is right, I'm merely saying that the claim/s has/have been made - in fact, I tried to compromise by pointing to possible dubiousness in the claim).

That's not playing fair, particularly in the face of my repeated attempts to get a discussion going. - Danjel (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rotational symmetry of quantized space-time

Could someone with a little more expertise than me take a look at this article Rotational symmetry of quantized space-time. I have concerns about it, but that might well be due to my own ignorance. My concerns are that it appears to be WP:OR or WP:SYN Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be gibberish. It certainly isn't describing any notable idea (and if it is it is doing a very terrible job). I've nominated it for deletion.TimothyRias (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought... it appears to be sourced, but they don't appear to support the subject in any way. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The author of the article and the primary researcher have the same name... at the very least, this is a {{COI}} . 65.94.47.218 (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light FAC

Speed of light has been nominated as a Featured Article. Please opine here.TimothyRias (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hafnium weapons and IGE pseudoscience / credulousness

Could you guys please consider taking a look at the articles Hafnium controversy and Induced gamma emission? A single user by the name of Drac2000 has sat on these articles -the only ones he ever edits- for the last 5 years, making sure they take an EXCEEDINGLY credulous and biased view of the prospect of Hf weapons and IGE. I strongly suspect that this user is one of the scientists pushing the "pro" side of the argument, and now, 3-4 years after the controversy on this issue has all but disappeared, the scientific consensus of the phenomenon being largely bunk is quite clear. Hence these awful articles need heavy revision to reflect that. Thank you. 128.151.32.169 (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You should also ask WP:MILHIST about the weaponry part... 65.94.44.124 (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted a note on one of the talk pages in question with a request for improvement. If the editor in question refuses to cooperate and breaks any Wikipedia policy (such as WP:3RR) we will consider elevating the issue to an RFC.--Novus Orator 07:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Hafnium controversy is a problem, IMHO, but the IGE seems fairly useful in its current form. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Science and technology in the United Kingdom

Rangoon11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created this template (Template edit historyhere). They then placed this template in approzimately 40 articles [1]. I notice that this template probably does not belong with a number of these articles. The articles I am talking about have a much broader scope than UK Science and technology. In any case, I will be reverting some of the edits in these articles. In particular the WikiProject Academic articles where this is not necessary, and probably does not belong. Furthermore, I am wondering if User:Rangoon11 should have sought consensus before placing this template in these articles. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

After a second, and third look, this template is probably appropriate for most of the articles in which it is now placed. There is only a small number of articles (about ten) where it probably doesn't belong. Apparently I focused on the negative, and not the positive in this case. It is no big deal, and I am reverting the few edits, which I think are not appropriate. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Pinch devices

I'm trying to flesh out the wiki's articles on early pinch fusion devices. So far I have Perhapsatron, ZETA and Sceptre. Three issues:

• All three of those machines developed from the same early UK work. Do you think the background and history should be moved to the Z-pinch article? I personally hate clicking around to get "the whole story", but at the same time there's a lot of duplication.

• The original Thompson patent concerns a device based around the betatron (essentially), not a classic pinch device. Does anyone have a reference that discusses the change in design, if there was one?

• I cannot find anything useful on Columbus, Totempole or Scyla. These three would essentially complete the collection. Does anyone have any materials on these they can share?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:CUP

Some of the users here might be interested in WP:CUP. Nergaal (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to move operator (physics)

I am currently engaged in rewriting the article operator (mathematics), which I recently moved from operator. I am slightly confused by the title of the article operator (physics). It appears that this article is devoted to applications of operators to physics, but the title suggests that it deals with a different concept. It is confusing to me, especially when I'm disambiguating links to operator (disambiguation). I created a redirect Mathematical operators in physics, I think this title better reflects the article's current content. I suggest to make it the main title while leaving operator (physics) as a redirect.

See also the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.

Please respond! — Kallikanzarid^talk 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In quantum mechanics, "operator" has a special meaning. Although this is usually understood to be implemented as a mathematical operator on the vector space which represents the physical states, that is not the primary meaning which physicists attach to it. So I would oppose renaming the article as you are suggesting. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not in the article right now. Can you please give me a link so that I could familiarize myself with the subject? — Kallikanzarid^talk 21:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The central dogma of quantum mechanics is that every physical observable is represented by an operator that acts on the states of a vector space. Given that, the rest is mathematics. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

You also need a couple more dogmas to tell you how such states evolve with time or how those operators are related with possible results of experiments, though. (Section S1d of http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physics-faq.txt lists six axioms and a "minimal interpretation" thereof, though there's more than a way to slice the cake.) A. di M. (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there already an article on observables? — Kallikanzarid^talk 03:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the template, I just need to note that your assistance with this would be particularly appreciated as the contributor has drawn from print sources as well as online ones, which means some content may need to be presumptively tagged. More information about the specifics is available at the CCI subpage. Thanks, and sorry to be the bearer of bad news! :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I was about to report this but seems MRG already did it. If everyone could chip in and review a few of these things, it would greatly help. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of A New Theory of Magnetic Storms for deletion

This article was recently PRODed, but I think it deserves greater consideration, so I brought it to AfD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Negentropy

Material was recently added to Negentropy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that appears to conflict with other material in the article and to be derived from a web-based source. It's possible that I'm misreading, so more eyes on this from thermodynamics specialists would be appreciated. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Physics portal for 2011

I just wanted to let everybody know that I set up the page for Selected articles and Selected pictures for the Physics Portal in 2011 (January to December), in case anyone wants to take a look for any discrepancies. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Physics-related FA to appear on Main Page tomorrow

Hi, I just wanted to alert you all that the Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector will be appearing on the Main Page tomorrow, that is, on December 30th. I was hoping to make a lead animation for the occasion, similar to the ones I made for Newton's theorem of revolving orbits, but alas, I won't manage to finish it in time. Tomorrow I'll be doing my best to watch over the article; but since I'll also be busy in real life, I'd appreciate any extra help from my friends and colleagues here. Thank you very much! :) Willow (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that this article could use an image in the introduction. I was going to place it there, until I noticed it is on the Main Page at this time. So being a sane person at times, I have not done so. However, if no one has a problem with this image in the introduction, I will place it there in about two hours. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That image cannot be used under a free license, so it will not show up on the main page BTW. I also do not see how one would justify the rationale for the LRL vector article, it's just a copyrighted image of the solar system, and not a very good one at that. There's no link between the image and the vector, so its inclusion would be more puzzling than anything else regardless of the copyright status. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you both for giving this serious consideration. I agree that it would be too difficult to add an image into the lead now. My plan had been to add a glowing LRL vector to the planet in one of my earlier animations (e.g., this one), but I simply ran out of time. Oh well, maybe in the next universe... ;) Willow (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for the feedback. As time passed, after my last response, I began to think this image was not a good idea also. And I agree this is an inferior image of the solar system. So, I won't be attempting to add the image to this article. I guess it was a hasty decision, on my part. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)