Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive December 2013

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Proposed deletion of Universality and Quantum Systems

The article Universality and Quantum Systems has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

see talk page there...

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. User:Linas (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should be deleted, but it looks like you'll need to propose it again. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course, now it will have to be at AfD. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A Wikipedia based textbook appears to be the primary textbook for a physics class

Per "Dr. Gavin Buffington, professor and chair of the Department of Physics at Fort Hays State University in Kansas. "I'm using a Boundless (company) textbook this semester in my Engineering Physics I class, and I've been impressed by the quality of content""[1] with this page [2] borrowing heavily from kinematics Congrats to all the Wikipedian authors here! Company states that they will improve attribution going forwards. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Thermodynamics

FYI, there's a proposed wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Thermodynamics that you may be interested in voicing an opinion on. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification: Featured Article Review for Stephen Hawking

There are some serious deficiencies which several users have identified in the Stephen Hawking article which was promoted to FA status earlier this year after an FAC that wasn't rigorous. Please feel free to comment and contribute to the debate at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stephen Hawking/archive1 on whether this article should be delisted and what work needs to be done.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Physics. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Chembox.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI, there's a request to change {{elementbox}} at WPCHEMISTRY. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#chembox for the discussion -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Promotion of World Scientific books

Two users Garuda0001 (talk · contribs) and Philipphilip0001 (talk · contribs) have been adding a bunch of books from World Scientific to our articles over the past year or so. On face values these seem like appropriate materials, but there have been highly-questionable additions (such as [3]), and since there clearly is a conflict of interest going on (all sources were from World Scientific) there is definitely something fishy here. I think I've reverted all of it, but feel free to go through the articles and make sure I purged it all (or reinstate whatever material you consider appropriate, provided you confirm its relevance / factual accuracy).

This really was a pain to clean up, given it's been in our articles for so long, and that single edits on their own do not look problematic. So keep an eye out for these two / similar users / WP:BEANS in the future.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Consciousness causes collapse

Please note the Consciousness causes collapse article is up for deletion under the name Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum mind–body problem.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:CHEESE editor on neutron magnetic moments.

There's some IP (193.231.19.53 (talk · contribs)) ranting on and on about the "Rutherford model" (i.e. that the neutron is made of a proton + electron) on various nuclear magnetic moment-related pages (Talk:Neutron magnetic moment, Talk:Quark, Talk:Magnetic moment and a few others), claiming that the quark model isn't established and that the jury's still out there on the composition of neutrons. The remarks and arguments closely mirror those of the pseudoscience peddled by Ruggero Santilli (and in articles about the so-called "Rutherford-Santilly" model of the neutron) and collaborators, although the IP claims to never have heard of these people. Some help would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Rutherford's article from 1920 concerning prediction of a neutron has been brought to my attention long before the recent mention of someone like Santilli by Headbomb. If someone like Santilli considers worth buiding upon Rutherford's hypothesis, that is an entirely different aspect.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a fair number of arguments that show that a neutron cannot be made of a proton+electron. Consider the following:

Decay of a neutron yields a proton, electron, and an electron anti-neutrino. Now, maybe you could argue that the protron and electron are somehow "stuck together" in the neutron, but surely you agree that nothing can possibly confine the neutrino to the neutron? Remember, neutrinos are perfectly capable of penetrating light years of matter.
Even the notion that a proton and electron could stick together is flakey, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It is quite simply inconceivable that an electron can be confined to the volume of a neutron.
The electron is not subject to the strong force, so it can not be made to "stick" to the proton. Electromagnetic associations of protons and electrons are known as "hydrogen atoms".
These arguments show that the electron and anti-neutrino could not have pre-existed as neutron constituents. The only explanation that makes sense is that the electron and the anti-neutrino were created during the decay event. Do you need more proof? I got more proof.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As for arguments relating to the magnetic moment, see SSM Wong (1998), "Magnetic Dipole Moment of the Baryon Octet", Introductory Nuclear Physics, § 2.8, pp. 48ff, ISBN 978-0471239734 (or any other intro to nuclear physics textbook, really).Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My 1.5 cents, I think the best—read: the only—way to handle cheese amateurs is not to engage in any technical argument whatsoever. Technical arguments always bounce. That cheese astronomer is a lot dumber than the amateur. Just politely point to wp:V, wp:secondary sources and wp:BURDEN when you refer to what they are supposed to do in article space, and to wp:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM for article talk pages. When they keep at it, ignore the talk page chat and issue user talk page warnings {{uw-chat1}} up to {{uw-chat4}}. - DVdm (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I doubt that doing this myself would be productive. A third party is needed, as far as warning and so on goes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have seen this discussion and I have to repeat what I have posted on neutron talk page: The discussion is not about wether or not neutron is made of quarks. A more cautious phrasing is needed and concerns the explanatory power of structure models formulated over the time since the prediction and discovery of the neutron.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone any objection to the above proposal of a more cautious wording?--193.231.19.53 (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The Rutherford model explains nothing because it is wrong. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

First party seems to somehow have got the message. - DVdm (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat related are related to Aabrucadubraa (talk · contribs), also a Santilli advocate. This time pushing for Magnecules and "IsoRedshift" (Santilli's take on the Hubble Law). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Commented here. There's another somewhat similar case with LCcritic's length contraction criticisms. - DVdm (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Weak_Decay_(flipped).svg ... featured pic?

I've been mulling over submitting this picture showing quark decays / CKM matrix coefficients for a featured picture. Does anyone here have any concern about it's accuracy / usefulness / anything? Note that we also have File:Quark weak interactions.svg which conveys similar information. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the diagram is a well thought out and informative illustration of the CKM matrix. I think it is superior to File:Quark weak interactions.svg because it shows the mass scale and the direction of the transitions. I like the plot, but if you are looking for possible criticism... Someone trying to make sense of this would need to know what u, d, s, ... W represented. Stylistically, the Most/Least likely annotations are too small to easily read, at least at the thumbnail size. There is space at the top of the plot to make those annotations a bit larger without crowding the central digraph. --Mark viking (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely about the legend and the text size, Mark. I'll be happy to make that change. I'll also be happy to add a legend, if you don't think it would make it too "busy". My only concern there would be that we don't necessarily want to define everything on the graph (MeV, c, e, etc). Not exactly sure where (if anywhere) such a line should be drawn. As an aside, thank you Headbomb for making that colour adjustment for me. I realised that I misunderstood your request after you made that tweak. It was a pleasure working with you on the illustration. Niamh (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A good caption is all-important for submitting a scientific illustration such as this to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Without a good caption, most of the regular denizens of that group would not know what to make of the illustration and would greet it with a stunned silence. Having successfully midwifed a couple of scientific illustration candidates through the Featured Picture process

and watched several favorites of mine emerge stillborn, I cannot overstress the need to make its importance evident to the layman. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Addressing articles' comprehensibility problems

Some articles have comprehensibility problems. For a non-expert it's difficult - sometimes impossible - to tell which is the current status of the research/concept or to which theory does the concept belong. To clarify what I mean, I will give two examples.

Supersymmetry is a long article. Huge. It is however not obvious how does SUSY apply to SM, to string theory and more important what was the motivation for introducing the concept. Some references in current status are as old as 2009 and by no means can someone properly understand how the theory is impacted by the results (negative that is) from CERN or LUX. There is a good strong motivation for introducing this extension and at the same time SUSY's feathers are ruffled; both things should stand out on the page.

Tachyons are related to SUSY and yet there is no indication in the article. Moreover, the references point them out to be synonym with inconsistency in the theory, without stating which theory (I found it to be - for example - bosonic string d=26 and not - for example - relativity, how someone less informed may be inclined to believe). And no, it's not obvious nor self-explanatory. One can say that tachyons are not an important concept, but I will argue that an ill-understood idea tends to become important.

The point here is Wikipedia is supposed to be useful for the keeping the general public informed, not confused. And the effort for fixing this cannot be taken by a single editor (I, for one, am in). Who else would be interested in such a task? Can you think of ways to improve this situation? What we can do would be to methodically revise the introductions of these articles and add tags like 'belongs to standard model and string theory'. Also state why is the concept important, what problem does it fix, with which theory does it conflict and how, as these are the most important barebone characteristics. Such an introduction would provide coordinates to map the concept over the existing knowledge. I also think it may be suitable to make the 'current status' more visible by - for example - moving it to the beginning of the article. Looking for your thoughts. (I address this here because the quality control talk page is last dated Jan 2013 and no-on ever replied to that statement) (talk) Alma 20:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that Alma's concerns are justified. The disorganization and confusion results results from the writing of many different editors, often with bees in their bonnets who may reluctant to accept changes to their work. I wish him the best in his attempts to improve the situation. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC).

Excimer lamp

Can somebody clear this sentence up and add it to the article? An excimer lamp (or excilamp) is a source of ultraviolet light producing by spontaneous emission of excimer (exciplex) molecules. Robert (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Bell's Theorem

The article on Bell's Theorem has been an enormous mess for a long time. I just started doing some cleaning up but a major rewrite is needed. Maybe it is a good time to do this? The usual controversies are somewhat abated at the moment. It needs a concerted effort by a lot of reasonably well-informed people, who are not in the first place motivated by a particular (minority?) point of view on the topic. Richard Gill (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What flaw(s) do you see as requiring a complete rewrite of the article? --Mark viking (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I noticed that ref #2 returns a missing page. Since you are already on the subject, here is a new link that works http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/ph135b/Bell-inequalities_v2_r.pdf . Hope this helps! Alma (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Actually maybe I can revise the references and point them to online sources (as many of them are offline sources right now) so you won't waste time with that. What do you think? Alma (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Aeronautics"

Willard Gibbs FAC

Hi. I could use some help with the current FA nomination of the article on Josiah Willard Gibbs. Please take a look and comment as you see fit. Also, some time ago I mentioned here that I think Gibbs should be re-assessed as of Top importance in both chemistry (he's the father of physical chemistry) and physics (he's one of the three founders of statistical mechanics), and of high importance in math (he created vector calculus and pioneered convex analysis). I got no response back then, but I see no harm in bringing this up again. - Eb.hoop (talk)

I certainly support Top Importance. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC).