Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive February 2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gyroscopic Motion Machine

Gyroscopic Motion Machine is back. I prodded it in November (Discussion here), but the user recreated the article by moving a sandbox copy back into mainspace.--Srleffler (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I see that David Eppstein has already tagged it as fringe. I'd be fine with a speedy deletion. I guess WP:G4 doesn't actually apply because the previous deletion was by prod instead of A Full Debate, but WP:G11 probably does. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't it fall under WP:PATENT? Tercer (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
In two senses of the word! :-) XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the best fit is WP:A11, though. Tercer (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I've nominated it for speedy deletion per WP:A11. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not an A11 (levitation is obviously earth-shattering (or rather not)).
This shouldn't be speedied, it should go through AfD. Otherwise it'll just come back. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
There's no credible claim of significance. And we might as well delete it quickly to avoid wasting the community's time and salt it against recreation. XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Salt without AfD? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No idea, I haven't read it in enough detail yet. But devices like the Kidd engine are not. They're misunderstandings of how gyroscopes operate, but they do work (within some limits) as they claim to. If this is a similar device, that would be reason to keep it - subject to the basic 3rd party notice standards of GNG. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's quite a horrible article.
As to notability, what's the overlap between this and a Dean drive or Sandy Kidd device? Both of those are clearly notable (and arguments as to their viability are not any sort of reason to delete). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Physics (1964–1968)

I spent my lunch break dithering over which course of action would be the most clarifying here; maybe somebody else can see what's best. From 1964 through 1968, the American Physical Society published a journal that was officially known as Physics. The intent was to print papers of interest across all the subfields. Only four volumes, containing fewer than 100 articles in total, were published; the journal is probably best known for being the home of Bell's theorem. And in providing citations to Bell's paper, a pesky little issue came up. Internally, the articles all say the name of the journal is just Physics, but the covers of the printed issues gave the title in a stylized way, as Physics Physique физика. Presumably in consequence, the journal is sometimes catalogued and referenced as Physics, Physique, Fizika (for example, in WorldCat). A couple years ago, the APS scanned all the issues and put them online (free to read!), retitling the journal Physics Physique физика. Doubtless this was done to avoid a collision with Physics, the website (2008–) that runs summaries and editorials about highlighted research.

How should we refer to this journal, and where should it be described? Currently, Physics Physique физика is a redirect to Physical Review, where the journal is briefly described. Is there precedent for how best to handle citations to journals whose names have changed — do we use the name at the time the cited article was published, the current name, or both? I've argued with myself about what option would be least confusing, but to little effect. XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are you saying that it was published by the APS? In the copyright notice it says "Physics Publishing Co.". I assume the APS acquired the old issues.
As for the matter at hand, I see four options, none of them entirely satisfactory:
  • Give the reference as "Bell, J. S. (1964). "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox". Physics Physique физика. 1 (3): 195–200. doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195.". A bit misleading, as it seems as if the journal was always called Physics Physique физика, but those who are confused can just click the link and read the little story.
  • Give the reference as "Bell, J. S. (1964). "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox". Physics. 1 (3): 195–200. doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195.". Now the journal name appears as expected, but it is rather confusing as the link goes to Physics Physique физика and the reader gets redirected to Physical Review. Perhaps the reader will think it is a mistake (also the journal name conflicts with the name appearing in the DOI).
  • Give the reference as "Bell, J. S. (1964). "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox". Physics. 1 (3): 195–200. doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195.". Now the reader will not think it is a mistake, but the other problems remain.
  • Give the reference as "Bell, J. S. (1964). "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox". Physics. 1 (3): 195–200., republished as Bell, J. S. (1964). "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox". Physics Physique физика. 1 (3): 195–200. doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195." Makes everything clear, but is unwieldy.
My preference would be the first one. Tercer (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I think I prefer the last, by a narrow margin. (Writing that the APS was the original publisher was just a brain fail on my part. It looks like the journal started with Pergamon Press and moved to the Physics Publishing Co. with the second issue.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
We should always cite the journal with the name it had on the cover at the time. If Physics (journal) is ambiguous, then we need new disambiguators, like Physics (Pergamon Press journal) and Physics (Physics Publishing Co. journal). I've never seen the cover of the journal, but I'm pretty sure in English it was plainly Physics. It wouldn't be terribly wrong to write Physics Physique Fizika (in either Latin or Cyrillic), but I believe those were simple the names of the French/Russian editions. I could be wrong there. However, if you have seen the cover, then use that name since that's the actual title of the journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
They didn't have separate editions for different languages; they just accepted papers in English, French and Russian. XOR'easter (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Somewhat to my surprise, I found enough material on the journal that I think it warrants an article — not a long one, but an article. XOR'easter (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Very well. I think the second option became the optimal one then. Tercer (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb, if you open any of the linked articles, you'll see that the journal cites itself as just "Physics", so this is its real name. I couldn't find a scan of the cover online. I suppose I could check it out at my university's library, but I'm not that interested. Tercer (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
On a second thought, it would be nice to have a photo of the cover in Physics Physique физика. Does anybody know whether it would be a copyright violation to post it there, if I scanned the cover myself? Tercer (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tercer: it would be allowed under fair use, if we had an article on it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
We do have an article on it, XOR'easter just created one. I'll get it from the library and scan it then. Tercer (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganise articles related to metric units and the SI system

A group of editors working at Litre has identified the following closely related articles.

We feel there is too much duplication in these 5 articles. We also see a need for a new article Metric units. That new article could usefully include summaries of

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Support

  • I support the proposed changes. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

History of the metric system is a good article (and also WP:GOOD), it shouldn't be deleted. Merging it together with Metric system would make the resulting article too big. Outline of the metric system plays well its role as an outline, we definitely shouldn't remain without an outline of the gigantic metric system. I think there's a case for merging Introduction to the metric system together with Metric system, and rewriting the resulting article to emphasize the metric system in general, instead of the SI specifically as it currently does. That is just duplicating material from International System of Units.

As for Metric units, I think the article you need is just Metric system rewritten as above. Tercer (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Not much more than a bump, but perhaps this discussion can be continued. I agree that adding a new article into the mess isn't the solution. I've been prompted here by the expansion of the redirect metric units into a rival article to this one. We already have something that sounds like a comprehensive article about the metric system but fails to live up to the name. Unless someone comes up with a good reason why this article has to be restricted to SI units, the approach of editing it to cover the whole metric system seems to me to be best. We can discuss a name later if that is though necessary. Lithopsian (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The name is important because it implies a certain scope. It cannot be left to the end. It would help if the scope were Metric systems instead if Metric system because there are many such systems, but there are many metric units that are outside any one metric system. Where would they go? I favour an article with scope Metric units. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think there is more than enough material – too much to include in an article on the metric system. Of course, it should be summarized in the main article. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tercer: Metric system does not even come close to describing the concept of metric units. For example, it does not mention basic metric units in widespread use like the litre and hectare, or any CGS units. Instead it focuses almost exclusively on the SI. It should be deleted and its contents merged with International System of Units. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Metric system does mention both litre and hectare. But you're right, it focusses to much on the SI, and it should focus on the metric system more generally, since we already have an article about the SI. Note that both History of the metric system and Outline of the metric system are more generally about the metric system, and Metric system should be consistent with that. I'm afraid this discussion is merely about whether the article should be called "Metric system" or "Metric units". Tercer (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
We seem to agree that the problem with Metric system is that it mainly duplicates what is already in International System of Quantities. I support Tercer's proposal to rewrite Metric system to remove that duplication and replacing with a description of metric units. Having done so I suggest renaming to Metric units. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Length, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Merger proposal for effective permittivity and permeability article

Hello, there is a discussion for merging effective permittivity and permeability to effective medium approximations. Best regards, Myxomatosis57 (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That's quite useful, thanks. As for expanding coverage, you should also add the predatory journals Scientific Reports, Royal Society Open Science, and Open Physics. Tercer (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Those are not predatory journals by any stretch of the imagination. Low-quality, sure, maybe. Maybe they need some additional warning, but they're not OMICS-levels of bad. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Scientific Reports and Open Science do have some serious papers, that's true, but so much garbage that they should trigger a warning. Open Physics, on the other hand, is purely predatory. Tercer (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Bring it to WP:RSN and if people agree with you, I'll implement those. I'd also don't know of anyone that considers Open Physics, by de Gruyter, predatory. Are you sure you're not mixing it with Open Physics Journal, by Bentham Open? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems that the purpose of that board is to evaluate sources that are being used in Wikipedia. Since this is not the case for the journals I cited, I'm afraid it would be a waste of everyone's time. As for Open Physics, yes I'm sure it is the de Gruyter one. I became aware of it because it a Bell-denier paper from it was being cited in the EPR paradox article. The citation was removed in a recent edit, so it's not an issue anymore. Tercer (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
One bad paper does not a predatory journal make. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Are two enough? Maybe three? This journal is a Bell-denier paradise. Tercer (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that those papers are particularly egregious, rather than simply part of the debate on Bell-experiments. Bell-stuff is usually a few levels beyond me, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm an expert on the Bell-stuff, I have published several papers about it. These papers are not part of the debate, they are egregiously wrong. Tercer (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If I may ask a stupid question, what makes a journal "predatory"? Is it just the degree of incompetence of the editing? Or are they intentionally exploiting the desire of crank (person)s to get published? Or what? JRSpriggs (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A predatory journal is one that is only interested in receiving money (in the form of Article Processing Charges), not in publishing legitimate research. Their peer-review is only for the sake of appearances, as they really don't want to reject a paper the author is willing to pay to get published. From the outside it is hard to know how the peer-review is done, so we deduce it from the quality of the papers they publish. If a journal consistently publishes garbage, we can infer it is predatory. Look at this paper, for example. Even for a non-expert it should be clear that it is nonsense. Tercer (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
"What If Quantum Theory Violates All Mathematics?" :D --mfb (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah there's some problems there. Not sure if it's just Bell-stuff related where the editor is friendly to that, or if there's a wider problem. The main issue I have is no one (see WP:RS) seems to have commented on Open Physics issues. Because it's a got a decent IF, is indexed in all the databases you'd expect it to be, De Gruyter is reputable, as was the journal under its old name Central European Journal of Physics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the reason nobody complained about it is because the journal is so unknown. I searched Wikipedia for occurrences of "Open Physics", and found only three results that are not about the journal itself: one from the time it was the Central European Journal of Physics, before it went down the drain, one comment in a talk page about removing a reference to a crackpot paper in Open Physics, and one very suspicious reference in the Maxwell's equations article. Tercer (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd be fine with snipping that reference from the Maxwell's equations page. At best, it's redundant. XOR'easter (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:JCW/O9 says it's cited twice (as Open Physics), once on Mass generation the other on Maxwell's equations. CEJP is cited more often. You'll find those in WP:JCW/Publisher6#Walter de Gruyter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Now it's zero. I corrected the reference in Mass generation and removed the one in Maxwell's equations. Tercer (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Scale relativity

The article Scale relativity is pretty amazingly bad. It is entirely an advertisement for a fringe theory that barely anyone has even paid attention to as such. The explanations of actual science are terrible, most of the references are to the inventor himself, the claims of what it explains are impossibly wide-ranging and grandiose, and the few criticisms aren't even reported properly. I'd suggest burning it to the ground, but it survived AfD in 2008 after what strikes me as a very superficial discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing to prevent a 2nd AfD. Just use the old AfD template in the interest of transparency. Lithopsian (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Update: the article's main creator has reverted the stubbification of the page and been reverted in turn. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_February_2020&oldid=946099111"