Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics Main / Talk	Members	Quality Control (talk)	Welcome

‹See TfM›

Fringe theory?

Please examine the edits of Gordonben (talk · contribs). They add a new theory of dark matter based on a single publication in a journal with no impact factor (yet), which is why my reverts. However, the user reverts back, and thus a check by another editor is required. Materialscientist (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

They're adding this link to quite a few articles, as far as I can see. I've put a non-templated warning on their talk page about link-spamming and edit-warring, and attempted to explain to them that if an addition of theirs is removed, they should start a talk page thread rather than re-adding it themselves. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Expert attention for Micro-channel plate article?

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't really know what I'm doing yet, so was hoping for a bit of guidance on this issue.

I saw the Microchannel plate detector article was requesting expert attention, so I thought I might put my hand up for that. Is there anything I'm meant to do to clarify that I am an expert? Or enough of an expert?

I work with this equipment regularly, so I have some familiarity with them. I also have (hard-copy) manuals available at my disposal, which contain a lot of good information. These are probably not readily available to other people though. Is there some sort of rule to say a reference must be sufficiently readily available to others that they are able to check its validity or something?

Also, what exactly is required for the article? 'Expert attention required' is a bit vague. Are there any particular areas that should be focused on? Any specific issues that need to be addressed?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

129.96.220.171 (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look, and I'm not sure why the template is there either. The article's talk page (under the "discussion" tab) might contain comments, but check timestamps to make sure that the comments in question are about a recent version of the article.

As far as I can tell, the article is fundamentally sound, but could perhaps use a figure or two (for chevron and z-profile channel stacks, and maybe in the section at the top describing the cascade process in the first place). It's also not a bad idea to read through it in its entirety to see if anything inaccurate got put in that hasn't been corrected (a good thing to do with pretty much all articles, actually).

Good to hear that you're interested in helping! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Problematic edit at inflation (cosmology)

If somebody has time and energy, could they have a look at this series of edits. It adds some stuff that should be covered in the article, namely that inflation has been the subject of criticism by some theoretical heavy weights such as Penrose. It however does so in a very POV and argumentative way. I considered reverting, but I think it would be best if the new section is editted to convey the same information in a more neutral tone, including some of the counter arguments, etc. I do not really have time to dive into this now, so hopefully somebodyelse has.TR 12:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Another article that seems to be based only on work by Fedosin

I think this article Gravitational induction seems to have many of the same issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strong_gravitational_constant_(2nd_nomination) , but in any case it would benefit from having someone who knows more about physics than I do take a look. betsythedevine (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Vetting needed at Special relativity.

An anon has made extensive copy-edits to the equations at Special relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At a glance, it looks like they're just changing it from one valid form of them to another, but if anyone has the time to vet this thoroughly, that's probably a good idea. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There were some minor changes to the actual equations themselves but these seem legitimate based on a quick going over; mostly adding beta notation, understandable as it's used later in the article, and being accurate about conditions. On the actual like-for-like change in math formatting i don't don't know what is the prefered form. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked the IP to explain his 13 edits on the talk page. If there is no problem the edits can be restored. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, I just hope you're not "biting the newcomers", i.e. making new editors feel unwelcome. When a (possibly) new editor does some time-consuming and good-faith and reasonably-on-the-mark edits, you should undo them only if you're 100% sure they make the article noticeably worse. Not just because you're less than 100% sure that they make the article better. Reversions are usually taken as mean-spirited, even when you say it's not. And don't forget to leave a user-page message, not everyone knows how to find the edit summaries. Just my opinion! :-) --Steve (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to bite anybody. If edits as substantial as these are made (particularly by anons) is is customary to expect an explanation for them. If that is fine then the edits can be restored. Let us not rate style over substance. Further, the anon is scarcely a newbie, having edited since January 2008. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC).

IP can be shared; in any event, I'd have given more substantial reason to revert than “Please justify your edits” or, lacking one, asked for explanation before reverting. (In this case, MOS:MATH#Choice of type style applies.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 13:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have done a preliminary check of the changes. The annonymous editor made two sets of changes:

• He added alternate formulations of "sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" showing them as "sqrt(1-β)".
• He rewrote dx/dt as dx/dt, presumably implying that "d" is a differential operator rather than a variable - a mute point since it has been argued (by amongst others, Heaviside) that the operator is "d/dt".

I am marginally in favour of letting the revert stand, but like other editors, am unhappy because of the way it was done.Martinvl (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Article - Metric System

I have added the article Metric system to the Physics workgroup portal - I would like feedback as to whether this article is suitable for such an inclusion - I know that the article International System of Units is included - the article Metric system examines the underlying rationale of both the SI and cgs systems in parellel. If this article is appropriate, would someone please assess it?

Comments? Martinvl (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessed.TR 15:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge of "C parity" and "C-symmetry" pages + addition of content

There should be one page for these two. C-symmetry should be added to the C parity page, as it is a symmetry related to the application of the charge conjugation operator, defined on the C parity page.

Furthermore, a development of the definition of the charge conjugation operator would be be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceoftrades (talk • contribs) 06:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that it would be better to do the merger the other way — add "C parity" to "C-symmetry". "C parity" is a confusing name because it makes me think of CP rather than C. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Help needed on talk:superbradyon

There's an edit war going on for superbradyon. Currently, it looks like meat/sockpuppets of Mr. Gonzales are trying to keep the article from being redirected to his article. I think a suitable end would be to redirect it to the target that was selected in the AFD three years ago, Lorentz covariance#Lorentz violation, but someone with a knowledge of particle physics would need to do so, if there's any merit to the merge (anyway). --Izno (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Superbradyon

Someone has sent Superbradyon to AfD for deletion. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There's also an AN/I thread about this. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Call for UK volunteers for training workshop

Wikimedia UK is co-operating with the Institute of Physics to involve IoP members in improving Wikipedia's physics coverage. As part of this, there will be a training workshop along the lines of the Cancer Research UK workshop that was run earlier this year by Mike Peel. The IoP workshop will take place in London, on a date to be confirmed but around the start of September. We are looking for experienced Wikipedia editors to help out, whether by taking attendees through training materials, helping newcomers one-to-one, or providing on-wiki help. Wikimedia will be able to pay reasonable travel expenses and provide lunch on the day for volunteers. If you're not within reach of London, I'm still interested to hear from you because we hope to run similar workshops elsewhere in the UK, with the IoP or other scholarly bodies. Please email infobomb@gmail.com , telling me your UK location and what help you can provide. It would be great to have some of this wikiproject's participants involved in a project which brings in more expert editors. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Vetting needed on "stellar core collapse" draft article

I am writing a fairly substantial article on stellar core collapse. Because of the scope of this topic, its technical nature in parts, and its connections to numerous fields (physics, astronomy, cosmology) I would like to ask in advance for any users prepared to review it for accuracy, omissions, and "latest research findings" before I move it to mainspace. Of particular interest to this Wikiproject, it contains considerable detail on quantum interactions, particle production/annihilation, nucleosynthesis processes, and core collapse models including collapse to degenerate matter, neutrino activity and the like.

Would anyone interested or knowledgeable please let me know on my talk page. Estimated timeline - not less than 3 weeks and maybe more as I have a lot left to do before I would feel I've done "all I can".

Thanks for any help you can offer!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup list is stale

Very many of the articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Cleanup listing as needing wikification, have in fact already been wikified. Can some friendly bot regenerate this listing and bring it up to date? It's now 15 months old. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Orphadeus

FYI, there is a notice at WT:AST about Orphadeus (talk · contribs) and an edit/revert war going on. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Luis González-Mestres

Could someone with knowledge on the subject (particle physics) take a look at this BLP article and try to sort it out? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Need help at Talk:Center of gravity

I'm discussing this new article with a new editor, and I don't think I'm getting through to them. Can someone else please chime in? Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

ping Melchoir (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still on semi-sabbatical due to editing fatigue and RL concerns, sorry. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please be more specific, so we do not have to read the entire talk page and revision history of the article to figure out what the dispute is about! JRSpriggs (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's morphed a bit over the past couple days, but basically, one user (GenKnowitall) is advocating a particular formulation of a center of gravity concept, namely the center of gravity of an extended body relative to a given point. This is a center from which the body's gravitational field, measured at the given point, is given by a 1/r^2 law. It is mostly referred to as Symon's definition in the talk page.

I (Melchoir) have been arguing that other authors' definitions conflict with Symon's definition. In particular, it is more common to define a center of gravity relative to an external gravitational field. In Feynman's formulation, this is a center from which the total gravitational torque on the body due to the external field is zero. There are also other, inequivalent formulations of a center of gravity of a body in a field. The most notable is a weighted-average definition.

I provided citations for the various treatments in the article, culminating in this version. GenKnowitall reverted my changes to this version, which contains only the Symon definition, on the grounds that I hadn't proposed the changes on the talk page first. Netheril96, Martinvl, and Parejkoj have weighed in on the talk page. Within the last hour, Sbyrnes321 has reverted back to my version.

There's an underlying question of the extent to which these generalized centers of gravity are useful concepts, and I think disagreements on that point are fueling the fire. Melchoir (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would help if you could provide formulas for the other definitions, similar to that for the Symon definition. I think that would make them look more legitimate, especially since some of the wording is not exactly crystal clear. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! I'll probably be able to do that later today. Melchoir (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Improved measurement of the shape of the electron

Hopefully this is of interest. There is an overview (magazine coverage) here and the actual research article is here. Unfortunately I have not been able to find a free (self-published?) version of the research. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think "Nature" has a better layman's explanation of this latest measurement here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

See Electron electric dipole moment. Someone has already updated it with the new upper bound. --Steve (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What does this mean? I was under the impression that the electron was a point particle or perhaps a loop of superstring so small that it is experimentally indistinguishable from a point. So how can it have a shape? How can one talk about blowing it up to the size of the solar system, if it has no diameter?

What would it mean for it to have an electric dipole? That the point where the electric charge is located is not the same as the point where the mass is located? I could see it having an electric quadrupole. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is believed to be a point particle, which means it shouldn't have an electric dipole moment. At a glance, this seems to be yet another experiment confirming that to greater precision (placing a smaller upper bound on its dipole moment). I'm not quite sure how nonzero values are generated in the variant models mentioned at electron electric dipole moment. The news, such as it is, seems to be that a few of these alternate models are excluded by the new results (or at least would have to be modified to predict a smaller electric dipole moment). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Standard Model predicts a electric dipole moment (albeit very small), parallel to the spin (or maybe antiparallel). We all know that a point particle can have a magnetic dipole moment (see electron magnetic dipole moment), why is it so surprising that a point particle can have an electric dipole moment too?

The "shape of an electron" is a ridiculous way to describe this IMO, the authors or editors just wanted to make it sound less technical. :-) --Steve (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, then. I'd known about magnetic dipole moment (charge and intrinsic angular momentum will do that); thanks for the pointer about the electric moment.

It might be worth editing the electron electric dipole moment article to make it clear that a nonzero value is expected. As-is, it gives an upper bound, with the implication (to me, anyways) that a value of zero would be consistent with the model. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK I did. :-) --Steve (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Pauli's Exclusionary Principle

If one searches for Exclusionary Principle one gets pages of law articles. Even on the Pauli page there's nothing that's easy to find. It is, however, an expression that people run into without having sufficient background to place it. Could someone create a search path to some existing page or create one? <I don't know enough to DIY.> THANKS 99.11.160.111 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's usually called the exclusion principle, without the -ary. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Electromagnetic momentum and angular momentum

I searched but didn't find articles on the density and flux of electromagnetic momentum and angular momentum. Do those article exist?--Netheril96 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Maxwell stress tensor includes electromagnetic momentum density. Poynting vector also mentions it in the section Poynting vector#Poynting vector and radiation pressure. Not sure about the other things. :-) --Steve (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In the Electromagnetic stress-energy tensor, the spatial-spatial components (i.e. the Maxwell stress tensor) are the flux (movement) of linear momentum. The spatial-temporal (or temporal-spatial) components (i.e. the Poynting vector) are the density of linear momentum or, equivalently, the flux of energy. The temporal-temporal component is the density of energy. (You may have to multiply by a power of c to get the units right in these equivalences.)

For i component of the angular momentum, use

$\varepsilon _{ijk}x^{j}T^{k\nu }\,$

where T is the stress-energy tensor, x is the position vector, and $\varepsilon _{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That isn't in the current article. Besides, electromagnetic angular momentum still deserves a separate article, just like electric field and magnetic field have their own article even they are just components of a common field tensor.

And I'm not here to ask questions about electromagnetism. I'm here to find out whether new article needs writing.--Netheril96 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What names will you use for the articles which you are proposing to write? Some may deserve full articles and some may merely be made into redirects to existing articles. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Angular momentum of electromagnetic field.--Netheril96 (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

More eyes/opinions needed at Big Bang

There is an ongoing revert-war at Big Bang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), regarding whether or not one of the originators of the model should be called a "priest" in the lede. Discussion is at Talk:Big Bang#Lemaitre's position. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Anon contributions need vetting

195.245.149.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently made a series of edits to several cosmology articles, mostly concerning heat death and related concepts. It's hard for me to tell whether the edits are legitimate or not; if someone with expertise could look them over, that would be handy. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Quantum information

If anyone is interested, Holevo's theorem could use work. I've heard it called Nayak's bound based on his strengthening of the theorem (weakening its conditions), but I'm not confident enough in my knowledge to edit the article, other than to add a comment with the reference.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Change to Portal page?

I have posted the following viewpoints about what I see as a bias in the first paragraph, which excludes an alternative view of the universe. I note that that talk page is seldom visited, and thus re-post here; hoping to find out if these views find a receptive response. QUOTE The first paragraph seems to me as being totally oriented to presenting an atomistic Newtonian single (external to the universe) observer frame of reference, which assumes the existence of universal laws, the interchangeability of particles of the same category, and independence of all particles. This is in strong contrast to the Liebnizian view of a relational universe characterized by entanglement; and where all movement and position is relative to other objects, not to a fixed and eternal frame. This is obviously in need of a broader approach, as it encourages this view which has existed since Newton. although it has been moved in the other direction by Einstein, in for example the EPR theory which has been proven correct, and by John Bell's work.

Lee Smolin makes an interesting presentation of both views in his "Life of the Cosmos" I refer those interested to it, as my own knowledge is insufficient to discuss it meaningfully on an expert level. UNQUOTE This is NOT a philosophical question only, although presently an intractable one. Idealist707 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The text in Portal:Physics is based on (copied from an older version of?) the lead of Physics. I kind-of prefer the current version of the latter. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 21:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the first three paragraphs of the text in the portal is copied from the lead of the Physics article. (Here is the diff [1].) The fourth paragarph is copied from the section entitled Philosophical implications of the Physics article. (Here is the diff [2].) Also, I notice there is not much difference between the opening lines of the Portal version and the current Physics version. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Tired light

Please help out at tired light. An editor who wrote a monograph for Physics Essays (a fringe journal of pretty low reputation) keeps trying to insert his work and the work of his friends into that article. He doesn't really have a leg to stand on, so if you all would help get rid of this kind of spam, I'd appreciate it. Also, he's acting pretty ridiculous on the talk page of that article.

140.252.83.241 (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)