Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Archives
Antiquity – Sep 2005 Oct 2005 – Oct 2005 Nov 2005 – Dec 2005 Jan 2006 – Feb 2006 Feb 2006 – Apr 2006 Apr 2006 – May 2006

Physics AfDs

Some Physicsprof (talk · contribs) has nominated Spherical model and Rodney J. Baxter for deletion. As the author, I would be biased, but I definitely think they are notable enough. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support User:HappyCamper's handling of this; he closed the AfD's. It appears that Physicsprof (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a single-purpose account created for those AfD's; I am considering whether it ought to be blocked as (almsot certainly) misleading. -- SCZenz 08:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably a twin of single-purpose account User:Mathguru. Note the similarity in names. Next we may see Chemwizard or Astropundit. --Lambiam^Talk 15:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. I missed that, but concur since of course Baxter of Yang-Baxter fame is highly notable! ---CH 03:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Plasma Universe questions

Discussion regarding a relatively new article, Plasma Universe, is underway on various related talkpages. In particular, on Talk:Astrophysical plasma and Talk:Plasma cosmology there has been discussion of merging the new article with these points. Please add your comments and possible remedies. --ScienceApologist 16:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tired Light problems again

There is an edit war continuing to simmer over at Tired light. User:Harald88 seems to think that Paul Marmet's work qualifies for inclusion. I do not. We need some other people to help us determine a resolution. --ScienceApologist 18:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There are other people in that article whose notability is not obvious. I've tried to start a discussion on the talk page. -- SCZenz 19:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul Marmet's articles are peer-reviewed, and have been decided by referees more knowledgable than us, to be worthy of publication. The object of Wiki is to represent human knowledge[1] irrespective of what editors think about a particular theory. I have no idea whether Marmet is right of wrong, but writing about his work neutrally is trivial. --Iantresman 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Core articles

Some wikiprojects (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals) seem to very systematically identify their most important topics and work to improve those articles. Would anyone here be interested in an initiative like that? -- SCZenz 21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea... that way we update pages that everyone agrees are important, not just the ones that get special attention. -- 0SpinBoson 19:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Key articles. If people can go in and add articles they think fit the definition of key articles (basically, that they're important within the field of physics), that would be a good start. Then we can start to think about what needs attention. -- SCZenz 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Added some new topic & a few comments. --0SpinBoson 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Field shapes?

I have no idea what is should be called, but I'm interested in an article that would describes and compares such terms as:

• axial, azimuthal, poloidal, radial, toroidal

For examples, the shape of an axial magnetic field, azimuthal magnetic field, poloidal magnetic field, radial magnetic field, toroidal magnetic field, etc. --Iantresman 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Several of these (axial, radial, and arguably azimuthal and toroidal) just refer to specific symmetries in cylindrical coordinate systems and spherical coordinate systems. Poloidal fields are ordinary magnetic dipole fields. --Christopher Thomas 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, are there others? --Iantresman 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that I can think of offhand, but there are related terms describing certain types of device, which can also be used to refer to the field configurations used in the devices. Ones I can think of offhand are tokamak, spheromak, z-pinch, the reversed field pinch variants of some of the above, and I seem to recall references to a "theta pinch" device, though that may just have been a Z pinch; it was a while back). I'm not including the term "stellarator" in the list above because that seems to refer exclusively to the type of device, not the field configuration, though arguably that's true to some degree of all of these. I think the best place to put a description of field configurations would be as a subsection in the magnetic confinement fusion article, rather than their own article. --Christopher Thomas 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How about a subection in magnetic fields, with examples from the bar magnets, the Earth, lightning bolts, etc?

I missed this, but actually, the terms "axial, azimuthal, poloidal, radial, toroidal" can all be taken as referring to different types of symmetry, as in decompositions of vector fields into poloidal part, etc., or in various types of multipole moments, which as Ian says can be regarded as providing (among other useful things) descriptions of shapes. For example, one can describe the geoid as an equipotential of a suitable scalar.---CH 03:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to QM peer review

Perhaps of interest... A peer review of Introduction to quantum mechanics has started here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Introduction to quantum mechanics. -- SCZenz 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

I've been working my way through the list of Dead-end pages (pages that don't link anywhere) and I came across Digital magnetofluidics. The original article contained the sentence The consequent dipolar interactions among the particles form chain-like clusters, which follow the magnetic field lines and aggregate further to form long clusters and I've changed dipolar to bipolar as I've never heard of dipolar and in any case I think that they're synonymous. Could someone just confirm this for me? Additionally does anyone have any ideas where I should link bipolar to as at the moment the disambiguation page makes no mention of bipolar in this context? Thanks RicDod 17:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dipolar" is probably closer to being correct, but "dipole" is what should have been written. It refers to magnetic dipole field configurations. --Christopher Thomas 02:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. RicDod 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainty principle

Is this indeed, as this new article claims, "more fundamental and general than the uncertainty principle" for which "many attempts were made to formulate it mathematically, but they were not successful"? --Lambiam^Talk 01:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This looks like the work of one researcher, from what I can see from the article. No idea if it's notable, much less correct. I've stuck an "expert attention" tag on it to get it to show up on the PNA list. --Christopher Thomas 02:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This article certainly needs carefull consideration. I draw you attention to several points.

1. This article did exist and was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certainty Principle.
2. User:Rcq created two awards to praise the author of the original "Certainty Principle" article, and, in affect, criticise those who were involved in the deletion process, even when they did not actually vote for its deletion. See Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Certain and Uncertain Elephants and User talk:Rcq. Note particularly that he states on his talk page: "I think that in the re-creation/deletion conflict I am stronger than the WP community". That is with specific reference to this article.
3. This article was created by User:Hryun and modified by an anon editor from 195.177.120.40. I note that both the anon IP address and user Hryun have both only edited this article and related stuff - Hryun's user page and reference to the certainty principle on Uncertainty principle. I think someone with checkuser privileges should check whether Hryun is a sockpuppet of Rcq.
4. I note that the article now does give a reference to two papers in a Russian journal that Rcq mentioned on his talk page but never properly cited. However, It is so obscure that I do not know how to start looking for it.

• If this article is important then the originator, Arbatsky, has gone about things in a very odd way with the results of his work only published as self-publishing or in an obscure journal.
• If the work is not important or even wrong, then it should be speedy deleted by an admin as it is creating an article that was deleted after a AfD discussion.
• I would like to read the original article but I can not read the pdf files mentioned. However, after argueing with Rcq about his elephant awards I am rather exhausted by this process and here in the Physics community is the best place for this to be sorted out. --Bduke 02:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This has also been edited into Uncertainty principle. Googling "Certainty principle" Arbatsky returns 115 hits, many of them wikipedia clones. Not impressive for something "more fundamental then the uncertainty principle". Zarniwoot 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If this article has already been deleted, then the present version can be speedied as a recreation of deleted content. I'm hesitant to do this without first checking with most of the lurkers here, though, to see if the researcher cited has been vocal enough to merit mention (albeit likely with an appropriate heavy disclaimer on the article). As for sock checking, it can be requested at WP:RCU, but my reading of WP:SOCK suggests that there isn't currently grounds for it (no vandalism or vote-stacking being done). Disclaimer: I'm not an admin. --Christopher Thomas 04:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked around at this and concluded that a) this was a recreation of deleted material, and b) all of :the reasons for deletion are applicable still (non-notable, misrepresented subject). Since I am an admin, I will delete it now. -- SCZenz 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that one person may be using multiple accounts to add legitimacy to these additions. If that user also uses those accounts to violate 3RR, then a sock check might be in order. In the meantime, I'd ask everyone to keep an eye on Uncertainty principle to make sure that this rubbish isn't reintroduced. -- SCZenz 06:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems Arbatsky references have entered about 40 of our physics articles [2]. As he is essentially an unicted author [3], I suggest we just summarily rervert all references to Arbatsky in all articles. --Pjacobi 07:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Even if this were seriously peer-reviewed research, new research does not go in articles on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Fortunately, there are not so many physics articles on that google list as one might fear, and there is apparently more than one Arbatsky. -- SCZenz 07:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear friends, (1) the new article was not a re-creation of the old one, the content was very different, (2) I have seen a long discussion on the page User_talk:Rcq and found that, according to WP policy, there is no reason to wait for reinstatement of the article (the arguments of RCQ about reinstatement of the history are incorrect). So I created a new one. (3) All talks about whether Arbatsky and the journal are "well-known" or "not-well-known" are just demagogy and nothing more. (4) An opinion of a specialist is welcome. If somebody has objections about the certainty principle, on the purely scientific ground, you are welcome to discuss them. Hryun 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not "demogogy", it's a crucial part of our policies on not giving people with fringe theories a soapbox (a key part of our WP:NOR policy). Arbatsky can get a page on here for his theory once others accept it. Wikipedia is not a place to launch new investigations, which is what is pretty clear what is being attempted here. --Fastfission 15:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for scientific discussions of validity. We are doing inclusion decisions on purely formal grounds. --Pjacobi 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right, my friends. And I completely agree with you. But this topic was already discussed on the page User_talk:Rcq. Hryun 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't recreate the article until it has appeared in a scientific journal that we can find some information on—it's not an unreasonable request, since essentially all journals in physics have (at least) their abstracts on the internet. Until that happens, I think the reasons for the original deletion of the article remain valid, and so the article can be deleted as the recreation of deleted content. -- SCZenz 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Sorry, but I cannot agree with you. If an article has been published in a not-well-known journal, you cannot use this only fact against it. (2) I do not want to make more problems here than necessary. I am open for a civil discussion. (3) I do not want to waste time of administrators more than necessary. But please, do not ask me to agree with obscurants. If you cannot say anything more wise, we will have a battle here. Sorry. Hryun 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We're only asking for any verifiable information on the journal at all—can you provide that? As for your last sentence, please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you want to appeal the original deletion, please do so at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. -- SCZenz 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) I even can send an issue of the journal to you. But it is expensive... (2) I hope that "Wikipedia is not a battleground". This is why you must accept the article. (3) If you really care about the content, you can place some appropriate tag on the article (something about "neutrality" or "POV"). I will not remove it. (4) The original article was created not by me, but by User:Slicky. The content was very different. Hryun 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear friends, I am waiting... On my talk page I explained to ScienceApologist that you will not be able to block my access to WP. And in direct creation/deletion battle I will win. So, I ask you to suggest something more wise than you already have written above. Do not try to just ignore me. Thank you. Hryun 18:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your threats to override community consensus are just plain rude; I think you may somewhat overestimate your own cleverness, or underestimate Wikipedia's experience at dealing with trolls, but it really doesn't matter. Take it to Wikipedia:Deletion Review if you don't like what we're saying here—in all honesty, if you can give the details of the journal publication, you might have a case for further discussion of the article. -- SCZenz 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) I do not want to be rude, but I do not see any comunity consensus. I see only several people, who break WP policy in an attept to suppress article on the subject, in which they are incompetent. (2) What do you suggest me to write on the Deletion Review page? I do not have anything to add. Everything has been said, everything has been discussed. You deleted the article against WP policy. (3) As regards my cleverness. I know that the battle will be long and difficult. It is not something that can be solved in one day, and possibly in one month. The main result of the battle will be not reinstatement of the article, but your recognition that you break WP policy, not me. (4) But I do not want to go this way at all. I hope that you will pay a little more attention to the details of the situation, recognize that situation is unusual, and recognize that in this very specific situation you just are not right. (5) I also recommend you to ask some independent expert in the subject. With best wishes, Hryun 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of taking it to deletion review is that you'll get a new audience. Since there are just a few of us who are breaking Wikipedia policy, as you see it, then getting two dozen more people to look at it ought to help you. They'll correct us if they think we're wrong. -- SCZenz 00:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The only person trying to override consensus is yourself. Making idle threats about attempts to subvert policies is not a way to convince anyone; it is rather an almost sure-fire way to get yourself blocked on here. People have told you a few times what you should do if you want to get this article on here. If you don't or can't do either of those things, the article will not exist. I think people have been pretty patient with you, despite your arrogance and insults. --Fastfission 01:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncertainty principle has been edited to include this severel times. It is agaist consensus and it may be in violation of 3RR as well. Zarniwoot 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we've got a possible Arbatsky sockpuppet army to deal with here.--CSTAR 19:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to think if it's worth writing up a sock check (i.e. socks used to evade the 3RR) and/or reviewing the rules for when you can block obvious rule-evading socks on sight (probably almost never). I think it may be easiest just to revert any introduction of Arbatsky and the "Certainty Principle" without a proper citation on sight, as we have been doing. -- SCZenz 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is very easy to create a "do not recreate this page" notice and then protect it, if he tries to keep creating it. --Fastfission 19:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

All his edits are currently to Uncertainty principle, which I do not think unfortunately that we can get away with deleting. ;) -- SCZenz 19:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. No problem there; we can just block them on sight, and semi-protect the article if need be. I'm fairly certain that nobody will mind if we block obvious rule-evading socks on sight; it happens all the time. --Fastfission 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to introduce in the official WP policy a rule that everything that mentions "Arbatsky" or "Certainty principle" is forbidden. That will solve the problem. The best remedy against headache is guillotine. Hryun 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Such a policy exists. See Wikipedia:No original research. -- SCZenz 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? And it prescribes to remove all links to Arbatsky's site? Sorry, I did not know that. Hryun 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a list of the puppets? [4] ? -lethe ^{talk +} 15:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:SCZenz/Arbatsky notes is where I'm keeping stuff. Earlier puppets are all indef blocked as far as I know, see Theresa knott's blocks and mine. I'd been trying to decide all day whether to block the guy you cited; I will block him now. -- SCZenz 15:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a list of them now at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hryun. Despite his bravado he doesn't seem to have a unique way of doing things. It's as easy for us to block his accounts as it is for him to create them, and there are more of us. --Fastfission 01:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of a (slightly modified) Al Pacino quote: He is about as exciting to an admin as a toilet is to a plummer... Zarniwoot 01:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm there's something interesting in the naming of these sockpuppets. It's almost fun trying to guess the next one (Zildan? Ratol?). Maybe we should propose that we provide the name and block it right away. That saves everybody a lot of time.--CSTAR 02:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! Ratol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Noisy | Talk 10:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Look at the threatening messages left on my talk page User talk:CSTAR; diffs here: [5].--CSTAR 13:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:213.33.246.48 added a link to this website at Canonical quantization. This might be our attention seeking friend. I have not removed it (yet). I have removed it. Zarniwoot 19:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address for a month. We'll see if this affects our issues with the vandal in question. I realize this is an extraordinary time to block an IP, but I will be monitoring carefully for collateral damage. -- SCZenz 20:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that that was not the vandal's static IP address, or at least not the only one. See history of this page. -- SCZenz 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• See recent edits to Nuclear physics and Density functional theory by User:Samprox whose contributions are at [6]. The edit summary is "(THE CERTAINTY PRINCIPLE WAR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUncertainty_principle&diff=57714537&oldid=57567610)". It looks like vandalism as part of the war. Someone block him please. --Bduke 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  Blocked. Keep reverting such edits on sight and letting us know about them. -- SCZenz 11:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hampron (talk · contribs) is editing with the same edit summary, but the single edit present so far (adding a reference to Rydberg atom) seems legitimate. I've only been able to read the article abstract, though (full version is sent from a Russian server whose uplink seems to be tin cans and string).--Christopher Thomas 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  Edits by banned users are always vandalism. My policy at this point is to revert edits with that summary on sight, as the edit summary itself is clearly vandalism and clearly identifies the editor as a sock of the banned user. The way to beat this guy is to have him realize that it takes us less time to revert him than it takes him to make new accounts—so overanalyzing edits of that sort seems like a negative to me. -- SCZenz 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  As SCZenz said it. Doing "good" edit (even reverting vandalism) as a blocked user or with offensive edit summaries is a strategy to tease administrators or other article watchers. --Pjacobi 19:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I've placed a summary of the technical contents of the claim at User:Linas/Arbatsky's principle unmaksed. I do not support the recreation of the article, or a prolongation of the debate, or the insertion of links. I do however point out that, despite it's being a simple algebraic manipulation, having nothing do do with quantum mechanics, it does provide some interesting geometrical insight into the standard deviation of a generator. Its not deep, but its still curious. linas 20:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Physics Series

There is a person, editing under a variety of names, who is adding the template {{Physics Series}} to a number of articles. I got into a disagreement with him/her already because he was over-writing the {{physics}} template (which I was trying to add features to) for the same purpose; that disagreement seems to be over and he/she seems to be satisfied with the new template name, but now I have another question... Is {{Physics Series}} really a desirable template to have in our major articles? See, for example, particle physics, which had its original picture moved waaaay down the article in order to accomodate the template. -- SCZenz 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that template is kinda neat, but I don't prefer it to pictures. Is there a way to accommodate both? -lethe ^{talk +} 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We could make the template wider and give it a flexible picture. Or we could put it on the left, with a picture on the right, but I don't think that will look good. Other ideas? -- SCZenz 13:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it could go at the bottom of the page? I dunno, I'm not big on layout and stuff, but if someone made a good case, I could be convinced to keep it. -lethe ^{talk +} 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Now somebody put it up for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Physics Series. -- SCZenz 19:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous POV-pushing edits by B. Roy Frieden

Appearently B. Roy Frieden, a Professor Emeritus of optics, discovered, late in life, that everything is related to everything and that information theory and ergodic theory and fluctuations etc. is the theory of everything and so on. Seems to be a manic phase, headed for a fall. Thus we have the highly suspect Extreme physical information article, which is at least pseudoscience and is probably worth an AfD discussion. There's leakage to Fisher information (bottom of article) and Lagrangian (section on "informqation lagrangian"), and possibly other places. The external web sites for Frieden's theories are crankier than my own cranky writing, ergo are far too far out there to be considered science. linas 15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Listed for AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme physical information --DV8 2XL 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The article has some fans it seems. Unless some support for deletion shows up, it's going to fail on momentum. --DV8 2XL 17:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, the guy seems to have published it in a number of mainstream sources. Nonsense or not, it seems verifiable and notable enough. --Fastfission 01:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have closed it, per DV8's request. -lethe ^{talk +} 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess a lot can happen in half a day on the wiki. Well, no matter, still probably deserves some NPOV sticker and some active patrolling and investigation. One off-kilter article is relatively harmless; my concern sets in if/when this sort of stuff starts getting woven into mainstream articles. For example, the "information lagrangian"? Is that legit? Sure, there's 20 different kinds of entropy, and entropy is known to be closely tied to Shannon's ideas about information. Sure, dynamical systems abound with chaotic Hamiltonians and Lagrangians. No doubt, one might be able to plausibly define something that might be called an "information hamiltonian" or an "information lagrangian". But is the definition given by"extreme physical" actually within the bounds of plausibility? If not, it shouldn't be on WP. linas 03:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wish I'd seen this earlier. Linas, your instincts are correct: Frieden's claims have been vastly overstated (especially by Frieden himself). Basically, Frieden has what initially appears to have an interesting idea. Unfortunately, closer examination reveals that while he claims to have a method for writing down Lagrangians from putative information theoretical concerns, but others (including myself) who have examined his papers claim that this "method" is no method at all but ad hoc case by case reasoning. There was an extensive discussion on sci.physics.research several years ago (back when that newsgroup was still worth reading). ---CH 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is some more information:

Note that B. Roy Frieden is Em. Prof. of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona. The data.optics.arizona.edu anon has used the following IPs to make a number of questionable edits:

1. 150.135.248.180 (talk · contribs)
   1. 20 May 2005 confesses to being Roy Frieden in real life
   2. 6 June 2006: adds cites of his papers to Extreme physical information
   3. 23 May 2006 adds uncritical description of his own work in Lagrangian and uncritically cites his own controversial book
   4. 22 October 2004 attributes uncertainty principle to Cramer-Rao inequality, which is potentially misleading
   5. 21 October 2004 adds uncritical mention of his controversial claim that Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution can be obtained via his "method"
   6. 21 October 2004 adds uncritical mention of his controversial claim that the Klein-Gordon equation can be "derived" via his "method"
2. 150.135.248.126 (talk · contribs)
   1. 9 September 2004 adds uncritical description of his work to Fisher information
   2. 8 September 2004 adds uncritical description of his highly dubious claim that EPI is a general approach to physics to Physical information
   3. 16 August 2004 confesses IRL identity
   4. 13 August 2004 creates uncritical account of his work in new article, Extreme physical information
   5. 11 August 2004 creates his own wikibiostub, B Roy Frieden

Frieden's work is highly controversial; see

• Binder, Philippe M. (2000). "Physics from Fisher Information: A Unification (a review)". American Journal of Physics. 68: 1064–1065. (favorable)
• Kibble, T. W. B. (1999). "Physics from Fisher Information: A Unification (a review)". Contemporary Physics. 40: 1999. (the reviewer has some positive comments but concludes that Frieden's work is "misguided")
• Case, James (2000). "An Unexpected Union---Physics and Fisher Information". SIAM News. July 17. eprint (highly favorable)
• Matthews, Robert (1999). "Physics and Fisher Information (a review)". New Scientist. January. unauthorized electronic reprint
• Physics from Fisher Information: A Unification (a review) from Cosma Shalizi (Computer Science, University of Michigan) (highly critical)
• Physics from Fisher Information (a review) from R. F. Streater (Mathematics, Kings College, London) (highly critical)
• Physics from Fisher Information thread from sci.physics.research, May 1999 (mostly critical)
• Fisher Information - Frieden unification Of Physics thread from sci.physics.research, October 1999 (mostly critical)

Therefore, Frieden's POV-pushing edits pose a problem for WP.---CH 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Followup: I have now exchanged some emails with Frieden and he appears willing to discuss these issues. He feels his new book (which I haven't yet seen) may clear up some of my technical objections to the earlier book. ---CH 20:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hermann-Mauguin notation

I've created this article and added some basic content, but it still needs some work. Please have a look at it and see if you can improve it. O. Prytz 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Physics equations

I put up Physics equations for AfD, but some feedback from some people in the physics project might be useful. -- Koffieyahoo 05:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Air ioniser

I'm not sure if I've asked before, but air ioniser needs some attention from people who actually know atomic physics. It also needs references, to prevent it from getting gummed up again by future biased editors trying to sell products with "good ions" or whatever. I'd do it myself, but I find a lot of conflicting info online. — Omegatron 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Modern Galilean relativity again.

I had hopes that this article would be recreated in a more neutral light, but it appears to have fallen into a very biased POV again. Some editors with more time than me should look into this. --Philosophus ^T 07:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just start deleting the OR sections. Essentially, it seems that if User:KraMuc feels he is unwatched for long enough, he'll start throwing his own opinions into articles again. -- SCZenz 07:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is going out of control again. KraMuc is violating WP:OWN a bit too much to keep it under control. Are there any ideas about what to do? -- SCZenz 12:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also concerned about this, but too exhausted re other cruft patrol to help. I think the only solution is to start proceedings against KraMuc for disruptive editing since IMO he has not responded constructively to talk page critiques. ---CH 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, KraMuc (talk · contribs · block log) is history, but an apparent sock as appeared and the article has not been fixed. Another possibility would be an AfD. I don't see much hope that this article can ever be fixed since the individual behind KraMuc seems so determined to keep mucking with it. ---CH 20:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

New article organization tool

I've added some features to the {{physics}} template so that we can automatically list physics articles according to the importance of the subject and the quality of the article. See here, where I've written up the use of the template. I'm going to start by adding the caterogizations to the articles already listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Key articles, and I'd be deleted for the help. The purpose of all this, in my view, is to help us focus a bit of attention on essential articles that should be excellent but may not be. -- SCZenz 09:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice, ahem, that all the articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Key articles except the one on nuclear fission are about particle physics. Presumably this is because all the work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Key articles has so far been done by particle physicists. I assume that your reason for posting the information about here is to invite physicists from other sub-disciplines to nominate non-particle articles as key and to assess them. Is this correct? Alison Chaiken 01:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Physics_articles_by_quality? Zarniwoot 01:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right! Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics#Key articles is also light on condensed matter and statistical physics articles. Presumably I should stop whining and add links to articles I think are key. (For example, entropy must certainly be a key article.) I'm confused as to what the relationship between Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Physics_articles_by_quality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics#Key articles is. Why do we have two such lists? Alison Chaiken 17:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The key articles list was a first draft, then I thought it would be useful to use the tools (in terms of bot-based organization) that already existed to organize more effectively. Presumably people can edit whatever makes them happy, and I'll try to keep the two lists correlated. Or we can do it some other way if someone prefers. As for the articles all being particle physics, I categorized several articles that I've edited as I was testing the bot system, since I knew their quality and importance fairly well already. -- SCZenz 17:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I think we should phase out the original key articles list once all its information is transferred, since the new organizational method has more functionality. (It's also what an increasing number of other WikiProjects are using.) But if others disagree, we can use whichever... -- SCZenz 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, having two lists is bad just because inevitably one of them will end up being poorly maintained. I also agree that it's preferable to adopt whatever the wider community has chosen as the standard organizational method. Thanks to Laurascudder for fixing my test template on entropy. I'll start classifying some stat mech and condensed matter articles. Anyone guess how many articles do we want on the list total as a reasonable goal? Alison Chaiken 03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason not to classify as many articles as we want to. Wikipedia as a whole should have 10K-20K key articles, by somebody's definition, so that means maybe 100 or so articles should be High- or Top-importance. But let's just classify for a while and see how it goes. -- SCZenz 13:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I started trying to classify the optics articles. This is my first foray into this assessment scale, so feel free to tell me if I'm not interpreting it right. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Numbered Equations etc.

Is it possible to get automatically numbered equations that can be referred to in wiki articles? Count Iblis 18:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can do this by abusing one or more of the "reference" templates, but it's probably best to do it manually for now. Referencing methods change frequently, and didn't handle auto-numbering very well last time I looked at them either. --Christopher Thomas 20:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Scalar field theory (pseudoscience)

I don't know whether this is a notable crank theory. Could someone who knows more about this decide whether to AfD it? It might be uncontested anyway, I can't imagine any supporter would allow the article to stay at that name. --Philosophus ^T 10:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire subject is a major PITA, but it is usually called "scalar waves". If, depending on your mood, you want a major laugh or a serious sadness attack, follow Google's link:

General: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22scalar+waves%22

Bearden's variety: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22scalar+waves%22+bearden

Meyls's variety: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22scalar+waves%22+meyl

Pjacobi 12:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I encourage cross-posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience. Scalar waves is a recurring topic; many other articles have been deleted. At least this one has an accurate title, and for that reason could be a keeper. linas 19:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

blocked CSZenz

After seeing this edit to this page, I've blocked CSZenz (talk · contribs) indefinitely as an impersonator of User:SCZenz and probably a sock of User:Hryun. -lethe ^{talk +} 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked CStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for same reasons (s/SCZenz/CSTAR/) -lethe ^{talk +} 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:BDuke looks like something like it. Zarniwoot 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly like them I think since I have been reverting their nonsense. --Bduke 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

BDuke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to scrape together all of the information available on these sock puppets and head over to WP:ANI. Best to block that IP or IP range and be done with it. --Christopher Thomas 01:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hryun_and_the_certainty_elephant. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Questionable edits by User:Haisch and socks

Hi all, a new user, Haisch (talk · contribs), who is in real life fringe physicist Bernard Haisch, is edit warring regarding his wikibiography Bernard Haisch and some articles in which he has an interest, Journal of Scientific Exploration and Stochastic electrodynamics. Please see also his user talk page, my user talk page, and the Paul August's user talk page.

Haisch also edits as an anon from the pltn13.pacbell.net domain (Southwestern Bell InterNet Services; geolocated in San Jose, CA)

1. 69.107.150.126 (talk · contribs) adsl-69-107-150-126.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net
   1. 5 June 2006 removes internal link to Bernard Haisch from List of UFO researchers
   2. 12 June 2006 confession of IRL identity
   3. 25 April 2006 implicit confession of IRL identity
   4. 26 April 2006 example of edit adding citation to his own book (I think this is linkspam, although some of these are more justificable than others)
2. 69.107.144.172 (talk · contribs) adsl-69-107-144-172.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net

• the pltn13.sbcglobal.net domain (SBC Internet Services; geolocated in the Bay Area)

1. 71.146.176.178 (talk · contribs) adsl-71-146-176-178.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net

Important note: the pltn13.pacbell.net domain has also been used by Jack Sarfatti, who as you all know has been permabanned. I'd like to avoid that kind of mess from repeating itself with Haisch. In any case, be aware that Sarfatti continues to occassionaly edit as an anon, and ironically he has also used this domain. Even more ironically, Sarfatti doesn't care for Haisch and myself have sometimes reverted sarcastic comments by the Sarfatti anon in various articles mentioning Haisch! (Just to add to the confusion, another user (apparently), DrMorelos (talk · contribs) apparently also edits as the anon 69.109.222.23 (talk · contribs) and claims to have earned a Ph.D. from an American University and mentions other things which fit both Sarfatti and Haisch. However, DrMorelos appears to have distinct fringe science interests.)

Returning to the edit war by Haisch: I feel (see the talk pages) that I have bent over backwards to

1. not overreact to some questionable anon edits by Haisch
2. be helpful to Haisch as a WP newbie (despite Digital Universe)
3. not overreact to violations by Haisch (talk · contribs) of WP:NLT-WP:CIV-WP:AGF

Remarkably, in a comment on my user talk page and without any prompting from me, Haisch himself raised the issue which most concerns me about allowing persons to edit articles about controversial "scientific" topics in which they are directly involved:

If I go and seek funding from a philanthropic organization for the Digital Universe Foundation, as I am doing, and they look me up on Wikipedia, your negativity may cost me a grant... and I will never know that. Make no mistake about it. Wikipedia has tremendous influence, and that is precisely why must be both accurate and fair. The Wikipedia is perceived as no mere gossip sheet. Your words could deprive my organization of a million dollar grant because of your implicit judgment of my scientific career.

Needless to say, the issue which troubles me is that Haisch implicitly admits to a million dollar financial incentive :-/ to slant the WP in a pro-Haisch manner. I find this deeply disturbing.

In the matter of Bernard Haisch, the original version of which I wrote and which Haisch keeps rewriting, I told him several times (and followed through on my promise) that I am willing to discuss his objections line by line. I told him that I feel it is in the best interests of WP readers (and even himself) that he restrict his comments on articles on controversial topics in which he is directly involved to the talk page, but let me implement any changes in the article itself. I have been through several iterations of this with him already, and have made a handful of minor factual corrections he suggested and also made other changes. However, Haisch seems to insist on editing his own biography, an despite repeated polite warnings, he continues to leave insulting messages in various talk pages, which makes discussions with him unpleasant. He also continues to edit his own biography (breaking up the flow of ideas and adding a pro-Haisch slant). I have asked him to take a break for a few days to calm down but he also appears unwilling to try this. Please help me discourage him from edit warring until he calms down enough to respect WP:CIV. TIA ---CH 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Novelty theory

Gee, I don't know if anyone is reading this page anymore, but I ask someone who isn't burned out on cruft control to take a good look at this one. ---CH 20:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems this has more to do with religion then physics? Zarniwoot 12:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Even the name is misleading, since I wouldn't call this a "theory". ---CH 20:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Magnecular bond

Just a notice that some articles related to the recent "water as fuel" stories has shown up on Wikipedia. I've read a little on this and I don't know what the hype/truth ratio is but it is pretty high. This guy Dennis Klein has "invented" a new gas called "HHO" or "Aquygen" which he generates from water and uses to fuel a car, for welding, etc and differs from Brown's gas by the appearance of Magnecular bonds. Ruggerio Santilli is the theorist part of the team. The whole thing smells funny, electrolyzing water to get "Aquygen", then burning it as fuel and hyping the whole thing as "energy from water". PAR 14:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy shit! For, a start I put it on AfD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnecular bond

That's it have coverage on FOX News may doesn't surprise me, but didn't arXiv announced, that more rigorous submission criteria are enforced? Please see:

• http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0602125

And it gets published, too?

Pjacobi 18:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that the Brown's Gas article has references to this subject as well. PAR 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've merged a less hurting version of Brown's gas into Yule Brown and pruned the redirect forest. --Pjacobi 21:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, indeed! Peter, see the reorganized links in the new version I just wrote. In fact, the publication is in yet another crank journal founded by anti-relativist fringe physicist Ruggiero Maria Santilli, who has also founded Hadronic Journal, a well known crank journal. See also the quote from the fine Salon article by John Farrell. Arghghgh... ---CH 08:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposing Physicist for deletion

I find the article Physicist to be inoffensive and well enough written but to be completely redundant with other articles. Please discuss its proposed deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Physicist. Alison Chaiken 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion isn't the right choice for this, because we definitely want something to come up when this is typed in the search bar. If it's completely redundant, it could be rewritten (for example to include a discussion of famous physicists), or redirected to physics. -- SCZenz 06:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Extreme_physical_information

Seems like I keep finding evidence of noxious shilling everywhere I look... The most recent edit by this anon (apparently none other than Roy Frieden in real life) is particularly egregious. Not sure whether I should recuse myself since I posted some criticism to sci.physics.research in 1999; see the talk page.---CH 08:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am discussing this with Frieden via email and am cautiously optimistic these issues may be resolved. ---CH 20:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

More rexresearch fun

Following the links of Magnecular stuff (also called Sarfatti's Magnecules, see point 25 of the crackpot index), I've searched for other Wikipedia articles linking to http://www.rexresearch.com/:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=rexresearch+site:wikipedia.org&start=0&sa=N&filter=0

There is a striking cluster of links from all Coal related articles, but I'm not perfectly fit to judge this.

But I've put the Möbius resistor on AfD, a 1966 patent which found no application.

Pjacobi 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(Groan) What's this?-- y'mean to say that Jack Sarfatti invented this?

• Ken Shoulders' Electrum Validum: "Ken Shoulders discovered the form of matter called Elecktrum Validum (EV, strong electron). This article reviews the physics ... " from Rex Research, the website of Robert Nelson in Jean, NV, which promotes "suppressed/dormant/emerging science, inventions, technologies, experiments"
• Shoulders and Sarfatti July 4, 2004 from the website of Ken Shoulders
• Shoulders' notion of Exotic Vacuum Objects (EVOs) are mentioned in a sarfattispam

Sheesh!

Möbius resistor: Lordy, Lordy, Lordy... I hope that was some idgit's idea of a joke... ---CH 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Some articles linked to rexresearch.com: Tesla turbine-Coal-Testatika-Möbius resistor-Andrija Puharich ---CH 02:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Modern Galilean relativity

I am too exhausted from other cruft patrol to try to do much about this, but this article is a real problem in terms of presenting pseudoscience as respectable, misstatements of fact, and so on. ---CH 20:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility for this one. It's actually not as bad to handle as some articles, becaues the problems are so blatant. -- SCZenz 21:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! ---CH 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it, too, as I feel a little responsible for it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My plan, very roughly, is to edit the article as though it were intended to be an NPOV discussion of a very minor viewpoint, and to simply ignore edits that don't aknowledge Wikipedia's basic policies. The article is being continually rewritten into an argument, and it has been explained in detail that Wikipedia does not host such things, so I am not going to be patient on that point. If things get ugly, I'll do what seems reasonable and then probably have to put myself up for review on WP:AN/I. For the moment, I've just deleted some uncited (and uncitable) arguments and added a lot of {{fact}} tags, but I'll make more substantial revisions if I don't get a reply to a talk page question I just put up. If anyone has a chance to look in on this article over the next few days and help me out, it would be much appreciated. -- SCZenz 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your talk page question, knowing little about the subject, and I'm not sure that KraMuc is coming back, as he has stated before that he is going to stop working on the article. Even if he did continue, I doubt he would give a satisfactory answer, as he hasn't answered any questions regarding mainstream physics satisfactorily before. You will probably have to come up with the answer yourself. --Philosophus ^T 22:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Any material that nobody is able to cite, after a reasonable period of time, can be deleted. I think it's very possible that it'll turn out that much of this article was the original views of KraMuc. If so, there won't be much left when we're done. However, I expect that KraMuc will be back anyway. -- SCZenz 05:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

KraMuc (talk · contribs · block log) is apparently already back, as TheoderichII (talk · contribs · block log), an apparent sock. ---CH 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting physicist

As it looks like the AfD result will probably be keep, so I've started rewriting physicist after the first half of chemist because I like the way that article talks about the profession itself instead of just the subdisciplines. I just barely got a start on it, but I wanted to let everyone know and maybe get some input on what you guys think the article should cover. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that physicist should contain some statistical data about physics employment of the kind that the American Institute of Physics releases annually. However, AIP data is only about the U.S.; does anyone know of comparable international data, maybe from IUPAP? Also, do you think that we want any historical information in physicist? History of physics is already a substantive article. Alison Chaiken 04:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look around the IUPAP for some stats (I did get a little worried when I realized I only knew where to find the US stats and hadn't thought about the IUPAP as a resource). As to the history thing, I think that the history summary in chemist is pretty awkward and so didn't try to do anything like it. I do think there should be a place in the article for some history of the profession of physics. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Stochastic Electrodynamics

Depending on who's doing the talking, we (Haisch and Rueda) are credited or blamed for more than we have done. Let's just look at the published papers in Phys. Rev., Annalen der Physik, Physics Letters A, Astrophysical Journal, Foundations of Physics. We have used the tools of stochastic electrodynamics to show that you can derive an equation of motion-like result (both Newtonian and relativistic) if the quantum vacuum interacts with matter in certain ways. Basically we are putting all the burden of providing momentum on a zero-point radiation field as defined in SED theory, which in turn creates an inertia-like resistance on matter.

All we have done is propose a quantum vacuum based alternative to the ever-elusive Higgs field. There is nothing illegitimate about that. Is this right or wrong? I don't know yet.

The other thing we have done in a recent paper is to show that IF (big if) the above is correct and if zero-point radiation can be treated as light rays following curved geodesics (isn't that standard GR?) then the principle of equivalence automatically appears since accelerating through the quantum vacuum is the same as being fixed in a gravitational field and having the quantum vacuum fall past you. I find this very intriguing and suggestive that we may be onto something. But who knows?

All the other stuff is other people's work attributed mistakenly to us or popular writing speculation by us and others. Scientists always speculate, which is okay as long as you qualify it as such... and we always do.

Here are a few points.

(1) Our approach is based on special relativity and is consistent with general relativity.

(2) For the record, I love the Big Bang and our Ap. J. paper on stochastic acceleration is consistent with the Big Bang.

(3) We have never done any research on polarizable vacuum (although I think it is a neat idea).

(4) The inertia free propulsion stuff is always qualified with a big "maybe someday" and is only clearly identified pop speculation.

(5) It is absurd to call research in journals like the one's above which range from pretty respectable to pretty prestigious as fringe science or worse. That is just plain wrong. Moreover we were even generously funded by NASA (not the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program) and Lockheed Martin to do this research.

Let's begin a fact-based honest discussion to correct the numerous errors and NPOV violations in Hillman's rewrite of Stochastic Electrodynamics which does not even scratch the surface of 40 years worth of research by lots of physicists other than Haisch and Rueda. Haisch 00:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bernard, I worked hard to improve that article, so it is a bit disappointing that you don't recognize this. Fortunately, I see that User:Paul August and User:Philosophus are already helping to further improve Bernard Haisch, so if you respond well to their work there and ask them nicely, there is a good chance they will help improve Stochastic electrodynamics. Please WP:AGF and recognize that we do have procedures at WP which might seem to slow to suit your taste, but which are not really so slow, compared to printed articles. I have urged you to take a break from this and let them do their work, as I am doing. To repeat something I have pointed out before: WP:DR suggests other useful things you can do around WP if you want to build up a history of good edits here on topics you are not directly involved with. If you can do that, I think you will see that Bernard Haisch is not at all bad and the other articles will no doubt be improved also, so you can expect to become happier with them. Since your work in this area is somewhat controversial, it is inevitable that you might not be completely happy, but we should at least get them to the point where we agree that they are factually accurate.

For WikiProject Physics members: if anyone else wants to jump in, please make sure to google on "Haisch, Puthoff" to see the many hits on cranky websites (and read a selection so you see the context). In my view, trying to distinguish between nutty and respectable stuff is one of the most crucial services we at WikiProject Physics can provide to our readers. I studied a large collection of Haisch's papers related to stochastic electrodynamics, and also looked at number of cranky websites on things like UFOs and Eugene Podkletnov which invoke his work, and on this basis I emphatically disagree with implication that he has done all that is humanly possible to disambiguate his research from crackpottery. Admittedly, the wild-eyed fanatical fans of Podkletnov, Puthoff, etc., tend not to be good readers, but given the technical nature of the papers, IMO the fault is not entirely theirs. So in this particular case, I think there is much evidence that there is a great deal of popular misunderstanding, and as an information resource, it is Wikipedia's duty to try to clear that up, even if this makes Haisch unhappy at times. As in all questions regarding actions taken or not taken by the WP community, this discussion should ultimately come down to answering the question: what best serves our readers?---CH 03:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Haisch's comment is a duplicate of a comment in Talk:Stochastic electrodynamics. I suggest moving this section back there for further discussion.---CH 03:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason it is here is to ask for the intervention of other knowledgeable physicists, so please do not remove this yet. So when exactly are you willing to review a list of errors in your article? Haisch 06:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bernard, when will you be willing to fix errors in articles that are not a direct part of the controversy here? You'll gain some appreciation of the issues faced by the WP comm

unity by doing some less controversial edits in other areas. linas 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Haisch has just written a new version which IMO exhibits more POV-pushing, but I am too sick of this to continue arguing with him. Clearly he has the advantage here because no-one else is so driven to argue over this article--- which is rather the problem: this is a controversial subject and he is personally involved, so IMO it is not surprising that some (such as myself) feel he lacks sufficient objectivity to edit this article. He also lacks the writing skills, since his revisions are so awkward that they need cleanup for that reason alone. So, I guess the POV-pusher has succeeded in establishing his slanted POV in the WP, basically because no-one with the neccessary background is as willing to argue endlessly as he is. This is just one example of a very grave problem for the Wikipedia. The failure of the community to address POV-pushing in an effective manner even in the physics pages suggests that we may never see any real progress toward the goal (sometimes stated by Jimbo Wales) of improving the reputation for accuracy of the Wikipedia.---CH 02:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus POV

Template:Perpetual motion machine

An edit war has broken out on this template. PPM claims that Perpetual motion machine is a biased term, and that Free energy device is better. I claim that Perpetual motion machine is by far the more common term, and should be used. Would other editors care to look into this? Thanks, --Philosophus ^T 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This is a far the more neutral term. Perpetual motion machine is by far from a neutral term. This policy of Neutral point of view is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Perpetual motion machine 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... It actually appears that PPM is going around making the usual reversions, like {accuracy} on Cox's timepiece. PPM, please stop doing this. As I am already at 3R, and PPM is at 4R, on the template, could someone please look at it? --Philosophus ^T 14:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The free energy device POV pushers have admitted that FED and PPM have different meanings. Any further attempts to change the existing PPM template (as opposed to creating a FED template) is therefore vandalism and the 3RR does not apply. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm 3R. Perpetual motion machine

Your first edit was a reversion as well. --Philosophus ^T 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No the second wasn't it. Perpetual motion machine 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Perpetual motion machine now has its own talk page to debate this silly change. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, comments are still requested on the saner discussion on modifying the template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience. --Christopher Thomas 03:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

This is a little irregular, because the article in question has been the subject of heated debate, up to and including a ruling by the Arbitration Committee. The history is long and sordid, but thanks to the many editors who have worked to clarify the issue, the article itself is pretty solid. Earlier today, I noticed that John Baez called it an "excellent" article [7], and I had to wonder. . . The continued sock puppet presence means that it'll be a long time before the page ever qualifies as "stable", which is a key Featured Article criterion, but it would still be nice to evaluate the page and see what the physics community thinks.

My own suspicion is that most or maybe all of the disruptive edits are coming from a community of one. It will be a happy day when this person grows tired and finds something else to do.

All comments are welcome. Due to restrictions posed by the Arbitration Committee — I said this was an irregular situation! — it is probably best to discuss changes on the Talk page first, just to avoid accidentally being confused with a sock puppet and being needlessly reverted.

Yours truly, Anville 19:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Woo hoo! 100 banned sockpuppets! Category:Banned Wikipedia editors involved in the Bogdanov Affair. linas 21:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my favourite was when a sock tried to pretend to be the ArbCom. Anville 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Category:Banned Wikipedia editors involved in the Bogdanov Affair is a bit misleading, since some of the IP anons in fact appear to be socks for "Sophie" in Denmark, Amélie de Bourbon-Parme (an alleged personal friend of Igor B, near Paris), and YBM (near Paris, but with a differnet ISP from Igor B and A. de Parme). Also, some of the early socks and IP anons are not listed there, and due to some kind of bug, sometimes both user talk pages and user pages are listed seperately. ---CH 02:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of event horizon

In response to prodding, I've produced an article draft intended to replace event horizon. See the relevant thread at talk:event horizon for details. It's not perfect; what I'm looking for is opinions on whether or not it's worth taking it as a starting point for a replacement. If so, we can swap it in and then perform additional polishing as-needed. --Christopher Thomas 05:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be pretty well qualified to comment, but I am just too sick of cruft patrol to make the effort. Sigh... ---CH 02:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The good news is, this is pretty cruft-free. Nobody's making inane arguments; it's just a rewrite-for-clarity situation. I've actually found it pretty relaxing, because it makes me feel productive instead of like I'm being bogged down in drama.

Though if you need a break, please take one. I've done so on a couple of occasions, and it helped. The encyclopedia won't self-destruct if you go on vacation for a month. --Christopher Thomas 03:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of KraMuc

I have indefinitely blocked KraMuc. See WP:AN/I#Indefinite block of KraMuc. Please discuss there and not here. -- SCZenz 10:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Der alte Hexenmeister

Can we get some more feedback? So far only one outside comment. ---CH 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Transitional kinetic energy

Does anyone fancy cleaning this mess up, or shall we put it to AfD? --Bduke 08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's absolute nonsense. I urge AfD. I am quite sick of cruft patrol right now so I hope this goes easily... ---CH 02:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

prodded. It'll go away on its own. linas 04:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing problems at time

Geologician (talk • contribs) has been editing time to state that models of the universe that involve time repeating itself require spacetime to be embedded in a six-dimensional space. I've reverted, he reverted back. Mike Peel (talk • contribs) added a citation request and a note on Geologician's talk page, Geologician removed the citation request and added a figure he drew as the requested "proof". I've left a note on Geologician's talk page attempting to point him both WP:RS and to Riemannian geometry, and to explain that embedding the manifold in a higher-dimensional space is an unnecessary (and possibly impossible) operation, but I seriously doubt this will have the desired effect. Additional people with a grasp of geometry contributing to maintenance of time would probably help. --Christopher Thomas 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

He's also been editing the Wheel of time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) disambiguation page, adding the same information. --Christopher Thomas 21:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense, for sure. Good grief. The problem is that as far as I can tell in all the Wikipedia community, there are only a handful with math/physics background who are even trying to keep hoaxes, frank crackpottery (like the claims of Geologician (talk · contribs)) out of the WP and to maintain NPOV in articles on scientifically controversial or fringe topics. What if we threatened to go on strike or something?  :-/ I am really starting to wonder if the Wikimedia board really cares about WP:NPOV and accuracy issues.---CH 02:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This particular case shouldn't require much effort. All it would take is half a dozen people each reverting his re-insertion once to establish that he's acting against consensus and inserting information that experts deem factually inaccurate. I can take it from there (by diplomacy, then by RFC, then by carefully-measured escalation through the WP:DR list, though I hope that isn't needed). ObCaveat is, please read the additions (and his claims on the talk page, if you're a masochist) to make it clear that any reversion is a fully-informed judgement. --Christopher Thomas 03:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for at least one more editor to revert his changes to wheel of time and time. If I do it without that happening, it'll look like I'm edit-warring. --Christopher Thomas 18:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting. We've had junk at this article for weeks now, because I don't want to be accused of edit-warring if I revert it. --Christopher Thomas 16:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, you start by reverting the articles back to a junk free state and I'll join you. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed some of the funny stuff from time. Revert at will on this stuff (up to 3RR); it's uncited, and a cite request has been ignored, so it's only edit warring in the most technical sense. -- SCZenz 16:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Magnetic photon

It appears that magnetic photon is probably total whack. One of the principle actors is Rainer W. Kühne, an atlantis expert. I'm tempted to AfD it except that the mention of Abdus Salam confuses the issue. linas 03:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So long as the term is common it'd be worth keeping around just for the Salam proposal and experimental result. Anyone have access to 1960s Physics Letters [8]? — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The "we didn't find any magnetic photons" paper seems legitimate, though it seems that if they were serious about the experiment they'd have alternated on/off measurements with the photomultiplier instead of taking a batch of "on" and a batch of "off", to reduce the heating problem. They cited enough other papers that the concept itself doesn't seem "total whack", though the article could stand to be rewritten with many more references. I'd file this under Category:Obsolete scientific theories as an idea that was considered in the second half of the 20th century, but ruled out. Disclaimer: I'm in engineering, not physics, so it's quite possible that I'm missing something. --Christopher Thomas 04:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you review my edit history as of right now, you will see that I just removed several dozen links wherein Rainer W. Kühne is seen to be a time travel expert, an expert in the location of Atlantis, an expert in the Pioneer 10 anomoly, and an associate of famous physicists who died when he was twelve years old. Oh, and cold fusion too. I'm deleting the whole kit-n-kaboodle for now. linas 04:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature for available useful work (Exergy)

I'm looking for input about a nomenclature issue. See Talk:Exergy#B or ψ or Ξ or X?. On the Second law of thermodynamics page, exergy is X. I thought I'd seek some input from physicists before flipping it over to B. Please discuss this on the Talk:Exergy page. Plenty of work to do there too if there's a systems ecologist/engineer/physicist around. Flying Jazz 06:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Photon induced electric field poling

This AFD could use some qualified eyes on it. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The article as-written is near-gibberish (looks like a mangled copy of press release text). The effect it describes _might_ be real, but is insufficiently sourced in the article. --Christopher Thomas 16:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to rewrite/summarize the article, so that it can be assessed on its technical merits or lack thereof, rather than prose style. Still needs expert attention and verification.--Christopher Thomas 17:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've finished another rewrite of the article. It looks like the phenomenon described is both real and well-published; the original version of the article was just garbled as heck. Please take a look at Photon induced electric field poling to sanity check the new version. --Christopher Thomas 04:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. Keep. The original version was gibberish. I tweaked the intro slightly to mention perovskite again, etc.linas 14:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Event horizon rewrite

The event horizon article was recently rewritten. An anon has voiced concerns about it. Just to make sure it's correct, could a few of the GR-types here please take a look at it, and comment on the talk page? --Christopher Thomas 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The anon is still present and still making objections. My math isn't good enough to tell for certain whether or not he has a point (though I'm pretty sure he's mistaken, and the article did get a vote of confidence from the other editors reviewing it). I know there are GR types here. Could a couple of you please take a quick look at event horizon and talk:event horizon? --Christopher Thomas 15:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't immediately tell what objection you're referring to, by skimming the talk page. Is it "Infinite tidal forces simply do not exist at the S R location"? Tidal forces do indeed approach infinity as you approach the singularity (they go as 1/R^4), but nothing in the article is about the singularity. The article is about the horizon, so I can't figure out what the complaint actually is. Also, I am baffled by this initialism SR. What does it stand for? Usually in relativity, SR means special relativity, but clearly here it refers to some feature of black holes. What is it? -lethe ^{talk +} 16:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Schwarzchild radius, I guess. You're right it should be explicit. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course the article should be explicit, but it's OK for people to use jargon on the talk page. I've just never seen this initialism before. OK, SR means horizon. I don't like it, it seems to limit us to horizons nonrotating uncharged static classical black holes (the Schwarzschild solution), but at least now I know what anon is saying. Thank you, Michael, for cluing me in. -lethe ^{talk +} 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The anon thinks I'm claiming infinite tidal forces in the article. I'm not, and have made this clear numerous times. I _do_ claim that a rigid rod that is stationary with respect to a distant observer that is placed through the horizon would experience infinite tensile forces (in addition to falling apart because photons couldn't propagate between all parts of it). The anon disagrees. It's possible that I'm mistaken, but I trust the GR crew here more than I trust an anon. --Christopher Thomas 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're looking for backup on this assertion, for example: the boosting force to keep your rocket ship stationary (with respect to asymptotic Minkowski space) approaches infinity as you approach the horizon. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is correct. -lethe ^{talk +} 16:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lethe is right, I beleive. The anon seems to be saying that, in the reference frame of the person holding the rigid rod, the rod would not be long enough to actually cross the event horizon. Err.. indeed this is confusing. Basically, the anon is claiming that, if I unreeled a very very long spool of "steel tape" (ruler) down towards the event horizon, the tip of the ruler would never actually cross!? In the frame of a distant observer, the rules on the ruler would appear to get more and more compressed as the tip approached the SR (swar. rad). From the point of view of an obsrever hanging from the end of the ruler, the SR appears to "very far away". I think anon might be right, because that's how I remember it being taught in school. So maybe everyone is right? Although the forces would get infinite for the person hanging off the end of the ruler, fortunately, the person hanging off the end of the ruler can never get near enough to the SR to feel those "infinite forces". The closer he tried to get, the farther away the SR would get, the greater the forces would get, but he'd never actually get there. He'd have to "let go" and fall in order to fall in; but, while falling the forces would no longer be actualy infinite. The infinity is "potential" not "real", the falling observer does not feel infinite tensile forces. Only the rocket ship attempting to stay away from SR exteriences the need for more and more and more thrust, and unbounded amount of thrust, to keep at a safe distance. linas 00:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I.E. there is no actual infinity, because either the ruler breaks and falls in (and feels no infinite force on crossing the SR), or the ruler is infinitely strong, in which case the unwary holder of the ruler will eventually feel a force that overwhelms his grip/ his rocket engines, and will have to cut the ruler free and let it fall. At no point does the ruler experience infinite force (before contact with the essential singularity). At no point does the non-falling ruler ever actually cross the SR, and a non-falling ruller can never be made long enough to cross the SR, because, in the non-moving ruler's reference frame, the SR is infinitely far away. linas 00:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your (apparent?) statement that the ruler does have to be infinitely strong, but that the force is finite. That the non-moving ruler measures the horizon as infinitely far away is more reasonable, but that would lead to force on the ruler tending towards infinity as you integrated force along its (infinite) length, unless something strange was going on. This also seems to say that the situation where a non-falling ruler exists that crosses the horizon from the viewpoint of a distant observer can't be constructed/described, which seems odd to me. To see why I'm confused about this, consider the related situation of a rigid rod that, from the distant stationary observer's viewpoint, appears be stationary and to connect the distant observer to the singularity, and spell out to me how the rod is described in the various relevant regions. I'm really wishing my math was good enough to see all of the implications involved directly, as this really seems to be a coordinate systems issue more than anything else. --Christopher Thomas 02:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the SR abbreviation, linas. I'm glad MCP told me what it means, but that doesn't mean that we have to start using nonstandard notation. -lethe ^{talk +} 04:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would the dude hanging off the end see the horizon as far away? I think you should be able to lower him right up to it (assuming infinite tensile strength). -lethe ^{talk +} 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the hanging dude is radially contracted he sees the horizon as infinitely distant. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael is right. In fact, this whole confusion has a historical basis: when Schwarzschild first published his result, the initial interpretation was of an actual singularity at the SR. Later, when it was realized that a free-falling observer felt nothing unusual on crossing the SR, that's when the true debate started. To go back to Chris Thomas question about math: in the Schwarzschild metric, the spatial distance goes as 1/(1-R/r) and as r approaches R, the distance becomes infinite. That's why the event horizon is infinitely far away for an observer attempting to hover above the black hole. The observer is accelerating away from the black hole, accelerating at precisely such a rate that a constant position is maintained with respect to the black hole: this is what "hovering" means. In a way, this makes common sense: if you're trying to run away from something, accelerate away, you shouldn't be surprised that the something becomes "far away" as you run away.

There is a way to extend a finite length rod so that it crosses the SR. Suppose I had many thousands of miles of fishing line, with a little weighty hook on the end. I maintain a safe distance away from the black hole, where the gravity is not particularly strong, and start reeling out the fishing line. Suppose I reel it out so that the hook at the end goes into free fall, and crosses the SR. Because the weight (and line) was free-falling, I did not need an infinite length of line to pay out, before having the hook cross the SR. I now give the line a tug, hoping to pull the fish-hook out. As I tug on the line, a stress wave starts propagating down the line, moving more or less at the speed of sound. As the stress wave approaches the black hole, the stress becomes increasingly large; at some point, outside of the SR, it becomes so large that the line snaps, and the hook falls in the rest of the way. There's no "actual" infinity, because the fishing line never felt an infinite stress. It broke first, and after it broke, it felt only a small stress until it hit the true singularity. linas 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I haven't made the scenario I'm trying to discuss clear enough. I'm looking at the _limit_ as tensile strength of the line approaches infinity, and the rate of initial lowering approaches zero, and so on and so forth, of the forces required to maintain the scenario described. Stating that the line snaps, rod breaks, or what-have-you violates the constraints of the question. As far as I can tell, for nonzero cable mass-per-unit-length, the tensile force on the cable tends towards infinity (with a description that was different from my original picture). Per discussion on talk:event horizon, we mainly seem to be arguing about terminology, and it's moot point anyways because I'm satisfied with your rewrite of the section involved. --Christopher Thomas 22:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Afshar POV

User:Afshar has reverted a POV tag on Afshar experiment on the grounds that it was anonymous. Could an admin revert/add it to make it "official"? --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page, another user says there is no NPOV problem and has removed the notice. If you, or the anon, disagrees, feel free to use the talk page to discuss it. An NPOV notice without any attempt to discuss and resolve doesn't accomplish much. -lethe ^{talk +} 06:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. I see also that in the section of the talk page immediately preceding Sededeo's, you did engage in discussion about the issue. I apologize for the above comment which may have been superfluous. -lethe ^{talk +} 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that nothing an administrator does, contentwise, is more "official" than anyone else. Anons have equal standing with other users as well; in practice they're often ignored if they do something controversial without leaving an explanation on the talk page, because it's often impossible to engage them in discussion later. The upshot of all this is that you can restore the NPOV tag as well as anyone else. (Discussion, as lethe notes and you apparently already knew, is also important for such tags.) -- SCZenz 08:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion with Afshar is, as expected, going nowhere. Linas has suggested that everybody agree that the whole article be rewritten from a decoherence POV, but given that Afshar can't understand the basic idea of OR, this seems doomed. Anyway I updated the critiques section with nod to the decoherence POV. I'm not hopeful that Afshar will respect Wiki policy and let it stand. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As expected, he reverted it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that the article be re-written from the decoherence pont of view. I wanted to suggest that Afshar study decoherence in his own spare time, and write about it in some other forum, ideally in a journal, and not here. linas 23:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has been in an acceptable shape for quite a while, the POV tag is undeserved. I do not think amateur debunking attempts in the critique section would be appropriate at this time. If there is a critique that is posted off-site, and is somewhat deeper and more insightful than a few paragraphs of hand-waving, then a reference to it can be included. But short, hit-n-run critiques aren't helpful. linas 23:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree -- see my response on the Afshar experiment talk page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a general issue here of the appropriateness of critique sections in controversial articles. And of their length. I have written a short one (for Afshar experiment) and had it deleted for being too short and handwavy. Yet if I lengthen it I am told that it still won't be appropriate and should be in an external link. It seems that no critique will be acceptable, yet other controversial articles have them (e.g. Bohmian mechanics - which I did not write, Modern Galilean relativity -- which I wrote). What gives? --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Write it so that the section accurately represents or summarizes the four published critiques out there. People love to come by and take pot-shots at this topic. Going with this one variant, as opposed to the dozens of others, does not improve the article or add balance. linas 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not just "come by" and taken a "pot-shot", I have been trying for weeks to get Afshar to see beyond his own POV. As for whether it improves the balance, I disagree with your POV. What part of:

The modern understanding of quantum decoherence and its destruction of quantum interference provides a mechanism for understanding the appearance of wavefunction collapse and the transition from quantum to classical. As such there is no need, in the decoherence view, for an a priori introduction of a classical-quantum divide as enshrined by complementarity. Any experiment that claims to violate complementarity needs to address this issue.

do you find "pure, unsubstantiated OR"? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The standard mathematics of QM does not enshrine complementarity. The Copenhagen interpretation does enshrine wave function collapse. Any experiment that claims to violate complementarity is "boring" unless it somehow addresses the issue of wave-function collapse. Shall we add a sentence to the article stating that, as far as the Copenhagen interpretation is concerned, the Afshar experiment is "boring", because it sheds no light on wave function collapse? I suspect that the Afshar experiment is also boring if you view it in the light of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics; likewise for most of the other interpretations. The one place where the experiment seems to get possibly interesting is with the Englert relationship. There's lots of things that one might say that are true about the Afshar experiment; the mention of decoherence seems to be some random factoid that floats in from left field. I suppose we could start a list of factoids about the Afshar experiment, but I'm concerned that it could easily spiral out of control again. The other problem I had was that the sentences were vaguely insulting and condescending: that they're promoted as "general criticisms", when in fact, if one examines the record of the specific criticisms, they don't match these general criticisms at all. However, I tire of this debate. You've been championing decoherence recently, in many other articles, and, as a hammer, perhaps everything looks like a nail. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a while: then the "general criticisms" just don't look very general at all, and they don't appear to accurately reflect the actual debate either. linas 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi linas, I appreciate the change in tone. Yes, the Afshar experiment and my mini-critique are boring to anyone who has a good grasp of QM (such as yourself, for ex.) but what about the others whose POV you ask me to consider? Believe it or not they are precisely the target audience who require an accessible quick critique with links for depth as required. And just to correct a couple of misapprehensions, yes I think decoherence is important and not a random factoid, but I am hardly alone in this view. One other thing, you misunderstood what I meant by "general" vs "specific" -- which was my fault and I'll try to clarify that here and elsewhere. By "specific" I meant that many of the links were critical of specific aspects of the construction of Afshar's experiment, whereas my points were of a more general nature and insensitive to these minor details. And finally, the point that the experiment didn't violate the Schrodinger equation was something that had been highlighted on the talk page at least twice and in one of the external links. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Scalars

A proposal to merge Scalar has turned into a protracted discussion of whether or not the term 'scalar' means the same thing in different disciplines. See Talk:Scalar. --Smack (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Massive insertion of Scientific American links

208.241.19.100 (talk • contribs) seems to be adding links to Scientific American articles about appropriate topics to a very large number of science- and physics-related articles. While these don't seem to be vandalism per se (being appropriate links), I'm not quite sure how to react to it, as it does seem to be linkspamming. Links are added roughly every 3 minutes, suggesting script assistance (or someone really bored). --Christopher Thomas 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

They're relevant, and Sci Am writes reasonably good popular articles that may be helpful/interesting to our readers. I very much doubt this is Scientific American trying to advertize itself, so I don't really think it's linkspam. I think it's just a user trying to improve the encyclopedia in a small systematic way, and succeeding. No action necessary unless there's something I'm missing. -- SCZenz 16:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

They continued after the first warning, I've given another. The IP is registered to Scientific American, this definitely qualifies as commercial spamming and needs to be watched. Femto 17:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is linkspamming wouldn't Wikipedia readers benefit? SciAm is quite accessible. just be thankful it's not the Fortean Times. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the only thing we need to worry about is whether the links are to free articles. If WP policy would somehow require to unlink these articles, then IMHO, there is something strange about WP policy.--CSTAR

I disagree strongly with the above warnings. Links to relevant Sci Am articles are useful to Wikipedia, regardless of their source. -- SCZenz 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

PS When I looked at one of the linked SciAm articles, a advertising banner partially obstructed the text. Even though that obstruction is likely only temporary, in my view that is not a "free" link. --CSTAR 18:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

People can read the article. Do we really have a rule that says too much advertizing makes a link unacceptable? If so please point me to it. -- SCZenz 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to advertising accompanying the text. I'm objecting to advertising blocking the text. There is a policy against links to advertising.--CSTAR 18:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is how they display their articles, as many websites do. The blocking goes away after a short while. So the advertizing is a little bit obtrusive, it's not like there isn't an article there. I don't see the problem. -- SCZenz 18:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's clearly a matter of interpretation. I think we should be hard-nosed. We should tell them: If you want links to your articles from WP, then you can keep your advertising so long as it doesn't obstruct the text. That's a fair bargain, in my view.--CSTAR 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Even then, there's only one side that truly benefits from bargaining over unfree content for external linking. The "content instead of links" rule is there for a reason in the free encyclopedia. It holds true not only, but especially, for content providers that will have a commercial or promotional gain from links. Femto 18:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this is turning into a policy debate, may I suggest moving the discussion to WP:AN/I to get more eyes on it? --Christopher Thomas 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a section there at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Apparent SEO/Linkspam to Scientific American articles with pointers to prior discussion here and at the IP's talk page. GRBerry 18:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

While I may have your attention, may I re-open the case of the xstructure links, see [9]? --Pjacobi 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't yet decided what I think about this; the links themselves are fine and contribute to the articles, but I generally consider it to be bad form to link to your own sites, and WP:NOT a collection of external links. There's also the slippery-slope problem of where to draw the line. What happens when the next magazine want to link their content into article? Furthermore, as noted, this appears to be either bot assisted or a dedicated effort (paid by SciAm?) to systematically link a *large* number of article, which in my mind smacks of search-engine optimization. I guess that's the part that really rubs me the wrong way. --Alan Au 02:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to provide some references for this discussion, first, yes there is a guideline that indicates sites with objectionable amount of advertising should be avoided: WP:EL, "links to normally be avoided", point #4. Coincidentally, also covered in the same point are "links that are added to promote a site."

If these links are being added by a bot, this taints their additions even further. Per WP:SPAM, "external links spamming": "Spam bots should be treated equivalently as vandalbots. Edits by spambots constitute unauthorised defacement of websites, which is against the law in many countries, and may result in complaints to ISPs and (ultimately) prosecution." What I don't see anywhere is a qualification there that says "unless the links could be useful".

One other guideline reference:

• WP:EL, "links normally to be avoided": "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns"

SEO is a serious problem, and we ought not ignore the possibility that is is exactly what we're looking at. Even if the articles are relevant, Wikipedia is not here to promote another website, which is exactly what SEO does. Considering that these edits are coming from Sci Am themselves, and are occuring between the hours of 9-5 EST (the time zone that SciAm's located in [10]), does anyone really think that this is some editor trying to help out Wikipedia on his/her own time? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on the edit histories, this is clearly a spambot at work, and so sets a bad precedent. As long as the SciAm article provides substaintially more, or better information than the WP article, having such a link is acceptable. However, when a linked website, any linked website, is information-poor as compared to WP, it should not be linked. Its not obvious that some of the SciAm links are really head-n-shoulders above what's in WP. linas 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an ugly case and bad precedent. Unfortuntely, just like in the law, it is usually the bad cases that go to court. If there is a bot, it is human attended. I haven't found a clearly irrelevant linkage and it is 3-5 minutes per article, which isn't unattended computer speed. But it appears as a linkspam campaign, and ought to be treated as such. If the articles are that valuable, someone not associated with SA will eventually find a reason to add them again, we should take them out. GRBerry 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I represent Scientific American and I am responsible for the insertion of the new external links on Wikipedia to SciAm. I don't believe what we are doing is wrong but we have stopped inserting links at this time. Also, I want to clarify what we're doing and why. We are not using a spambot. A person is manually entering the links to the Wikipedia articles and we are not inserting articles just for the sake of spam or search optimization. We're only adding an external link when we believe it would contribute by providing additional information on the topic. Wikipedia is a valuable resource for many people and we would like to contribute by adding our content. Yes we acknowledge that by adding the links it will probably benefit us but that is not the reason we're doing it. The articles that we link to are all completely free and the user is not required to pay or register to view them. The ad unit several people have mentioned does promote a subscription but the viewer has the option to immediately close the ad. Visitors to our web site will view ads since it is partially advertising supported and we must do this to operate and continue to provide content to our readers. This is a user experience that is similar to visiting most other content web sites and blogs on the Internet. We are not trying to mislead anyone and have been completely transparent in our actions by not masking our IP and by using the user ID - Scientific American. We believe we are providing additional content on the topic, which I believe is valuable to Wikipedia users. We are not inserting links indiscriminately. We add external links at the bottom of the list not the top. We do not modify other links. We make the copy straightforward by just placing our publication name, issue date and title. We do not reinsert other links that have been removed by others who may view it as inappropriate. Also the next phase was to to add actual content to Wikipedia in topics lacking any substantial content. But at this time, we will not do that since it may be viewed as inappropriate. I hope I have been clear in our motivations and intentions. Finally, if many Wikipedia community members views what we're doing is inappropriate we will stop. Thank you --Scientific American 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Quantum Theory Parallels to Consciousness

Anybody feel up to tackling Quantum Theory Parallels to Consciousness and making it into something encyclopedic, if that is even possible? Anville 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible. It should most likeley be deleted. --Philosophus ^T 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A quick glance at the references shows at least half of them to fail WP:RS. I'd be tempted to just AfD this article, but I don't feel up to another pseudoscience battle right now. In an ideal world, the article would just neutrally describe the fact that a small but (hopefully) notable number of people believe that quantum mechanical thought processes allow ESP, but good luck getting the article into anything resembling that form. --Christopher Thomas 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there already a decent discussion of this sort in some article? We could probably turn this one into a redirect. Anville 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, anyone object to redirecting it to Consciousness causes collapse? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The articles do not appear to be related. One is about consciousness causing collapse, the other is about psychic nonsense. By the way, the Consciousness causes collapse article seems quite bad as well. --Philosophus ^T 17:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No disputing that, but it's less bad. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's already up for AfD. --Philosophus ^T 17:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On which I voted to delete. I don't feel like trying to turn this dreary pageant of bad thinking into something scientific and encyclopedic. . . maybe I'm just getting old? Anville 17:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unscientific yes, but unencyclopedic? Eugene Wigner published stuff on consciousness and QM. So I say redirect and the number of pseudoscience articles is reduced by one. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The most sensible redirect I can find is to point the "Parallels" page to Orch-OR, another page which needs serious de-POVing by a real science person. Anville 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)