User talk:mfb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

collision-production mode[edit]

That is the official status of LHC now. Thought, it would be okay to mention it at that spot over at LHC. Though, it is not that important. (I think i added a ref for it too) prokaryotes (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That phrase was used for April where no (relevant) collisions occured. I'm fine with using it for now, as we now have collisions. --mfb (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

EM Drive[edit]

Hi mfb,
You haven't been following this very closely have you? You ask Then where would the momentum of the EM wave come from, if not from the apparatus initially? Answer F=2P/c... Google it. Ask NASA and the other five counties that are studying the EM Drive. If you question the math, post it on the talk page or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics but don't revert unless you have reason Sutor, ne ultra crepidam. So don't take offense that I am reverting your edits. --Aspro (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If the satellite is able to accelerate by purely internal mechanisms, this violates conservation of momentum. The details of where in the satellite the momentum is do not matter. Everyone agrees that it violates conservation of momentum unless there is some exhaust in some way. --mfb (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
?--Aspro (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Which part is unclear? --mfb (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


I don't understand the reason for your change of 16 September. It is the case that uncertainty related to the structure of the proton limits the precision of calculations of the energy levels of hydrogen. If the original statement was unclear, I would be happy to change it, rather than undo your change. — Fcy (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The old version suggests that the energy levels of muonium could be calculated more precisely than the energy levels of regular hydrogen. That is not true. The largest source of uncertainty in both cases is the proton size and structure - this uncertainy is much more important for muonium. Muonium is used to measure the proton radius for this reason. --mfb (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You're thinking of muonic hydrogen, in which the electron of hydrogen is replaced by a negative muon, rather than muonium, in which the proton is replaced by a positive muon. —Fcy (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Oops. Reverted my edit, thanks. --mfb (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Dimensionless Constants[edit]

Please read the talk page. We are having a disagreement (deletion of Jim Johnson reference)and I would like your opinion.Thanks Jim Johnson2602:304:B10B:A640:40A9:7E78:F78E:8DA2 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I mean Dimensional Physical Constants. Sorry 2602:304:B10B:A640:40A9:7E78:F78E:8DA2 (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm watching the article and discussion there. --mfb (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Mfb, I think it is unfortunate that the reference to my article on constants of nature, Discovering Nature's Hidden Relationships, an Unattainable Goal? Physics International 6 (1): DOI: 10.3844/pisp.2015.3.10. is arbitrarily ruled out. Do you think it is relevant? Isambard thinks you are voting to delete it. Also, the continued conversation: Thanks, Jim Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talkcontribs) 16:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant, and I said this on the discussion page already. Please keep the discussion there. --mfb (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

RF resonant cavity thruster Hypothesis[edit]

Hi, please have a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your own web page is not a reliable source. And while that alone is sufficient to make your content not acceptable: It is also nonsense what you try to add. This is not the first place where someone told you that - maybe consider as option that everyone else is right and you are wrong? --mfb (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, please read the text of that article, it's a 'controversial proposed type of electromagnetic thruster', and the theories written in section 5 are 'Hypothesis', of which most likely each is wrong. So what's the difference to just another explanation of which i think is the most classical and only explanation without magic of all the other Hypothesis written? It's a fact that my theory _is_ another theory, at least it's my theory, and as long as noone can proove it's wrong it's a valid theory, so why do you think it wouldn't fit in here? (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, wasn't sure if you read on my IP-based talk-page, so i copied that content to here hoping to get a response ;) (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The most likely explanation (by a huge margin) are measurement errors in those experiments that claim to see a thrust, but that is not the point. Send your text to a peer-reviewed journal, if it passes peer review there, and others pick it up to write about it, then we can include it here. That is the difference between what you added and what is there already. Wikipedia does not judge the quality of hypotheses, it relies on the peer-review process of journals to judge the quality and on the judgement of newspapers and similar instances to judge the notability.
Your explanation would require (a) the electromagnetic wave to be outside the cavity and (b) charged objects outside. Both are not present. If they would, the device would just be an ion thruster. --mfb (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the explanation. This explanation does not need charged particles outside, that's the new and interesting thing in this specific solution, but anyway as it's not peer-reviewed an i see no chance how i could achieve this i'm not going to post it again. thanks anyway (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)