Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2016

Vladimir Braginsky

This bio of the recently deceased Russian physicist just came through AfC, it has some poorly translated language that would probably be best cleaned up by someone more familiar with his areas of interest. Thanks in advance, --joe decker^talk 01:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on user:Chjoaygame to not edit quantum theory articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

user:Chjoaygame has various misinterpretations of quantum theory, its concepts, formalisms, and notations. He will not break out of them, instead resorting to treatises of the pioneers as the final word. Including pioneering work of Dirac, Feynman, von Neumann, you name them, is a good thing for historical context. Trying to write an article in the same archaic terms they used is not helpful as Ch would have us think. As much as possible, Ch avoids mathematics, including standard terminology, and uses enormous quantities of prose.

His style of talk page discussion is particularly tiresome, endless nitpicking, thanking, apologizing, citations, quotes, and insinuations when he doesn't get his way, and even accusations that his point (or a point made by a pioneering physicist) has not been resolved. Often wall after wall of text is written. Also, when other editors propose a rewrite, whatever the choice of terminology, however things are phrased, Ch simply must use different words, often obscure, non-standard, or archaic. This is all cloaked in a very politically correct style.

Examples I have been recently involved with are

• Talk:Bra–ket notation
• Talk:Wave function archives 3-10 (especially 8 onwards) and edit history

but see also Talk:Quantum mechanics and its archives and edit history. For Talk:Wave function, the fact that four archives this year and three archives last year have been necessary, AND no progress has been made from "WP:AGF" discussions with this editor, is a clear sign the articles will not progress either, and they have not as long as he edits. Everyone just leaves frustrated.

I have not engaged with this editor as extensively as others, such as user:YohanN7, user:Tsirel, user:Waleswatcher, but enough to convince me that Ch is wasting time. Also, Ch engages with the thermodynamics articles, but I don't follow them much. Many users on this Wikiproject will know I am prone to mistakes, misinterpretations, and even get rude/uptight sometimes. But I do not perpetuate, nor argue on and on and on to have things my way, or the pioneer's way. Get this - even I can find Ch to be mistaken, which says something.

This is not a personal attack. It is well meant. Ch may well be polite and seem very resourceful, but is overall destructive for the above reasons, at least in the quantum theory articles.

If this ban fails, then it fails. But it's high time for Ch to desist from editing quantum articles until he changes his view on the subject, maybe even self-experiment in the basic mathematics required for the theory, it leads to a deeper understanding than just reading. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban. User does not edit to improve articles but to exercise his idiosyncratic views. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC).
• This is not the place to discuss topic bans. Take it to Administrators' noticeboard. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll move it there. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 08:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To be continued at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban on user:Chjoaygame to not edit quantum theory articles. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 08:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Earth Similarity Index

My exoplanet colleagues pointed out that Wikipedia is promoting a peculiar index called Earth Similarity Index which is a synthetic calculation that attempts to make a declaration of how "earth-like" a planet is. The index has been criticized by professional astronomers as having problematic implications, but more importantly there is just not a lot of material citing it. As such, Wikipedia is acting a bit like a big advertisement for this questionable system.

I'm trying to improve the main article here: Earth Similarity Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Related to this are the following AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-433.02 m
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable moons
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable exoplanets

which rely heavily on a single website which is maintained by one somewhat maverick-y professor who tweaks the calculations from time-to-time to essentially fine-tune the results (this is intentional -- the idea is to get an index which identifies Earth as 100% like Earth while excluding Mars at the 20% level or so).

In any case, Wikipedia seems to be in the position of promoting this waaaay unduly, but there is not a lot of expertise at this website and so many are getting confused by the whistles and bells. If people here could help look into this and comment to fix some of the problems, I'd be appreciative.

jps (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Note there are also two RfCs listed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Is_Citing_PHL.2FHEC_in_violation_of_WP:SELFPUB.3F. jps (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like it is time to send Earth Similarity Index itself to Afd. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, and if you could make the argument I would be inclined to support it since I think the concept is getting too much play at Wikipedia, but I'm not sure the community would accept such an argument. It turns out that one of the main advocates of the ESI has been moderately successful in getting the index airtime in popsci articles. I guess it feeds in to the media's obsession with the soundbite (e.g. "This is the third most Earth-like exoplanet EVAR DISCOVERED!") Regrettably, there is enough noise about this that it may push the article past something like a WP:GNG. I think the worst part is using ESI as the sole identifier for whether an exoplanet is "habitable". jps (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Radiation laws"

FYI, a notice about DRAFT:Radiation laws has been posted at WT:ASTRONOMY -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

PING Space travel using constant acceleration

Ping ping... we could use some input at Talk:Space travel using constant acceleration#Please review this chart for inclusion in the article. Tia. - DVdm (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Missing physics topics

Is anybody looking at the Missing physics topics subpage and its subpages? Judging from few entries in WhatLinksHere, it seems like it's forgotten or something. Nevertheless, I've added the 750 GeV diphoton resonance to the particle physics list, because it is apparently a big thing in particle physics since the end of last year 2015, but I can't find information about it (and proposed models) put in a nice systematic way and linked with related topics, like in WP articles.

So, if there is a particle physicist around here, keep in mind that it would be nice to start an article about it. :) 46.234.76.36 (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this the same as Isotopes of helium#Helium-2 (diproton)? Sorry, I misread "photon" as "proton". JRSpriggs (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"Mercury"

The usage and primary topic of "Mercury" is under discussion, see Talk:Mercury (planet) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

GUT and TOE and EMC2

Hello,

I am working on a new model of Grand Unification, and have the diagrams and formulae to prove my thoughts. However, being not very used to Wikipedia edits, I wonder how I can contribute without causing problems. Please advise. If there are any physicists out there (theoretical, of course) who have experience with GUTs and TOEs, please do contact me!

As for E=MC^2, I am working with tachyonic field theory and have a proof that Einstein's Mass-Energy Equivalence is Invalid for Tachyonic Fields (<--Title of Paper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8SEAL9 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing your contributions to science. If you have something to add to the scientific discourse, submit it to a journal and get it published. If other people pick-up on it we may even write a Wikipedia article on it. Until that happens this is the wrong venue for your thoughts.TR 22:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Surface"

The usage and topic of surface is under discussion, see Talk:Surface -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Scientific notation with {{Convert}}

Do you think that template:convert should support an option that forces output to use scientific notation ? I've noticed there no such option at template talk:Convert. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that would be very helpful. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Cophonicity at AFC

Is this an acceptable article? One thing that might be a problem is that the author is frequently citing his own work. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this is a valid topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC).

I understand the reticence because it is a new concept. However, cophonicity is not a theory or a point of view on some specific case. Cophonicity is a new way to analyse the phonon density of states (pDOS), the latter being a concept that is already well established. Cophonicity has a precise mathematical definition (it is just the difference between two integrals) and it is used in the defined context of the phonon density of states. Despite the conceptual idea of cophonicity is new (looking at how each atom contributes to the pDOS), it is a name attributed to a mathematical quantity and, as such, I don't believe it must be proven; indeed, no proof can be provided on a definition. The article is limited to the description of what it is and where it can be used; no other comments are done on its efficiency or similar questionable opinions. I cite my own work only to provide more information on the context in which it has been defined. Antoniocammarata 10:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)— Antoniocammarata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please take another look at this draft, additional references have been added, does it pass Notability yet? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Fortifying wikiquanta

Intrigued? Welcome here. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Jesubalan primary source, fringe, undue

I have reverted per wp:primary source, wp:fringe and wp:undue all today's edits of user Iiar (talk · contribs) and left a note on their talk page. This is one example. The dozen of other edits were more of the same. - DVdm (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Kepler candidates list

A more-or-less arbitrary list of Kepler candidates is being hosted at Wikipedia. I suggest it be deleted.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI.

jps (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

List of nearby terrestrial exoplanets

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates

I don't think we can justify keeping this list for the reasons I outline.

jps (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Definition of Chemical potential

There is a debate on Talk:Chemical potential [1] about whether an old [2] or new [3] version of the definition is better. Comments are welcome. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC).

Equations

• Stefan tube (AfD discussion)

I don't really have time to fiddle with all of the mathematical markup. Please feel free to take the sources cited in hand and put the equations in. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)