Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive November 2016

Review of probable COI article required: Polariton Interferometer

An article, Polariton Interferometer, looks as if it has been put together by someone with a conflict of interest. I'd be grateful if anyone from this project would review the article; it may be worth reading the very short Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Polariton Interferometer first. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. One problem I spotted was likely copyright violations. A good bit of the article seems to be taken from the website the Quantum Widget company. There are identical sentences from [1] as well. These are 2015 sources but the article is from 2016, so likely a copypasta job. --Mark viking (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Good work, Mark; thank you. Throws much more light on the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio removed. Unfortunately each copyvio was almost entirely from the intro sentences of the paragraphs, so it might not make a lick of sense any more. Primefac (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac. I've removed some more, and put the skeleton up for speedy deletion, though whoever judges it might not agree that it's advertorial. I'm v.grateful to this project & v.impressed with the swift response. Would that all Wikiprojects were as helpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The article has now been speedily deleted as an advert. Thanks again to this project for its input. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett

Back at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (3rd nomination). Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

hbar

Would somebody be able to format this diff [2] properly? It is beyond my feeble abilities. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

For Compton scattering, that should be an $h$ and not an $\hbar$. Dilaton (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Not so. Take a look at page xv of the L+L text from which the article is sourced. That is the usage there. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC).

With an \hbar defines the reduced Compton wavelength. The standard Compton wavelength is defined in terms of Planck's constant. See our Wikipedia article on Compton wavelength, the NIST CODATA value, and most books on atomic physics. --Mark viking (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

OK: one or the other has got to be changed to make the section consistent. Further, I am looking for SI sources for the section on the non-linear responses of E and B. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC).

Really, Xxanthippe, this should be an $h$. Using the reduced Compton wavelength is needlessly confusing, and it makes the subsequent formulas wrong. Here's a good source with the identical formulas, using $h$: [3]. Dilaton (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The source you cite is in fact agreement with the definitive L+L, take a look at their page xv, as I have advised previously. These authors, as do many, define Compton wavelength in terms of hbar. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC).

Ha, no, you were right the first time. L&L and several others agree with the use of the reduced Compton wavelength for vacuum polarization, which is often obfuscated by the use of natural units ($\hbar =c=1$). But the reference I found available online got it wrong, using the non-reduced Compton wavelength, as you can see here [4] on their p39. Thanks for the fun adventure through QFT texts. Dilaton (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Help with clarification

Hey folks! Super-resolution microscopy has had a "clarification-needed" tag in the section on Structured Illumination Microscopy for about a year now. The point of confusion has something to do with Fourier transforms, frequencies, and wave phases. I'm a bit out of my depth on this one. Any chance someone with a bit more knowledge of this kind of thing could take a look and clarify that paragraph? Thanks a bunch! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD: Theory of infinitely extended particles

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of infinitely extended particles. Dukwon (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The progenitor of the theory, Mahmoud Hessabi, has also been nominated (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahmoud Hessabi). Primefac (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

American Physical Society

Hi folks. Been having a bit of a revert fest with someone trying to insert some very NPOV material into this article today; I'm at 3RR and need to get my butt back to work - anyone in this project mind keeping an eye on it, and maybe helping guide the other editor along? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the other editor is convinced that his viewpoints are The Truth (tm), so this will probably be a lingering issue. I'm out, but will advise some other administrators to take a look. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh my. Even Truth can be neutrally written. Rarely, but possible. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it does seem that there is some basis for the added text. See this press release by APS apologizing for a recently retracted press release relating to the U.S. presidential election.

But without knowing what the retracted press release said or who & what prompted its retraction, we cannot support the text. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "angry... Marxist femisinists", the author seems to have also failed to mention Jewish Bolshevism. No doubt that will be discussed in the next iteration of this obviously important, and not-in-any-way biased addition to the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the story, including a screenshot of the original press release. POV editor linked to it. --Steve (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)