Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive March 2012

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Merging of constructive and axiomatic QFT articles

hi, i might be wrong but these articles seems to talk about the same thing. shouldn't they be merged ? the paragraph Axiomatic approaches doensn't even mention the axiomatic QFT article. thanks - MIRROR (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice little phenomenon to be talked about

So, what's going on here, what is the cloud all about ? I suspect there may be a few articles this could brighten up. There is a lot of things that a volcanic eruption does to the atmosphere, and they are worth documenting, this is a featured picture, and it's as yet unused. I Cross-posted here. Penyulap_talk 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is already covered at mushroom cloud (with what looks like a condensation cloud at the top). Volcanoes and forest fires can make mushroom clouds too. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sweet ! that nuclear mushroom article could use a bit more volcano in it, text wise as well as featured pic wise. Condensation article could be renamed vacuum, cause it's so totally in need of anything at all in the way of text or pictures, it'll suck this one right up. Don't jet aircraft leave long condensation clouds behind them when they fly in the right conditions ? surely there are pics of that too. anyhow, I have a million other things to edit. Penyulap_talk 13:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that you are referring to contrails — trails of condensed water left behind by some aircraft. These two articles do not seem to mention each other. Perhaps they should? JRSpriggs (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources make the connection then wikipedia should, otherwise we shouldn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Gravitational potential

A user has recently inserted what seems to be a "theoretical justification" of the gravitational potential to gravitational potential. I removed it, but it was reverted. Opinions are welcome at Talk:Gravitational potential. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please help. I have attempted to engage the user in a discussion about this, but he seems only to be interested in ad hominem personal attacks. I'm at 3rr. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The concept of "force" is extraneous to General Relativity. There are no forces at all. How can I discuss a physics article with you after your claim that gravitoelectric potential belongs to the General Relativity section? What are you doing in a physics article? Have you been hired to police Wikipedia? U5ard (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Article edited ([1]) and commented on talk page ([2]). User welcomed and warned on User talk:U5ard. - DVdm (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If the source is obviously correct, it is reliable. Peer review does not help against scientific gobbledegook. U5ard (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Do have a careful look at our core policy wp:RS. Your source https://sites.google.com/site/eschatopaedia does not qualify. - DVdm (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can remove that particular source. All matter waves are everywhere, with different amplitudes. Their amplitudes are higher in the regions of their constructive interference. This is school physics and cannot be regarded as an original research. U5ard (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

All claims need to be attributed to a reliable source. If this is school physics, I'm sure it is trivial for you to find a textbook asserying that constructive interference of matter waves produces the gravitational potential. Until such time as you find such a source supporting this assertion, it has to go. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Reported for 3RR: [3]. - DVdm (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I just deleted similar material at Gravity well. There may be some sockpuppetry as well. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably. Expect more. This is not a new user. User has just been blocked, by the way. I rolled Gravitational potential back to last known good. - DVdm (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason any article should link to Eschatopaedia. Apart from the fact that it seems to be fringe physics, it is not a reliable source and it falls firmly outside of WP:EL. (Note: there is or was a different site named "eschatopedia" which might have been closer to meeting our standards, but appears to have no relationship with this site.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This is definitely sockpuppetry. Three users with two contributions each - to Gravitational potential and Gravity well! RockMagnetist (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have just started an investigation. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice username pattern of I4gbb (talk · contribs), I86fk (talk · contribs), U5ard (talk · contribs) and their edits: all pushing Eschatopaedia. Surely there's some more around. - DVdm (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would qualify for Speedy Sockpuppetry if there was such a thing! RockMagnetist (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_October_2011#Gravitomagnetism. Looks like Antichristos (talk · contribs). - DVdm (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The strange little diamond in the references added by Antichristos and these new editors leaves little doubt. Good catch! Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Centers of gravity in non-uniform fields

Please, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centers_of_gravity_in_non-uniform_fields&action=history . Initially it was a good idea to gather all content related to the center of mass in the center of mass article. But is was later botched by an incompetent decision to dump all remainder of the former "Center of gravity" article to the "center of mass". Join the discussion at talk:Centers of gravity in non-uniform fields#Center of mass. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger Suggestion

I've started a discussion to suggest a merger of articles into the AMO article, if anyone would like to comment: Talk:Atomic,_molecular,_and_optical_physics. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wire chamber

A user who has recently been blocked for writing incoherently and inappropriately has contributed substantially to the article Wire chamber. I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject to check if the additions here are similar or if they are, in fact, improvements.

Would someone look this over? I don't think deep knowledge of the subject is needed (though it would help); the issue is mainly "is this reasonable material" rather than "is all of this right".

CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Category: Fundamental physics concepts

Category:Fundamental physics concepts has 361 article in it. Seems like it is no longer about fundamental physics concepts. I think it shoud be renamed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Should it not be just cleaned up? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That is an option but is the name of the category able to be used as an unequivocal means of defining what should be included? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If we keep the existing title, we need to decide whether we mean: (1) the first things a student must learn about physics before he is able to understand the rest of it, or (2) the ultimate constituents of the universe. These are not the same. So we need to make a decision here. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it is not the same, but unlikely different fundamental theories could agree on which "constituents of the universe" are ultimate. I think, we could first reach an interim agreement about which concepts are undisputably not fundamental and kick these out, which will make the category's content more reviewable. For example, I think that atomic nucleus is fundamental – this is a constituent not only of an atom, but also of an ion and, strictly speaking, of a molecule, so it cannot be reduced to the notion of "atom". Even if we knew anything about the atom, we still do not know something about nuclei. But proton is not fundamental – from one side, nucleons are a partial case of baryons whose properties are explained via fundamental interactions (most importantly, strong nuclear and electromagnetic forces), and from another side, protons and neutrons themselves do not explain the atomic nucleus, because without any knowledge of (yet another time) the strong nuclear force we are unable to propose a model. Attempt to explain what is the strong nuclear force will quickly lead to the notion of baryon, whose partial case the proton is. This is exactly opposite to the current categorization in articles. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Physics concepts perhaps. I think a lot of what is in the category aren't concepts, such as the many equations in the category. Maybe have a separate category for physics equations. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of entries that we could eliminate uncontroversially, regardless of the precise definition we use. For example, User:Jlancaster! RockMagnetist (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I made an attempt to define "Fundamental physics concepts" on the category page. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big_Bang_Theory_(disambiguation)#Primary_Topic_RFC. Polyamorph (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mirror photon → Mirror matter merge

This merge proposal has been on the CAT:MERGE backlog for over 3 years now, and only 2 comments have been made in the discussion (including the nom). I'd like to see this proposal resolved one way or the other soon, so I would appreciate it if some members of this project could join the discussion, and help reach consensus on this. The discussion is at Talk:Mirror matter#Merger proposal. Physics is not my area, but I am willing to help in any way I can if a consensus for merge is acheived. Many thanks, Quasi human | Talk 12:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick look makes this merger seem like a good idea. However, this idea of mirror matter is so unrelated to anything real that I doubt anyone here is going to be willing to put much effort into it. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Accelerator physics category

Hello, i have written some arguments for a new category to Category talk:Particle accelerators#Accelerator physics category. Feel free to participate in the discussion. BR84 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Addison misspelled "Addision"

While checking my watch-list, I saw that a few times "Addision Wesley" had been corrected to "Addison Wesley" (which I verified is correct by looking at the external sites). A search indicates that there remain (at this moment) 18 articles in which the misspelling occurs. Could someone who knows how to use a bot please correct these! JRSpriggs (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears that this has now been corrected. I thank whoever fixed it. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A nuclear physics question

Hello physicists! I hope you can help me. I am writing astatine and I have a question about its alpha decay characteristics. At-211 has 126 neurtons, which is a magic number. Why then energy of alpha decay of At-211 exceeds that of At-210? Also notable that At-213 (N=128=126+2) has two more protons than 126. Its alpha decay half-life is in accordance: the shortest of all astatine isotopes. IS there a reason why At-211 is not the longest-lived astatine isotope? Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the development of articles on physics. A better forum for your question is the Reference desk. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, then, and thanks for pointing to the place--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

self-reference concerns on certain kinematics articles

Hello. I am not entirely sure the physics project is the right place to go to for this concern, so if I can post this at a more appropriate project, please let me know. Recently I noticed an unexplained term ("Watt topology") in kinematics that sent me searching the web for information. I could only find the term in publications by J.M. McCarthy, whose work is referenced in kinematics, kinematic chain, forward kinematics, inverse kinematics. I also notice that User:Prof McCarthy has extensively edited these articles. I have no idea if this is a case of self-referenced work, and I don't know a quick way to test if in fact someone used the reference independently. While this practice looks suspect, I think it was probably done with good will. I have just left a message for User:Prof McCarthy about providing different references. Please keep an eye on the situation, thank you. Rschwieb (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a good place for the question. I don't think there is a problem, though - User:Prof McCarthy provides a citation of a book by Lung-Wen Tsai, and I found the page on which the two mechanisms are defined. I also changed the citation to point directly at that page. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

OK I'm glad it can be resolved. At WP:MATH, the problem of an author self-citing as the only reference on a new idea is often much worse. As I half-expected, I just did not know the right search terms to look for, and the citation does not seem to be an issue. I'm sorry you have interpreted a good-will action as an accusation, J. M. McCarthy, but you have to consider how the circumstances might look to a stranger. Nine times out of ten in math articles, when a user makes hundreds of edits to a handful of articles and cites their own work, there is a breach in policy. I can tell you have ample knowledge of the literature to provide resources beyond your own work. Rschwieb (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You were right to bring the issue up, Rschwieb, and it led to improvement of the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Images of experimental data

Hi,

Does anyone know where to look for open-source images of experimental data? In particular, I'm looking for a typical data plot from a quantum oscillations experiment, something like this.

Thanks, SPat ^talk 21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The straightforward way would be to email the authours of an appropriate paper (like the one cited by your link), explain that you want to make a wikipedia figure illustrating the subject, and ask if they'd be willing to contribute a data set to use. Then make your own plot of it.

If I understand correctly, it's not possible to copyright the data, just pictures of it; this means they'd be free to share the data set with you without stepping on the journal's toes (this is why you can't just ask them for permission to use an already-published figure). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I could try that. Also, I had a look at similar articles, and it seems that many of them use images from NIST/NASA etc. Would it be worthwhile searching for images on any US federal govt. agencies (DOE, DST, NIST,...) and national labs (LBL, LANL, FNL,...)? Thanks for the help, SPat ^talk 23:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Anything in the .gov domain is fair game, as long as the image was generated by the government. You can find other ideas at Wikipedia:Images#Finding_images_on_the_Internet. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lee Smolin

Knowledgeable eyes requested here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Center of pressure

A problem has arisen at our Center of pressure article. Originally, it seemed to be discussion the term as used in fluid mechanics, where it has a precise and well-defined meaning (though the article was less-then-clear with regard to some of the examples given, and could do with a little attention from someone with understanding of the subject). A recent edit [4] added a section on 'center of pressure in biomechanics', which seems to me to be about another topic entirely, probably more related to solid mechanics, and as such in need of its own article (and perhaps with a disambiguation page). I raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics#Center of pressure, but we seem to be at something of an impasse. Could someone from Project Physics perhaps help us find a solution: is there a general 'center of pressure' concept applied to both solid and fluid mechanics (in which case our article needs rewriting to cover both in general terms - with perhaps a section on biomechanics), or is this simply a case of two distinct meanings of the same phrase? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

HCPotter at Apeiron

I have been reverting a few recent edits (on article and on article talk) by user HCPotter (talk · contribs) today:

all seemingly nonsense, and all pointing to exactly the same pdf (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V18NO3PDF/V18N3POT.pdf) at (fringe journal) Apeiron. One of my removals was reverted by another user. We might keep an eye on this. User is warned on talk page at User talk:HCPotter. DVdm (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The abstract in that linked pdf reminds me of SCIgen output. Is this patent nonsense, or something more insidious? TSchwenn (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, even if it was perfectly rational and printed in a peer reviewed journal it would still not have due weight for the associated articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

ND Experiment & SND Experiment

There are two fairly new articles ND Experiment & SND Experiment which might use some expert help from this project. There are multiple issues with these articles by a new editor, but my initial concern is with the article names and structure of the lede. The title itself might be a neologism, should probably be in the plural, and have ND spelled out, so i thought it best to get some consensus before moving it. The lede, and the whole article for that matter, is somewhat ambiguous in that it is not clear whether it is about the detector, or the experiments carried out with it. The Results sections are next to useless in that they simply refer the reader to references which them selves seem far from useful to me. This article is somewhat beyond my expertise, so would appreciate your thoughts on how to proceed - are there viable articles here, and what to do with them? Derek Andrews (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)