Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 10

message: *Debate on Cold Fusion See Talk:Cold fusion Request for Comment: Dispute over version to build on.  Some want to continue with the September 2006 version which gives pro and con on experimental evidence.  Some want to revert to a two year old featured article with less emphasis on presenting the experimenters point of view.Ron Marshall 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold Fusion request for Comment 

message: Here is my proposal to deal with this debacle. Let's establish, by consensus within the project, a set of guidelines for referencing physics articles in Wikipedia. Then, at least, we will have a set of clear guidelines and an established consensus to refer to if we start having problems with WP:GA and WP:FA. I think if we write a reasonable set of guidelines, which respect WP:V and WP:CITE, we'll get little argument from the vast majority of the people over there.
I have already written a proposal, available here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Citation guidelines proposal. It definitely has a whiff of the first draft about it (some sentences seem pretty tortured), but I'm confident we can bang it into something that is clear and concise. Here is my proposal:
# Spend a few days going over the proposal, seeing if anyone has issues with the content, language or examples
# Conduct a straw poll amongst the WikiProject Physics people
# If we have consensus, move it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Citation guidelines and add a link from the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics page.
# Ask the GA and FA people if they seem reasonable?
I've tried to write the guidelines in such a way that they don't apply just to physics, although the examples are (by necessity) taken from articles I'm familiar with.
I'll also go over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and ask the people there for input. Perhaps we can have joint guidelines, since they seem to be having a similar issue. –Joke 16:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good to me.  I say we adopt it, and then let the GA folks agree with us or not as they choose.  I think inline citations are more controversial than they, or even some of the people who edit WP:CITE, realize. -- SCZenz 18:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that all is not yet lost at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources.  A mild change in the guidelines there would be more helpful than a per-project policy that the GA folk would be unlikely to heed.  I encourage those who are interested in compromise to speak clearly and calmly in that discussion rather than giving up hope. CMummert 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that all is not yet lost, but I nonetheless think this propsal is helpful. We are unlikely to change more than a line or two of WP:CITE, so adopting our own comprehensive set of guidelines can create additional clarification. –Joke 16:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation guidelines proposal 

message: An article with this title was deleted in June I think. Nothing links to it.Could people have a look at it? I'm on wikibreak and fly back to Australia from London tomorrow so I have no time to do more. --Bduke 09:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, an article with this title was deleted after a prod:. I can't check if this is a "substantially identical copy" of the previously deleted material, a condition needed for a speedy.  --LambiamTalk 12:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I turned it into a redirect to Kinetic energy.  --LambiamTalk 12:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The author of the article has some odd notions which I doubt explication can untangle.  See Talk:Recoil, and try to keep your eyes from bleeding.  Anville 15:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Transitional kinetic energy]]

message: User:Iantresman has started a request for arbitration members of this project may wish to comment on WP:RfArb#Pseudoscience_vs_Pseudoskepticism. --ScienceApologist 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is some very depressing reading; I have a feeling that this will only end badly after a protracted dispute.  Lots of sound, plenty of fury, the vast majority of it signifying nothing, etc.  Anville 15:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfArb

message: The following appear to be IRL one Gerhard Grössing, who says he is a phycisist in Vienna, and the creator of the so-called "quantum cybernetics", which appears to be very obscure:
*
* the vie.surfer.at anon (Elvedin Music, Telekabel Wien GmbH in Vienna, Austria)
* (an unregistered IP address in the brz.gv.at zone for Vienna, Austria)
The contribs, location, and nature of the edits all support this conclusion.  Thus, this article appears vio WP:VAIN, and since I can find no evidence of anyone other than the author discussing this theory in the research literature, it may vio WP:RS-WP:NOR as well.  ---CH 23:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from [[Talk:Quantum cybernetics]]

message: Here. Byrgenwulf 12:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: Talk:Jack_Sarfatti#undue_weight And I quote: 
:I'm also removing this paragraph: "A graduate seminar taught by University of Campinas, Brazil mathematics professor Waldyr Rodrigues, which looked for mathematical errors and inconsistencies in physics papers published in scientific journals or posted on the arXiv online physics preprint archive, recently focused on some of Sarfatti's concepts and methods. In his paper "A Comment on Emergent Gravity," posted on arXiv, Rodrigues cited alleged mathematical inconsistencies in the first version of Sarfatti's recent paper "Emergent Gravity: String Theory Without String Theory," [13] calling it a "potpourri of nonsense Mathematics," and said that later revisions of the paper also contained errors." While the information seems to be correct and factual, one has to wonder why it is notable enough to be here. An obscure seminar taught by an obscure Brasilian professor is not important enough to be a blemish on the permanent record of a worldwide-famous Nobel-prize-winning physicist from Cornell. Its placement here is giving Rodrigues undue weight. It's like putting a criticism section on, say, Sean Penn's article and citing references to a small-time community-theater actor who states that Penn is a poor actor. Not all criticism is encyclopedic. User:wikipediatrix 15:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, concerning physics Wikipediatrix is... somewhat misinformed :-/  But a glance at contribs suggests this user mostly edits a wide range of AfDs and generally seems to like to edit maximally controversial pages, so "her" comments might well be somewhat trollish. ---CH 02:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If I didn't read Wikipedia, I wouldn't know Sarfatti won the Nobel prize 

message: Since this topic provoked some comments earlier, I thought it would be worth posting another link to The n-Category Café.  New Scientist has, it appears, reacted to whatever flak they received about their shoddy EmDrive reportage.  Anville 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprising; their readers appear to demand a steady diet of glazed eyed "reporting". ---CH 02:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''New Scientist'' reacts 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience#Monitoring continued problematic activity by permabanned users. TIA for your feedback! ---CH 02:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to monitor for enfourcement of ArbCom bans etc

message: Cold fusion controversy has been proposed for deletion, apropos this comment by Jefffire replying to Pjacobi.  Anville 15:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And another one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entropy (energy dispersal). I start feeling like Noske -- Einer muss den Löschtroll machen, for those knowing German language and history. --Pjacobi 14:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We never tire of AfDs 

message: I know people around here would rather be working on actual physics than dealing with yet another brushfire, and I'm equally sure that someone will accuse me of "soliciting votes" for posting this.  No matter; you're welcome to ignore it, as always!
To sum up, Byrgenwulf has opened a Request for Comment on the conduct of Asmodeus, here.  This business stretches back to that fracas back in the summer about the twice-deleted CTMU.  Anville 18:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: Hi guys: I just created , which makes distance unit conversions very easy.  You might want to check it out. —Mets501 (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Template 

message: I'm busy rewriting Heim theory, I'm doing that offline. Within a few days I'm going to upload a version that the pro-Heim lobby probably won't like. So, I need your help to revert to my version. Also you may want to improve my version further.
Also, we need to check out physics articles that mention Heim theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Heim_theory
Count Iblis 17:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting [[Heim theory]] 

message: I know we have a "recommended reading" (or something like that) for general relarivity. Now I just learned that there is also a List of notable textbooks in statistical mechanics, from finding it on AfD: List of notable textbooks in statistical mechanics. Any ideas here about usefullness and policy conformance of such lists? --Pjacobi 19:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely that's what the bibliography of the relevant article is for? The point of an encyclopaedia is that it is a reference work, or a first port of call when embarking on research.  One reads the article, and if one needs more information, one consults the bibliography.  Not a separate list... Byrgenwulf 19:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended reading pages 

message: is back again adding his original research and opinions .  (Escape is possible, blablabla...) Could someone take a look? I've reverted a couple of times.  Byrgenwulf 20:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Black hole]] 

message: During my tagging of physics articles, I've come across a few odd ones that could do with attention. The first is Mousetrap car, which really could do with wikifying (and checking if it's appropriate for wikipedia, and isn't a copyvio). The second is Rafie%E2%80%99s_Law, which has been flagged as OR and is a possible candidate for deletion. More will probably be forthcoming as I work my way through the physics articles... Mike Peel 23:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also come across FysikRevy(TM), which I think is non-notable and should probably be AfD'd. Comments? Mike Peel 15:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say AfD the FysikRevy(TM).  Anville 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Metaevolution does not necesaarily appear to be pseudoscience, but it does appear to be a neologism and/or an advertisement.  Both are grounds for deleting the article. George J. Bendo 12:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of articles that could do with attention 

message: Albert Einstein is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 18:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Albert Einstein]]

message: I'm told that there's an effort to re-write physics, with the current draft at physics/wip. linas 04:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Physics/wip]] 

message: This looks to be like a very important case, in my opinion. You may wish to watch parts of it or comment on talkpages even if you are not directly involved: . --ScienceApologist 12:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This exposes a fundamental problem in Wikipedia (and a problem in the mainstream media and other places).  Wikipedia's policy is written to give the impression that everyone's viewpoint carries equal weight.  Consequently, Wikipedia seems like it wants to give equal weight to mainstream and pseudoscientific viewpoints in its articles.  Therefore, if someone has a wacky idea ("the Sun is made of iron"), Wikipedia will end up being rewritten to include as many words for the idea as against the idea, even though the concept is largely unproven.  ("The Sun is made of iron" idea is a real theory being promoted by someone whose name I have forgotten.  It appeared on CNN.com with about equal discussion given to and against the idea because the article needed to have an "unbiased" viewpoint.) George J. Bendo 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, WP:NPOV#Undue weight says clearly that minority views do not get equal weight. -- SCZenz 14:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience arbitration

message: I'm just tired of those theory stubs, consisting only of
* the megalomaniac :Template:Theories of gravitation
* a "see also" section ranging from Law of universal gravitation to vector
* (optionally) an external link to sensationalist New Scientist article
* (optionally) a giant cite from a preprint of theory's author
I know that TeVeS is a dark horse but sane and that SVT is only Moffat-cruft, but its current state both "articles" are useless, so I've PRODed them.
* Tensor-vector-scalar gravity
* Scalar-tensor-vector gravity
Pjacobi 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is not a "useless" article (on a valid topic) better than no article at all? At least it serves as a stub which people can add to and fix. By the way, there is only one day left before the PRODed article Limitations of special relativity is deleted, if any of you want to save it. JRSpriggs 07:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At a certain treshold of article quality, I definitively don't think so. --Pjacobi 07:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the quality is NEGATIVE, i.e. it is mostly false, meaningless, or confusing statements, then I would agree. But if it is merely inadequate, no. JRSpriggs 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: SVT and TeVeS both seem to cite journal articles.  I don't see deleting them being justified—why not edit heavily instead, for example by removing that the gravity template? -- SCZenz 07:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It will be put back in. TfD has failed. But go ahead. Everybody can remove a PROD-tag, and the article is saved. --Pjacobi 07:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that, but I'm trying to see if there's something I'm missing first.  However, you don't seem to be claiming that the articles are wrong—just stubs with a big template which are difficult to maintain.  That doesn't seem to me to justify deletion. -- SCZenz 07:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  TeVeS is just a large Bekenstein quote, bordering on copyvio. Compare . --Pjacobi 08:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRODed TeVeS and SVT gravity 

message: Where is User:Hillman (better known as CH to some)? linas 05:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: was his last edit, and seems to be his leaving words. :( Mike Peel 06:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have an email from him confirming that he decided to leave. -- SCZenz 07:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Blast! –Joke 20:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "VFD"? More generally, please avoid using acronyms without a pointer or other explanation. JRSpriggs 09:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: VFD was "votes for deletion" -- an old version of the current deletion policy. --ScienceApologist 12:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is [[User:Hillman]]? 

message: In case anyone hasn't seen the new box on the top-left of the wikiproject page, I've started up a current activity page with the aim of listing all physics articles which are currently undergoing a process needing community input - for example, AfD's and Peer Reviews. I'm also adding events related to featured articles, such as FACs, FARS etc., and general WP:Phys to-do things. It isn't quite as complete as the maths one - I'm only human, not a bot.
I'll do my best to keep it as up-to-date as I can, but I'm hoping that I won't be the only person updating the page - if you spot a physics-related AfD etc. (or you create one!) then please add it to the list. I'd recommend that people add the page to their watch lists ([ click here]). Mike Peel 19:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Current activity]] 

message: Hi everyone, Photon is due to appear on the Main Page in about an hour.  It's a good opportunity for Photon to make a "quantum leap" in quality, but there will undoubtedly be some vandals attracted as well.  If you have some time, please watch over the article and protect it from malicious edits — thanks! :) Willow 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photon to appear on the Main Page

message: 3rd time is a charm? Perhaps. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Redshift. Please comment. --ScienceApologist 19:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was. Thanks everybody who helped. --ScienceApologist 12:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd [[Redshift]] FAC

message: Recently, I've been trying to figure out how far this WikiProject extends. This has been particularly important of late as I'm tagging a lot of articles with Template:Physics. One thing I've noticed is that, as an astrophysicist, I tend to include a lot of astronomy stuff under 'physics'. The same goes for bits of mathematics (for example, string theory). An additional problem is that there's a certain amount of overlap between physics and other subjects - should Entropy be tagged as physics or chemistry? (or, as it is at the moment, both.) Is Spacecraft propulsion just under the scope of WikiProject Space exploration, or physics as well?
I'm now taking the approach that generally physics things fall under WikiProject Physics, unless they're astronomical objects (e.g. specific stars, planets, etc. - but not mechanisms or general descriptors, such as Exosolar planets]), or over half the article falls outside physics. Does anyone have any comments/suggestions on how to improve this approach? Mike Peel 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think defining "physics" as wider rather than narrower is a good idea.  The risk of something falling through the cracks is a larger risk than a turf war between WikiProjects.  If a topic related to both physics and chemistry, ideally both groups would have it tagged and keep an eye on it. -- SCZenz 21:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Entropy? Do chemists actually do anything any more with entropy, other than teach it? How about physicists? I humbly suggest that the only people around who still perform actual, current research on entropy are the mathematicians :-)  linas 04:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes.  Astronomy is a branch of physics (although it may not always seem that way).  George J. Bendo 00:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How far does this WikiProject extend? 

message: Any Particle physicists out there? I would like to have Template:Infobox_Particle "peer reviewed". 
*My thoughts: Right now decay time is a field (suggested by me). But I am not sure that is the best name for it, perhaps half life is better? "Half life: Stable" might seem weird though. Another issue is with the "parentage" (how else to describe?) of particles. Right now there are twofeilds used to describe a particles in relation to other particles: family and group, however I have been informed these are not real "groupings" used by physicists. These groupings also fail when talking about composite particles. The old wikitable infoboxes just had listing above the particle with what is now called family and grouping, however that was confusing for non-physicists. Perhaps there is an overarching article that could be linked to and then all of the "parent" particles could be listed. Help? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 18:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox particle 

message: Black hole is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Black hole]]

message: I have started on a merge and cleanup of articles related to gauge fixing.  I could use some help, specifically with identifying and merging in stubs, fixing sections in redirect links, and merging in Lorenz gauge condition.  And, of course, with completeness and correctness issues; I am strongly interested in the subject but less than expert.  Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gauge fixing]]

message: Can you beieve it?  If you have view on this please go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum_theory and cast your vote.  --Michael C. Price talk 06:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the AfD was likely ill-advised, and is certainly destined for failure, but I have serious concerns about the way terminology is presented in the article.  I've thrown a bunch of tags on it and put a note on the talk page, if anyone wants to join the discussion. -- SCZenz 23:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD raised on [[Quantum theory]]

message: I've uploaded a new version of Heim theory. Take a look and, if necessary, improve my rewrite. Count Iblis 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heim theory]] rewritten! 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Since the discussions seem to have abated for some time now, I am asking the Mathematics and Physics WikiProjects if they support the new citation guidelines that I (and others) have devised. The point of the guidelines is to establish an appropriate, sensible standard for referencing articles in our fields so that we are less likely to run into objections (such as those that have come up recently) when we try to write technical articles that others then tell us are improperly sourced. I think these guidelines are now well thought out enough that they can be added to the main pages of the two WikiProjects and perhaps linked from WP:CITE. I should also note that they seem to have attracted some encouragement from outside the WikiProjects, on their talk page, mine, and on WP:CITE.
:Note A support vote with more participants is also taking place on the talk page of WP:WPM .EdJohnston 16:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there doesn't seem to be any objection to this proposal, I have gone ahead and moved it to Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines and added links on the pages of the relevant WikiProjects and on WP:CITE. –Joke 03:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation guidelines proposal 

message: I personally don't like the rate at which the sections are archived. Karol 06:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How long would you like the sections to be kept (before archiving) after the last new comment? And why? JRSpriggs 07:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know... maybe a few months, half a year, but certainly not one month. It seems to me that some discussions need to lay around before getting a reactivated discussion. Also, the archives are growing so fast at this rate and are kind of small. Just my view. Karol 14:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a very active page; if we kept discussions on here for even a few months before they're archived, it would turn into a very long page (longer than the recommended 32k by an order of magnitude or two), and I'd expect that comments would keep getting lost in it. Most of the discussions we have here are either very quick (XXX is up on AfD, for example) and so don't need to stay here long, or else have at least one comment posted to them in the 10 days before they're auto-archived (in which case, they aren't archived until 10 days later - assuming no-one else posts to them). If people do want to bring up old topics, then they can just start a new section here with a link to the old discussion. Mike Peel 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rate of archiving

message: In my travels around the stub-vaults of Wikipedia, I've come across the Boltzmon article. To me, this seems like complete bollocks. A Google search] returns 616 results, and I think that most of those are due to a book named Boltzmon, which is possibly what the article is based on. A Google Scholar search returns 3 hits, all non-notable. The Arxiv returns nothing. I'll be taking it to AfD shortly, but wanted to check here first. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, FWIW: The reference is real. Use the Amazon search feature on the Ferris book... and there is the word on page 99. Still, this looks like a "pet theory" of someone. Awolf002 20:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks - the UK Amazon site can't do that, and I didn't think to check the US one to start with. I'll wait for other people here to chime in, then, before potentially (probably?) taking it to AfD. Mike Peel 20:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this appears like a pet theory. I've done my fair share of research on black hole information and I haven't come across this term. The idea that black hole information is contained in some sort of relic objest left over after the black hole evaporates has been seriously discussed, however. I'm just not familiar with this terminology "boltzmon". I did a full text search for "boltzmon" on the physics preprint server and came up with nothing. But if someone can find a peer-reviewed journal article with the word, then it might deserve to be in WP. Even so, the article itself would need some fixing. The phrase "preserving purity" means nothing and there are a bunch of claims in the last paragraph that need to be verified. Joshua Davis 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boltzmon]]