Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive August 2021

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generic object of dark energy

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Template for history of physics articles

I just made a template for the historical articles about physics. It can be found Here. I would like to know what do you think (comments, critics, and so on) before creating it and adding it to other pages. I left out many other timeline articles. Also many of the articles in that template need help so it could be useful to have more visibility. --ReyHahn (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)  Done --ReyHahn (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Dimensional Field Theory

A review of this draft would be appreciated. The draft has been nominated for deletion as fringe science. It appears to be almost entirely the work of one person, D.C. Adams. I haven't researched his qualifications, but I'm a chemist, not a physicist. Is it fringe science? Has it had enough attention to be academically notable? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Saying it is fringe science would be a compliment, the draft is something between WP:PATENT and WP:BOLLOCKS. I fixed your link and wrote a couple of sentences there. Tercer (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Just from self-published stuff. Suggest reject. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC).

Fock symmetry in theory of hydrogen

Is Fock symmetry in theory of hydrogen a thing? It seems like an elaborate name for a homework problem.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly written like someone's homework problem... Primefac (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a (more confusing) statement of material summarized in Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector. Also, it looks like the article creator is the author of reference 14. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

A pattern of self-promotion? See here. 205.233.50.223 (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Could be; at least there are secondary sources. The section in question needs serious editing for proper English grammar and encyclopedic tone. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The creator removed the maintenance tags without explanation. Considering the poor grammar, unclear presentation, and likely redundancy to Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector, should the article be sent to AfD or just redirected straight away? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: I was able to confirm that Fock symmetry is the name for the SO(4) symmetry corresponding to the conservation of the LRL vector. This article must be a duplicate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to a redirect. There might be enough to say on the subject that a separate article could be broken out, but given the language issues already noted, we'd have to do it all over anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Then redirect it is! I chose the same section as the target I picked for Fock symmetry. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

References

New Theory of Flight

Lengthy argument with more heat than light

The following discussion 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. @Mr. Swordfish,Dolphin51: This is on the suggestion of Dolphin51 and Mr. Swordfish a continuation of a discussion on Talk: Lift (force): New Theory of Flight. The discussion concerns the deletion from the Wikipedia article Lift (force) of any form of reference to a New Theory of Flight published in Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics 2016 and in the book Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow, Springer 2007. The Wikipedia article Lift (force) concerns explanations of the creation of lift of a wing as the basic element of a scientific theory of flight and has to struggle with the fact that there is no commonly accepted scientific theory of lift/flight, only a collection of theories, which are all known to be incorrect/incomplete/unsatisfactory, expressed to the general public in articles in NYT 2003 and Scientific American 2020 with headlines of type “Nobody Can Explain Flight”. The article is backed by Doug McLean serving as scientific expert with the book Understanding Aerodynamics and articles in The Physics Teacher, see Key Statements by Aerodynamics Expert McLean. The article starts out “There are several ways to explain how an airfoil generates lift” but does not offer any commonly accepted scientific explanation. Instead are presented shortcomings of well-known popular explanations based on Newton’s laws of motion and Bernoulli’s principle. The article is not satisfactory by suggesting that there is a theory, but leaving out what this theory says and where it is published. It is very remarkable that today close to 120 years after the Wright Brothers Flyer took off, scientists still cannot agree on "what keeps planes in the air". It appears as a major debacle of science/aerodynamics asking for correction. The New Theory of Flight gives an answer to the open problem of the generation of large lift at small drag of a wing based on solid mathematics and computation with detailed explanation in physical terms. Here are key questions to be answered by Wikipedia: 1. Is there a commonly accepted scientific theory/explanation of flight? If Yes, which is it and where is it published? If No, why does Wikipedia inform people that “there are several ways to explain lift”, while hiding the Scientific American/NYT articles and New Theory of Flight? 2. What is the reason to hide the New Theory of Flight from meeting the public (in an open discussion of its merits) on Wikipedia, in a situation with No the answer to question 1?SecretofFlight (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:No original research. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC) What is the meaning of this comment? New Theory is published in leading scientific journals/book. The key question for Wikipedia to answer is 1. What is the answer? If the answer is No, question 2 must be answered. What is the answer in clear text?SecretofFlight (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC) To clarify, "New Theory of Flight" is original, published research, but it has not yet been covered by a secondary source such as a review article or popular article in the press. Generally, Wikipedia prefers to rely on secondary sources but can, with care, include material from primary sources such as your published paper. Dilaton (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC) The Wikipedia article is a cover-up of the undeniable fact that there is no commonly accepted scientific theory of flight, which is evidenced by the fact that no such theory is presented, only a collection of theories shown to be incorrect/incomplete. The headlines of Scientific American/NYT of type "Nobody can Explain Flight" tell the truth, a truth which is hidden by Wikipedia by "There are several ways to explain lift". Wikipedia thereby takes the role of spokesman for an aerodynamics community for which that lack of convincing theory of flight is a major debacle. But the mission of Wikipedia is to inform the people of the World in an objective way and like Scientific American tell truths, not to cover up lack of science as is done in the present article and thereby disinform people. What is now needed is an open debate on the content of the article and it starts with the people behind the article (Dolphin51, Mr. Swordfish and McLean) getting out from hiding to answer my questions 1 and 2. What are the answers? Disinformation is not the purpose of Wikipedia and when present as in the lift article, must be corrected. Must be corrected. In particular, Wikipedia expresses a principle of neutrality, which means that in cases of scientific dispute both sides should be represented (All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.)SecretofFlight (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Moreover, in areas where primary sources disagree, we require secondary sources to indicate how to organize the various viewpoints and how much emphasis to put on each one. We follow the scientific community; we don't try to lead it. XOR'easter (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC) New Theory of Flight published in leading scientific publications is part of the scientific community at large. The Wikipedia principle of neutrality requires to "represent all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". To hide New Theory of Flight from any form of visibility on Wikipedia requires Wikipedia to show that it is not significant and not published by reliable sources. Do that!SecretofFlight (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia does not publish original research. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC). The prime issue is the disinformation in the article. Besides, New Theory of Flight is not original research = research for which no reliable, published sources exist. SecretofFlight (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC) The Wikipedians in charge of the Lift (force) article, Dolphin51 and Mr. Swordfish supported by aerodynamics expert Doug McLean, are hiding and refuse to answer my questions, in contradiction to what was said on the Talk page. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to be run and not in the interest of the people of the World using Wikipedia for correct neutral information. The present article propagates serious disinformation on the basic scientific question of "what keeps planes in the air?" of prime concern to all people traveling by air, disinformation which can only be corrected in a direct dialog with the Wikipedians in charge starting by answers to question 1 and 2. What are the answers? Wikipedians in charge must answer or be replaced.SecretofFlight (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Mr swordfish and I are not "the Wikipedians in charge of the Lift (force) article." We are simply two Users who keep an eye on articles in the field of aerodynamics. We have engaged with SecretofFlight, a new User, regarding his technical paper - see Talk:Lift (force). (SecretofFlight has advised that they are one of the three authors of the technical paper that is offered as the published source.) On 31 July 2021 SecretofFlight added their explanation of the so-called "New Theory of Flight". Here it is: "A New Theory of Flight was published in Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics in 2016 first presented in Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow and at HiLiftPW-3 Workshop with upcoming presentation at 4th AIAA CFD High Lift Prediction Workshop (HiLiftPW-4). The new theory reveals the true physics of generation of large lift at small drag of an airplane wing from computing turbulent solutions of the incompressible 3d Euler/Navier-Stokes equations with a slip boundary condition on the wing, showing combined with mathematical analysis that slightly viscous incompressible bluff body flow for Reynolds numbers larger than about 500.000 (beyond drag crisis) can be understood as potential flow modified by 3d rotational slip separation. Here the fact that the flow is potential before separation is the reason the flow stays attached to the upper wing surface and thereby creates large lift, and the 3d rotational slip separation at the trailing edge without pressure rise is the reason the large lift is not destroyed by pressure rise at separation as in full potential flow. The new theory is explained in detail on Secret of Flight." Mr swordfish and I regard this description as incomprehensible, and inappropriate for inclusion in the article Lift (force). I suggested SecretofFlight bring his new theory of flight to the Physics Project in the hope that Users here might be able to help SecretofFlight in some way - either by helping him explain his new theory of flight in a manner suitable for publication on Lift (force); or by persuading him that his theory is not yet mature enough for publication and that there is no conspiracy or censorship. I haven't been able to help SecretofFlight so I'm hoping someone here at the Physics Project might be able to do so. Dolphin (t) 12:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC) If you cannot understand the New Theory of Flight, it is probably because you do not have the required scientific background. If you can understand what the theory says, then you can judge if in your view it is correct or not. But if it simply is incomprehensible to you, then you cannot judge its merits and you should then seek advice from someone with more scientific insight, instead of dismissing it right away as "inappropriate". Do you agree?SecretofFlight (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC) That's a common beginner's mistake. Number and quality of secondary sources is what must be judged — see wp:secondary sources, if you haven't already. Everyone can do that. Hoffman, Jansson and Johnson can cite their own work as much as they want, that's all wp:primary sources and apparently not accepted here. Other autors must be interested it their work. By the way, are you sure you don't have some kind of wp:conflict of interest in this matter? - DVdm (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I have no conflict of interest pointing out that the Lift article sends serious disinformation. It is my duty as scientist to point that out.SecretofFlight (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) @SecretofFlight: Nobody is in charge of any article here—read all about that at wp:OWN. Articles depend on wp:CONSENSUS only. Also, nobody owes anyone an explanation here, and it's usually safer to assume good faith, so be careful with accusations—see wp:AGF. It just does not look like there's going to be a consensus to take this on board unless and before it gets far more broad coverage in the relevant literature. You might be wasting your time insisting, and ultimately you might start wasting the community's time. - DVdm (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC) The Wikipedia article starts with "There are several ways to explain how an airfoil generates lift. Some are more complicated or more physically rigorous than others; some have been shown to be incorrect. For example, there are explanations based directly on Newton's laws of motion and explanations based on Bernoulli's principle. Either can be used to explain lift". This is then directly contradicted in the following sections stating that these explanations are incorrect/incomplete. This is serious double-speak written to hide the fact that there is no commonly accepted scientific theory of flight, demonstrated by the absence of any such theory in the article presentation, which as substitute instead presents several incorrect/incomplete "theories". This is serious disinformation, which must be corrected by some Wikipedian with authority/responsibility. Correct information is that there is no commonly accepted scientific theory of flight/lift, which is acknowledged by the aerodynamics community but hidden to the public. This information cannot be hidden in a correct Wikipedia article on theory of flight/lift starting with the truth that "Nobody can explain how an airfoil generates lift" = headline of the Scientific American article. Such an article will look vastly different from the present version focussing on incorrect/incomplete "theories" and may even mention that there is a New Theory of Flight up to inspection. Wikipedia shall not propagate disinformation serving as cover-up of a major scientific debacle. Rewriting of the article is necessary. Who is responsible? Who is willing to engage in discussion of a new correct version?SecretofFlight (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC) As you should have understood when following the policy links I gave you, on Wikipedia there is no such thing as responsibility. The ultimate key to Wikipedia is consensus. - DVdm (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure how much more clearly we can make the point, but I'll try. Without secondary and/or tertiary sources indicating that the scientific community has accepted a new proposal as the best explanation for a phenomenon, we can't say that it is the best explanation for that phenomenon. That's part of the No Original Research policy. Nobody is "hiding" anything; they're just following the rules that have to be in place for the site to be of any practical use. I should add that we don't regard headlines as reliable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Of course Wikipedians with higher editing authority have higher responsibility, for example to delete whatever I submit. But let us then seek consensus as suggested. This requires discussion and interchange/presentation of different views. Who is willing to engage in a discussion about a new version of Lift (force) which does not propagate serious disinformation by hiding the fact the there is no commonly accepted theory of flight/lift? Who is willing to engage to write a new version starting from this undeniable truth?SecretofFlight (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC) By design, there are no "Wikipedians with higher editing authority", having "higher responsibility". And there isn't such as thing as the "undeniable truth". Repeatedly throwing that phrase into discussions here is utterly counter-productive. You are wasting your time already. - DVdm (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC) I am not wasting my time pointing out that the Wikipedia Lift (force) article propagates the disinformation that "There are several ways to explain how an airfoil generates lift" when the fact/truth is that there is no commonly accepted scientific theory of how an airfoil generates lift. Do you dispute this fact/truth? If yes, give me a reference to a commonly accepted scientific theory of flight. If no, don't you agree with me that Wikipedia disinformation about an important scientific and practical matter needs to be corrected? Give me clear answers!SecretofFlight (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC) It looks like I am wasting my time, so I'll stop doing that. You have been warned. - DVdm (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC) What authority do you have to warn me? About what?SecretofFlight (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC) @SecretofFligh: My pointing to the guideline wp:AGF above should have helped you see a pointer to the policy about personal attacks—search for the string "personal attack" there, and follow the link. You'll find the warning at the end of the lead paragraph. We don't need authority to point contributors to guidelines and policies. All it takes is experience. - DVdm (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Who did I personally attack? I asked important questions about scientific theory of flight.SecretofFlight (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC) What strikes me in this discussion with Wikipedians, is that I am met by a swarm trying all tricks possible to silence my voice when I raise a serious case of disinformation. Is there no Wikipedian who would stand up for the principle of correct neutral information with no tolerance for disinformation (deliberately incorrect information)? Even only one could make a lot of difference.SecretofFlight (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC) You see malicious intent where there is none. By throwing accusations about, you malign the character of people who have made editing Wikipedia their hobby. Moreover, at the risk of being blunt, I have to say that you have not made clear what your complaint about the content is. The article Lift (force) says, There are several ways to explain how an airfoil generates lift. Some are more complicated or more physically rigorous than others; some have been shown to be incorrect. You write, the fact/truth is that there is no commonly accepted scientific theory of how an airfoil generates lift. There is no contradiction here: rather than there being one single commonly accepted scientific theory, we have several ways to explain how an airfoil generates lift. You ask for clear answers, but you have not asked a clear question. Again, at the risk of sounding callous, you're not a voice in the wilderness being unjustly suppressed, you're just being angry on the Internet and using up the patience of the people who are willing to spend their free time contributing here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC) No, there is a profound difference between a commonly accepted scientific explanation and several popular "explanations", all wrong. I think you can understand that. Nothing wrong with hobby scientists but there must a forum for a discussion of serious issues by professional scientists and I guess the present Physics page is intended for that purpose, right? SecretofFlight (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC) It's good to AGF up to a point. But it is possible this person is trolling just to be disruptive and have a good time. I recommend an appropriate block if there are too many more disruptions. In any case WP:CIR is applicable. Actually, I recommend one more disruption, and that would lead to a block, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Welcome Steve to an important discussion about the crucial question of how a wing generates lift at small drag as the subject of the article Lift (force). The fact is that there is no commonly accepted scientific theory of lift/flight, acknowledged by all experts of aerodynamics and demonstrated by the fact that no such theory is to be found in the scientific literature, nor is presented in the article. This is a monumental debacle of aerodynamics going back to d'Alembert's paradox from 1755 and expressed by Nobel Laureate Cyril Hinshelwood as a most unfortunate split between "practical fluid mechanics observing phenomena which cannot be explained and theoretical fluid mechanics explaining phenomena which cannot be observed", in other words as a collapse of science. The Lift (force) article starts out "There are several ways to explain how an airfoil generates lift...some have been shown to be incorrect" and then continues to show that popular explanations (Newton, Bernoulli, Coanda) are all incomplete/trivial, but the article does not present any commonly accepted scientific theory of lift/flight, because there is none. This leaves the general reader in confusion: There are explanations of lift (supposedly correct since they are named explanations), but they are all wrong! This is misinformation or possibly disinformation, since it is double-speak: 1. There are explanations. 2. Explanations are incomplete/trivial/incorrect. It is understandable that the aerodynamics community could resort to double-speak in a situation of scientific collapse, but it is not the role of Wikipedia in service of the people to follow up. The Wikipedia article should start with the truth that "There is no commonly accepted scientific theory of flight" and an article with that starting point will be vastly different from the present one. Wikipedia should not propagate the double-speak that "There are several ways to explain how an airfoil generates lift, all wrong.". I have lifted the discussion to the Talk page and then to the present Physics page in order to in discussion meet people with expertise, so far without success. Discussion is necessary. The topic of theory of flight is of fundamental importance to both producers of airplanes and the millions of passengers traveling by air. The present Wikipedia article does not give a correct neutral account of theory of lift/flight and must be rewritten. I urge you to support continued discussion with experts followed by rewriting of the article with correct starting point. As to credentials, I am a widely cited applied/computational mathematician, awardee of e.g Humboldt Research Prize and Prandtl Prize (not accepted) and I run a scientific blog with many readers since long. SecretofFlight (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC) No more talk is needed. Wikipedia is just the wrong place to discuss new theories. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC). The prime discussion concerns disinformation in the Lift article stating that "There are several ways to explain how an airfoil generates lift" while only incorrect explanations are presented, because there is no commonly accepted scientific theory of lift/flight to present. If no new theory can be mentioned or discussed or anything, then the only option (to avoid disinformation which is not the objective of Wikipedia) is to cut down the article to the following "There is no commonly accepted scientific theory of how an airfoil generates lift". Period. No reason to propagate incorrect explanations as disinformation confusing people of World. Understand? Why is it so important to you to let Wikipedia tell people that there is a scientific explanation of lift, when there is none? What is your motivation?SecretofFlight (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC) @User:SecretofFlight your activity has become disruptive please do not continue this discussion or you account will be blocked. Graham Beards (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC) I agree, it is no longer meaningful to continue discussion with Wikipedia on the article Lift (force). I have made my point clear and will continue elsewhere in discussions with science colleagues, in scientific publication and on my blog, where I will post an account of my encounter with Wikipedia culture.SecretofFlight (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Thank you. Graham Beards (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Good. By the way, as one of the authors of New Theory of Flight, indeed, you do have a wp:conflict of interest when trying to add content using this as a reference. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC) I recommend hatting this thread per WP:TLDR - and for the sake of other editors participating on this talk page :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC) I recommend that the thread should be WP:COLLAPSED. The matter has been thoroughly aired, and the User bringing the complaint has left the building. Dolphin (t) 12:54, 20 August 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

All done. The discussion has now been archived. Dolphin (t) 22:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Baez rings true once again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:The CHSH Game

Could someone please take a look at Draft:The CHSH Game? Is this a notable topic or should it be merged with CHSH inequality? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I have actually written some papers on this topic. In general, nonlocal games are the same thing as Bell inequalities (modulo some technicalities that are not important now), the difference is mostly a matter of culture: computer scientists like to use nonlocal games, while physicists prefer Bell inequalities. Now, the CHSH game specifically is the most important and well-studied game, and it is clearly notable, but the content of the article refers only to properties studied from the physicist point of view. As it is there's nothing justifying a standalone article. That would make sense if the article covered for example MIP*, parallel repetition, etc. Furthermore, the article duplicates a lot of content from CHSH inequality, Bell's theorem, quantum nonlocality, and Tsirelson bound. Now personally I think the nonlocal game formulation is much more pedagogical than the Bell inequality formulation, and it would make sense to rewrite CHSH inequality to use it. There might be some opposition from historically-minded people, though, as historically it was invented by CHSH in 1969 as a Bell inequality. It was reformulated as a nonlocal game in the 90s by Tsirelson, and it became well-known only in the 00s. I don't think anybody would object to a section in CHSH inequality explaining the nonlocal game formulation, though.

TL;DR: Merge with CHSH inequality. Tercer (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!! --Cerebellum (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a merge makes sense here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I skimmed (i.e. did not actually read) the CHSH Game page, and would like to suggest that it is best left as a stand-alone page. The problem is that a merge results in CHSH inequality more than doubling, almost tripling in size. The Game page seems to be a self-contained topic. It's nicely "bite-sized" - not too long and not too short. It seems to be suitably structured to be stand-alone. .. so let it stand alone. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I just saw that The CHSH Game page was created, what was the final decision?--ReyHahn (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

ELKO (was Mass-dimension one fermions)

In response to the Mass dimension one fermions AfD I created Draft:ELKO Theory as the no-nonsense version written using symbols and formulas and concepts accessible to conventional (grad) students in physics. Before I got very far with it, I discovered that the existing articles about Majorana and spinors and gamma matrices were lacking, and thus spent the next few months enhancing and enlarging those. By the time I got done, I never got around to finishing the ELKO theory page (I had hoped to explain how its the "other" eigenstate of the charge-conjugation operator; but that required explaining why Majorana is one of them. I finished the work on Majorana, but not on ELKO.) A bot reminded me, just now, that I have not touched the article for 5 months ... anyone care to review, critique, and best-yet - just move this to article space? I believe that everything it says is correct. The only "problem" is that it could say much much more. The other problem is I've run out of steam, run out of spare time to do much more in that direction. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I still have reservations about this article. The sources are so slender. There is no indication that theory is important enough to be discussed in secondary sources like review articles. The impression is that Wikipedia is being used as a textbook to expound somebody's pet theory. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC).

There are currently two uncited sections ("Solutions" and "Properties"). I'm not of the school that wants a footnote after every sentence, but a somewhat higher density would be helpful; even the specialist readers who can tell how claims hold together would benefit from knowing where in a lengthy source a particular topic is addressed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, seems reasonable. "Any day now", I'll get back to it. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)