Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive June 2020

List of American Physical Society Fellows

The other day, I saw that HRShami had created a List of American Physical Society Fellows, catching up to the analogous pages for other fields' learned societies (the IEEE, etc.). The list was incomplete, but I happened to have the data in parse-able form, so I filled it out and split it up chronologically for easier handling. I've tried to correct errors in the APS website data, probably due to typos or OCR mistakes, and I've turned many of the red links blue by identifying them with existing articles. If you're looking for a diversion, it's fun to flip through and look for familiar names. Either they can become articles, or perhaps they already are and just need a piped link. XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism on radiation of charged particles in a gravitational field

Can somebody fact check this edit [1] on Paradox of radiation of charged particles in a gravitational field.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Quantum gravity: the integral method

Input welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum gravity: the integral method. - DVdm (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I saw that while curating. Looked a little fringe, but didn't dig into it too closely. I've not heard of it, but quite a lot of strange things get published and I don't even try to follow them all any more. Lithopsian (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Quark dispute

I'm unable to reach a consensus with 2 editors on the matter regarding free quarks. Therefore, I need input from a third party (other editors). I'm now unable to edit the article anymore due to it being locked, and I'm an IP.

Editor Cuzkatzimhut has a poor understanding of particle physics. He couldn't provide any valid counter-argument against my claim, which is backed up by many scientific experiments. See Talk:Quark#Free quark. It is clear that he tried to use circular reasoning and ignored all the scientific facts I provided.

Editor Ruslik0 claims that my sources are not reliable.

1. How is a published book not a reliable source? (source 1)
2. Source 2 is from CERN website. CERN has the largest particle physics lab in the world. It is leading the world in particle physics research.
3. Source 3 is from Forbes. Forbes is a well-known American magazine that explains science for the layman. Source 3 is written by a Ph.D. astrophysicist.

The information in the quark article was written over 10 years ago. It's outdated, and nobody has updated it for the last 10 years. Now, as physicists gain more understanding of the quarks, physicists discover things that they didn't know for sure before. There are many many sources that support my statement. Here are 3 more sources from many more in addition to the 3 sources above: from Livescience, from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and from European Commission, managed by European Union. It would be nice to hear input from editors that are actually particle physicists in real life or anyone with a deep understanding of particle physics.14.169.212.232 (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

In that conversation you seem employ personal attacks. Please remember to always assume WP:GOODFAITH, it helps to attain more straightforward discussions.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith doesn't mean immunity to criticism when someone repeatedly ignores scientific facts. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Although not strictly necessary, it may help if you create an account so that your edits appear under a single consistent name and it becomes easier to hold a sensible discussion. You appear to have edited under several different IP addresses and that creates a poor impression since it is an approach that can be used to try and hide your activity or circumvent blocks (not that you actually seem to be doing that). Lithopsian (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I've never been blocked, and I'm not interested in creating a Wikipedia account. I don't edit Wikipedia often at all. I edit it occasionally (or rarely over the last 15 years) when I see an error while I read something on Wikipedia. The changing nature of my IP is not intentional. I edit Wikipedia at different locations. Also, my institution changes IP daily, not sure why, but it's how it has been. And, I don't plan to be highly involved in Wikipedia after this matter has been resolved. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"Free quark" typically refers to an isolated quark in vacuum. A quark gluon plasma is not a vacuum. Quarks are free to move in a quark gluon plasma but that doesn't make them "free quarks". Cuzkatzimhut is right, you misunderstand the sources you quote, and then start to attack other users personally. I'm a particle physicist by the way. --mfb (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your argument is moot if you can't provide a reliable source to back up your claim. I got reliable sources to back up my claim. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my 6 stated sources above do not interpret "free quarks" that way. The scientific mainstream interpretation is that free quarks mean that quarks are no longer in color confinement. Give me one source that supports this interpretation, "Free quark typically refers to an isolated quark in vacuum." And isolated quarks just mean that quarks are free from color confinement. Basically, in this case, isolated quark and free quark actually mean the same thing. I got 6 sources that support my statement (and many more but 6 should be enough). I'm also a physicist. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the top quark has been observed DIRECTLY. Therefore, claiming quarks can never be observed directly is simply false. Like I said the information in the lede is outdated. It needs to be updated as physicists dig deeper into nature.14.169.212.232 (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

My proposal to fix the problem is to add "below the Hagedorn temperature" after the words "found in isolation". And the word only is deleted from "they can be found only within hadrons." You can't use the word only when that is not the only place that you find quarks! 14.169.212.232 (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Mfb is correct. You have been stretching your sources beyond what they can actually support, and over-hyping the reliability of material like blogs and press releases. XOR'easter (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Give me a source that says free quark means an isolated quark in vacuum. If you can't provide me a reliable source, your point is invalid. Which one of my sources is a blog? One of them is a published book. And some of my sources come from very respected institutions such CERN or European Commission. You're saying CERN, the leading institution in particle physics, is incorrect too? 14.169.212.232 (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

source 7 from Nature journal. Nature was the world's most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports. This source also supports my definition of "free quarks", not yours. You guys are all talk. I haven't seen a single reliable source from you all that supports your claim while I've provided 7. You're going to say Nature journal is unreliable too? 14.169.212.232 (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Forbes source is a blog. The CERN thing you made a big deal of was basically a press release, as is the one from LBL. Those don't count for much. They build up claims of novelty and dumb down language. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Forbes source is not a blog. It has editorial review. Sure, it's not as rigorous as academic journal, but it's definitely not a blog. Plus, its author has a PhD in astrophysics; you can't fake credential on Forbes. Press release from one of the most respected institution in the world needs to be taken seriously. Words don't all of the sudden change their meaning in the press release. Your synthesis of word meaning is "original research". According to Wikipedia policy, no original research please. And lastly, how are you going to discredit Nature's paper? Nature journal is literally one of the most respected journals in the scientific community. And they support my point of view. Also, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, secondary and tertiary sources are preferred. Press release is secondary source. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Forbes source is literally from a blog called "Starts With a Bang". That blog happens to be hosted on Forbes now; it was on ScienceBlogs.com back in the day. Moreover, Siegel is a Forbes "contributor", meaning that he is not subject to editorial oversight. As a physicist, he's a better self-published source than many; as an astrophysicist, he's in a field that is adjacent to what we really are interested in here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's agree that Forbes source is out, but I still got 6 remaining sources (there are many more on google, but 6 should be enough). They are reliable according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You wanted input from particle physicists, and once you got it you dismissed it immediately because it wasn't in your support. Great approach. I added the quark gluon plasma to the article (at the time of my first comment) and we can think about adding a sentence about the top quark - which decays before hadronization - but what you want to put into the article is wrong. --mfb (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wanted to add into the article before saying I'm wrong? Adding the quark-gluon plasma was the good first step, but that doesn't resolve all the problems. Anyway, a problematic sentence taken from the quark article, "Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons." Claiming all quarks can never be directly observed is scientifically incorrect, the top quark proves it's wrong. And claiming quarks can only be found within hadrons is also scientific incorrect. Quarks can also be found in quark-gluon plasma. The word "only" needs to be deleted. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If I understand correctly, IP is saying that aside from the technicalities of quark-gluon plasma and Hagedorn scales, quarks can sometimes be found free (not forming hadrons)? and that the discovery of single top quarks is an example, is that it? --ReyHahn (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

My claim is that free quarks, free from color confinement, are found in the quark-gluon plasma (quarks don't form hadron in this plasma). And second claim, all quarks can never be directly observed is a scientifically incorrect statement. Third claim, isolated quarks mean the same thing as free quarks in this case. Fourth claim, the word "only" needs to be deleted from "found only within hadrons". 14.169.212.232 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to build your argument here. So first point, do we agree that quark-gluon plasma is a very particular case? Do you mean your second point only based on QG plasma? Three is just wording, ok, but are you considering the quarks in QG plasma "free/isolated"? Fourth, the word found where?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

First point proves that free quarks exist outside of hadrons. Second point based on the top quark. Third point is related to this claim in the quark article, "quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation." Quarks can never found in isolation is not true. It's just wording yea, but the wording has important implication. Fourth point is related to this statement in the quark article, "they can be found only within hadrons." The word "only" needs to be deleted to make it a true statement because first point proves "only" is incorrect. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess the examples of QG plasma and of the top quark are exceptions that have to be discussed on their own in the lead. Maybe we may find a wording that satisfies better the objections but that leaves a clear picture of the importance of confinement.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that QG plasma and top quark are exceptions that should be discussed on their own. However, that doesn't mean it's accurate to make general claim that is scientifically incorrect. One cannot make a claim that all quarks can never be directly observed when top quark is a quark! One also cannot make a claim that quarks are found only within hadrons when scientists have also found them elsewhere namely the QG plasma. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

IMO, simultaneously claiming that the top quark can be detected "directly" and that it decays too quickly to hadronize would confuse the reader. Indeed, carelessly throwing around the word "direct" is apt to mislead, particularly since top-quark-detection events are usually classified by the decay products of the W bosons that the top quarks decay into. Moreover, I think jamming too much detail about top-quark decay rates into the lead of the article would overburden what is supposed to be a concise summary. The article does mention decay-before-hadronization down in the body. That should be expanded first (probably with more and better references) before we do anything else on the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You're missing my whole point. I'm not saying to add that fact about top quark in the lede. What I'm saying is that "quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons" should be changed into "quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation below the Hagedorn temperature; they can be found within hadrons." "Below the Hagedorn temperature" is added while "only" is deleted. I'm not sure why people keep resist my change despite my overwhelming reliable sources. I feel like I'm being treated unfairly because I'm an IP and not an established editor. Established editors are not always right. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

What funny is that I'm basically saying the same thing as in the article color confinement. Let's take a look at a quote taken from that article, "color-charged particles (such as quarks and gluons) cannot be isolated, and therefore cannot be directly observed in normal conditions below the Hagedorn temperature." No one seems to object to that, but people got a problem when I try to add the same fact into the quark article. Is this evidence of owning the content or discrimination against IP (editors without an account)? 14.169.212.232 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for anybody else, but I personally don't care that you're "not an established editor" and you're editing from an IP address. You've pointed to a place where an article legitimately needed clarification (and, in passing, where its references needed updating). Quark-gluon plasma deserved to be mentioned more prominently; thanks to Mfb, this is now taken care of. But you've been persistently confrontational (e.g., this edit summary, and trying to impose your preferred version before a consensus has been obtained), and you've misrepresented the quality of the sources you've presented. That will raise hackles regardless of whether you're an "established editor" or not. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, you didn't discredit all of my 7 sources. You successfully discredited 1. I didn't misinterpret the quality of my sources. They are as reliable as you can get in the particle physics field. No one can argue that CERN or Nature are not reliable. In any case, 6 reliable sources is greater than 0 source provided by you.

Second, I've been basically saying the same thing as a statement in color confinement, yet it is not allowed to use that statement in the quark article. How do you explain that? Or are you trying to say the information in the color confinement is scientifically incorrect?

Third, the statement, "quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons" is problematic (as in scientifically incorrect). It should be changed into "quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation below the Hagedorn temperature; they can be found within hadrons." I've proven repeatedly with reliable sources why the first statement is problematic, but it seems like some editors just simply refuse to accept scientific facts. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to deal with some of these separately. I see no problem with removing "quarks are never observed directly" or "they can be found only within hadrons", since these seem questionable. The idea of isolation can be dealt with separately; stating this suitably may be a challenge, so leave this for last. —Quondum 19:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed! I'm the same IP guy btw. My new proposal is to change the old statement ("quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons") into this, "quarks are never found in isolation below the Hagedorn temperature; they can be found within hadrons." Technically speaking, top quark is found in isolation below the Hagedorn temperature, but I can live with it being an exception to the confinement law of nature. However, claiming it can never be directly observed while the contrary has been proven is not OK. 2402:800:4368:7FA6:DC73:9475:FC7F:1743 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Now you are introducing claims about isolation. The Color confinement article does not link temperature to isolation as you are doing, it only links the ability to observe them to it. It states that quarks cannot be isolated, period. This is consistent with a normal interpretation of "isolation"; no quark is isolated in a hadron or in a quark plasma. —Quondum 20:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It does link temperature to isolation. Isolation here means break free from color confinement yes? Above the Hagedorn temperature, quarks are indeed isolated from their color confinement. Theoretically, quarks can be observed directly above Hagedorn temperature. Granted that scientists haven't been able to do that (maybe in a few years). The idea that quarks can never be isolated is called confinement. This idea breaks down in quark-gluon plasma (above the Hagedorn temperature). 14.169.100.161 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Source to show that isolation is linked to temperature. 14.169.100.161 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the lead of Quark, I see nothing wrong since this edit. I am now not seeing anything but a reinterpretation of the language that would give rise to your objections. You mentioned the Color confinement article as saying what you want, but your proposal is not the same as what is in that article. —Quondum 21:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead currently says, they can be found only within hadrons, which include baryons (such as protons and neutrons) and mesons (all of which are unstable and short-lived), or in quark–gluon plasmas. So, no, there's no need to remove the "only" — the full sentence makes the meaning clear. I don't think we need to remove never directly observed or found in isolation, either, since all the observations are indirect. XOR'easter (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Claiming all observations are indirect is simply false. Some observations are indirect, yes. The top quark has been observed directly. source 1 (a published book in particle physics), source 2 (another published book in particle physics). Therefore, never directly observed needs to be removed. 14.169.100.161 (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Those are two copies of the same passage recycled by the same author, so it's really only one source, and it's talking about observations that are indirect by the standards that are relevant here. (That is, it is describing something that was less indirect than prior measurements as "direct".) Compare and contrast with 1: It is well-known that, once produced, top quarks decay very rapidly. For this reason top quarks are observed and studied indirectly through kinematic features of their decay products. XOR'easter (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? They are two separate published books with different authors. Those are 2 different independent reliable sources that both claim that the top quark has been observed directly. You need a reliable source to back up your claim that the top quark has never been directly observed.

Your source didn't say this, "That is, it is describing something that was less indirect than prior measurements as 'direct'." You made it up on your own. No original research please.

You misinterpret your source to prove your point, which is false. Your source concerns with "QCD corrections and jet radiation in top quark decays" only. That is not the same experiment that was directly observing the top quark. Top quark spin's effect could be measured directly, hence physicists around the world say it has been directly observed. They didn't say the same thing about the other 5 quarks. Whatever standard of your made-up indirect you're trying to prove, you need to prove your assertion with a reliable source. I've proved mine, where is yours? 14.169.100.161 (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this issue has been resolved. 14.169.171.239 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed on not removing the only and never found in isolation. However, what point is being made by including never directly observed? Surely we are dealing with an ill-defined concept "directly observed", plus the point being made is surely that they are never observed as separate/isolate particles? —Quondum 23:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You might surely recall that, before the advent of jet physics, the "confirmation" of the physical existence of quarks was through the parton model interface of DIS, an apotheosis of indirection. Indirection and forced hadronization are still the cornerstones of our understanding of quarks. Physics has hardly had to cope with anything as paradoxical and subtle. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there was something qualitatively more indirect about quarks than about anything in particle physics before. XOR'easter (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion of what an indirect observation is a rabbit hole if ever there was one. To get back to my point: what is it that we are trying to say with that statement that is encyclopaedic? Are quarks more indirect to observe than is the Higgs field? Or the W and Z bosons? All that the claim tells a reader is that quarks, like many other particles, play hard-to-get. It gives no standard for comparison. —Quondum 02:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Incontrovertibly quarks are substantially less direct to detect than the Higgs particle--Not field!-- and gauge bosons. That is the central point in the lede. It suffices to bring it up for the interested reader; you can't really explicate it in detail, when their "reality" baffled the best minds of the 70s. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There are indirect observation of free/isolated quarks in the quark-gluon plasma (above Hagedorn temperature). Therefore, below the Hagedorn temperature needs to be added after "found in isolation".14.169.100.161 (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem arises when it's not clear that the word isolation here means within the context of the lede. Isolation from what? Isolation from color confinement or isolation in the vacuum? Those are not the same thing! If isolation here means free quarks then below the Hagedorn temperature needs to be added.

If isolation here means isolated quark in the vacuum then a clarification is needed. The statement should say quarks can never be isolated in the vacuum. I would be ok with this change. 14.169.100.161 (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Quark already mentions QGP; we don't need to pile more unfamiliar terminology like Hagedorn temperature on top of that. XOR'easter (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfamiliar to whom? Anyone who is familiar with quarks would also be familiar with Hadedorn temperature. Making an absolute claim in science like never without clarification is not okay. In fact, it becomes a scientific incorrect statement. Just because QGP is mentioned, that doesn't negate the fact that the statement is false without clarification. 14.169.100.161 (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

In the voice of our favorite bunny Max, "that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard". People generally learn about quarks in high school (possibly elementary school). Hagedorn temperature on the other hand will likely only appear in advanced undergraduate or graduate courses in particle physics. So the group of people familiar with the term quark is probably at least three to four orders of magnitude bigger than the those how have heard of the Hagedorn temperature. Needless to say to former is our target audience, not the latter.TR 11:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Which high school teaches about quarks? That's already a ridiculous claim. I guarantee you that NO high school teaches about quarks. And you mean an elementary school full of geniuses? Quarks together with Hagedorn temperature are covered only in advanced undergrad courses. You learn both in the same college course. I know because I was once a physics student. "So the group of people familiar with the term quark is probably at least three to four orders of magnitude bigger than the those how have heard of the Hagedorn temperature," unsubstantiated statistics without reliable source. 2402:800:4329:851A:B1B5:E074:25A3:4DC5 (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Here you go. The word quark is about a thousand times more common in the English language then Hagedorn temperature. (Although, it is interesting how the use of the word quark has become so much less common on the last decade or so. Maybe people no longer learn about quarks.) TR 13:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I accept your statistics. Anyway, this is off topic now that the word isolation within the article has been determined to mean isolated quark in the vacuum. 14.169.171.239 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Funnily enough, we actually did quarks in middle school, along with s, p, d, and f orbitals and various other topics. I wouldn't say we covered those topics well, but they were in the book, and our teacher tried. I think I first met the Hagedorn temperature ... junior year of college, or around then. XOR'easter (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I discovered about quarks around grade 10, though that probably predated their mention in textbooks. I would think it appropriate to be mentioned at school these days as the next step in the particle composition hierarchy, and this might be the case (as suggested by https://schoolworkhelper.net/quarks-subatomic-particles/). Any scientifically inquisitive teenager might be intrigued by the idea (and the catchy name). The Hagedorn temperature, on the other hand, I do not recall having heard about before this discussion, not having majored in physics. —Quondum 13:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone resolved most of my concerns. I no longer have any objection to this as I said in the Quark talk page. I'm done here with the quark article. 14.169.212.251 (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

--ReyHahn (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Christofilos effect has expanded

A user has expanded Christofilos effect from books since last month. A critical look by somebody that also knows the subject is welcome.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Atom FAR

I did NOT nominate this article for FAR-- just doing the nominations that were not done by the editor who did.

User:Kurzon has nominated Atom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Problematic problematic aspects

Could someone please comment to some questions/remarks by new instance 14.169.212.251 of same anon (14.169.171.239) as above? See Talk:Newton's law of universal gravitation#Problematic aspects. TIA - DVdm (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this may be considered resolved. —Quondum 16:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

Indeed. 14.186.13.167 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, thanks Quondum and anon. - DVdm (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Dark matter and toxic environment

Please take a look at this to see whether I'm right or wrong. If I'm right, please make an edit to restore my edit. This is why I hate edit Wikipedia so much. It's so bureaucratic and filled with idiots who don't know enough about a subject yet keep reverting someone else's edit. 9 out of 10 times when someone reverted my edit, it is because of a lack in their knowledge and assumption that I must be a mischief naughty kid because I'm an IP. I usually had to fight with those thick-heads who kept claiming I was in the wrong until someone else with a good knowledge came to my rescue and reolsved the issue for good. In the end, most of my edits (added contents) were restored, but it was so much time consuming every single time! I'm done editing Wikipedia. You all need to respect and appreciate IP better than this. Patrolling editors just treat IPs like vandal-ist these days even if they add good contents. 14.186.13.167 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I would have made the same assessment: "not an improvement", regardless of who made the edit (the mention of "IP" in the revert edit summary would have been better omitted). I have reservations about the phrase "the dark matter theory" currently in place (there is not a single theory), but do not see what the claimed connection with MOND might be. This is to some extent about choice of words, e.g. calling the electromagnetic field "electromagnetic force". I think the existing wording does describe our present understanding more precisely. —Quondum 19:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the statement was in fact scientifically incorrect. Thank goodness that someone else reverted back to my edit. 171.253.47.21 (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You would likely find people would react to your claims a bit more receptively if you did not make unexplained blanket claims such as "the statement was in fact scientifically incorrect", stopped waving the "I am a physicist" flag, etc. In short, helping people to understand your perspective (by discussing it on the talk page) and trying to understand what they object to in your edits rather than telling them that they're wrong is likely to be less frustrating on all sides. Hint: discuss before you revert a revert. —Quondum 12:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't the problem I raised. The problem is that many editors made an assumption that I was wrong (maybe they assumed that I vandalized) simply because I was an IP. It wouldn't be a problem in the first place if they didn't just revert my edit despite the fact that I was right. It happened a lot already. This kind of assumption doesn't happen to established editors. Basically, treat IP the same way as you do with other editors is my whole point. 14.169.110.163 (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The first time I edited, I always gave a good explanation as to why I did it. Then someone reverted my edit (due to a wrong assumption that it was wrong). Then I stopped explaining because it doesn't work. I know because it happened so many times already. 14.169.110.163 (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

An edit summary like "go ask a physicist before you revert my edit. I'm one of them" will probably always be perceived as rude, even when provided by a long-standing registered user. More polite or even neutral edit summaries will likely save time for everyone. If indeed you "hate edit(ing) Wikipedia so much", one solution would be to just stay away . - DVdm (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That was after they (including you on a different article) reverted my "correct" edit. Just because you lack physics knowledge, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. My original explanation was always on point. Sorry, I tried it your way many times (polite or neutral), and it didn't work! Editors (with account) usually don't get their "correct" edits reverted unless it's a controversial topic. Nothing I edited was controversial, yet they (different editors) reverted my "correct" edits on many different articles. They kept reverting my edit until someone with a good physics knowledge came into my rescue. That only happened after I complained it here. Sorry, you're kind of late to the party. I'm staying away as we're speaking (I'm only here to prove a point that Wikipedia is toxic as fk, my last mission). Don't be surprised when new users are non-existence and old users are leaving this toxic bureaucratic environment for good. 14.169.110.163 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And I'm sorry that the truth often hurts. If you literally asked a physicist, you would know that I was right. The truth is not rude in my definition (that's how life works!). That was just your ego acting up. It's hard for some people to admit their mistake. 14.169.110.163 (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to be treated as a responsible person (be "privileged"), then act like one, that is, take responsibility for your edits by choosing a name and getting an account.

Any schmuck could say "I am a physicist." whether he is one or not. Identify yourself, give your name and institution, then perhaps I will believe you. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Nah, I don't feel like it. I have edited Wikipedia on rare occasions over the past 15 years, mainly when I saw something wrong while reading, without an account. Judge my edit based on my edit contents, not by my IP. What happens to "anyone can edit" slogan of Wikipedia? Perhaps, change it to "anyone can edit but be prepared to get discrimination if you're an IP!" 14.186.21.28 (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It's strange to see a physicist call the electromagnetic interaction "electromagnetic force", especially when it's used to distinguish it from interaction with light in a more general sense. The edit summary of the third edit could have been more friendly, but that also applies to Zefr. There was nothing unencyclopedic about it. Anyway, the current article version looks good. --mfb (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to say? Physicists use the word "electromagnetic force" and "electromagnetic interaction" interchangeably (evidently shown in the Electromagnetism article). Plenty of sources use them interchangeably, don't shoot yourself on the foot. It only proves that you lack physics knowledge. The current version looks good because I fixed the original scientific incorrect statement. Just because someone changed the word "electromagnetic force" to "electromagnetic field" (basically just mathematics formulation of electromagnetic force), that doesn't mean I was wrong (it comes down to word preference really). Original sentence was incorrect -> I fixed it -> someone reverted my edit multiple times -> someone else changed it back to my edit with some wording changes due to personal preference (that has nothing to do with scientific correctness). 14.186.21.28 (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Redundancy principle (Biology)

• Redundancy principle (Biology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Newly created, appears to need tending, might be COI editing judging by the creator's username and the bibliography. XOR'easter (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory)

How much is Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory) article original research published in Wikipedia and how much is it a notable thing on its own? --ReyHahn (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The basic concept (mapping one bit of math onto another bit of math) was a topic I heard about in a physics colloquium maybe 15 years ago. I cut one paragraph and flagged another. Some of the rest is tingling my plagiarism senses — the part with the figure numbers looks like it was copied from somewhere that actually numbers figures — but Earwig is getting thrown off by reverse copyvio. XOR'easter (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The diagrams are directly taken from the publications cited in the Wikipedia article.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The article title strikes me as inappropriate. The topic is a concept in behaviour of a competitive system, called a network, and a rough analogy with thermodynamic behaviour of a quantum system is postulated, which in itself seems to be a big reach, and is in any event only an idiom, it seems to me. Closer analogies are likely to occur in biology than in quantum dynamics. So to have a topic in a field that suggests that it is the same phenomenon in a new context seems wrong. A scan does make me think the sources do not even refer to a state of a system as this, and is only one state of several in the model. A general reader would experience surprise at the content, given the title. A better name should be found. The article is also back-to-front: it introduces the idiom before it introduces the context and the system about which it is talking. —Quondum 17:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The plagiarism concerns got worse the more I looked. I think the top match on Earwig was actually copied from the Wikipedia article, but part of "The concept" was lifted from Bianconi and Barabási (2001). There are also problems that Earwig didn't catch. For example, text in the section "Bose–Einstein phase transition in complex networks" appears to be copied from this 2004 paper. The article may need drastic stubbification, presuming that the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

And of course related Bianconi–Barabási model and Fitness model (network theory).--ReyHahn (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Surface plasmon resonance microscopy

Hello. During attempts to format the physics equations of Surface plasmon resonance microscopy, it was noticed that some appear to be ambiguous and/or erroneous (short discussion). Would someone from this project be able to take a look over them to see if they're able to spotcheck issues? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 08:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Solar fusion and neutrinos

In the article Solar neutrino, I question the percentages given for the different sources of neutrinos (86% ad 14%). They do more or less correspond to the values one can calculate from the accompanying figure, but I think those figures are also wrong, and the image file gives no reference. I think it's about 92.6% neutrinos from the pp reaction and 7.4% from the others (calculated from Table 1 of this). Does anyone else have something to say on this, with a reference? Also, the article Proton-proton chain reaction says that helium-4 synthesis via Branch I occurs with a frequency of 83.3% (no reference). I found an article that gives that, but it seems to be saying that 83% of the helium-3 goes to Branch I, which is not the same as saying that 83% of the helium-4 comes from Branch I! (Branch I converts two helium-3 nuclei to one helium-4 nucleus, whereas the other branches convert one to one.) But if it's actually that 83.3% of the helium-4 comes from Branch I, then that corresponds to 91.65% ((183.3)/2) of the neutrinos coming from the pp reaction, not 92.6%. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Wicks Thermodynamically Ideal Engine Cycle

I have declined this draft as original research. The submitter may be Wicks or his daughter or son, and has also submitted a biography of Wicks, and diagrams illustrating Wicks' work. I would appreciate if another editor can review the draft and offer an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like OR that also falls below the wiki-notability threshold. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Though the idea seems interesting and feels like it would likely be covered in some form in the literature, there seems to be a severe lack of secondary or diverse primary sources. I would have declined it on lack of notability. —Quondum 14:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Quondum, User:XOR'easter - I did decline it, so we are in agreement. I thought that I remembered that much physics, and that it is only higher math that I don't remember. I also think that the author is a Wicks. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)