Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive March 2021

Stochastic electrodynamics

This article has been tagged for possible factual inaccuracy since 2008. XOR'easter (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should check which articles link to it, to establish some sort of notability. In various articles it is just listed as "See also".--ReyHahn (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I just checked Special:WhatLinksHere and it appears in all sort of pages, mostly due to Template:Quantum mechanics. Maybe it should be removed from that template until we verify that it is not a fringe theory.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I went on a template-cleaning binge, as physics sidebars tend to accumulate things that sound cool whether or not they're appropriate to the topic at hand. This reduced the number of links coming in to stochastic electrodynamics, but I'm not sure if all the changes have percolated through yet, what with transclusions and all. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The Whatlinkshere now shows the real links. Topics related are mostly vacuum energy, polarization, and vacuum thrusters (fringe flag).--ReyHahn (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Whew, yep, that's a pretty good way of locating pages with problems. I've done some pruning. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm mystified by the assertion that SED is an extension of Valentini's version of Bohmian mechanics. It's not, the subjects are completely unrelated. I removed references to Valentini's theory, essentially restoring an old version of the article. What remains straddles an unlikely fine line between a boring effective theory and crackpottery. Tercer (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Stochastic quantum mechanics and de Broglie–Bohm theory may also need cleanup in that regard. XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Digital physics

Would anyone mind if I just highlighted vast stretches of Digital physics and hit delete? XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Because of WP:FRINGE violations? I feel like what would be left may be too similar in scope to Simulation hypothesis. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

No, no, please. The article Digital physics is an incoherent mess of vaguely related ideas, but some of these ideas are legitimate physics. For instance the Church-Turing-Deutsch thesis, that says that every finite physical system can be efficiently simulated by a digital quantum computer. It is taken seriously by pretty much everyone working on quantum computing, and is falsifiable (just as the original strong Church-Turing thesis was falsified). The simulation hypothesis is unrelated, quasi-religious mumbo jumbo. Tercer (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the digital physics page is very synthesis-oriented, throwing together anything and everything that relates something in physics to something in computers. For example, the sentence beginning Related ideas include just before the "Overview" lists a string of ideas that ... aren't related. Some of the ideas thrown into the mix are serious, while others aren't, and the way the page is written it's impossible to tell which is which. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit difficult to discern what "digital physics" is even supposed to be, in order to tell which ideas are related to which and which aren't. What is clear is that the ideas there are not all related to each other. The "see also" section is rather remarkable in its breadth. To answer your question, I have no objection if you trim it with a machete instead of a scalpel. Tercer (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Machete applied. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of the stuff in there is probably better served moved over to digital ontology. Pancomputationalism is a legitimate thing in philosophy, but it's relation to an article with the word "physics" in its title is kind of tenuous. As far as I understand it Wheeler's "it from bit" is the same thing as "digital ontology", just... said by a physicist. If you were to just merge everything over to digital ontology there would be a lot of stuff in there not really about philosophy (e.g. the Church-Turing thesis), but if you just moved over all of the stuff that's really just talking about digital ontology, I question to see what the point of the article would even be. I'm not really sure what the solution should be but it's a pretty crummy article. Volteer1 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

No, Wheeler's "it from bit" is something very different. "Digital ontology" as espoused by Fredkin and company presumes hidden variables that, in order to be compatible with Bell's theorem, must be nonlocal. That's not at all how Wheeler thought of quantum mechanics, during any of the phases of his career. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Again my understanding of this is fairly thin, but "digital ontology" is something applied to more than just what Fredkin believes, I'm not sure why that article seems to just basically describe his beliefs and then slap two labels (digital physics and digital ontology) onto it. Having a quick skim through some philosophy literature, Wheeler's beliefs are something that people have given the label "digital ontology" to, and the concept is in general far less specific than what Fredkin laid out in An Introduction to Digital Philosophy. Floridi's paper is talked about quite a lot, and seems to be a good read regarding this stuff, and doesn't seem to disagree with me regarding e.g. Wheeler. Anyway I don't think any of this is really relevant though, digital physics probably needed the axe and digital philosophy needs some work, but this is the wrong place to discuss that. Volteer1 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I also encountered Digital probabilistic physics, which discusses a closely related hypothesis. That article is almost entirely presenting a fringe idea advanced by a guy named Tom Stonier, with only a brief Criticism section regarding continuous symmetries. The page has no inline citations, but 3 of its 5 sources are to books by Stonier, and the other 2 are presumably related to the Criticism section. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I just PROD'ed Fredkin finite nature hypothesis. Also, Physical information looks pretty bad, but maybe something can be salvaged from it. XOR'easter (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also in need of work: Cellular_automaton#Modelling_physical_reality. I swear, it's like everything in this corner of Wikipedia — CAs, notions of "information" in physics, etc. — was written by fanboys. XOR'easter (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical information. XOR'easter (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

New open access journal

Hi all, the Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science published its 2020 volume open access, a first for the journal (it is anticipated that subsequent volumes will also be open access). It's a little beyond me to identify relevant Wikipedia articles to update, so I thought I'd drop a note here to say:

• These are all review articles, so they are secondary sources
• Because they are CC-BY-4.0, most of the images are available for reuse in Wikipedia (see individual image captions for exceptions)

List of articles in 2020 volume

memoir by physicist James Bjorken "Covariant Density Functional Theory in Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics" "Parton Distributions in Nucleons and Nuclei" "The Shortage of Technetium-99m and Possible Solutions" "The Dynamics of Binary Neutron Star Mergers and GW170817" "Theoretical Prediction of Presupernova Neutrinos and Their Detection" "Nuclear Reactions in Astrophysics: A Review of Useful Probes for Extracting Reaction Rates" "Tracking Triggers for the HL-LHC" "Extended Scalar Sectors" "What Is the Top Quark Mass?" "The Nuclear Legacy Today of Fukushima" "Chiral Magnetic Effects in Nuclear Collisions" "Photonuclear and Two-Photon Interactions at High-Energy Nuclear Colliders" "Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Recent Developments" "Polarization and Vorticity in the Quark–Gluon Plasma" "The Search for Electroweakinos" "The Fermi–LAT Galactic Center Excess: Evidence of Annihilating Dark Matter?"

Cheers, Elysia (AR) (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elysia (AR): "It's a little beyond me to identify relevant Wikipedia articles to update", not to mention the conflict of interest. A notice like this is fine though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Wolfram spam

Over the last month, a farm of sockpuppet accounts whose primary use was spamming and promotional editing associated with Stephen Wolfram. Many of the recent edits of the accounts have been reverted, but all of the accounts involved are several years old, and more assistance would be helpful. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Wolfram_refspam_cleanup if you'd be interested in helping out. --JBL (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like to pitch in, the list of edits to be checked is here. (Just cross them off if they've been reverted or if they're unproblematic.) Thanks, JBL (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Anelasticity

A review of this draft is requested. In particular, should I accept it? Is there a reason why I should not accept it? My first thought is to accept it, but I'm a chemist, not a physicist. Is there anything wrong with this draft that cannot be cleaned up in article space?

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC).

At a first glance of two seconds I did not see any obvious errors (others may help), but the article is so poorly written in style that I doubt it is ready for acceptance. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC).

User:Xxanthippe - That answers my question. I will accept it because it is more likely to be improved sooner if it is in article space. Thank you, even if I am taking your advice in a way that you did not intend it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Damping

Hi. I started a discussion at Talk:Damping ratio#Damping vs Damping ratio which is of interest to this project. Input is very welcome! Lennart97 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Coincidentally I've just been trying to improve Coulomb damping recently, but work (as always) still remains. It's kind of sad to see such a basic topic languish behind more exotic areas of physics. Would anyone with experience of teaching these things—or even just access to a physics textbook—like to lend a hand? I'm just an ex-maths student (as of two decades ago) trying to remember how do I solved ODEs lol? —Liyang (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Generalized proper time

Newly created article, sourced to the arXiv plus some background material that doesn't talk about it. Bonus red flag: taking Lisi's "exceptionally simple theory of everything" seriously. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggest prod as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC).

Another bonus red flag: the arXiv preprints are not from gr-qc, as one might expect, but from gen-ph, the crackpot section. AfD'ed [1] Tercer (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yang Mills page

Someone has appeared to edit the Yang–Mills theory page so that half of its content describes the esotertic mathematics of this paper which has been published in an actual journal by a known crank and patent attorney who runs his own "physics institute" out of an apartment in Oxford in order to claim they are associated with the university. Such edits surely constitute a WP:COI since the editor PatentPhysicist is pretty obviously the same guy who wrote the paper, and it is also WP:UNDUE since half the article is now describing the (probably crank) mathematics of a single paper in the field, rather than a massive body of work in Yang--Mills theory over the last 70 years.

I am requesting the help of some physics editors to evaluate and clean up the page.Tazerenix (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:PatentPhysicist has identified himself as the author of that paper here. He does appear to have posted material to the talk page for discussion prior to adding it to the article. He received a positive response from an account with no prior edit history, and proceeded to add material to the article.--Srleffler (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The account in question has only ever edited in support of Yablon's paper [2], looks like an obvious WP:SOCKPUPPET. Tercer (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Calling "Symmetry" an actual journal is rather misleading. It's a predatory journal, indistinguishable from vanity press. Tercer (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I will not respond to the negative personal remarks made about me above. What I will say is this: Yes, I am the author of this paper. I only just now, for the first time, as a result of the above, saw the 2016 Woit post which takes issue with a retracted Bell’s Theorem paper by a different individual who happens to be a friend and online colleague, but which post also mentions me. I also happen to be a friend and online colleague of the person who led the effort to have Annals of Physics retract that Bell paper, and have been asked by both, at times, to objectively mediate their scientific disputes. I participated extensively in the discussion of all this at Retraction Watch. And yes, I have a non-traditional background for someone involved in theoretical physics: I am an MIT alum, but I have made my living securing patents for a variety of scientists and engineers. Physics is a passion not a livelihood, so this frees me from the usual pressures imposed upon a professional physicist in academe (which is an advantage), but it also isolates me from the resources and contacts that a professional physicist can access (which is a disadvantage). Thankfully, I have become financially independent as a result of my patent work, so I can focus my efforts entirely on my physics work, with full independence and no material restraints. The only restraints I respect and esteem, are the physical truths of the natural world. And that is all I will say about my personal background because a) this is immaterial to the physics we all prefer to study and discuss and b) it is likely that not many people will give a darn.

The above from User:Tazerenix (to whom thanks and credit is due for contributing to many important physics articles on Wikipedia) is the first time I have seen a physicist refer to Maxwell’s equations as “esotertic [sic] mathematics.” Because at bottom, mathematically and physically, the referenced paper is really just about Maxwell’s equations, and how to systematically extend them to the non-commuting gauge fields of Yang-Mills (YM) theory. Just as we can invert Maxwell’s charge equations (with suitable gauge conditions and / or the introduction of a Proca mass) to obtain photon propagators, and use the current density and the continuity equation to identify Dirac wavefunctions for electrons, we need to meticulously follow all the same steps for the generalization of Maxwell’s equations to Yang Mills. Of course, the mathematics is more complicated, because it becomes highly non-linear (and for my friends with a computer science background, infinitely recursive).

In this regard, all I am really doing in the paper, and suggesting be appropriately exposited on Wikipedia, is expanding upon what is laid out in section 1 of Jaffee and Witten: You start with a field strength two-form $F=dA$ and the source-free Maxwell equations $0=d*F=dF$. And you note that with sources, the charge equation becomes $c{{\mu }_{0}}*j=d*F$. You then form the gauge-covariant extension of the exterior derivative ${{d}_{A}}=d-ieA$ and modify the field strength to ${{F}_{\text{YM}}}=dA+A\wedge A$ with non-commuting gauge fields, and extend Maxwell’s source-free equations to $0={{d}_{A}}*{{F}_{\text{YM}}}={{d}_{A}}{{F}_{\text{YM}}}$. And you note that with sources, the charge equation will become $c{{\mu }_{0}}*{{j}_{\text{YM}}}={{d}_{A}}*{{F}_{\text{YM}}}$. If you look at my sections 2-4, you will see that that is really all I have done there, but with the tensor representation of all this as well. Then you systematically do all the things to these new extension equations that you do to Maxwell’s: invert to find propagators, use a continuity equation to connect with fermions, put the field equations into integral form, and so on. And in the end, just by following the math, you find a lot of interesting things. If I wanted an alternative, more prosaic title for the paper, I might call it "Study of Maxwell's equations for non-commuting gauge fields."

In the upcoming days I will prepare a clear and concise proposed replacement for what I wrote earlier, in the form of an exposition of Jaffee and Witten’s section 1 along the lines of the preceding paragraph, using differential forms and tensors, and post it to the Yang-Mills theory talk page for feedback, before looking to do anything more.

To conclude, let me make one more thing clear: I always value substantive feedback. Experimental method is the foundation of modern science. Often, experimental results arrive in the form of other people of knowledge and goodwill pointing out conflicts with established theory or observations, in which case adjustment and change is mandatory. We should have it no other way. PatentPhysicist (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. This material is likely to be unsuitable for Wikipedia, which does not publish original research or original synthesis. The author should publish the work first in peer refereed academic journals. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC).

The author has already published in a "peer-refereed" academic journal. The referee reports on the published article are freely available online at the journal's website where the article is published. There is no legitimate reason to deny the journal its rightful status as a respected academic journal, and the article its rightful status as a "peer-refereed" article. Chanacya (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)(blocked sockpuppet)

To blocked sockpuppet: Another requirement is that any paper quoted by Wikipedia should have enough citations in the mainstream literature to show that it is considered to be of importance there. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC).

Would somebody please be so kind as to add a link to the objective Wikipedia policy for this? PatentPhysicist (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a strict policy but it is a standard guideline check Wikipedia:Scientific standards, WP:RS AGE and Wikipedia:Too soon#Verifiability.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the most relevant link is WP:UNDUE, which is a strict policy. Tercer (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A general comment: there's no reason to base an article about a topic like Yang–Mills theory on individual papers. Textbooks exist. Since the point of Wikipedia science articles is to provide an encyclopedic reference for mainstream scientific knowledge, we should say what the standard textbooks say (though not quite in the same prose style that textbooks do). A more specific comment: conveniently, Symmetry posted the referee reports for the paper under discussion, and they make it unequivocally clear that no meaningful peer review was actually done. XOR'easter (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Were these produced by an AI? --mfb (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's move back to the left margin. Having the reviews made public by Symmetry is an author choice. As the author of this paper, because of my belief in the importance of transparency, I opted for this Open Review. If someone believes the reviews were inadequate, perhaps they should invest the effort to study and offer substantive comments on the paper itself, rather than on a) me personally, b) another person who made favorable comments about the paper and about Symmetry, c) the journal Symmetry, and / or d) the adequacy of the peer reviews from Symmetry. I also point out that bulleted at the very top of the page Talk:Yang–Mills_theory, is the statement: "Yang–Mills theory has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Science, Physics. If you can improve it, please do." And the please do link says to "be bold," and offers some suggestions about being so, as well as pointing to Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Civility. Perhaps I was too bold, but it is clear that the Wikipedia editors themselves believe that the article at Yang–Mills theory needs to be improved, and that its present rating is only B-Class. Therefore, a bit less boldly than before, I have made some suggestions for improvement at the talk page, here. I also note from its talk page that "[t]his article [on Yang-Mills existence and the mass gap] has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale," so there is work to do there also. PatentPhysicist (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do peer review. We offload this work to the scientific community, and limit ourselves choosing what are the WP:RELIABLE sources - mostly those that have proper peer review, which Symmetry does not. Also, Wikipedia avoids using PRIMARY sources wherever possible - secondary and tertiary sources are preferred - precisely because of the difficulty in judging them. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own research. See WP:COI. If you want your paper to be referenced in Wikipedia, you have to do it the hard way: first get it accepted by the scientific community, then wait for somebody else to put it here. It's hard but possible, a couple of papers of mine were indeed added to Wikipedia by other people. Tercer (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

What Tercer says. The added content is not suitable for Wikipedia. I believe that PatentPhysicist would benefit from additional reading of background material. I particularly recommend a perennial favorite: Jurgen Jost's "Riemaniann Geometry and Geometric Analysis". You might never guess from the title, but it provides a good review of Yang-Mills theory (and superconductivity!) from the mathematicians point of view. And harmonic maps, aka chiral solitions/monopoles/etc. It also describes the mathematics of fermions, from first principles. One of the benefits of this book is that it uses both indexed and index-free notation, so you can develop an understanding of the phenomena both using the historical time-honored indexed notation that physicists usually use, and index-free notation which makes the concepts much clearer (it allows one to see the concepts geometrically, which is hard, almost impossible with traditional physics indexed notation.) All that said, this book is not a physics book, and it has zero statements about physics. Its a math book. But if you want a better, deeper understanding of Yang-Mills and monopoles, its a very good way to go. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:67.198.37.16. I found Jost available online, but the link does not reproduce well. If one does a Google search for "Jost Riemannian Geometry and Geometric Analysis "chiataimakro"" a good link should show up at or near at the top of your search result. Section 3.2 appears to have the material you are referring to. It looks to me as if the connection D = d + A in Lemma 3.2.2 (see also (3.1.13)) is the gauge-covariant derivative in "time-honored indexed notation" (which is great for making sure any calculations you do are correct) and that the Bianchi identity DF=0 in Theorem 3.1.1 is the Yang-Mills monopole which in electrodynamics is described by dF=0. If you look just above that, you will see the derivation of the second Bianchi identity. If you write this as dF=-[A,F], this "monopole" which is the exterior derivative of F is non-vanishing. Though I prefer physics books, I think I will enjoy this. Someone also privately recommended R. Haag's "Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles and Algebras" (another math book :-) ) for its treatment of the Wightman axioms. I appreciate the constructive, substantive comment. PatentPhysicist (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Big History

I noticed the {{Big History}} template while poking around cosmology articles. It and the article Big History seem ... well, grandiose would be one term. WP:SYNTH would be another. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Physics Essays

For those that want to do some WP:UPSD/WP:CITEWATCH-related cleanup, you can take a look at [3] which will find a couple of citations to Physics Essays. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed a couple of them. Tercer (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed one from quantum vacuum thruster, along with some WP:SYNTH doubtless intended to make the "work" published in Physics Essays look more respectable [4]. Another is in a draft on a non-notable fringe topic we've discussed here before. I removed a whole section from Klaus Hasselmann, since nobody has cared about an oceanographer and climate modeler's attempt to re-interpret quantum mechanics. For amusement value: I just noticed that the Physics Essays reference which Tercer re-removed from multiple time dimensions also pointed to a preprint copy on viXra, using their "rxiv.org" domain name. XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that too. Added rxiv.org to WP:UPSD and purged all of them from Wikipedia. There were about 4 I think. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hahahah that one fooled me! I saw the link to "rxiv.org", but thought the pre-print was in fact in the arXiv and this was just a typo. Wow, viXra is a bit evil. Tercer (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple histories

I stumbled across multiple histories a while back and it popped up on my watchlist again. I opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple histories. I'd appreciate input either way from members of this project. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You might also find Path integral formulation#The path integral in quantum-mechanical interpretation to be of interest. Volteer1 (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The article was completely rewritten since it's original nomination. Yes, the old article was deleteable. The new article seems like a keep to me. If you voted previously, then look again, you may change your mind. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Supernova neutrinos

Need someone who can check some of the content, and mathematical formulae, at Supernova neutrinos. The article was created by a Wiki Ed student and looks pretty good, but is too technical for me to verify. Also, any recommendations to this new editor about how to find and use secondary sources in this field would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Properties of mass WP:OR?

The relation between properties of mass and their associated physical constants. Every massive object is believed to exhibit all five properties. However, due to extremely large or extremely small constants, it is generally impossible to verify more than two or three properties for any object.

• The Schwarzschild radius (r_s) represents the ability of mass to cause curvature in space and time.
• The standard gravitational parameter (μ) represents the ability of a massive body to exert Newtonian gravitational forces on other bodies.
• Inertial mass (m) represents the Newtonian response of mass to forces.
• Rest energy (E₀) represents the ability of mass to be converted into other forms of energy.
• The Compton wavelength (λ) represents the quantum response of mass to local geometry.

{{Properties of mass}} (shown @ right) has had all of its mainspace transclusions removed, rather aggressively, by Tercer, citing WP:No original research. I don't have the time to investigate further, so I'm FYI'ing/asking here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Tom.Reding reverted my removals, rather aggressively, and left automated messages in my talk page accusing me of disruptive editing. I removed them again. The problem with this template is not only that it's WP:OR, but it's also pretty fringy and plain bad. Tercer (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bad template — like an old-school crank GeoCities website, transliterated into wiki markup. It's got that familiar pattern of half-digested introductory material, awkwardly put together into a grandiose vision about the Big Questions, with some moments of total incongruity. (...the quantum response of mass to local geometry? Is this saying that the Compton wavelength is about quantum gravity?) Removing its appearances from mainspace is entirely warranted. Deletion would be, too. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Support removal per WP:DEARGODWHATISTHAT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I proposed it for deletion [5]. Tercer (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I had to change the title because I had trouble linking to it. Do not use section headers containing forbidden characters like ⟨{⟩ (cf. WP:NCTR). I intend to referee this to foreign-speaking users regarding foreign versions of this template, since both arwiki and mkwiki have policies against OR as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: Can I substitute the transclusion on this page for archival purposes? 15:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Xi baryon notation

Xi baryon is looking for an editor who can improve the article with an explanation of the * notation. So far, no one has been able to figure out what it means. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb (talk · contribs) added an explanation, but should we use the more standard parenthesis notation instead? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

In the particle name? We can't rename particles. CMS, LHCb. We could write that it's an excited state. --mfb (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)