Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive November 2014

RFC at WT:MOSNUM on g-force

I have started a discussion here about the appropriate notation to use when g is used as a unit of acceleration. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not actually a WP:RFC. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm requesting that people comment. I dislike it when jargon becomes divorced from its actual, literal meaning. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A brief stub at AFC needs help

Please help review Draft:Negative Energy, a three-sentence stub. Should it exist as a separate article? It's currently barely enough for a dictionary entry. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I commented there, hopefully I wasn't too harsh, but if this were an article and not a draft, I'd be comfortable with WP:TNT, because the stub itself is very confused and contains some references to fringe views. Currently Negative energy redirects to Negative mass, that's probably fine, though I'm not sure about how notable or significant it is as a distinct concept without doing more research. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

So we leave the current redirect in place and refer the draft back to the author for possible expansion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Negative energy is highly notable and most certainly deserves a proper article. For example gravitational energy is negative, and I think you would agree that that is notable. Negative mass is only related in the sense that mass is "frozen energy". The draft needs a bit of TLC to expand it and improve the referencing, is all. As for the redirect, IMHO until the draft goes live it would be better pointed at Gravitational energy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

In classical physics, gravitational energy is the only form of energy which can be negative. But the gravitational energy of gravitational radiation is positive.

In quantum mechanics, virtual particles can have negative energy (over limited time periods). But real particles cannot. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In classical physics, potential energy is relative to some arbitrary zero. That includes gravitational potential energy. The natural re-direct would be to Potential energy.

It is hardly notable enough to justify an article that one can set an arbitrary quantity to produce a trivially "paradoxical" appearance. The rejection should hold.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@JRSpriggs (talk · contribs). Yes, that's exactly the kind of thing that should be explained there. Negative energy also appears in the theory of wormholes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

To Chjoaygame: non-gravitational energy is part of the stress–energy tensor which is the source of the gravitational field. As such, it can be measured absolutely, that is, the zero is not arbitrary. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

My comment was not about non-gravitational energy.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To Steelpillow: worm-holes may need negative energy to exist, but how do you know that they exist? JRSpriggs (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@JRSpriggs: Wikipedia's policy is not concerned to verify existence, only notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on sources which turned up, I have heavily expanded the draft and resubmitted it. No doubt some folks will disagree that some entries are valid physics (I know I do), but the sources take precedence over our personal opinions. Further comments and improvements welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback and Reviews about the article on Translation Operator

Hi all,
I started editing the wikipage on Translation operator (quantum mechanics) months ago. It is rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale and as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. I tried to improve the article with a few references and hyper-links. It will be great to have some feedback from you people about my edit. Sumeruhazra (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Sumeruhazra

I have had a cursory glance at it. What is missing is perhaps the operator in the context of (Heisenberg picture) QFT and its rôle in attempts of rigorous treatments (axiomatizations) thereof. YohanN7 (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Condensed Matter Physics Taskforce (CMP-taskforce)

I've been considering creating a new Condensed Matter Physics Taskforce for articles about condensed matter physics. If you are interested, please indicate so below. If enough people want to participate (say at least five), we can start. There are many articles in the {{WikiProject Physics}} that are related to CMP field that need expansion and many more articles need to be created. Developing these articles requires a very different approach from many of our other articles, so it would probably be useful to have access to them through a taskforce. I agree that there may be some articles that can fall in two or more task-forces simultaneously, but that can work as an advantage to improve the article from both task-forces aspects. By having a separate taskforce, we can give attention in improve many articles related to CMP, create many articles as this is a hot research field and many interesting things are coming up, that needs update on wiki. Logical1004 (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback

I've made some major edits to the page Neutral particle oscillation in the last couple of weeks. Can anyone interested in the topic please give me his/her feedback on the talk page of the article? Your opinions or suggestions will be quite helpful and if you have any doubt regarding the matter, I'll be happy to explain as best as I can.

Soham92 (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Clebsch-Gordan coefficients in SU(3) group

Hi, I have created and developed a page onClebsch-Gordan coefficient for SU(3) group. This is my first Wikipedia edit. Can someone please provide me some feedback on how the page is and how can I improve it further. Thank you.Arkadipta Sarkar (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Arkadipta Sarkar

Opinion

Hello, everyone! I have edited the page on Fock state and improved and added sections to the page. Your opinions and suggestions regarding my edits would be most welcome. Regarding any doubt, I'll be more than happy to explain it.

Indranil1993 (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Zero and Category:One

The naming of Category:Zero and Category:One is under discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_19#Numbers] ; you may be interested in the discussion. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please add some task forces

Well, you could always put in the "Forces task force", "Light task force", "Heat task force", "Electricity task force", "Radioactivity task force", etc. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

FRINGE problems at Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object

FYI, there's a notice at WT:AST about FRINGE/OR problems at the talk page talk:Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am bowing out of that discussion. My patience is coming to an end. Can somebody please keep an eye.TR 22:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Computations of turbulent combustion

I don't know if this is physics related but I am sure someone in this group can look at this and determine if this is a fringe theory. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about FRINGE, but definitely some copyvio going on in there. _{I also changed the page name to not be in all-caps.} Primefac (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

EDIT - page is copied from a few different journals, I've tagged it for deletion. Thanks for the heads-up Hell in a Bucket! Primefac (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Insight dawn (talk · contribs) deleted the CSD nomination banner, it was their only edit (SPA? Sock?) the only edits of the article author Ankit1994yadav (talk · contribs) is the article Computations of turbulent combustion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page. Perhaps this needs elevation to WP:ANI ? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the removal, if it happens again I'll bring it to ANI. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Vinit iitmandi (talk · contribs) reposted the article and Ankit1994yadav (talk · contribs) edited it again within minutes of its recreation. Vinit iitmandi (talk · contribs) also removed the speedy deletion tag from Classification of physical behaviour of Fluid simulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was posted by Mandar.karpe1993 (talk · contribs) as their only edit. I really suspect a bunch of sockpuppets running around here posting copyvios. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. I've tagged all related pages, will be requesting creation protection, have notified the authors, and will be bringing the issue to ANI. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)