Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive October 2013

Problem with Photometry/photometer articles

I wanted to add some information about the history of photometers, so I came across the articles Photometry_(optics) and Photometer. Despite not linking to eachother, the photometer article is happy to talk about the principles of photometry, and likewise the photometry article talks about how photometers work. They also give slightly contradictory statements about what photometry is.

There are two obvious ways to fix it, either link them to eachother and move sections between the articles to make them distinct, or to merge them. What would be appropriate?

J1812 (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

They're two distinct, notable topics. They should stay that way. If you look under WP:MERGE, there are templates to annotate talk: pages, so as to preserve attribution histories. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that they are distinct topics: photometry is about the concepts behind the measurement of light, the units of measurement, etc, whereas photometer is about instruments that measure light. That there is overlap between the two articles is OK. Making links between the two articles would be my preference. Right now, Photometry_(optics) has a single reference and Photometer is completely unreferenced, so to resolve contradictions it may be best to consult the Photometry and other references. Thanks for your contributions, --Mark viking (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Force reassessment

Force, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Cky2250 (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Biography of Edward Condon: Religion?

I'm not sure whether my question is within this WikiProject's scope, but Pecondon says on his talk page that he's physicist Edward Condon's younger brother and that the Bird and Sherwin biography of Oppenheimer we use as a source in the Condon article got the timing of Condon's Quaker affiliation wrong - he wasn't raised a Quaker but converted before college. Can we find better sources for (or against) that claim? Huon (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Pecondon's talk page says that he is the son (not younger brother) of Edward Condon. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for that; I screwed that up, but it doesn't change the substance of the issue. Huon (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that you take that sentence out of the article. Even if the source is reliable regarding Oppenheimer, Edward Condon is not the subject of the book so it may not be reliable regarding him. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

New article

There is a new article on Stokes paradox sitting at User:Longape/sandbox with a request to have the page move to main space as per Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#About the procedure of submitting new articles. Could we get someone to look this over as only people here can see if its correct. -- Moxy (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't worked through all the equations, but this looks like a reasonably correct article. The paradox exists. Most refs are to a single source, but Lamb's book on hydrodynamics is a classic textbook and is a good, if somewhat dated, reliable source. Other sources, [1], [2], [3] show that the topic is likely notable. --Mark viking (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Higgs mechanism renamed to Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism

Those who might have some familiarity in this area may want to add a comment on the talk page. — Quondum 01:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Bernoulli Principle

Can someone with the expertise please check this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_principle#Misapplications_of_Bernoulli.27s_principle_in_common_classroom_demonstrations especially statements like "A third problem is that it is false to make a connection between the flow on the two sides of the paper using Bernoulli’s equation since the air above and below are different flow fields and Bernoulli's principle only applies within a flow field." Is the restriction to "within a flow field" valid? For example, I thought we can compare points above and below a paper. Especially is air is close to inviscid (is it?) and the velocity is less than 0.3 Mach (in which case can be regarded as incompressible). Thanks,

JS (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Astronomical spectroscopy

Hello, I'm a 4th-year physics w/ astrophysics student. For my final-year project I've been tasked with bringing a physics-related article on Wikipedia from stub/start class to at least B if not GA class. I have chosen Astronomical spectroscopy as it is one of my primary interests. As I work on the article I may ask for feedback and/or suggestions on improvements here and on the project's talk page, so if you're also keen on spectroscopy please watch that page. Cheers. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primefac (talk • contribs)

n-body problem being heavily revised, additional opinion appreciated

The article n-body problem is undergoing substantial work. It would be appreciated if more editors with a physics background could keep an eye on it. The addition of points-of-view on the talk page to achieve consensus would also be appreciated. RJFJR (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That article does need serious rewriting and/or trimming... It contains a lot of info (much in garbled rambling english) that should be discussed in the main article. Thanks for pointing this article out. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 19:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Rudrene states he or she is in the process of cleaning this up, but suggestions for clarity (and relevance) may help if people have the inclination. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 12:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the article and found that a lot of the more recent edits have made the article worse. I suggest we should just revert to an older version that is much more precise and appealing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N-body_problem&oldid=570194946 Thoughts?

Best, JS (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Many of the recent edits seem to be original research and synthesis, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, by Rudrene trying to apply finite element analysis to the N-body problem--see the talk page later sections for details. I've tried reasoning with the editor, without success, but haven't tried a reversion/edit war yet. The editor seems to have ownership issues as well, warning off Maschen from trying to improve the article and trying and failing to semi-protect the page when no vandalism was taking place. In my opinion, the OR needs to be excised; reverting to an older version may be the cleanest solution. More input is welcome. --Mark viking (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark, I find myself is complete agreement with you. I too do not have a lot of time to devote to this. At some point maybe we can have a simple up or down vote about reverting to the older version. A few years ago I had a similar issue with an editor for the article Law of Large Numbers and had to spend a large amount of time and effort fixing it. While I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings, that desire has to be balanced by the potential cost of having a bad article for readers. Best Wishes, JS (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that this article is not improved by recent edits, and that reinstating an earlier version would be justified.

For about a month, I intended to hold off from commenting/editing the n-body article, to give Rudrene plenty of time to "clean up" the article. It has not happened yet, and it does seem Rudrene is trying to take over the article, considering Rudrene's irritation when I edited followed by a proliferation of happiness after the reversion. The semi-protection request was really strange, you only need that for continual vandalism.

Somehow, Mark Viking's useful comments seem ignored throughout the talk page as well.

This year I will not have much time because of my 4th year project at uni, but at some point this article shall be sorted. Best regards! M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 20:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@ M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk: May I suggest that you consider very carefully proven mathematical and simulation techniques from people who have much, much greater back ground and practice before you decide to revert a very interesting and thought provoking article. Can you really say the mathematics and physics are incorrect with your current experience? Also, I am sorry to say, Dr. Viking's remarks were correct but were not applicable to this specific problem. The system is iterative indeed, but can be modeled using the methods described without sensitivity to the initial conditions. His experience is not adequate, as illustrated by his own remarks, to consider the material presented thoroughly. Please keep in mind that the method presented conserves both energy and angular momentum, and has been proven time and time again in its application to physical and biological structures/bodies interacting gravitationally with each other. Witness being able to model accurately the rotation of planets/debris about the center of mass (which is constantly moving)for the solar system, which is located near the sun. Respectfully submitted --Pacificscottsman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacificscottsman (talk • contribs) 04:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
— Pacificscottsman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't have time to look into the details of this mess now, but it's quite obvious that there are serious WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/WP:DUE issues: Rudrene says "Since it is a new application of statics, there are no direct references except [one paper]", while Pacificscottsman calls the new material "the new method proposed" and says "It appears to me that you simply don't understand the author's mathematics and use of physical ideas". It seems like everybody agrees that we're dealing with original research here, and the only disagreement is whether that should be included in Wikipedia. Deciding that requires no PhD of any sort: original research, no matter how good or correct or brilliant or important it is, has no place in an encyclopedia. — HHHIPPO 10:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This situation really is a mess and it's going to take a lot of work to get this article under control without restoring a previous version. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 15:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. It reads like a senior thesis, not like an encyclopedia article directed towards a broad audience. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Electron Scattering

Hello, I am a 4th year student studying BSc Applied Mathematics with Physics at the University of Glasgow. I was intending to improve the stub on electron scattering as part of my final year physics project. As I am new to Wikipedia writing and editing, I would appreciate suggestions and advice as I go.
My intention is to get a more complete introduction and start laying out the rest of the article in the next few days, and fleshing it out in completeness over a period of weeks.
Any advice or suggestions would be of great help. Please write to my userpage, here or the article talk page; I will do my best to check regularly and take on board the ideas presented.
Thanks, IndianFace (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

AdS/CFT correspondence (again)

Hello,

A few weeks ago, I posted here looking for volunteers to do a GA review of AdS/CFT correspondence. I eventually found someone, and the article was promoted to GA status. It is now a featured article candidate, but because of the technical nature of the topic, I'm having trouble finding people who are comfortable reviewing the article. If you think you can help, please share your comments at this page. Polytope24 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it sometime soon. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Polytope24 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone else? Polytope24 (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit skirmish at Feynman diagram?

An editor keeps on inserting a reference to Amplituhedron on the basis of a source from the physics ArXiv. Do editors think that this is adequate as a stand-alone source? I have argued that sources are needed from the refereed literature (and many of them). Xxanthippe (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC).

I was just about to post a notice myself. Bold and Revert have been attempted, time for Discussion. I've posted my recommendation at Talk:Feynman diagram and encourage others to do so. --Mark viking (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PsiEpsilon#12 October 2013

Anyone who edits string theory articles may want to comment here, especially if you have encountered the IP 123.63.97.30. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 11:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The following IP addresses are probably the same person: 110.172.18.10, 110.172.23.165, 123.63.97.30, 110.172.23.136. See [4] also. Polytope24 (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those, will add them to the SPI. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 07:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

New article: Józef Lubański

Why is it... that a handful of physicists who contributed to relativistic quantum mechanics are so hard to look up ??

In the article Pauli–Lubanski pseudovector: We all know Pauli, but who exactly is Lubanski?

After several months of searching, I have only been able to make a very crude and potentially inaccurate draft: User:Maschen/Lubanski, which is now in mainspace, Józef Lubański, allowing others to edit it.

Diacritics etc. in names can be fixed later. The Polish WP doesn't have an article on him.

Again - I'm not confident the article is accurate, so any/all help in fixing inaccuracies (as and when people have the time and inclination) would be definitely appreciated.

Thanks in advance, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 12:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I added a bit, not much. Just stuff I could find easily. Best, JS (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to anyone who contributes! M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 18:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

New article: Tung-Mow Yan

In case anyone is interested or happens to find additional information, we now have an article on him. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 15:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Niels Bohr

This article is currently at FAC, and we could use some help with the descriptions of Bohr's contributions to physics. (My support reflects prose guidelines, not content.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New article: Myron Mathisson

Another one of the lesser known physicists who contributed to general relativity...

Please cf the talk page. Any contributions are always appreciated in advance. Cheers, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 09:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Recreation of Magnetic pole strength

This article was merged [5][6] into magnetic moment before by RockMagnetist (and F = ...), then User:FKLS has recreated the pole strength article. There was consensus to merge before, but probably in a misleading place: talk:magnetic moment#Merge proposal: Magnetic pole strength.

I think this can easily be contained within magnetic moment, but others may have ideas. Any thoughts on what to do? M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 12:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a link to the merge discussion on the talk page. IMO, recreating the article was unwarranted. Besides, the concept of "magnetic pole strength" is ill-defined, though the article tries to define it variously as the equivalent monopole flux and as the total magnetic flux emanating from the pole, only vaguely equivalent, and not well defined. I think the article should be removed again and the concept only retained only as a mention in other articles. — Quondum 15:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Placing the merge discussion on the destination article's talk page is the normal procedure. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

However, the discussion only lasted for a day, which may not have allowed enough time for contrary views. I will reopen the discussion. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I allowed two weeks for discussion, and the consensus was still to merge, so I have restored things to the way they were. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 12:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Equations of Mathisson, Papapetrou, Dixon

For those interested in general relativity...

These physicists (in chronological order) have developed equations that describe the motion of spinning masses in gravitational fields (according to general relativity). Please cf Talk:Mathisson–Papapetrou equations. User:Staticshakedown and I think they chould all be merged into one article. Does anyone disagree?

I know, it was probably silly to create Mathisson–Papapetrou equations before asking the project... but at least we can form a redirect. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 14:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The articles are very short and it's a trivial matter - so I'll just do it. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 17:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Force, a vital article and core topic, is undergoing a good article reassessment. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Hello fellows! Just a nudge for you to look at this article. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like there is only an AFC header at the bottom of the article. I have placed my afc comment below the AFC header at the very end of the article. --Mark viking (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lorenzo Iorio etc

also posted at WT:AST, where discussion is ongoing

I just noticed that Lorenzo Iorio has been recreated again, this time by 45 Wuz (talk · contribs), who has also created Emilio Elizalde and Astrodicticum Simplex. None appear to be notable, and both biographies look like they fail WP:PROF to me. Iorio's article has been deleted twice before (first AfD, second AfD), and it doesn't look like anything has changed since then. Those nominations were plagued by multiple single-person accounts, which I suspect were operated as sockpuppets.

I'm unwilling to open this particular can of worms by starting another deletion request, but could someone else take a look and decide if these articles should go to AfD? Modest Genius ^talk 20:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Lorenzo Iorio does seem notable as his work does appear in google scholar and in the Microsoft academic search, in Springer publications. You're right that the citations currently in the article are mostly popular science articles, which may be OK for the "external links" section but not as references. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 09:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Take a more careful look at who cites him. For example, of his most highly cited paper in GS with 54 cites all except 7 are self-cites. This issue was discussed in the previous AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC).

OK. I'll review everything in detail later. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 09:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It is also instructive to read the 1st and 2nt AfD debates. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC).

As for Emilio Elizalde and Astrodicticum Simplex, neither of those articles have sufficient or suitable citations for proper references, just facebook/pop science/google/home styles of websites. If we can find reliable independent sources maybe keep them, otherwise delete. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 09:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Upon further review, I take it back - LI and EE do not seem to be notable.

Lots of people do research in general relativity, publish papers, are doctors/professors/readers/lecturers/members/fellows of whatever university(s)/society(s)/institution(s)/academy(s)/board(s), and serve as referees/supervisors on top of everything...

But there doesn't appear to be anything really significant about or produced by LI or EE, they just seem like two more physicists. I would support a delete of these articles, and Astrodicticum Simplex. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 12:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

EE seems to be notable enough for a volume of the Springer Proceedings in Physics to be dedicated to him: "Cosmology, Quantum Vacuum and Zeta Functions: In Honor of Emilio Elizalde. Editors: Sergey D. Odintsov, Diego Sáez-Gómez, Sebastian Xambó-Descamps". If I have time today, I'll drop by the university library to get a copy of the first article, Emili Elizalde. Perspectives on his Life and Work, by Sebastiàn Xambó-Descamps.

Astrodicticum Simplex would be significant to a German speaker, but I don't see why there should be an article in the English Wikipedia about this blog. I'd agree on a deletion nomination for this article.

I have no opinion one way or another on LI. In WT:AST, I argued that LI is very definitely a legitimate, mainstream researcher (contrary to claims of fringiness made by User:Astrocog), but I rendered no opinion on his notability. His work has been cited on several occasions in the popular and semi-popular media, but I don't know whether that makes him notable or not.

I was going to try working on the LI article to see whether I could discover something that would shed light on LI's notability, but I notice that you've been making edits yourself. I take it that nothing that you've found impresses you as arguing for his notability?

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No, not really impressive. You don't have to hold back on editing yourself either. I don't have any strong feelings for these articles, just reconsidered as nonnotable. I'm now indifferent to keeping/deleting LI or EE, but support deleting Astrodicticum Simplex. Agreeably, it seems EE could be notable since in WP:PROF#Criteria:

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

and EE is apparently editor-in-chief of Journal of Physics A. Only one criteria is needed. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

He is not editor of Journal of Physics A as you can see from its WP page. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC).

Lorenzo Iorio is a big name in the field he works in. He is notable enough for inclusion. The article summarizes his work in one sentence, a lot more can be written about this. Or does deserving an article about you require you to be a controversial figure like Luboš Motl or a well known Wikipedian like our very own William Connolley? Does Lorenzo Iorio need to take a time out from his physics work, start a blog and make controversial comments about some political topic or does he need to become a Wikipedian, make some friends here and let them write a great biography about him? Count Iblis (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree that this is a problem with academic figures in general. From a review of his contributions, my impression would be that he is indeed notable in his field; the problem is trying to see where he fits in with the Wikipedia criteria for notability. Now that I've spent a fair amount of time reading his work, I would be sorry to see his article deleted. His work is very much in line with my interests, and I am surprised that I did not know his name before. Unfortunately, I haven't had time to work on his article to try to improve it. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Finite-volume method for one dimensional steady state diffusion

Here's another Afc article just posted. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

..and here's another: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Segal-Bargmann space —Anne Delong (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)