Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive October 2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Quantum mechanics split

Hi Physics enthusiasts. There is a discussion on Talk:Quantum mechanics about splitting the article to Quantum Physics. The split has been already made. However, it did not garner much discussion and I think the discussion would benefit from a wider participation. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Polyamorph:, would you mind starting a formal proposal to either move the page or merge it back? Give everyone the options from the beginning and ask them to choose one, including stay as is, move to another page, or merge back. I think you should and ask everyone to use the other section for general discussion and to use the new section to vote explicitly on what they think should happen, with a line or two of justification. zit will probably get both a lot of support and opposition and we will see what happens. A simple voting format may also encourage others to participate, as opposed to the more long-winded discussions.Footlessmouse (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, will do when I get out of a meeting I'm in. Polyamorph (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Hi all, in going over physics categories, I found in physics textbooks the article Physical Science for Christian Schools and in the expert needed category I found Route dependence. I have nominated both for deletion. I nominated the pseudo-science book several days ago and no one has commented, route dependence was just nominated. Route dependence could be merged with path dependence (physics), but there is nothing to merge and I do not believe the term itself is notable. I wanted to invite you all to make comments. Thanks!Footlessmouse (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, to clarify on the textbook, I did not nominate it because it is pseudoscience, but because it has no notability. It has never been reviewed and a search of citations reveals only a handful, all of which were on Christian topics. Ultimately, the article is an advertisement for a non-notable book. I am not sure what will happen if no one else votes, so I would appreciate a few comments. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

Hi all, could I get some comments on what to do with the article An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything? I was going to nominate for deletion, but want to check what others opinions are first. There are plenty of references but none of the ones discussing the paper are published and most are by the author of the original paper. There are no official published rebuttals or reviews of the work and it was never published, which can only be assumed as a failure to pass peer-review given the initial excitement. There are options such as renaming it to include the paper "A Geometric Theory of Everything" with it or putting the whole story in the author's article. Ultimately, though, I think we should be a little more careful of what is called a notable journal article on Wikipedia, the author was and is an independent researcher without an academic position, that sums up all you need to know of its standing in the scientific community. At the very least, that should be made perfectly clear in the article, which is not tagged as fringe at all. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Edit: I am arguing that it fails GNG, as it received significant coverage, but not in reliable sources that were also independent of the author. Also, my mistake on saying it failed peer-review, it was not submitted. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed it is fringe, but it did receive significant coverage, albeit mostly criticism, from more reliable sources. There is an element of self-promotion in the article that should probably be cut back and perhaps a bit more in the way of caveats up front. Not sure if it has any current relevance, seems to have been one of those storm-in-a-teacup things. Lithopsian (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Distler and Garibaldi's criticism was in fact published in a peer-reviewed journal. After that, Lisi didn't give up, but most everybody stopped caring. The article could stand cleaning — that introduction is overlong and overly detailed, for starters — but I don't think the situation calls for merging or deleting. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
That would be speedy keep, due to the huge amount of popular and scholarly attention this received. It's not even fringe science, it's just science that got rejected/ignored after scrutiny. One of thousands of honest-but-now-effectively-dead ideas. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. The article set off several of my red flags but I was not familiar enough with the topic to determine what should be done, so I was asking here for comments. I was not sure what counted as "significant coverage", all the popular news articles about it did not provide the in-depth coverage needed to write the article with reference to only secondary sources. Also, so many articles get picked up by news sites all over the world, but most are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, although I can see this one got picked up more than most. Anyways, thanks again. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for calling attention to it! I've made a first attempt at cleaning it up. XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend cropping the section with the details of the model, the model itself is not notable or worthy, only the popularity and backlash.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Spin-weighted spherical harmonics

I was working on Spinor spherical harmonics and I noticed that it links to Spin-weighted spherical harmonics, does anybody know how the two are related? (or at least confirm that these subjects are not related). Secondly, all the books I have looked so far define the spinor spherical harmonics for systems with spin-1/2, should our definition be for any spin or just keep the properties for spin 1/2? --ReyHahn (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

A little Googling shows that spin-weighted spherical harmonics can be represented as contractions of tensor products of spinors. See the secondary ref [1], section A, and the primary ref R. Penrose and W. Rindler, Spinors and Space-Time Vol. 1: Two-Spinor Calculus and Relativistic Fields (Cambridge University Press, 1987). --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but could you clarify how all that relates to spinor spherical harmonics?--ReyHahn (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe this will help you. They are different mathematical objects entirely, but it appears as though the spinor spherical harmonics can be constructed using the spin-weighted harmonics. I think this paper is one of the first to point out the technique. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Heads up at Talk:Relativity priority dispute

Some assistance might be welcome at an almost escalating dispute between user Footlessmouse and anon 47.202.49.36 at Talk:Relativity priority dispute#Restore the September 24 version immediately and the (three) preceding sections. - DVdm (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics education in the United Kingdom

This AfD is possibly of interest to the community here. (The article did come up here a few months ago.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

SU(6) (physics)

This is a really weird article that is supposed to be about the occurrence of the Lie group SU(6) in physics. It lists two essentially unrelated uses in particle physics, one without any sources. What should be done with it?

  1. Move to SU(6) in physics.
  2. Make a new article about SU(6) in general.
  3. Refocus exclusively on the SU(6) GUT model and move.
  4. Delete the article outright, per WP:TNT.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I think it should be proposed for deletion. The one source given in the page is not for one of the two topics discussed, but a side note at the bottom of one linking to a 2005 primary source claiming to find a new GUT theory based on SU(6). The article is, therefore, effectively source-less. Even if you were believe enough reliable secondary sources exist out there to expand on the topic to the point of requiring its own page, it is currently in such awful shape with so little useful information that WP:TNT applies here. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lists of textbooks

Hi all, the three lists of textbooks we have, List of textbooks in electromagnetism, List of textbooks in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, and List of textbooks on classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, have notability issues as stand-alone lists and I think I have an alternative that would allow for cohesive wholes: Create two new articles List of undergraduate physics textbooks and List of graduate physics textbooks and merge all the contents there, along with all the fields neglected by these articles. I have already began working on an outline/rough draft where I have added in books from the other lists User:Footlessmouse/Graduate textbooks. I also started a conversation at Talk:List of textbooks on classical mechanics and quantum mechanics#Proposal for deletion referring to deleting that page as part of the process, but I think a wider audience might be appropriate when altering multiple pages. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Note, I just noticed List of important publications in physics, but that article needs a lot of help. It would be better, IMO, to remove textbooks from there and have that be a list of historically significant publications in physics, of which plenty are missing. Also, use of "important" in the title is borderline on original research and is otherwise not very informative or selective, IMO. Footlessmouse (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Dubious addition at Casimir effect

This looks like fringe space-drive fluff, supported by sources that superficially look reliable but aren't. Comments welcome. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't know about the books, but citing researchgate.net, a social media site with self-published articles, is unacceptable. This is also not the first time I've seen general claims backed up with citations from conferences, which I believe to be unacceptable but am not sure on any policy. There is no editorial overview, so I would presume that conferences count as unpublished primary sources and should not ever be used unless that particular talk was somehow notable as evidenced by other secondary sources. Footlessmouse (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    • The amount of trash in AIP conference proceedings is remarkably high. I've seen total garbage about reactionless space-drives "published" there. I don't think there is a filter, effectively speaking. And Harold E. Puthoff is a known crank. To be honest, I think the text is unsalvageable, but I'd rather not be too confrontational and be the one to immediately re-remove it myself. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
      • My bad on the book, the researchgate.net is just a chapter URL. I removed the AIP citation, am not sure about the rest of it. If Harold E. Puthoff is known to produce a lot of fringe science, though, it is probably not a reliable source to use in a science article. Sources should be reliable and verifiable. Footlessmouse (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
        • The only source that was reliably published was the Annals of Physics paper, which does not contain the claim that it is being used to support. The other footnote for that claim is a fringe-y conference proceeding, also not peer-reviewed, that happened to be catalogued on NASA's website and so looks superficially respectable. (Claiming any kind of NASA affiliation or connection, however indirect, is a fairly common way to manufacture the appearance of respectability.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
          • Apparently, he got a theoretical paper through Physical Review E [2] by conspicuously keeping everything a thought experiment. The point of the paper is that you can extract heat out of metal plates at zero temperature, in the same sense you could get heat out of an already cold rock by dropping it off a cliff. But that's not a cycle, and isn't without the restriction of carrying onboard fuel. The hypothetical cycle outlined in the NASA workshop paper doesn't even claim the cycle it describes works: "Since such a procedure would generate more energy that it uses, it is highly probable that something is [practically or theoretically] wrong." This is clear WP:FRINGE: citing a conference with "NASA" in the title to try to imply an endorsement is the same grasp at credibility that was used by EmDrive. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 18:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_October_2020&oldid=989453848"