Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive September 2022

Now sourced at main article. Was: Unsourced mass change to a physical constant

The user Comp.arch (talk · contribs) went through several articles to change the value of the fine structure constant from the accepted 1/137.036 to 1/137.040, without ever providing a source. In this edit, they attribute the claim to a YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvKd2nkbf6M. Please help me revert all of the changes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

During the cleanup, I discovered that the likely origin is Dimensionless_physical_constant#Fine-structure_constant, which presents a result by Singh (2021) which claims to derive this constant. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

And in the end, the only affected articles I could find were Extended periodic table and Precision tests of QED. I've reverted these edits, nonetheless, due to the lack of sourcing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The paper:

Singh, Tejinder P. (2021-09-08). "Quantum theory without classical time: Octonions, and a theoretical derivation of the Fine Structure Constant 1/137". International Journal of Modern Physics D. 30 (14): 2142010. arXiv:2110.07548. Bibcode:2021IJMPD..3042010S. doi:10.1142/S0218271821420104. ISSN 0218-2718. S2CID 238856941.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Fringe material well outside the mainstream.Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC).

I feel like this should be added to {{physconst}}, using the NIST value of 7.297×10⁻³. That way if it does change in the future there's only one place to update. Primefac (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's first discuss the revert you made to my edit here. The lead should summarize the article, and the article already had the (WP:V) formula for the fine-structure constant in it. I didn't put it in, and it's still there after your revert. And as you say above you found the theory in cleanup. It's the only theory for the fine-structure constant (and masses of particles, and unifying QM/QFT with GR) that I know of, so I think it should be taken seriously. At least a value given shouldn't contradict it.

Wikipedia allows for simple calculations and 1/137.04 is still valid, just as a rounded form of 1/137.036 (which happens to be wrong). And it's better than 1/136 that implies to readers it's a rational number, as previously thought. comp.arch (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hrm, there is a rather interesting point in this. LaundryPizza03, you claim the changes were made to 137.040, but I'm only seeing changes to 137.04, which looks to me more like a rounding move than a "change the value of the number" move. This does allow for some level of discrepancy (i.e. whether it's 137.036 or 137.040... is somewhat mooted). Primefac (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I intentionally didn't add the extra zero, to not contradict CODATA 2018. He's claiming I did, and if I did please revert that, as a mistake. However with the extra zero seems like the correct value... comp.arch (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary for that reverted edit was Changing value (in lead) to less precise value as it's the correct one (according to theory, already sourced here). The measured fine-structure constant is wrong. I will follow up with an edit on its article. I am surprised that we would reject the measured value in favour of a recently published theory. NebY (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

See why at Talk:Fine-structure_constant#Calculated_value_as_1/137.04. And I'm not sure if we should rather discuss the value/formula there. And also here? Or just here the general principle about values and sourcing? I changed the value to match theory AND measurement, note 137.04 IS equal to 137.036, just less precise. CODATA 2018 can be wrong. Intriguingly I see at Precision tests of QED#High-energy QED processes values ranging from "α⁻¹ = 136.5(2.7)" to "139.9(1.2)". Maybe I misunderstand, should the value be the same; for low and high energy? I'm just pointing out that measured values can be stated too precisely, called an anomaly, such as with muon g-2. comp.arch (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The actual theory we have is that the fine-structure constant must be determined experimentally. This theory that calculates a value for it is crackpot nonsense. That it contradicts the CODATA 2018 number is irrelevant. Tercer (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Tercer. Also, a single primary source which is less than a year old and has ZERO citations from anyone other than the original author is emphatically NOT sufficient basis to include the claim in Wikipedia yet. PianoDan (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I found that all citations to these papers by Singh were added by a very persistent sockmaster. Tercer (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Note, he has many papers, but this peer-reviewed one seem to be the major one ("Accepted 23 May 2022 Published 05 June 2022"):

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-02868-4#citeas

Quantum gravity effects in the infrared: a theoretical derivation of the low-energy fine structure constant and mass ratios of elementary particles

The European Physical Journal Plus

"This theory that calculates a value for it is crackpot nonsense." is a disappointing statement. I was only editing pages related to the fine-structure constant, so far, but to reduce the 26 fundamental constants of the universe by an order of magnitude seems like a major thing to me. So it's not just about "a value". Having also (plausible) formulas for the mass [ratios, or square of] all the quarks, seems like a big deal to me. Has anyone else explained any or all masses of the standard model before? comp.arch (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. As such, it doesn't matter if it seems like a big deal to YOU, it matters if it seems like a big deal to the physics community as a whole, as measured by coverage in reliable, independent sources. PianoDan (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Have to agree. This could be a great deal, but so far it is one primary source which means it counts for almost nothing in Wikipedia terms. When some other authors cite it and support it and when there is some real-world tests of its validity, then it becomes something we document as consensus. I'm also troubled by the statement in the paper that the agreement between the new theoretical value for the fine structure constant and the measured fine structure constant is "exact" when some tweaks are made. So make them! For now, despite the credentials of the author, this comes under WP:FRINGE. We could discuss it somewhere buried in fine structure constant, or perhaps in a higher-level article since it has implications far beyond that one thing, we shouldn't but present it as "fact". Lithopsian (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Do (re)read WP:DUE in WP:NPOV, it's highly pertinent. In a nutshell, exceptional claims (such as "reduce the 26 fundamental constants of the universe by an order of magnitude") made by one person and so far lacking any prominent support do not belong in Wikipedia at all. NebY (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment at Radian

A request for other comment has been made at Talk:Radian#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_7/9/22. 172.82.47.242 (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

New article

There is a new article entitled "Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena." There is also an AfD pertaining to this article here. There are also comments on the talk page of the article. And, there is a related discussion about this article on the Fringe theories noticeboard [1] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comments for a number of editing suggestions

I am newbie trying to update, order and correct articles about or relating to the physics lab DESY. I have worked my way through some articles about its facilities and history and put suggestions for new / edited content on the respective talk pages. It would be cool to get feedback for these! They are:

• TASSO
• JADE (particle detector)
• PLUTO

I've published the edits for Positron-Electron Tandem Ring Accelerator and created a draft for a new article on DORIS, which can be checked out here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redactrice_at_DESY/sandbox/DORIS_(particle_accelerator)#DORIS_%28particle_accelerator%29

Any feedback on content, form or etiquette very welcome. Redactrice at DESY (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

These are in my area of expertise, and I've updated TASSO, but today is likely to be very busy, so if other folks want to have a go at the rest, please do. PianoDan (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Mølmer-Sørensen

In the article Mølmer–Sørensen gate there are at least two definitions. As I have pointed in the comments, there are too many different definitions of this gate that I would like to find somebody with enough expertise to assess the article and provide a more clear reference of what it is meant by MS gate. If there are many definitions the article should reflect that, for the moment I have modified the lead to reflect that. ReyHahn (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)