Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive September 2015

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

"Fall"

The usage and primary topic of Fall is under discussion, see talk:Fall (disambiguation) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The Fabric of Reality

Anyone want to help salvage The Fabric of Reality? I think it should be notable, but it needs a lot of work. I've removed a huge chunk of content from the article because it was all unsourced and came across a little like OR as a result, so I need someone familiar with the topic to see if anything can be salvaged by the sections in this version of the article. I'm almost completely certain that it can be, but right now I'm more focused on keeping its head off the chopping block. Basically, I'll take care of finding notability - I just want someone(s) to work the old material back into the article with RS to back up their claims. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about whether to deprecate Template:Cite doi

Template:Cite doi allows editors to generate a citation from a digital object identifier. There is a discussion about whether to deprecate this template. Since doi's are used the sciences and this is a science WikiProject, I am inviting anyone here to comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The depreciation was agreed to in 2014; this discussion is about whether to uphold that decision. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Consensus can change. We can reverse it and not obliterate almost sixty thousand citations. 166.176.59.180 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I know that, however the original post made it sound like this was the first time it had been discussed, and I was looking to clarify. Primefac (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Conversion between units of angle

I've suggested at Template talk:Convert that {{convert}} support conversion between units of angle (ie. degrees of arc, arcminutes, radians, gradians, etc) ; what do you guys think? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Having seen no concrete examples for this change, and plenty to oppose it, I am (at the moment) inclined to agree with those who are against this change. A lot of work for very little reward. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd have to say that the case for including them is not particularly strong. There's no obvious reason to think that conversions between angular units (extremely rare in practice) would be much more useful than any of the possible conversions (e.g. involving the legendary furlongs per fortnight, etc.) If you want to convince people, you really need to show some examples of cases where the lack of angular conversions has been a problem. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Fortnights is a supported unit, even though it is a rare unit. How many conversions from fortnights to months or days or weeks is actually used? Surely much much less than conversions from arcminutes to arcseconds. From personal experience, I've converted between decimal degrees and dms/HMS coordinates for locations of astrophysical phenomena in articles over the last year, since the source uses decimal degrees and we use dms/HMS. And I've also done so for angular sizes in astronomical measurements, between decimal arcminutes and milliarcseconds (mas), in articles. The default unit used in observation data has changed over time, and also depending on source used. To maintain consistency in our articles, either CONVERT should be able to carry out the change, or we need our editors conversant on how to change between units (and suffer the errors that such changes will inevitably result in due to the adhoc manner in having units changed by personal mis/calculations) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The reality is that if anyone who wants to work with fractions of a degree needs to be conversant with the conversions. Furthermore, anyone who cares about the fraction of a degree isn't just reading the article, they are using the values in further calculations, and will have to make multiple conversions to accommodate the multiple sources they are drawing data from and the (possibly multiple) computing devices and programs they are using. Providing conversions in the article would be carrying coal to Newcastle. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
No, actually not. We just use the result of the conversion in and of itself. Just as we convert kilometres into miles and use that result just as a distance in miles, we use a converted decimal degrees to hms/DMS as the stated position in the sky. There is no further calculation. Stating that something is a certain distance from something else in the sky results in no further calculations, but consistency in units used across Wikipedia would be maintained, instead of having arcminutes here and decimal degrees there, etc. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Top-cited missing journals

WP:JCW has recently updated, and the coverage of physics journals is rather excellent. I wanted to compile a list of 'pure' physics journals, but it seems all our most cited ones already have articles. Still, I've compiled a list of semi-related journals which may or may not be of interest to people in this project.

Top-cited missing journals:

See our journal writing guide at WP:JWG for help on writing these articles. Any help you can give is greatly appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll also add that Physical Review C and Physical Review D could probably have their own standalone articles instead of redirects to the series. Likewise for Physics Letters A and Physics Letters B. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that Physics Letters could use significant expansion before it would be worth splitting it. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I've moved the list to a separate page, linked above, so that it will persist when this page is archived, and can be more easily linked-to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission - 09/09/15

See Draft:Single particle optical sizing. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

As a note, page was deleted for copyright reasons. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Grain"

The usage of Grain is under discussion, see talk:food grain -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with physics? If you haven't already, take it to the wikiprojects at the top of that talk page. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 08:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it could concern grain (unit) or grain size. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
grains and grain boundaries as well, since grains affect characteristics like electrical conductance, sheer, metal fatigue, etc; thus the topic that gets the title "grain" would seem to be something that concerns WPPHYSICS -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Prephysics

User Prephysics (talk · contribs) is repeatedly trying to add his own (nonsense) research to various articles. His contributions may need some more eyes. In particular, I have noticed some vary similar contributions being added by IP editors. TR 13:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't there an ANI thread about that guy recently? How'd he not get banned/blocked? Time for another one I say. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
It was @ DRN. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If anyone can refute the facts I have been providing without using their bias, please feel free to do so. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no one is entitled to their own facts, myself included.

Prephysics (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried to moderate the discussion of Superdeterminism at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't know what the facts being offered by User:Prephysics are, and some of the other editors don't either. They asked us to perform a Final Selection Thought Experiment, which, I think, purports to disprove the existence of free will, and thus provide an exception to Bell's theorem that is consistent with Superdeterminism. I don't understand how the proposed experiment proves anything. However, the subject editor then complained that I was biased for taking a "side" rather than respecting the truth as evidenced by Nature. In my opinion, I was trying to insist on Wikipedia policies, including verifiability and reliable sources. At least, that was my opinion. I then withdrew from moderating the dispute (because one of the parties thought that I was biased), and that thread was closed. I don't see what facts they are saying that they provide. There are also conflict of interest issues that have not been addressed, because User:Prephysics appears to be a fringe researcher, Michael Morales. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me add that the moderator did his best in order to save "Prephysics"; namely, he started the discussion with the question: "superdeterminism" being itself fringe, why not include another fringe theory? (See the closed moderated dispute.) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

With all due fairness, Robert did indeed tried to moderate the discussion from a position that sub-policies supersedes Wikipedia's core policy of verification of content. However, this position is inherently biased and easily manipulated by editors or moderators who have their opinions they wish to impose. Simply put, empirical evidence has been obtained which unambiguously supports that our existence is indeed "superdeterministic". Since such evidence cannot be subject to opinion Wikipedia's editors, with the aid of biased moderation, have chosen to censor what they cannot refute.

Prephysics (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians are humble people who do not attempt to make their own judgements about nature. If the thought experiment is decisive and can be stated in a comprehensible form, then no doubt it will soon be appearing in reliable published sources and we can cite them. We can wait - there is no deadline. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Evidently User:Prephysics and I have significantly different interpretations of the "core policy of verification of content". I interpret that policy is meaning that readers should be able to verify content by verifying its publication in previous reliable sources. He is apparently saying that Wikipedia should permit him to ask readers to verify content by performing an experiment (rather than by referring readers to a published paper describing a performed experiment). My interpretation of the policy is that Wikipedia doesn't work that way, as a vehicle for editors to ask its readers to perform experiments. Also, I find the experiment incomprehensible. Because I can't understand the experiment, I can't refute it, because it appears to me to be not even wrong. Perhaps other members of this project can comment on whether they share my interpretation or his interpretation of content verifiability, and whether they can understand the experiment well enough to make it falsifiable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
(way outsider view) Forgot why I have this project on my watch list but throwing in two cents. The described Prephysics view of WP:CCPOL seems way off. The editors edit history shows constant WP:NOTHERE behavior. Citing himself in this maner (Manuel S Morales?) is nothing but WP:SOAP. Not sure why taking remedies against this is even in question although I have noted lack of administrator response re: other editors of this ilk. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've seen enough. talk:Prephysics is blocked indefinitely. Max Semenik (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Is BBC Breakfast a reliable source on theoretical physics?

This source from the BBC asserts that Jacob Barnett has been "tipped as a future Nobel Prize winner." Another source at the BBC was this Sopel interview, which makes identical pronouncements. An anonymous IP address has decided that this, and other sources making similar pronouncements, are reliable sources on theoretic physics. He has rejected the unanimous local consensus at Talk:Jacob Barnett, after months of discussion. Frustratingly, he does not seem to read or understand the replies directed at him. He is now threatening to raise the issue at WP:RSN. Are these reliable sources for an article about a physicist, that are appropriate in light of WP:BLP? Please comment at Talk:Jacob Barnett. Sławomir
Biały 02:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Energy units for chemistry and physics

Please consider commenting at Template talk:Convert#Energy units for chemistry and physics. --John (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Low-barrier hydrogen bond

Hi, I've done a few edits on the low-barrier hydrogen bond page. They're mostly from a protein and enzyme point of view. It would be good for a physicist to have a look through and maybe add some description of the orbitals and energy levels involved. I've also notified WP:Chem. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Guy Wilkinson (physicist)

Hello, physics experts. This old draft will soon be deleted as stale. There appear to be many news reports, but most just say the same couple of facts and then quote him. I don't, however, have access to physics journals. Is this a notable physicist? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ununseptium

Hi! The article in question has been an FA candidate for almost a month now, and the FAC has received little attention so far. Another FAC took place shortly before this one started, and it closed without any definitive result due to little attention. So I would love anyone to drop a comment, please come, this would be much appreciated. (A favor in return would be on me.) Thanks--R8R (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, ununennium is at GAN (and perhaps FAC after that?) Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Hybrid Plasmonic Waveguide

Dear physics experts: This old draft appears to have references, and there is plenty of information about it on the internet. Is this a notable topic? There doesn't appear to be an article about "Plasmonic Waveguide", so an alternative would be for it to be part of a more general article.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a great article to me, on a notable topic. It's a mixture of a dielectric waveguide and a plasmonic waveguide, so it would not really belong in a "plasmonic waveguide" article even if one existed. And I think there's enough content that it shouldn't be merely a section in Waveguide (optics). --Steve (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Steve. Based on your recommendation, I have accepted the draft. It can now be found at Hybrid plasmonic waveguide.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Updated CODATA values

As of June 2015, CODATA has released updated values for the fundamental physical constants. See, for example: NIST CODATA. I have started updating some of the relevant pages and have noticed that some of the pages have already been changed, but these values are so deeply embedded in all of Wikipedia, that it will probably take a while to update them all. To make matters more challenging, updating these values should be done periodically as new values are available. Any help swapping out the new values will be greatly appreciated! JCMPC (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

JCMPC, I'll just point you towards {{physconst}}, which I'm in the process of updating. I think that future updates will be made easier if everything runs through this template, so if you see any numbers that the template could replace I suggest doing so. Also, if you find any that should be added (and don't want to do it yourself) just drop me a note and I'll update the template. Primefac (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Primefac, much thanks for pointing me to your template. I agree that it will make things much easier in the future. Have you begun to insert links to the template in articles? If so, I don't think that I've come across any. At some point, I will update a few other, related WikiProjects to inform them that they can use your template any time a physical constant is included in an article. Also, do you have any input on including physical constants in non-standard units? For example, please refer to the article and talk page for gas constant. It seems as though the gas constant page has a history of people wanting to keep non-standard units in tables. Thanks again. JCMPC (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Primefac, how does the "round=auto" function work in your template and what is it's purpose? JCMPC (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Abraham–Minkowski controversy

Abraham–Minkowski controversy appears, in the last few years, to have had a significant number of contributions by editors performing WP:SYNTHESIS on WP:PRIMARY sources to promote the fringe view that the apparently contradictory theoretical analyses of momentum transfer between matter and electromagnetic fields by Abraham and by Minkowski could imply the breakdown of Lorentz invariance, the Principle of least action, Newton's third law etc. Several of the references are to unreviewed arXiv papers and/or to papers published in open access journals of low reputation. The article needs attention. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_September_2015&oldid=1049189506"