User talk:SciRealm

Reliable sources
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mass–energy equivalence, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Wikipedia is not a textbook — see wp:NOTTEXTBOOK, and of course see also our policiy about wp:original research. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks already for this source. Can please add the page too? Then I'll cast it into a templated. - DVdm (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done: . - DVdm (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Mass–energy equivalence. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Note that I have removed your addition again:. You analysis ("Working out the math...") does not appear in my copy of Carrol, nor in my 1st edition of Rindler. We can only report what is explicitlly in the sources. We are not allowed to draw our conclusions, or make syntheses—see wp:SYNTH. We have to stricly confine ourserlves to what is actually in the sources. Again, Wikipedia is not a textbook. Please keep that in mind. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. - DVdm (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi DVdm,
 * Perhaps I don't understand - does this not fall under the routine math part?
 * "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations"
 * If there is a specific line you don't like I can probably find a reference to it. I studied theoretical physics and I have lots of physics books... SciRealm (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are referring to wp:CALC. But note that you are writing physics here, where the physical meanings of the variables make all the difference. Deriving an equation from a few sourced equations could be fine, but then describing the physical meaning of the result, or drawing conclusions from it, is definitely wp:SYNTH, unless of course the description and the conclusions appear in the source. - DVdm (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular line that you need a reference for? I would be happy to look for the references. SciRealm (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For instance, "This formulation gives a very good reason why invariant rest mass m0 and invariant rest energy E0 should always be denoted with a naught." But everything actually. I don't know how to put it, but the entire derivation, and every written sentence should be present in the sources. Perhaps you could ask for input or Wiki-guidance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. - DVdm (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see a problem already. Various authors use slightly different notations for the same equations.  For instance, some use $$m$$ for invariant rest mass, others use $$m_o$$ for invariant rest mass and use $$m$$ for relativistic mass.  Many authors set factors of $$c$$ and $$\hbar$$ and $$G$$ to dimensionless unity. Others show some or all the constants.  Some authors use $$v$$ for velocity, others use $$u$$.  Some use $$K$$ as a 4-wavevector (to pick an arbitrary example).  Others use $$k$$ or $$\mathbf{K}$$ or $$k^\mu$$ or $$k_\mu$$ or $$K^\nu$$ or $$N$$, etc.  Some write the 4-wavevector as $$(\frac{\omega}{c},\mathbf{k})$$, some as $$(\mathbf{k},\frac{\omega}{c})$$ or $$(k^0,\mathbf{k})$$ or $$(k^0,k^1,k^2,k^3)$$ or $$(k^1,k^2,k^3,k^4)$$ or $$(k_t,k_x,k_y,k_z)$$or $$(k^1,k^2,k^3,i k^4)$$.  Some will make sure that the dimensional units match across the 4-vector, others don't. Some refer to the temporal component in the 4-vector name, others refer to the spatial component in the 4-vector name.  And worse than that, some mix it throughout the book, sometimes using one then later on the other.  Some use the metric (+---), others use the metric (-+++).  Some don't use 4-vectors, but do everything as the old style E and 3-vector p. The thing is, all of these are just notational styles, with some more clear and concise than the others.  The physics is the same as long as one uses a consistent style throughout the whole derivation.  I don't know that I will be able to find references for every part that will use the same style.  However, each and every line that I wrote for 4-vector energy-mass was correct and factual. If that is not good enough then I guess I will go do something else with my time. Unless you can think of some other solution, thanks anyway... SciRealm (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. I checked your edits and indeed they are correct and factual, and 100% on the mark. The problem is that by Wikipedia's design they don't really fit here. I have no idea about Wikiversity's "railing and sailing", but 's suggestion here below might be the solution for you. He had a very similar struggle here. I hope this helps . - DVdm (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I tried to add as many references as I could find for the 4-gradient page. I have several more books that I could go through, but it boils down to the same thing - everyone uses a slightly different notation. Perhaps, since you thought my edits were factually correct, you could help me find what would be considered appropriate references for the energy-momentum edits? SciRealm (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need more than what there is already in the energy-momentum article. Perhaps a very short statement with a single equation from Carrol (from top of his page 32). - DVdm (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from a Wikiversarian
Your name came to my attention because I watch Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. I looked at your edits on Four-gradient and have no idea whether they are appropriate on that article, and don't much care either. What I did notice was that they seemed scientifically correct and well written. You might find "improving" Wikipedia articles to be a frustrating experience. I once spent many hours arguing with an editor about my addition of one sentence to the Lede in Temperature, and finally with the help of a third editor, managed to achieve an acceptable compromise. About a year later, I looked at the article and discovered that the sentence was gone. The editor later got in trouble with some other editors and is now topic-banned on many Wikipedia articles. But the example I just gave occurs with lesser severity on about half the edits I make to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a wonderful project. It is healthy and keeps growing. But I think there is a natural limit to the quality of its articles, and many articles have already reached that limit.

I have decided to pursue a different track, although among many competent editors of physics articles on Wikipedia, I seem to be absolutely alone in taking this approach. I instead spend most of my time on Wikiversity. Here is an article on Bell's theorem that would never be allowed on Wikipedia (I am currently attempting to submit it to the European Journal of Physics). Here is a critique of two Wikipedia physics articles that I believe will never evolve into useful teaching resources. While I am alone as a physicist, I am not the only scientist who greatly respects Wikipedia but believes the next step is to go outside it. I am on the board of the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, part of a greater effort to better evolve the vision that led to Wikipedia. If you are interested in Wikiversity, leave a note on my talk page at Wikiversity:User talk:Guy vandegrift.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Guy,
 * Please send more information about the Physics project.
 * SciRealm (John Wilson)
 * scirealm@aol.com
 * http://scirealm.org
 * SciRealm (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See my response at Wikiversity:User talk:Guy vandegrift --Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)