Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive August 2015

Rainbow Gravity theory / "Path of Balance Project"
Would someone familiar with the subject matter please take a look at this edit to Rainbow Gravity theory and determine whether it is appropriate? Thanks. TJRC (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE nonsense. It's been reverted already. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. It had been there for most of the day before I posted here, then it was promptly reverted.  TJRC (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rainbow gravity itself sounds kind of dodgy. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a bit, but it's still a valid (if somewhat silly) theory that has some notability. Primefac (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Einstein coefficients
Could I get some input from someone more familiar with this topic? I don't have the time to check properly but Qchao attempted to fix the oscillator strengths equations so that the A21/B21 relation worked. From a quick check it doesn't appear to correctly give F(v) but I might be missing something and I'm pretty sure the relations are correct. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Quantum thermodynamics
Hello WP:PHYS,

A network of over 200 experts in the field of quantum thermodynamics (the European Commission-funded COST Action MP1209 "Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime") has been working hard to overturn the judgement handed down on the "quantum thermodynamics" article submitted several months ago. It appears now that the situation has stagnated, with the advice on the draft page being that it is the specialist editors here who can overturn that decision. To add insult to injury, the current article is one sentence long: "Quantum thermodynamics is the application of quantum information theory to thermodynamics." Whilst this is more accurate than the redirect to the article on quantum statistical mechanics that was in operation some time ago, this is an insult to those of us who took the time out to pen an article that is in their field of specialisation (for information's sake: Prof Ronnie Kosloff and his group), only to be told that the matter is already covered elsewhere when it most definitely is not. I would understand the behaviour of the editors if there was some scientific motivation for their actions, but there is none: There is full consensus in the field for what "quantum thermodynamics" refers to, and it is not the same as "quantum statistical mechanics".

Could you please advise on the best way forward? Andre Xuereb (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , the main concern, from what I can tell, is that the draft might not meet the concerns listed in the deletion discussion. Granted, that discussion happened in 2012, but I think that it is still a valid point to make. If I get time in the next day or two, I will compare the AfD, the draft, and the rather lengthy discussion the last time this page was brought before WP:PHYS and see if a solution/compromise/what have you can be attained.
 * As a note, I can understand your frustration, but keep in mind the majority of AfC reviewers do not have degrees in Physics and would not be able to give a proper review (hence the request to allow WP:PHYS/reviewers like me a chance to review it properly). This has been on my to-do list for a while, but unfortunately it's been a low priority due to me moving recently (and then I forgot). Primefac (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thank you for your time; please do not confuse our frustration with lack of appreciation! I would just like to comment that the deletion discussion you refer to seems to be for a different article, since the draft I refer to was first submitted in March 2015. Interestingly, it seems that the redirect was lifted some time this month or last month. Andre Xuereb (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to split hairs (since obviously there's a three year difference), but looking at the it's the same subject. The result of an AfD applies to the subject as a whole, not the writing in the article itself, which is why it's necessary to compare those concerns with the new draft. I believe that someone recently saw the draft and thought that the result of the AfD was no longer valid (there is no "block" on someone going against an AfD discussion, and unless someone notices that an editor has slipped it in there, some changes can last for years). Primefac (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood, but I wish that whoever takes this case up notes the following points: (i) The 2012 article does not include much in the way of mainstream content, whereas the 2015 version significantly improves this, and indeed include many peer-reviewed references from a multiplicity of groups; (ii) the current situation is that Wikipedia seems to accept that "quantum thermodynamics" is distinct from "quantum statistical mechanics," because the article is now a stand-alone one, albeit a stub, but the editors are refusing that the content from the draft, which is largely a summary of peer-reviewed content taken from what is accepted in the field as "quantum thermodynamics" literature (too many sources to list, but I would take it that most physicists are familiar with Physical Review Letters, Physical Review A, Nature Physics, New Journal of Physics, etc., and their high standards), fashioned into a coherent article, replaces this stub; (iii) no one is in any way advocating that the article is not in need of editing. In particular, point (ii) changed quite recently and seems to me to have shifted the discussion away from the subject and towards the content of the draft. Andre Xuereb (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time. Andre Xuereb (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 07/08
Draft:Nonlinear wave groups on deep water. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The article has been accepted at AFC, but it has several major deficiencies that need expert attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion - Fermi's golden rule
Hi all, there is a discussion going at Talk:Fermi's golden rule about whether or not an editors additions are considered WP:OR. It would be great to have a few people from this page weigh in with their thoughts, as I'm no expert and cannot dissect the material. Garchy (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with articles which lack proper citations
Many physics and science related articles lack references entirely or in parts, or have no inline references - often just containing a further reading section or references manually added to the reference section. My impression is that these articles should be tagged for references, where it applies. However, what if people revert these tags pointing to references at the end of the article. prokaryotes (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a template for an article with general references, but a lack of inline citations: No footnotes. --Mark viking (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mark. prokaryotes (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A much better method is to add inline citations. If you insist on using these templates, use your judgement (or preferably someone else's judgement), and never again stalk an editor like you have done in the past 48h. YohanN7 (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Notice There is currently a discussion at ANI involving editor YohanN7.prokaryotes (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While at it, I require assistance with user reverts of articles tagged for references. In particular these: Pauli matrices,Wave packet,Special unitary group,De Sitter invariant special relativity,Scalar field theory. These articles either have very few inline references or in the case of Scalar field theory a revert to an unusual reference. Additionally, the talk pages often contain reader comments in regards to lack of references. More detail can be found here.prokaryotes (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * For a better picture of this individual, read some here:


 * User talk:Cuzkatzimhut
 * Talk:Fermi's golden rule
 * Talk:Adjugate matrix
 * Talk:Scalar field theory
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎
 * No original research/Noticeboard‎
 * []
 * For another perspective, see his user contribution since he launched his attack on Cuzkatzimhut three days ago. Whatever you do, don't ever revert this guy and don't say against him, because he will throw every WP:THIS and WP:THAT in your head, tell you what to write where, accuse you of incompetence, and report you to the ANI.


 * I can guarantee you that you have eyes on you. YohanN7 (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There is some deep background to this. People have discovered over the years (I have been editing WP for 9) that legal vandalism is quite possible: namely, to narrowly, but disingenuously and unevenly, hew to WP guidelines to, at the same time,  trash articles, insert inappropriate references, and conduct extensive bullying personal attacks, while flying under the radar through splattering random reports to gum up the dysfunctional WP bureaucracy. WP is relatively helpless when, e.g., an obvious 48 hour rampage mentioned is not formatted to negligent administrators' satisfaction. I am sure most of you have experienced analogous dysfunctions. Over the years, I have dealt with frustrated readers who lack the technical background to understand an issue, and launch sour defacement campaigns, like the ones Yohan mentions, trashing content, eliminating html templates, and splattering inappropriate templates of all sorts on the article, converting popular articles, visited by hundreds of people every day to unseemly "pardon the inconvenience, we are renovating!" shantytown construction sites. Then the incidental IP vandals move in.

You guys appreciate that reasoned appeals in the Talkpages for more references, etc... are a better way to address this; and, frankly, if one perceives a lack of references, one should try to redress it himself, instead of giving peremptory orders to unnamed volunteers and strutting around bossily brandishing their SturmAbteilung armbands, wagging their fingers, and flinging WP directives on each other. Missing citations are usually evident, and as clear to the reader as to hundreds of others; and many of us constantly try to improve articles, so it is kind of peremptory to shout: "Work harder Mugs!"; "Vandals! Broken glass here--Break another one?". This is what it's all about, and I would assume most experienced editors would recognize what I am describing. When the vandals are dropouts from a technical subject, their animus is concentrated and are more energetic at it. The plodding WP mechanisms are sadly ill-equipped to handle these cases, cf. my one link here, mostly because outsiders without technical training cannot immediately grasp which way is up, and, by habit of mind, stick to pedantic legalisms and side issues--anything to have a say without knowledge. They end up concluding things a bunch of physics undergraduates, even, would not. I could provide links to such past sad sagas with IPs, on request.

What is common in all cases in this discussion (and others you identify by the rampage reported for Aug13-14), is that, demonstrably non-coincidentally, they all relate to my latest edits, reverting weeks of my work and no one else's, apparently to teach me a deranged "lesson", with maximal vituperative ugliness. So the issue is most definitely not suboptimal references and not a constructive effort to improve technical articles, in case your perusals let you lose view of this central fact. Behold! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The subject is now yelping over at the ANI because he believes that we are posting in the wrong place and requires admin intervention. I wonder what sort of WP:SCHMUCKO guideline he is referring to this time. YohanN7 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I believe this is the right place. The issue is proper citations; and, clearly, volunteering work, and appealing in the talk page for citations is quite appropriate.

This needs repeating? For the reader's benefit, Yohan's article development work is the all-time prototype of completeness and meticulous inline citation in math articles, e.g., this one. Technical articles are not tutorials, but they are meant to be accessible to minimally prepared readerships, e.g. undergraduates, and are meant to provide insights the average graduate student might not find in one single book. A colleague of mine regularly quotes WP articles in his papers and this is a good thing---you really don't want a takeover by C-students to make this less routine.

Plastering multiple articles in a rampage with tendentious and inappropriate templates, however, is not---and abuse of such templates to bully is even less so. Misrepresenting the issue as one of equanimous scholarship should not be acceptable. Interested readers must get to the bottom of the concerted loose-cannon rollbacks of Aug 13 in the appropriate venues. This discussion is but a diversionary footnote to these broader issues. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It does seem to me that there is some confusion about how much background one should assume the reader has. And this is a good place to have that discussion. But please, focus on content. If you want to discuss user conduct, go to WP:ANI (I would advise not to blow this out of proportion), where I have given some relevant comments. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there is just divergence of opinion. Primarily, a technical article is not automatically excluded from WP if no more than 10% of its habitual readers fully understand it. Ideally, the lede summarizes facts nontechnically for everyone, so at least everyone appreciates what area the article is on. But an article written for technical readers from another field, undergraduates, or graduate students and experts, is also quite welcome in WP, and its quality should not be compromised in the elusive quest of universal comprehensibility, which the heated argument is really about. This is clearer in math than in physics articles, since a broader swath of the audience believes they understand physics adequately. The big brother of WP is Scholarpedia, of course, but I truly applaud WP pages that have, in point of fact, surpassed their Scholarpedia brethren! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the first things i brought to the attention at Cuzkatzimhut's talk page was WP:Technical. However he apparently ignores a core principle of Wikipedia. Especially this: Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more understandable explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it. And this section Labeling articles that are too technical prokaryotes (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

At long last we are in agreement on something. Yes, yes, yes!, by all means, I am encouraging you and all to provide more understandable explanations. It is the deletion of references and material that is too technical that is at issue, in an ill-construed effort to somehow "protect" the untrained reader. Any reader would instantly appreciate if an article is too technical for him or her, and go elsewhere. Again, and yet again, desisting from providing badly needed technical information because someone, somewhere, doesn't get it, is magnificently ill-advised. In fact, the WP page mentioned Make technical articles understandable is just making my very point. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To simplify is not the issue here, there is always room for equations and mathematical formulas. But you edit pages without providing enough references, you imply that every reader should be able to understand instantly the content you add, and see that it was correct. Even if all these additions are indeed correct, readers have to start digging through references elsewhere in the article or google for it. This is not what makes a good article or what makes content easy comprehensible. prokaryotes (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been silently following Cuzkatzimhut's and YohanN7's recent edits, and the silly negligible issues you (Prokaryotes) have with them. I intended not to be involved with this at all, but will chip in once. All you have to do is look at their contributions. They add citations and don't presume readers to instantly understand what they write (you claim the opposite). It is normal to add content without citations at least temporarily, references can be added later. Also, you contradict yourself by insisting to add citations, then complain that "even if these additions are indeed correct, readers have to start digging through references elsewhere in the article or google for it". So even though the references are added, you are still dissatisfied that readers have to check the references per WP:verifiable? Well, this is just another case of WP policies overriding common sense. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 00:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to content without references ofc. Also there is no overriding(?) when requiring a reference for content which is not cited. You link yourself to the page, you might want to read this section here again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations prokaryotes (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP is a collective effort. My omissions can always be filled in by others, and I am grateful to them. I do not know what i imply in terms of comprehensibility. Few students have accused me of being obscure, so far... are you sure it is me implying and not another editor? However, deleting serious, indeed, the most prestigious!, references I adduce, as in scale invariance, and then asking for references in a template, on top of it, does baffle one. How does elimination of references assist the perplexed reader? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The correct way is to ask the question about the edit you mention is on the article talk page. The link goes to this page http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Critical_Phenomena:_field_theoretical_approach Normally other wikis are not considered reliable sources, it could be however considered a reliable source, because the page is curated. But the main problem with this reference is, it is to unspecific for a content reference, it links to a wiki page, which someone who is following this reference has to read now to maybe find the origin of the source to the content. The page too does not contain inline citations. References which are good and considered reliable are linking directly to the source, cites to books and contain a page number, or a journal study, or a textbook with a page number.So everybody can easily follow up on the content presented at Wikipedia. prokaryotes (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, especially you admins and higher charges, I'm not at the high level as the other debaters around, but do not want to miss to remind you all of the expulsion of the extremely proficient and knowledgeable user "linas", who was driven away by some mandarin, getting support by sufficiently many paper shufflers, who found that verbal derailment caused by ongoing ignorance and insisting on "rules" in a heavily bureaucratic way weighs more than the addressed professionality.

The exuberant plastering of high level parts of articles with requests for detailed citations by a person who is evidently not sufficiently literate on the relevant topics should not be backed be referring to whatever rule in Wikipedia.

I plead for ending these calamitous activities based on hypocritical and blissfully ignorant bureaucracy by prokaryotes deteriorating high level components of Wikipedia.

Now go, search my contributions and "improve" them by requesting citations and sue me for personal attacks. Purgy (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice that personal attacks will get you blocked. Same happened with Linas. prokaryotes (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Rest assured, my interest in you personally is absolutely depleted. But I'm truly thankful for you yourself revealing with your comment your measures of values, so others more in charge than me can see clearly, what improves Wikipedia and what characters degrade Wikipedia. Summa iustitia, summa iniuria. Purgy (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Purgy kid, don't let the bullies silence you, or worse, dampen your momentum. Your contris are valuable. This is not a traffic stop by a Philadelphia cop. Even blocked, you could contribute as one or other IP. The war on common sense has never stopped, and never will... but there are always lulls. Live and learn. Go out on your window and watch the armband bullies shaking their fist at the rain, commanding it to stop, and hurling rain manuals at it. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Just fyi and actually enjoying it, its a good deal more than a half century gone me hearing being addressed as "kid". :D All the best for Wikipedia in getting rid of the paper shufflers' bullying dominance over scientific articles with valueable content way beyond them. Purgy (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes: You should better understand that some wikipedia guidelines are the minimal requirements for any wikipedia article (even a 1-sentence stub), while other guidelines are aspirational guidelines for great wikipedia articles. Verifiability and notability are almost the only thing in the first category, while the second category includes things like having good footnotes and references, writing accessible prose for non-experts, good writing style in general, etc.

From my experience, I would guess that out of the ~16,000 physics articles on wikipedia, probably 10,000 have terribly inadequate footnotes and technical accessibility for non-experts, another 5,000 have merely inadequate footnotes and technical accessibility, and the remaining 1,000 have room for improvement in footnotes and technical accessibility. (I have never seen a technical article on wikipedia (or anywhere else) that didn't have room for improvement in clarity and accessibility.)

It's not only common, but actually desirable, for people to add content to physics articles in such a way that the new content has inadequate references and inadequate technical accessibility. Unless you believe that the new content is actually incorrect (when I say "incorrect", I mean "contradicted by reliable sources"), or is non-notable. If the new content is making the article more correct and comprehensive, then it's an improvement for the article. It doesn't make the article perfect—obviously we still want the footnotes and accessibility to be introduced sooner or later—but it does make the article less bad. (Of course there are extreme cases where something is so extremely inaccessible, unreferenced, and poorly written that it's worse than nothing at all, despite being correct and on-topic. But that's pretty rare, and I don't think that's the case here.)

You're welcome to spend your time adding refimprove and technical templates to some or all of the 10,000 physics articles that desperately need improved references and more accessible prose. I don't personally think this is a very productive use of your time (because I think it's already obvious to everyone, just no one has had the time to do it). But it's your time, you can spend it that way if you want.

I think your time would be much better spent actually adding references, or flagging content that you actually believe to be incorrect (as "dubious", not just "citation needed"), or stating on the talk page the specific aspect of a technical article that you find confusing, or better yet resolving your own confusion by reading other sources and then editing the article accordingly.

I do think it's inappropriate to delete OK references in the hope that someone will later add a great reference, just as it would be inappropriate to delete OK prose in the hope that someone will later add great prose, etc. --Steve (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! The voice of reason.           Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cuzkatzimhut, this is my last reply here. Do you even read the section you just linked above? This here, from your link: 'it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify statements for which no other in-line citation is provided. These inline citations are often inserted either after the first sentence of a paragraph or after the last sentence of the paragraph; a single convention should be chosen for each article.' -- now go back and look at my reference tags. I tagged mostly when their were sections without ANY references.prokaryotes (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, warm thanks. I read and read and read. Nobody would be sticking the same references used throughout the article after each paragraph! If the issue becomes pressing, you state, in words, as i did in scalar field theory where each section came from/can be "checked" (!?) at. The central statement of the section, though, is, really: " one or two authoritative sources (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked ". Enter Scholarpedia. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Polish physics socks?
If a Polish-speaking psychoceramicist appeared out of nowhere and started to bless Wikipedia with their remarkable new theories, would it ring any particular bells in anyone's sock drawer? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the editor, but I think I recall the psychoceramicist. (As an aside, I thought that there was a real subject called "psychoceramics" about ceramics which carry an electrical current through Oxygen ion flow.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"New rigor"
This article caught my eye. There's not a complete list of articles worked on, but from what I can see it was a bit less productive that that article might suggest - and it's not clear that the participants have done any follow-up. Snori (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Bluerasberry can probably enlighten us about this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Would definitely be good to have a bit more info from the horses mouth (as they say). Even small changes can be significant (i.e. adding solid references to a previously-unreferenced page) so if the edits were constructive I'm not going to complain! I'm surprised WP:PHYS wasn't informed beforehand, though. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The first article mentioned was Speed of light. According to the press release, the event occurred on Monday June 8, 2015. In the Speed of light article, there was one edit that day, and it was reverted the following day on the grounds of poor English. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's strange that they chose a featured article as one of the articles needing work. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, Quantum feedback was created by someone who has had an account since 2011, but still hasn't mastered the syntax of citations. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If any of you want to talk about outreach strategies, then consider emailing me to find a time to talk by phone or video. I do Wikipedia outreach especially in New York. Simons Foundation seeks to improve access to educational resources for the sciences. My usual outreach is in health, but I care about general science outreach, so I told them I would support whatever they did in the future. There were no firm plans in the beginning but I think they might be at a conference for mathematics in December.
 * Snori - about productivity - the predominant theory is that the health of Wikipedia is counted by increasing active editors and their contributions. I do wiki-work organization, and it is my opinion that organizations care very little about how many people add content or how often they edit, and are more concerned with reader numbers and the quality of content delivered to readers. For this outreach event and for many others which I organize, I am seeking mostly expert oversight, quality content, and proof of readership, and am less concerned with creating new Wikimedia contributors. I wish that I could make regular Wikipedians, but so far as I know, the best outreach programs have not better than a 5% conversion rate and even those might take as much investment in as they give back. I listen to whatever I can - if you have ideas about outreach then talk to me.
 * Primefact - sorry for not notifying WP:Phys. There was some uncertainty in organizing this. Now that the model is a little more tested I will notify future stakeholders. I routinely do this anyway. I had doubts that physicists would be so interested but they were more enthusiastic than I expected.
 * RockMagnetist - problems with analytics are my fault and not the Simons Foundation, because I interpreted the data. I had a hiccup in this because for a few months the mw:Extension:Education program was down. It is up again - if you have any interest in checking out the software and seeing what it shows, then let me know, because it is how I made conclusions. Typically the software shows what was edited, where problems were, and gives metrics about character change counts and audience metrics. There are a handful of people on English Wikipedia using these tools but I wish that more would, because I think this is the only tool which can help process the outcome of any group editing project. In the case of this project I could well have missed something - I do not remember the situation with your points but already I know, that with August 2015 software update, future reporting ought to be more systematic and depend less on incidental observations.
 * Thanks. I am usually at WP:MED but would visit here anytime. I am interested in science outreach.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the outcome data - Education Program:Simons Foundation/DAMOP 2015 Physics Edit-a-thon (June 2015). Sorry, no automated report this time, but the software is back and can get a report for future events.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudos for your efforts, and nice to see that page of all the contributors. A couple seem to have done some really good work, but I can see how experts "coming in cold" might struggle to grok the Wikipedia Way. The article oversold it a bit, but I imagine that's to be expected :-) I did a bit of checking and managed to get the content of that Speed of Light edit in where it fitted better, others with more expertise might like to follow up the other contributions now that we have a full list. Snori (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is good that you are trying to get experts involved, but this initiative could use some fine tuning. I don't have the time to be involved, but I do suggest you look at WikiProject Biophysics/Biophysics wiki-edit contest, which seems to be an effective way of soliciting contributions over more than three hours. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Planck angle
I just stumbled upon Planck angle, for which the entire article seems to be a two-line description of an equation. Merge this somewhere? bd2412 T 17:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm misreading this, the entire article is a long-winded way of saying "The Planck unit for angle is the radian". Does anyone actually use the term "Planck angle"? --  Dr Greg   talk  18:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm suspicious that the article may be an attempt to promote a neologism. If that is the case, it should probably be deleted rather than merged or redirected. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is gobbledegook. Delete it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Keep it, but expand so it is at least explicable.
 * Planck angle is a fairly simple concept. In the way that Planck length is the smallest possible tangible unit of length (a clear theoretical thesis, even if its actuality is debated), the the Planck angle is a hypothesised similar limit on the smallest possible angle that can be discriminated.
 * As is usual for the infinitesimally tiny, much of the interest in it comes from the enormously large world of cosmology and astrophysics. See
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried to translate into plain English, it seems like its value is just 1 radian as Dr Greg says. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 16:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The author tried to say something about a light source of "radius equal to the Planck length", but the tip of the light source itself would sweep an arc length ct (t = 1 unit of Planck time) for the emission of two photons. I'm not sure why this set-up is used... M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 16:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a radian. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The way it was originally written and defined, it seemed to be. According to the paper you added it is not (in which case its related to the ratio of the Planck length to the electromagnetic length e2/4πε0mc2 where m and e are the mass and charge of the electron). M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could this be merged into Planck length? There still doesn't seem to be much to support a freestanding article. bd2412  T 17:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, a merge would seem fine if there isn't much to write about it. It's on anyone to write the article if they want a full free-standing article. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, WP is not RS, especially not when based on an article that another editor has described, quite reasonably, as "gobbledygook". Secondly, radians are just radians. We already have a word for those. What connection do they have to Planck?  In contrast, "One of the smallest astronomical observables, seen at possibly the furthest distance in the universe", that's obviously much less than a radian.
 * As to merging, then why not? Would it give a clearer overall article? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope this satisfies everyone's concern. Anyone is free to merge or expand or whatever. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 18:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The author has reverted twice to my clearer rewrite of his original useless dribble where the Planck angle really is one radian, and deleting the paper Andy added, followed by this on his talk page, and seems to not understand what he/she is told. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 4 reverts, so let WP:ANEW deal with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Every once in a while it is necessary to smoke out a hornet's nest. Cheers! bd2412  T 23:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Iran nuclear deal
See RfC here: talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Your input is appreciated! Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , is this a general notice to every Wikiproject, or is there something in particular you want WP:PHYS to weigh in on? Primefac (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, RfC relates to an issue that is contentious at that article. I chose physics because I am supposed to find projects that are not likely to be biased in any particular direction. At the same time, it would seem that the projects should have some connection to the subject; notifying (say) Wikiproject Hip-Hop wouldn't make much sense. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Are most crystal oscillators adjustable?
There is a Request for Comment going on at Talk:Electronic oscillator over whether crystal oscillators are used as fixed-frequency oscillators. Outside opinions are needed. Please drop by and express your opinion at Talk:Electronic oscillator. Thanks. -- Chetvorno TALK 16:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Notch
Is this too stupid to be an article:


 * User:Anna Frodesiak/Orange sandbox

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's definitely WP:NOT worthy, though whether someone would categorize it as INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOT specifically is debatable. Primefac (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Help fleshing out an article?
Is anyone interested in helping out with Hastatic order? It needs some TLC to flesh it out and make it a little less technical. The person who created the article (Dwight25) is someone I'm mentoring and I can help him out with general stuff, but he could definitely use some additional help when it comes to technical details with physics related articles, since there are some things that only physics-savvy editors will catch that I'd miss. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a one-way communication at User talk:Dwight25. Are you sure they actually want mentoring or intend to pursue this article any further? RockMagnetist(talk) 04:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Superdeterminism
Recent edits of "Superdeterminism" need attention of physicists (I think so). See discussion. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What nonsense. AfD'd. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)