Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive February 2015

Sergey Zonenko
I'd be grateful if someone with the appropriate background in physics could verify some of the extraordinary claims being made by a new editor at Sergey Zonenko. These include the claim that he discovered a "new law of physics" in his theoretical work on explosives. The references are to articles he published in Doklady Physics, to which I do not have access for verification. Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Radiation constant at Redirects for Discussion
Good morning Wikiphysicists! An editor has asked for a discussion on the redirect radiation constant which currently redirects to the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and we could use the opinions of experts in this field. If you would like to comment, please see the discussion. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict at Schrodinger's cat
Editors' opinions are needed at Schrodinger's cat to resolve a disagreement over the wording of the introduction. See Talk:Schrödinger's cat. It doesn't take long, all you have to do is read the two versions and say which you like. Prefer editors who understand Schrodinger's cat. -- Chetvorno TALK 20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lack of clarity at "Conservation law"
Am I missing something or is Conservation law incredibly poorly written, if not wrong? Only one or two of the equations made any sense to me. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, here is the original version before the IP edited it. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 16:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. This is the reason people say Wikipedia scientific articles can only be understood by the nerds who write them. I put a comment on the Talk page.  I'm busy now but when I get time I'll rewrite at least the introduction so it is comprehensible by ordinary human beings. -- Chetvorno TALK 21:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

SPEED OF SOUND - TEMPERATURE AND DENSITY
In looking at the article on Speed of Sound, it seems to need a little clarification where density is concerned particularly as regards aircraft. With articles on the Speed of Sound, there is a tendency to speak in absolutes regarding temperature being the only variable in the Speed of Sound in air (we know humidity is another variable) but if there is a density change which then causes a temperature change and therefore a change in the local Speed of Sound then one would have to conclude that density was the initiating factor.

This occurs where standing shockwaves are formed over the aft section of wings or around convex/diminishing cross sections of aircraft structures while the rest of the aircraft remains subsonic.

Where there is a reduction in profile/volume (aft section of a wing, behind the peak profile of a cockpit canopy etc) the density will momentarily drop causing a temp drop which lowers the local speed of sound. And voila-a shockwave.

I can see how in undisturbed air that temperature could be said to be the only variable but once we have mechanical intervention, a pressure/density variation will affect temperature and so the Speed of Sound. In this case it cannot be said that temperature was the only factor because the initiating factor was the density change.

I would be interested in what anyone thinks.Completeaerogeek (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds very reasonable to me, and worth discussing in the article. Tedsanders (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Multiscale turbulence
Your comments on Draft:Multiscale turbulence are welcommed. Use, or use directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Accelerating universe
I don't know anything about that topic, but there was a lot of material added to the Accelerating universe article in the past few days and some of it doesn't look right. Could someone with actual knowledge have a quick look to see if the current additions are correct? Thanks.-- McSly (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, in three days... it looks like a bunch of OR, but then again it's almost entirely block quotes (which could be removed/paraphrased). I'll cross-post to WP Astronomy since it's also vaguely in their wheelhouse. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone undo that entire set of edits. "[LCDM] ... is regarded as a palliative tool for calculations rather than as a valid scientific theory..." Ugh. - Parejkoj (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, missed the FRINGE before. Will revert in the morning to give some time for rebuttal. Primefac (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The two editors contributing the changes, mostly with some from  both appear to be editors in Russia (PPPOE ISP addresses) from two different ISPs; but both are in Saint-Petersburg -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is almost certainly the same individual whose attempts to completely rewrite of metric expansion of space resulted in semi-protection there and multiple blocks against IPs, though those blocks appear largely ineffective due to an apparent ability to easily acquire new IP addresses. Dragons flight (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , are involved in that page; that is the same ISP (91 and 89 ranges) from Saint-Petersburg. So, perhaps an ISP rangeblock is in order to block Saint-Petersburg on any article with a WPASTRONOMY or WPPHYSICS project banner? (If that's technically possible) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Primefac (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I just got my own revert reverted (with the edit summary "Primefac off!" Someone else is more than welcome to undo the IP edits now... Primefac (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have had another go at reverting, but I suspect the article will need semi-protecting for a while. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Now requested here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

M-theory
Hello physicists,

I just wanted to let you all know that M-theory is currently a featured article candidate, and it would be great if someone here could review the article. Even if you're not an expert on math or physics, I would love to hear your views and whether you find the writing accessible.

Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I wish I had more specific constructive suggestions to give, but I just wanted to say that I think it looks terrific! Great work! :) (I am a physicist, but I don't know anything about strings beyond Brian Greene etc.) Tedsanders (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the praise, Tedsanders. If you'd like to see the article promoted, you can go to this page and sign it with the word "Support" in bold. Of course, I'd also really love to hear your suggestions, even if it's just something minor or something you had trouble understanding! Polytope24 (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Big mess considering kinematics
I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor so I hope you folks can put some kind of order to this mess.

There was once a page on each derivative of displacement. From velocity and acceleration, through jerk, all the way to jounce/snap, crackle and pop. They were reachable through this template: Template:Kinematics

Next, some of the further derivatives were changed into redirects: Crackle (physics) used to redirect to Displacement, but as any information about it is gone from the Displacement page, it now redirects to Jounce.

Pop_(physics) still redirects to Displacement (even though that makes no sense now), but since then a new page was created: Pop_(motion). The template doesn't name Crackle at all any more and links to the latter page for Pop now, skipping a derivative.

On top of that, the three disambiguation pages for Snap, Crackle and Pop are also all over the place on how they deal with this.

In other words, it's a big mess, and I don't know how to solve it. Either stuff needs to be deleted or merged, or those pages need to be restored. And the missing step in the template needs to be fixed too, either by removing Pop or by adding Crackle.

TIA for your help. --145.97.222.63 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that jerk is an important concept. But snap, crackle, and pop have no value other than as an advertisement for Rice Krispies. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Since a while ago I edited a good deal of the current jerk (physics) article and looked for sources on the higher derivatives too, I only have to report that the most intense results where missionary activities against this trinity of snap, crackle and pop, being, as said, simply an advertisment. I am not in the knowledge to issue a final verdict, but may I humbly suggest to
 * remove the "pop" from the template and to
 * integrate the article Pop_(motion) into the article Jounce, since up to my impression both articles do not contain much information beyond making the derivatives of path explicit.
 * Purgy (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)