Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive February 2016

RfC of interest
Please offer comments at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

review of an article
Hello,

I have submitted this article for review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thermogravitational_cycle

However I got this comment: Comment: Please request a review at WP:WikiProject Physics of whether this cycle is consistent with the first and second laws of thermodynamics. I know enough physics to know that I can't answer that question, and am neither accepting nor declining. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone please review this article?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikawonedia (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you in advance on behalf of a reviewer who knows enough physics to know that they don't know whether this is good physics or perpetual motion of the second kind. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be a perpetual motion machine - it requires a heat input to produce a work output, and the image of it actually working is convincing enough. However it might also badly fail GNG. It's currently cited to a master's thesis and the General Physics section of ArXiv. I'd keep it userfied at least until it gets published. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It will need more than just publication in the lightly refereed arXiv. It will need plenty of citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Actually my understanding is that a listing in "General Physics" is practically the ArXiv's version of rejection. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * where did you get that idea? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Hearsay. Maybe I'm mistaken, but in my own discipline, "General Mathematics" is affectionately known as "the Garbage Machine." --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a source, as the arXiv is rather secretive about its practices, but General Physics is where moderators shunt papers they consider of insufficient quality for their subject class, but not so bad as to be kept off the arXiv entirely. As for the Thermogravitational Cycle article, I think we lack secondary sources (and notability) for it. However, it does seem similar to the Drinking Bird.-Dilaton (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Geoffrey Chew has all his arXiv papers in the General Physics section. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC).

It looks like it takes heat energy in and produces electrical power out, so it's not claiming to be a perpetual motion machine. However, the key words in the article seem to be "its efficiency is 4.8 x 10-6". More work appears to be needed. -- The Anome (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This device could perhaps be entered as a candidate in a competition for the greatest waste of useful energy for a given cost. As shown in the picture, it has a heater at the bottom and a refrigerator at the top. They are driven by the final inputs of energy. They consume useful energy in large amounts. A microscopic fraction of that energy is perhaps recovered from the electric power output. The true efficiency in this scenario will be something like − 99.9999 %, yes, minus 99.9999 % . Better to just set fire to the patent certificate and warm yourself by the flames. Perhaps instead of external heating and refrigeration, one could use the temperature gradient of the atmosphere, which is in the right sense in the troposphere very often. The jacket would be an obstruction against the natural convective cooling of the lower air, and thus contribute to global warming! If the machine didn't just grind to a halt because of friction, perhaps the energy extracted could be used to power a warning light for people to avoid walking into the machine at night. The cost of construction would be significant. It seems to be a wasteful project.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This reminds me somewhat of OTEC, and it would be interesting to consider the effects of scaling on efficiency. For the moment, this proof of concept model seems to be a toy, much on the lines of a drinking bird, as stated above. -- The Anome (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Requests_for_mediation/Request_for_mediation_on_higgs_boson_talk_page
Figured I'd post this here to get people to comment on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A classic example of talk page abuse. Don't discuss unless strictly article-related. Remove their stuff and put warnings on their talk page . Beyond 4th level warning report at wp:ANI or perhaps even wp:AIV. - DVdm (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Kind of what I did originally. I hatted the discussion, but they escalated to mediation. So I figured I'd let others slap them with the WP:NOTHERE warnings. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the mediation game can be ignored. Any idea whether this could be a new instance of a permablocked or banned user? First edit 2 months ago and already going for mediation... hmm... - DVdm (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The mediation request will almost certainly be declined. There is no article content issue.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There will be more. See this threat with new mediation and arbitration - DVdm (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not only that but "a request for disciplinary action on your account". Woo! -- The Anome (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've archived the conversation on the talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Request for Mediation has been declined on the basis of 6 different grounds, any of which (according to the chairman of the MEDCOM) would be sufficient. The two RFCs that contain original research rather than being about article content have been speedy-closed.  The editor has been warned again.  Report future violations to WP:AIV, which is quicker than WP:ANI.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * has now been blocked, which brings this to a close. -- The Anome (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But beware of the legal actions he's going to take to get his money back... - DVdm (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So the dude got a lifetime sentence for being a sporadic crack-pot on talk pages for a couple of months. Why not search him up IRL and have him beheaded while at it? Surely this is within administrative powers. YohanN7 (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He was properly and amply warned from the beginning, two months ago. And of course any indef block can easily end today, provided he cares to read how to properly appeal. - DVdm (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly doubt that. YohanN7 (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Or tomorrow. Or next week then. - DVdm (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still don't believe in indefinite blocks as a first real measure issued by random administrator with potential PMS blurring judgment, even after "ample" warning. That same random admin is the same as the one handling appeals by default (or as in this case, an anonymous one). Distasteful practice. YohanN7 (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While we were waiting (with this request) for a first time ever exact proposal to put something in an article, he gave us this, this, this, this, and this, after having received unambiguous warnings by handfuls of people on handfuls of talk pages. Sometimes "distasteful practice" is needed to enable people like you to continue providing excellent material, without constantly having to worry about how to best handle people who come here to do just the opposite. - DVdm (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * (Now you made me look at the same harmless thing five times.) As I said, why not have him beheaded for being a crackpot? Seriously, a couple of days block or a week does the job. If it doesn't, make it a month the next time. I have seen a lot worse, and he isn't nearly as disruptive as several "legitimate" editors around. I see no proof of him being here to "do the opposite". He does the opposite, but give the guy some slack because he is a crackpot, not nearly evil. YohanN7 (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, assume wp:NOCLUE, and yes, perhaps a day or a week or a month might have helped. But again, note that indefinite is not infinite. Indefinite can be ten minutes, and I have seen that happen too, with cases a lot worse. - DVdm (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As always, in Wikipedia there are (must be in some cases) local interpretations of the meaning of words. For example, verifiability >> actual truth. The problem here is it is up to a random administrator to judge whether an appeal is to his liking. Is it sufficiently remorseful? Does he promise to never ever do this again? Did the admin get laid lately? Whatever "indefinite" means in this case is rather random. What often happens is that some poor sod can't swallow his pride and (not rarely legitimately so) calls then admin an asshole. Then he is hanged, and permanently so. Irrevocably. This is all provoked.YohanN7 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the reviewing random admin, so perhaps you can inquire about his motives —and his getting laid status— on his talk page at User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee . - DVdm (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope! I have better things to do. Namely, I plan on getting laid myself instead of banned YohanN7 (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, I don't find admins exercising the practice necessarily being distasteful. It is the practice itself that is distasteful. YohanN7 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"First observation of gravitational waves"
First observation of gravitational waves has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:First observation of gravitational waves -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit war at "Gravitation (book)"
Someone with a variable IP address has been removing information from Gravitation (book). I reverted him twice. Now he is accusing me (on my talk page) of making personal attacks on him. Please would some other people step in and help defend this article since my defense of it has been called into question. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about acceptable references.

 * How acceptable is a citation from http://arxiv.org/? I have verified that a physics professor from Griffith_University posted this article:
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0509061 (also available here)


 * The context of this question can be viewed on this draft of an article on Bell's theorem Special:Permalink/705120331
 * The intent of Draft:Bell's theorem paradox is to write an article that de-emphasizes quantum mechancis (which few readers understand) and focus on the fact that a simple argument leads to the well-known Malus' Law for the behavior of engangled photons which is "impossible". I am a scientific skeptic who is trying to use the concept of Quantum pseudo-telepathy without endorsing the idea that plausible evidence exists that telepathy has been demonstrated in humans.  The goal is to make it clear to readers that Bell's theorem is really really amazing, but do it in a way that does not require quantum mechanics or "hidden variable theory"--Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, the question still stands, but I finally found a refereed pub where Wiseman used the word "impossible". I will certainly cite this one: http://www.nature.com/news/physics-bell-s-theorem-still-reverberates-1.15435 --Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The general threshold is not that it has been refereed. It is that it is a secondary source, and, in a scientific subject, not just any secondary source: there must be good reasons why it is known to be reliable.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having finally found the refereed Nature article (which I believe is "secondary"?), the question now is whether to also include Wiseman's unrefereed manuscripts. The literature is full of statements to the effect that a "hidden variable theory is impossible", but the phrase "hidden variable theory" has little meaning to most Wikipedia readers.  Finally, in the Nature article, Wiseman managed to publish the word "impossible" without the incomprehensible (to most) qualifier.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That a paper is published in Nature does not make it a reliable source. No way is Nature a secondary source. Chjoaygame (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what the issue is with the arxiv paper is exactly. It was published in refereed journal, and was cited ~14 or so times. At face value, I don't really have an issue with using this as a source. However, there's been a lot research on Bell's theorem since 2006. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Two comments: 1. I stand corrected on http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0509061.pdf. The arxiv.org site is an unrefereed repository of preprints, but according to Google Scholar, the article was published in Contemporary Physics, 2006 - Taylor & Francis and was cited 33 times.  2. I don't see how "Nature" is an unreliable source. See the lede to Wikipedia's article on Nature (journal).--Guy vandegrift (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No need for google scholar, quite clearly mentions where the article was published after it passed peer review. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is another question: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html -- Josephson, Brian D., and Fotini Pallikari-Viras. "Biological utilization of quantum nonlocality." Foundations of Physics 21.2 (1991): 197-207 These people speculate that human telepathy may have already been observed. As a scientific skeptic, I disagree with them, but it seems to me that excluding this paper puts me in violation of POV policy. I put the same question forth in a talk page at: Talk:Foundations_of_Physics--Guy vandegrift (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SEP has an exposition on Bell's theorem that uses Malus' law in proving a Bell-type theorem. I consider this a reliable source. We also discuss Bell's theorem and Malus' law in Local hidden variable theory, but that section is unreferenced. --Mark viking (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I believe your SEP tip plus the section in Local hidden variable theory gives me the authority to "derive" the probabilities as per Bell%27s_theorem/Introduction--Guy vandegrift (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thad Roberts and Theory of everything
I have reverted a piece of QST from Theory of everything: see and. The editor is been very busy providing content on article, knowing many personal details of subject, without any kind of source. Perhaps someone with more expertise in the subject could have look at (and perhaps do some pruning on) the Thad Roberts article. See also User talk:Favonian. - DVdm (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Observer effect (physics)
Experts may want to chip in, another editor is forcing in a questionable book. 'M'&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory
Could someone more familiar with this subject, or physics in general, please take a look at this article? An IP editor is repeatedly removing an entire section called Woodward effect, citing a "lack of evidence". This section has what appears to be properly written and sourced content and there is hatnote to a main page of the same name. Can we confirm this content belongs? Thanks - the WOLF  child  21:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Woodward effect appears to be fringe if not junk science. Editors may care to take a look. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC).