Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive July 2011

space solar power
does it belong to physics ?--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean... If you mean “should it be tagged as in the scope of WP:PHYS”, I think it should, though not with a high importance level. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 18:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would this article belong within the scope of WP physics? It seems mostly a technological subject, rather than one of physics. But if some can come up with a good argument, I'm open to convincing.TR 23:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there are plenty of articles with a WP:PHYS banner on topics which are only vaguely related with physics, especially in the mid- and low-importance classes, including nuclear power and tidal power. (On the other hand, others like wind energy, solar power and hydroelectricity aren't.) I don't strongly care either way, but articles on similar topics should be treated in similar ways, unless there's a good reason to do otherwise. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 23:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd think that the physics categorization would belong at solar cell, rather than at space solar power. The former describes principles, the latter describes an application. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer
The Energy Catalyzer is a device claimed by its inventors to produce power by low-energy nuclear reaction, apparently shortly to go into production (!). It might be worthwhile for contributors with knowledge of the relevant physics to take a look at the article (and the talk page), as it seems to me to be rather unbalanced for such a fringe topic - the problem seems to be that it is only being reported by supporting media, while the mainstream ignores it - possibly on the basis that it seems more likely to be a hoax than the genuine article. This does however result in the relatively few sources we do have being given undue prominence - if anyone can find comment on the 'catalyzer' from new mainstream sources, that would undoubtedly be useful too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A glance at the history says that at least one proponent of the concept is aggressively defending the article, and that low-level edit warring between several people seems to be occurring. It's gotten enough press to be notable (especially if that 1 MW heat plant contract really has been signed), but I'm not touching it with a 30 foot pole right now (very busy offline, and this looks like a massive time-sink).


 * Physics-wise, it's a variant of cold fusion (allegedly reacting nickel to form copper with the aid of hydrogen, instead of producing helium). All of the objections at cold fusion apply (the big ones being lack of a plausible mechanism and neutrons/gamma rays not killing the experimenters). At best they got excess heat due to hydrogen adsorption and made an honest mistake about the cause; at worst they're committing fraud. That said, the article has to restrict itself to published critiques, so be careful to avoid synthesis when writing about objections. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this look familiar to anyone?
An editor has recently appeared at Talk:Special relativity writing about their personal proof of SR being incorrect. So far, nothing unusual. What is unusual is that 's only two edits to that talk page, and that he not only has a flawless grasp of wiki markup but has also uploaded a diagram to Wikimedia Commons to explain his argument (his only edit at the commons).

This means he's a problem-user returning under a new name. What was his old name, so that I can file a report at WP:SPI and resolve things? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It was COPYVIO of http://www.finaltheories.com/, if that helps. I removed the whole thing (no particular reason to debate the merits of SR vs. finaltheories per WP:NOTAFORUM). My guess is for someone who has debated the issue on talkpages before rather than a sock of someone who has made significant article contributions. WP:RBI if it becomes appropriate. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Gamma Ray Burst -- recent edits
You might want to pay attention to. The article has been edited by, the primary author of GRB 090429B, who has repeatedly inserted mentions of it as the most distant object in the universe into the GRB article (not true, there's a z>10 galaxy that was announced a few months ago, which we have an article on). On recent edits he's been using questionable quality references, and poorly cited references to support rewriting the article. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Table summarizing origin of elements?
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy for questions about possible new article. -Noleander (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Quarks as independent particles
Hopefully this is of interest: calculations appear to show that quarks existed independently during a fraction of second after the big bang. It appears that at 2 trillion Kelvin quarks "can break free from their confinement inside protons and neutrons". Physics World. Derived from AAAS Science v. 332. p. 1525. and free preprint version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) on 03:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This would be the quark-gluon plasma state, which is already well-known (just not produced in terrestrial experiments until recently). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Christopher, this was very helpful. It is very interesting and I provided a link from the physics portal to the article. I previously added the "news" article to the physics portal, but without the wiki link. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Blaise Pascal at FAR
nominated Blaise Pascal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It had a bad COPYVIO problem so needs fixing. Dmcq (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Pioneer Anomaly
Apparently the problem has been solved. It has something to do with thermal emissions. Negativecharge (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222


 * It's already there under 'Calculation based on the Phong reflection model' as needing further checking but yes I believe that is the correct explanation. Dmcq (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project at FAC

 * Featured article candidates/Manhattan Project/archive1. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is *anyone* from the Physics Project planning to review this FAC? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

International wikiproject
any idea on how to link all the talk pages of all the languages on physics ?--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just went to the talk page of the French physics project to make sure it works. Click on the project tab; click on the interwiki link to the French project; click on the link for its discussion page. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nathan Seiberg proposed for deletion
Unbelievably, someone recently proposed Nathan Seiberg for deletion, on the grounds that the subject was of limited notability, and that the article was lacking references (not exactly true, since it did link to his homepage&mdash;but this isn't a very good source). Apparently, there is a policy to delete BLPs that are unreferenced if they were created after March 2010 (but this article was created years prior to that, so it seems to me that this policy was not being correctly invoked.) I have removed the prod and added a reference, but it might be worth it for project members to monitor the article. It could use some help. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:JCW and physics
The JCW compilation updated a while ago. Here's the top-cited missing journals that are physics-related.


 * General & Others
 * Applied Spectroscopy
 * AIP Conference Proceedings
 * Annals of Physics
 * IBM Journal of Research and Development
 * IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices
 * Los Alamos Science


 * Astronomy & Astrophysics
 * Astronomical Observations from Space Vehicles
 * Astronomical Society of the Pacific Leaflets
 * Contributi Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova in Asiago
 * Communications of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory
 * Lunar and Planetary Science
 * Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union
 * Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan
 * Solar System Research


 * Materials science
 * Diamond and Related Materials
 * Journal of Alloys and Compounds
 * Journal of Crystal Growth
 * Journal of the Less Common Metals
 * Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids
 * Journal of Solid State Chemistry
 * Surface and Coatings Technology


 * Earth & Atmospheric Sciences
 * AAPG Bulletin
 * Acta Geologica Sinica
 * Annals of Glaciology
 * Antarctic Science
 * Atmospheric Environment
 * Bulletin of the American Geographical Society
 * Bulletin of the Geological Society of America
 * Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
 * Earth-Science Reviews
 * Geological Journal
 * Geological Society, London, Special Publications
 * Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs
 * Geologische Rundschau
 * Global and Planetary Change
 * International Journal of Climatology
 * Journal of African Earth Sciences
 * Journal of the Geological Society
 * Journal of Glaciology
 * Journal of Structural Geology
 * Limnology and Oceanography
 * New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics
 * Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London
 * Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

If you're interested to help, WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide has some guidance about how to write an article on journals. Any help you can give would be much appreciated at WP:JOURNALS. I'll be cross-posting the relevant sections to WP:Astronomy and WP:Geology as well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Book:Nucleosynthesis
I created this early, but I'm certainly no expert on nucleosynthesis. It would be nice if people could take a glance at it (are there missing articles? does the structure of the book make sense? etc...) and leave feedback at Book talk:Nucleosynthesis. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Naming of Category:Rotational symmetry
I've just posted a thread at WT:WPMATH about the naming of this category; then on the cat talkpage, I see that the ownership is actually claimed by this wikiproject.

So, to repeat what I've just written over there:

At the moment Category:Rotational symmetry carries a rubric saying that it is specifically for three-dimensional spherical symmetry.


 * Should the category therefore be renamed to Category:Rotational symmetry in three dimensions ? Some of the items are indeed directly specific to 3D.
 * Or, should the rubric be changed, and the cat made to be for rotational symmetry in any dimension ? Some of the items are indeed applicable to any dimension; though there may be particular value in being able to find collected together those relevant in 3D, regardless of whether they are relevant in other spaces as well.

Follow-ups probably best to the thread at WT:WPMATH, to keep further discussion in one place. Jheald (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Tachyon recent edits
There's been some recent edit at tachyons which I think ought to be vetted. I lack the background to decide if they make sense or not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Turns out most of them were from a vandal. However there remains this edit that could be valid. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)