Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive July 2012

Thermonuclear weapon
Hello,

I started a requested move of Teller–Ulam design to Thermonuclear weapon. Feedbacks are very welcome. -- Taku (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * These are not exactly the same topic because there are other possible designs for fusion weapons. For example, the fission trigger could be built in a sphere around the fusion core. Or Lithium deuteride could be replaced by other substances capable of fusion.
 * So I would suggest a more general article on thermonuclear weapons with a link to this particular design (which is the most commonly used). JRSpriggs (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't we already have a general article at nuclear weapon design? That article already mentions fusion-boosted fission weapons (the spherical type), and links to Teller-Ulam design (from its "two-stage thermonuclear weapons" paragraph). In fact, the article looks well-written enough to be worth trying to polish to featured status IMO.


 * Regarding fuels other than lithium deuteride, that was only tried once to my knowledge (the Ivy Mike test). LiD turns out to be by far the most practical fuel for weapons. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Escape velocity - scalar or vector ?
As part of a rewrite of sections of the escape velocity article, wrote


 * "Escape velocity is a velocity in that it is the radial speed an object must have as it is directed radially away if it is to escape another mass's) gravitational pull. The escaping object may have an additional component of velocity normal to its radial velocity but in order to escape the planet's gravitational pull, it must have a speed in the radial direction at least as great in magnitude as the mass's "escape velocity"".

This idea that escape velocity depends on direction seemed to me such a fundamental error that I reverted their rewrite, explaining why on the talk page. In response, Zedshort says


 * "You are incorrect. Escape velocity is not just a speed but has a direction making it a vector quantity. The component of the speed in the radial direction must be equal to the escape velocity in magnitude."

To avoid a pointless back-and-forth argument, I would welcome other editors' input at Talk:Escape velocity. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Proton spin crisis
This aritcle, Proton spin crisis, looks good to me but it is outside my scope of knowledge. I am hoping that someone who is well versed in this subject could have a look. I am seeing more self published articles on google scholar than anything else so I really don't know how mainstream this topic is. Thanks Steve Quinn (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article seems plausible, and the editor that created it seems to be acting in good faith, but it might be a good idea to have someone very politely explain WP:COI to this person. They've spent quite a lot of time creating and revising, and a paper from that person is cited as one of the references in the "latest findings about the spin crisis" subsection. Given that their username is , it's raising flags for me.


 * That said, the user appears to know their field and be making what seem to be good contributions, so please do try to work constructively with them. WP:COI doesn't forbid writing about your own work (if that's what's happening here), it just says to be careful when doing it.


 * More thorough vetting would involve a particle physics type doing a literature search, to make sure that the references cited reflect the more prominent references in literature. I'm not in a position to do that. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am rather worried about the fact that the cited Comay paper is published in Progress in Physics. This tends to be a red flag for its contents not being widely endorsed.TR 21:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As that and an arxiv preprint are the only references for the "latest findings" section, it's probably worth sticking a "needs improvement" template on that section and starting a talk page thread about it. A literature review would still be handy. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the other reference in that section is a PRL with over 50 citations. It is just the last bit that seems dubious.TR 06:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Would you mind updating the reference, then? The present citation gives no indication that the paper was actually published. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * huh? It says right there: " Interplay of Spin and Orbital Angular Momentum in the Proton. Physical Review Letters, 101, 102003 (2008)".TR 07:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently I'm more tired than I thought. I withdraw my comment. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Proton spin crisis is an important topic in physics with a substantial literature and deserves an article. The Comay paper does does not have enough cites in Google scholar to be considered a significant contribution to the subject (incidentally, it should be orbital, not spatial). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC).

Can we get some help at Time?
I have recently come upon the article Time and found that the lede definition (the very first sentence) was written strictly from the POV of experimental physicists, essentially saying that time is a measurement. The lede said nothing about how time is normally experienced by humans (and other beings) as, for lack of better words, our sequential progress in our existence. This is what is in the primary definitions of all three major English dictionaries. It's highly POV to require the lede definition of time to be defined only in terms of measurement. As if time has no meaning outside of measurement. Especially when it ignores the dictionary definition and especially when there exists a Time in physics article.


 * Primary definitions from 3 English language dictionaries:


 * thefreedictionary.com (obviously drawn from AH)
 * a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
 * b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
 * c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
 * d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 a.m.
 * e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.


 * Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 * a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration
 * b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future


 * American Heritage Dictionary
 * a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
 * b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration:a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
 * c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval:ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
 * d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes:checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 AM.
 * e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned:solar time.


 * Oxford English Dictionary (1971 Compact Edition)
 * 1. A limited stretch or space of continued existence, as the interval between two successive events or acts, or the period through which an action, condition, or state continues.

Can we get some help there at Time? 71.169.176.253 (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Before anyone makes any drastic changes, I suggest digging through the archives at Talk:Time, as I remember a long-running debate about the topic from a few years back. If memory serves, most of the article was written from a philosophical rather than measurement perspective back then, though it's possible that I'm misremembering. Either way, most of the discussion should be happening on that page (and if possible contain a summary of the old threads about the debate for context). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As of now, the lead begins with “It is difficult to substantiate that time is actually a sensation or experience.” I don't think that's the right way to start an article. (Before we reinvent the wheel, I'd suggest taking a look at articles about time on other encyclopaedias such as Britannica: what are they about?) A. di M. (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Davisson-Germer experiment
Can somebody check if the image at Davisson-Germer experiment is ok?? I believe I have addressed the main points(see talk page for details). Please check if there is any correction/addition that needs to be done. Thanks. Roshan220195 (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, "I would like to comment that the essential conclusion of this article is actually wrong according to Davissons and Germers original articles. Since Davisson and Germer worked with low energy elektron diffraction, LEED, it is not possible to use the Bragg equation in the way given in the article. This is due to the wavelength dependent refraction index of the nickel crystal." was a comment added in the talk page. Is this right?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan220195 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have the expertise to tell, but it sounds like it could be a legitimate concern. If someone with a library near them digs up the original article about it, that should provide an easy way to check the wiki article's formulae. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Unify articles on Ultraviolet divergence and UV completion
More than a year ago, a user suggested mergin Ultraviolet divergence and UV completion into an article titled Ultraviolet limit. Given that it's a very old proposal that's still standing, I hope that we can come to a solution on this soon, either to merge or to close the merge proposal, so I'd like to see your input on the suggestion, which can be found on this talk page. Thanks. Trinitresque (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing cheatsheet
Should this be placed in the talk pages of all physics articles or at least articles in the scope of this Wikiproject alone?? I was thinking of running them down with AWB and wanted to confirm. Roshan (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd really, really caution against doing that. First, that's intended for more formal review processes (like peer review and as a preparation step for good article and featured article applications). In most cases (absent such a process), the cheat sheet would just be cluttering the pages it was pasted into and not serving a useful purpose.


 * Secondly, mass changes to articles (such as the 16,000 or so that have the WikiProject Physics header) are frowned upon without an extremely good reason. Lengthy discussion and consensus-building ahead of time are encouraged (which you've started with this thread), and the automated tasks themselves should go through the approvals process at WP:BRFA (normally used for bots, but encouraged for mass edits with semi-automated tools as well).


 * Long story short, I suggest picking individual articles for improvement drives and transcluding that sheet in while the articles are actively being worked on. Adding " " to the relevant talk-page thread will pull in a local copy that can then be marked up per the directions in the template, and it'll get archived in due course when the job is done and the thread goes stale. A mass-transclusion would IMO do more harm than good. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Are there many pages where a cheatsheet is actively used? It is so ugly and cumbersome - specific suggestions for edits can be hard to find amid all the extraneous stuff. The todo template is much better for most, if not all, purposes. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
It seems to me that Mathematical physics and Theoretical physics should be merged. Aren't they synonyms of each other? Brad7777 (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. I am a theoretical physicist working in condensed matter physics, not in mathematical physics.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead for Theoretical physics treats them like synonyms. Perhaps an about template should be used to clarify the distinction. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the article mathematical physics is sometimes used as a synonym, but it's also a separate thing, see the Mathematical physics article which distinguishes them. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can make sense of it by regarding mathematical physics as 'the advancement of mathematics that was developed for application in physics' and theoretical physics as 'the development of theory in physics'. I noticed the edits to theoretical physics, which sprouted my confusion, thanks for clearing that up. Brad7777 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Category for discussion
There is a discussion for the category Fundamental physics concepts. Any input would be appreciated. Brad7777 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the discussion: Category:Fundamental_physics_concepts. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correct link. Brad7777 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have come across another category that I have nominated for discussion. Energy in physics. Any input would be appreciated Brad7777 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Introductory physics - for deletion Brad7777 (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dark matter and black holes (again)
An IP user has just shown up at Talk:Dark matter, posting quite a bit of material about why they think there's a good case for intermediate-mass black holes being dark matter.

I am well past merely being sick of dealing with this undying zombie of a thread, so I'll let someone else take point. I'm going to bed. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why you reply them at all. Let them go to the library and do some reading.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reading isn't the problem - the problem, near as I can tell, is that the person pushing IMBHs has either an obsession with or a vested interest in work by one particular researcher (Frampton), and is pushing their views about dark matter well past what WP:UNDUE would consider acceptable. (Caveat: this assumes it's the same person this time around. While likely, I haven't gone over their post point by point this time around, due to being royally sick of it).


 * I've responded in the past because the talk page is for discussing changes to the article, and in the past we've had a couple of well-meaning editors unaware of the history coming in, taking the comments at face value, and proposing changes to the article without realizing that the IP's views are not endorsed by anyone else. Silence gives the illusion of support, in this case. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems that WP:FRINGE applies. You might consider pinging WP:FTN about it. --Izno (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I responded to this round or talk page posting (wisely or unwisely). Even if the discussion doesn't go anywhere, I thought along the same lines as Christopher Thomas that "silence gives the illusion of support," and wanted to show that there's no consensus behind the IP's reading or use of primary sources.  I think we need to either get the IP editor to understand that you just can't use primary sources that way, or consider a topic ban.  --Amble (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding from lurking in that thread is more that it's a case of WP:SYN than of the sources being primary (you'd said that the IP was drawing conclusions that weren't present in the sources). That said, other arguments apply too (WP:UNDUE being my main objection to Frampton material).


 * If (when) this comes up again, I'll start a straw poll on the talk page to determine if there's consensus regarding what should or shouldn't be done with the material the IP keeps pushing. If the consensus is "does not belong in the article", then further threads can be closed on sight rather than debated (but first that consensus would have to be established).


 * I don't think a user-specific topic ban would help. There have been at least two named users and three IPs pushing the material, all with the same style, so we'd just end up chasing sock puppets. One of the named users was indef-blocked a while back for tendentious editing, so if anyone manages to _prove_ that sock puppetry is occurring with any given IP, the IP could be blocked without further discussion. The problem is that it's difficult to make a sock-puppetry case (last attempt of mine was rejected, and I've given up trying with this particular user).


 * Long story short, I think a consensus-measuring exercise about the merit or non-merit of the content would be the simplest solution. Moot point until another thread starts, thankfully. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There's an element of original synthesis, it's true. But the IP editor is proposing changes to the article that really need secondary sourcing.  The table of dark matter composition, for example, cannot be adequately supported by citing a list of preprints and speculative papers.  That would still be the case even if the papers were relevant and correctly understood.  This sort of thing requires authoritative review papers at the least.  I tried to focus on the WP:PRIMARY issue because it short-circuits the fruitless discussion of the papers and preprints themselves.  If this problem continues and requires administrative action, it's also easier for an outside party to understand the issue of WP:PRIMARY than to read through a list of highly specialized papers to decide whether they do or do not support a given claim made in the article.  --Amble (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah. I usually apply WP:UNDUE for cases like that (where they haven't demonstrated that the view has significant support/notability within the scientific community). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's an element of that, too. I dropped the user a note at his talk, and I suspect my idea of focusing on WP:PRIMARY was too optimistic.  Your idea of explicitly noting a consensus, where it exists, is probably the best one.  --Amble (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look at the DM page. As far as explaining the theoretical side of this issue, it looks very bad to me. Given the state of the article, it is difficult to stop someone from editing in what Frampton argues about. The best thing to do is to completely rewrite this article. One really has to move the agument away from notability (which doesn't count in science) and instead argue about some candidate being not so natural (e.g requiring fine tuning), and cite that from reliable sources. The bottom line is that there are good reasons why WIMPS are the favorite candidate and the article completely fails to mention that. Count Iblis (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please say what you think the good reasons for preferring unobserved WIMPs of completely indeterminate specification are? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it (also?) goes the other way around: even if the article does get into a good state, it will never stay there. There are always editors who want to add in a particular idea without necessarily having a clear view of the article as a whole or a strong understanding of the topic as a whole.  This being Wikipedia, that is of course not in itself a problem.  But it results in an article text that's not cohesive and usually contains a certain amount of dubious information (such as Jan Oort discovering dark matter).  If you'd like to try a rewrite...  --Amble (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, notability _does_ count in science. That's what WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are about. Only ideas that have demonstrated some traction in the academic community belong in articles such as dark matter, with space proportional to their degree of significance (present or historical) within the community. This was explicitly set out in the fringe science arbitration case. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of recently peer reviewed authors writing in agreement with Frampton. What more traction do you need to have demonstrated? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Amble disagrees with your interpretation of the papers you cited, and I'm inclined to endorse User:Amble's comments. The place for further discussion is in a new thread at Talk:Dark matter, if and only if you actually have new arguments to add. Amble already responded to your list of papers to the degree that they intended do, and none of the rest of us seem to feel like commenting further. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree to wait for the NuSTAR background granularity results before asking for the straw poll you suggested here and on Talk:Dark matter. I'm well aware there will be no secondary sources at that time, but I believe the strength of the dozens of authors and diversity of primary source evidence in support of Frampton IMBH dark matter will be overwhelming for all but those who have a vested interest in the WIMP alternative. For the record I have no financial, professional, or any other than hobbyist interest in any astrophysics topic. I only ask that skeptics click "[show]" here and evaluate the quality of Amble's discussion for themselves. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have liked to have been informed about this discussion, since I am the subject of it. I stand by my opinion that Frampton and the dozens of other peer reviewed authors cited in Talk:Dark matter are correct. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The concept of fringe we use on Wikipedia doesn't work here, because Paul Frampton is a good enough physicist to make sure he gets metioned in some review article. Hell, he just has to email Dan Hooper the next time he writes up a big review on this topic. That's why we need to do the hard work of actually presenting the mainstream arguments in the article that explains why the WIMP is the preferred DM candidate.

Wikipedia's policies focus too much on the battleground sectors here and are therefore not suitable as guidelines for editing physics articles. Count Iblis (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would love to know what those mainstream arguments for WIMPs are, which is why I asked you for them above, because I've been through about six and not found any of convincing substance. Your suggestion that Frampton uses his reputation to influence review publications calls his ethics into question. Not only is that a BLP violation, but it's absurd because he has no need to do such a thing. Many of his strongest supporters don't even cite him. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Count: It still works just fine. A brief mention in a review article doesn't establish notability (though I'd expect a notable topic to be covered in review articles). A contrived example:


 * E. Spengler publishes an article in a respectable journal. It's cited in a review/survey article, and has quite a few citations by unrelated research groups. E. Spengler's work is clearly notable, and is probably not fringe (though it may still be a minority viewpoint). (Weight isn't established, and the threshold for "quite a few" is very field-specific, but hopefully you get the idea.)


 * R. Stantz publishes an article in a respectable journal. It has a moderate number of citations, including one review/survey article mention, but most of the citations are from Prof. Stantz's research group or close affiliates. There are very few citations by people not affiliated with Prof. Stantz. Prof. Stantz's work is probably not notable. (Whether it's "fringe" or not depends on whether it's technically accurate - which it may be, if it passed peer review - and whether Prof. Stantz is claiming that it's more notable than it actually is.)


 * P. Venkman publishes multiple articles in less-respected journals, and at conferences. While all of these have some form of peer review, the standards are far lower than for top-tier journals. Prof. Venkman's work is cited extensively by his own research group, and occasionally by other publications in less-respected journals, but the sole citation by an article in a respectable journal poked holes in it (and several similar publications). Prof. Venkman's publication is clearly fringe, and probably non-notable (given that it hasn't made much impact citation-wise even within the fringe community). (Be advised that even reputable conferences tend to rubber-stamp conference papers/presentations. I _wish_ they'd caught an embarrassing error in one of mine a few years back. There's a reason why journal publications carry most of the weight.)


 * Most of the headaches from fringe science patrol are from Venkman-type publications. The difficulty on Wikipedia is that it's very hard to find mainstream/reputable articles that criticize them (as they're beneath serious notice), so critical statements tend to get challenged under WP:V. Editors going strictly by publication count without being familiar with venues may even mistake a Venkman-type publication for a Spengler-type. Fortunately, that's probably not what we're dealing with here.


 * My impression from past and present threads is that we're dealing with a Stantz-type researcher - one who's published in respectable venues but who hasn't made significant impact with their views. Weight for purposes of WP:UNDUE is minimal. Evaluating this rigorously requires knowledge of the journals used by the researcher, knowledge of what the field's handful of most prestigious journals are, and knowledge of what citation counts are typical and what citation counts indicate a particularly noteworthy work. I do not claim to have that level of knowledge; that said, I can still get a rough idea, and that rough idea says "way below the inclusion threshold". WT:AST and WT:ASTRO are probably the best place to find experts on journals and citation counts for papers relating to cosmology and to black holes, respectively.


 * (Before anyone jumps on me, please also note that a single researcher can fall into multiple categories depending on what project they're working on. I doubt the "for fun" paper I'm planning will get taken very seriously, but the optics one should.)


 * Long story short, yes, you can evaluate what is and is not fringe and what a concept's weight is, using publicly-accessible citation databases, as long as you have a bit of knowledge of the field. We have plenty of people on Wikipedia with the required knowledge, and many will also have full access to the journals in question (in addition to the citation databases). Applying WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE is feasible for scientific topics. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is completely fair, which is why I want to wait for NuSTAR results. I can't expect editors to go against the tide of popular subject matter expert opinion until there is more empirical observational data with which to decide. I am sure that if you had more time to read all the papers by both the IMBH and WIMP proponents, you would not be so certain about your UNDUE and FRINGE judgement, primarily because the papers I've been asking people to read are from subject searches, not citation searches on Frampton's work, and I've paid careful attention to the recent reviews on the issue. There's more than just one set of authors presenting work consistent with Frampton without any apparent knowledge of his work. On the other hand, the WIMP people, right now, are just hoping that the inertia of the searches they want to spend another $3 billion at the LHC will come up with something, without having re-computed the light element big bang nucleosynthesis ratios with the Higgs Standard Model, without having more than 3-sigma observational evidence that only one lab can replicate after hundreds of millions of dollars trying to build other labs for replication, and without any guesses on mass or interaction profiles of the WIMPs which are consistent with the cuspy halo problem at galactic centers or the dwarf galaxy distribution. Frankly, I can't see why anyone would expect WIMPs at this point, but let's wait for the NuSTAR background field granularity. It's not like this is at all urgent, unless you'd rather spend the $3 billion figuring out how to extract carbonic acid from seawater to synthesize methane and transportation fuel. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

F=q(E+v^B) exposed as puppet master
Regarding Special:Contributions/F=q(E+v^B) and Special:Contributions/Hublolly, according to SarekOfVulcan, "Hublolly blocked as sock of F=q(E+v^B), F=q(E+v^B) blocked for disrupting ANI ...". The blocks are indefinite. While these two accounts engaged in a wide-ranging edit war with each other over Physics articles, they were apparently the same person. Consequently, I think we should look carefully at any articles which they edited. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ...ow. I really hope that "users are technically indistinguishable" turns out to be a false-positive, because otherwise there was a completely ludicrous amount of effort involved in edit-warring with themselves (to no possible end that I can think of, especially since they themselves brought it to AN/I). SPI page linked by the block messages is here (non-standard link), and the AN/I thread (not yet archived) is at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * If I'm reading it correctly, at least one of the above is allegedly a third user who retired their old account under the provisions of what seems to be WP:CLEANSTART (but is quoted as WP:RTV, implying retirement, not renaming).


 * I've glanced at the contribution list, and it looks like there isn't much I can help with. Might be worth pinging WP:WPMATH, though. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've raised a query at that sock page about whether F=q(E+v^B) is actually involved in something like that, I'm sure Hublolly is someone's sock but it very possibly is not F=q(E+v^B), I think it should be possible to determine who by a closer study though. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence that F=q(E+v^B) was involved in disruption of the ANI, and it's pretty clear that the technical evidence is a false positive.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way would you do you think it could be a false positive? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no behavioral evidence to support the block. The two editors were acting at cross purposes and even brought the dispute to ANI.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd guess the technical evidence is they have the same ip. If they are two different people they'd have to use the same server and most probably know each other. There might be additional tests one could do but I guess they've done whatever they can. Assuming they are the same what I'd like to know is why it was done, what would F=q(E+v^B) achieve from it all? Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm here to express my doubts, as well. Having the same IP would be pretty damning, but rather than speculate I'd still like to hear exactly what evidence it was before giving up. If this is some bizarre fight between roommates or classmates then it will be difficult to separate IP's. Historically, I think F= has been pretty amicable and has edited constructively, and so this whole situation seems rather implausible. Couldn't we at least let F= return under probation? Rschwieb (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This comment suggests that they are co-located, which would confuse the issue. It would not be impossible to plant such evidence in anticipation, but... — Quondum☏ 14:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be good to mention that at the SPI case. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

F=q(E+v^B) states that somebody he lives with and does not like, but who uses his computer because they can't afford two (this situation sounds very much like Sartre's No Exit) used the same IP (of course) to post as user:Hublolly and apparently, lately even as F=q(E+v^B), due to a password stored in the machine (doh!). I have sugggested that due to F=q(E+v^B)'s excellent history up to now, that we figure out some way to allow him to continue to edit from that IP by softblocking it or schoolblocking it, or choosing a new username or whatever (you figure it out). Good physics math editors are too valuable to lose by not giving them the benefit of the doubt. Which in this case, is the first time we've had to do that with F=q(E+v^B) so far as I can see. S B Harris 21:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It might also be good to bring the diff quoted above over to WP:Requests for oversight, as it looks like an outing attempt by H. That would mean that only people with the ability to view revdel'd edits would be able to view the diff as evidence, but I'm under the impression that administrators can do that. If they both edited through a university library, that could certainly cause a false positive. On the other hand, that diff is not consistent with the "somebody he lives with and doesn't like" story. Is there a diff for the second report? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have asked F=q(E+v^B) to identify on his talk page which edits by his account were the responsibility of Hublolly rather than him. Then we can focus on those and the edits done by Hublolly himself when trying to verify that our articles have not been corrupted. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Assuming that they aren't the same person. The difference in the story from H in the linked diff and the story from F related by SBHarris worries me. First priority should probably be getting F's version of events, and presenting that and H's diff at the SPI to see if that's persuasive enough for a re-evaluation of the conclusion. I'm on the fence about that; good editors have gone strange before, and if _that's_ the case here, all edits would benefit from vetting. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Having F=q(E+v^B) distinguish between the edits he claims were his and those he claims were Hublolly's is also part of pinning down his alibi or story so that it can be verified or refuted. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point. Also, it seems that most of my requests were already anticipated on the talk page. My mistake for not doing a detailed check earlier. I hope that this does get sorted out without too much further difficulty. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Except for Ricci calculus where many changes were made which I will have to take more time to examine, I have now gone over all the changes to encyclopedic articles by Hublolly and by F=q(E+v^B) during the period he indicated which began at 21:11, 5 July 2012 (when he was supposedly controlled by Hublolly). There were few net changes, all of which were innocuous. Older work by F=q(E+v^B) still remains to be examined. Even if F=q(E+v^B) and Hublolly are really the same person, I think that the older work by F=q(E+v^B) is less likely to be worse than it appeared to be at the time, since to make himself appear innocent he would have probably have attributed any questionable changes to Hublolly. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have fixed Ricci calculus. I think that most of the problems existed before the final edit-war, but I do not want to bother to sort that out. We still need to go over the older work of F=q(E+v^B), mostly because he was not as careful an editor as some others in our project. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These are things that would be picked up over time anyway; no special focus is needed. Thanks for reviewing the history. — Quondum☏ 12:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

They've indicated that they're now editing as User:Z = z² + c. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You should have left the title of this section as it was for two reasons: (1) there are links to this section by the old title which now are broken; and (2) all the evidence (other than self-serving statements) supports the hypothesis that he is one person who used a sock puppet, not that the account was compromised. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you feel strongly that it should be changed back, by all means do so. There were enough expressions of support, including a statement from the original blocking administrator endorsing an unblock (at User talk:F=q(E+v^B), just under the orange boxes), that I'm inclined to believe the story (provisionally). I agree that it's far from a foregone conclusion; for that we need to wait to see if the problem recurs. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Assistance request - check on quantum-physics article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gamow-Teller Transition
Hiyas there Wikiproject Physics,

A new editor recently submitted a new article trough article's for creation on Gamow-Teller Transition. The article itself looks fine, but its content is most certainly something i am not capable of evaluating, which means i have some difficulty reviewing it. Would anyone be so kind to have a look and see if:


 * If what is written sounds decent and logical.
 * If the article isn't a duplicate of some other topic.

If you are familiar with the article's for creation area, feel free to handle the entire page. If not, I'll happily take care of those matters. Also - Thanks in advance for the assistance! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks okay to me, but it could use some more diagrams and probably less inline formulae, especially in the intro. Please ask the author to copy the navbar and categories from Fermi's interaction. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Should there be so much inline "math" tags? I should think that &amp;beta; would be sufficient, instead of loading the page with complexity from the  $$beta$$  tags -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good topic and helpful for someone who already has a basic knowledge of particle physics. The context and introduction need to be developed.  I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be moved into article space and opened to general editing.  --Amble (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Standard model of particle physics
has massively expanded Template:Standard model of particle physics. Since template changes affect many articles but do not necessarily show up on watchlists, I want to note it here. Interested people can comment for or against at Template talk:Standard model of particle physics. :-) --Steve (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Periodic relativity?
This looked suspicious te me in Spacetime, so I removed it. The author added a similar paragraph in Theory of everything. Could someone have a look? TIA. - DVdm (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's an easy one. The two citations are to self-published sources (unedited, unreviewed).  There is no sign of notability.  There is no article on the topic itself.  The terms energy, vibration, consciousness seem to be used in a mystical sense rather than having a physical meaning.  I removed from Theory of everything.  --Amble (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Would LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing and Nova Science Publishers qualify to be included in our wp:list of self-publishing companies for future reference? - DVdm (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Lambert is already there, under VDM. It publishes Ph.D. theses and serious books, so I wouldn't take publication in LAP Lambert as a bad thing.  It's just not much of a filter, and doesn't show notability.  I'm not sure about Nova, I believe they solicit submissions for book chapters and articles and don't do peer review.  I don't know if that would meed the criteria for the vanity press list.  --Amble (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Correction to myself: there's also a paper in General Relativity and Gravitation, which is a peer-reviewed and edited journal from Springer. You can find the abstract and paywalled link here:, and an arxiv version here: .  The abstracts do not match.  The parts about unmanifested primal energy and vibration are only in the arxiv preprint abstract, not in the as-published abstract.  One might suspect that those parts didn't make it past peer review.  The paper has been cited in other publications only by the author.  I haven't gone through the mathematical sections in detail.  It's possible that there's good work there, but if so, it hasn't attracted much attention so far.  --Amble (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY applies in this case.TR 16:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly, along with undue weight. --Amble (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Physics equations navbox for deletion
I proposed to delete Template:Physics equations navbox along with both its sub-templates, Template:Physics equations and Template:Physics equations (eponyms). Opinions are welcome at the deletion discussion :-) --Steve (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Does a theory "give" mass to anything?
I've read a few articles on this here site relating to the newly announced --- possibly discovered --- Higgs particle. One thing that strikes me is the way the mechanism or theory is described as "giving" mass to particles. I'm not sure if my objection is technical, scientific, or down right linguistic, but can a theory really give away physical properties? I would have said, for example, this or that theory tries to explain how this or that thing has a mass. Could it be recommended that articles within this project don't endow too many human faculties on a piece of paper? Verbs are simple but all so complicated... Eddi (Talk) 23:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently, where the approximate theories which we use most of the time have a mass term in their Lagrangian the more sophisticated theories in the Standard model have instead an interaction term between the field in question and the Higgs field. I do not know why this is felt to be necessary by the elite theoretical physicists, but there it is. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Short answer: Because normal mass terms are not gauge invariant in the GWS model. (Because left and right components of fermion fields have different SU(2) charges).TR 12:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So the Higgs boson becomes the God of particles by taking the all the sins (gauge violations) of the world upon himself. :-) JRSpriggs (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because the mass term for a scalar boson is in fact gauge invariant.TR 13:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @TR: Thanks for the explanation. However, I cannot resist pressing the analogy further.
 * So while most particles interrupt their travels at light-speed from time to time to commune with God (perform "mass" so to speak), Lucifer (the photon) declines to do so. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So this "mass" that Higgs embues onto others, is inertial mass, and not gravitational mass? (since the Standard Model is gravitationless) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think. But the non-quantum general relativity requires that gravitational mass be equal to inertial mass. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Eddi, I think from your post that what is worrying you is largely the linguistic aspect, which has been glossed over here. Theories don't "give" properties to anything, they merely attempt to describe how they behave.  The theoretical behaviour here involves a hypothetical field that results in otherwise massless particles displaying inertia (and mass).  A bit like a little girl sitting on her daddy's shoulders being considerably more difficult to push around than she'd be on her own.  From a technical perspective, what to include in "the particle" is also a bit vague: there are a whole lot of fields attached to it, modifying its behaviour.  — Quondum☏ 06:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am told by others more knowledgable than I that the mass imparted by the Higgs mechanism applies only to rest mass of quarks and leptons, and that most of the mass of ordinary objects (specifically, the rest mass of nucleons that is NOT quarks) has NOTHING to do with the Higgs mechanism. Rather, it is the mass/inertia you see in any system in SR where there are a lot of massless trapped particles (photons, gluons, etc) which give invariant mass in the COM frame (ordinary mass to you and me), but this is all due to massless particles with energy that are bound. I think it would be nice to note in the Higgs boson article that the Higgs mechanism has nothing to do with 99% of the mass of ordinary chemical matter (you, me, the Earth), but I've been unable to get this in, except as a footnote which only says it by implication, and doesn't say it explicitly. So people read about the Higgs field and its mechanism giving (rest) mass to massive elementary particles, and assume that massive elementary particles are what give most of the mass to you and me. They don't! S  B Harris 19:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I remember it, Frank Wilczek made this point rather eloquently in his book The Lightness of Being. For the layman, this point probably merits mention in the Higgs boson article, but particle physicists might not agree. — Quondum☏ 12:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

To TimothyRias: You said "left and right components of fermion fields have different SU(2) charges". Please give a link to an article which explains this. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lepton article (under weak interaction) makes an attempt. (As for real world sources, pretty much any graduate text book covering the standard model will have this. For example chapter 20.2 of Peskin&Schroeder).TR 04:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Standard Model (mathematical formulation)TR 04:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit notice (initially for Maxwell's equations, now for maths of EM field) needs clarification/checking
Please see here. Thanks. z = z²  + c 19:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's redundant because now the article maths of EM field explains what the notice says anyway, never mind...z = z²  + c 08:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Gravity in the classical mechanics template
Why is gravity included as a fundamental concept in the classical mechanics template?? Newtons law of gravitation is no doubt a fundamental law, but gravity is not a fundamental concept. Same thing with D'Alembert's principle - it is not a concept. Rather, from what I gather from the article(I don't have a clue about this concept, so I may be totally wrong about it) it is like an alternate starting point, an alternative to newtons second law, much like the langrangian. Can somebody clarify this please. Thanks in advance. Roshan (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the template isn't about "fundamental" concepts, but about "classical" concepts, in which Newtonian gravity is included. This is as opposed to quantum mechanics or general relativity. --Izno (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Newtonian gravity definitely has a place in this template as a classical concept, but I don't understand why it is under fundamental concepts. Roshan (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also a bit perplexed: electromagnetism qualifies on exactly the same grounds as does gravity, but is not in the template. For that matter, general relativity is also a "classical" concept.  There is a massive scope of classical (non-quantum) topics, not included in the template.  I would suggest that the restriction to classical mechanics is significant.  — Quondum☏ 05:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no further comment, I have removed Gravity from the classical mechanics template with the edit summary Removing Gravity as not being a fundamental concept; in any event it is adquately covered by Force. — Quondum☏ 16:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Another drive-by deletion
Help! We're getting yet another drive-by deletion by non-physicists of a physics topic. Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 13.

The drive-by deletion brings out the very worst in wikipedia behavior. Please help get these hooligans under control. linas (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Some thought should go into the definition of this category. For example, should textbooks be included or put in a category like Category:Introductory physics textbooks? Or should the latter be a subcategory? Also, a few of the textbook series like Berkeley Physics Course usually run through the freshman and sophomore years, so perhaps the definition should be broadened slightly. Finally, despite the name, Introduction to the Higgs field seems unlikely to be taught at this level. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an issue with the lack of a clear criteria for inclusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * More: Is Outline of physics really an appropriate main article? And should Category:Concepts in physics be a subcategory? RockMagnetist (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not characterize other editors as hooligans when their actions are in good faith. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Creation of person templates
It's just come to my attention that User:So God created Manchester has created several topic-navigation templates about various scientists and other noteworthy people (Template:Einstein, Template:Richard Feynman, Template:Stephen Hawking, Template:Steve Jobs, and possibly others) and is adding these templates, and associated categories, to articles relating to those scientists/celebrities.

This may actually be a good idea, but it should still probably have been discussed first. So, I'm starting a thread here about it.

I've noticed that I've been a bit cranky over the last few days, so it's probably best if someone else contacts them to make them aware of this thread (I don't want to accidentally cause unnecessary conflict). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Done: User_talk :So God created Manchester. --Amble (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Famous writers and political leaders usually have corresponding navigation templates. Template:Mohandas K. Gandhi, Template:Vladimir Putin, Template:Adolf Hitler, Template:Shakespeare, Template:Richard Dawkins, Template:Barack Obama, and countless others. Navboxes for scientists and inventors, however, have been rather lacking. Templates are easier to navigate than categories, and can be organized by topic (like Family, Works, and Scientific Career in Template:Einstein). I understand that there are objections to certain types of navboxes, but in this case, I think navboxes are appropriate. However, I am open to any objections or suggestions.--SGCM (talk)  23:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another example: the recently created Template:Nikola Tesla and Category:Nikola Tesla. The category contains a whole mess of articles that are vaguely related to Nikola Tesla, ranging from science fiction books that feature Tesla as a protagonist to various things named after the man. The navbox is considerably more selective, including only articles directly related to Tesla, and it organizes the links by topic. --SGCM (talk)  23:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly the Einstein navbox makes more sense on his page than some of the others (does it really need navboxes for Copley medalists and Philosophy of Science?) And look at all those categories he is in! RockMagnetist (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I briefly saw the navbox in the Einstein article. I didn't realize there might be an issue here. I have to agree this probably should have been discussed first. In this way the needs of the community could have been assessed. Also, the discussion could have or still could include what is trivial and what is not. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The templates seem useful to me. The essay Not everything needs a navbox suggests two basic rules: the templates should contain enough links to be useful, and should not be so large as to overwhelm the page.  The physics-related navboxes are in good shape on those counts.  Beyond that, they are in keeping with the use of navigation templates in other topics and the common-sense guidelines in WP:NAVBOX.  --Amble (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)