Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive July 2014

AfC submission - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elementary Cycles
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elementary Cycles. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * At a brief glance looks like OR. Not mainstream. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC).
 * I agree with Xxanthippe.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 18:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Xxanthippe, FoCuSandLeArN and Waleswatcher


 * thank you for your comments. The article is definitively not about an WP:OR. All the information reported are extracted from many peer-review papers (15 only from D. Dolce) published in well-regarded scientific journals such as Science, Europhys.Lett., Ann. Phys. and Found.Phys. The idea and the mathematics at the base of this interpretation of quantum mechanics is supported by works of famous physicists such as the Nobel laureate G. 't Hooft, prof. R. Penrose, and has it origin from de Broglie, Einstein, Feynman, etc. The main citations are reported in the introduction of the article. I will explicitly report them, and add further peer-reviewed citations, in every section of the article, hoping to meet your requirements. A more accurate evaluation will certainly reveal that this is not an Original Research. The notability is proven, e.g., by the fact that this interpretations has been awarded by in an important scientific contest (FQXi essay contest 2011). The motivation of this article was that this is one of the few interpretations of quantum mechanics which has not a dedicated article.


 * I will add citations in the article and resubmit it for review.


 * Thank you


 * N4tur4le (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It is important to understand that citations on Wikipedia differ in intent from those in a scientific article. Wikipedia places verifiability above truth. That is to say, citations should support statements made on Wikipedia and not the science behind them. For example de Broglie did not (as far as I know) use the term "elementary cycles" or its French equivalent in his paper cited in the lead. Therefore, to claim on Wikipedia that his work is demonstrably relevant to elementary cycles does indeed appear to be original research and therefore unacceptable on Wikipedia, although not for a scientist writing a paper. What is needed to justify the statement here would be a source which does explicitly make this link between de Broglie and elementary cycles. If you can bear in mind this distinction, it will help you provide adequate citations and to understand the kinds of statements that are not acceptable. The page I link to explains it all better than I have. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Steelpillow for pointing out this difference.
 * Indeed de Broglie, in his seminal PhD thesis, introduced the concept of elementary particles (and wave particle/duality) in these terms, see quotation in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elementary Cycles:
 * "we proceed with the assumption of the existence of a certain “periodic phenomenon” of a yet to be determined character, which is to be attributed to each and every isolated energy parcel [elementary particle]” [14]
 * Similar sentences are repeated several times in his PhD and derived work. This is a explicit link to Elementary Cycles. Indeed, the basic assumption of Elementary Cycles is that
 * Every rest elementary particle is an intrinsically periodic phenomenon of Compton periodicity
 * All the statements in the article comes from peer-reviewed papers. As far as I can see this guarantees verifiability, which in wikipedia "means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." I will put explicit citation throughout all the article. The link between Elementary Cycles and de Broglie is also clear if you consider Louis_de_Broglie. In Elementary Cycles
 * Every rest elementary particle is a reference clock of Compton periodicity
 * N4tur4le (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a neat example of the confusion over what needs to be supported by the citation. De Broglie's quote does not use the term "elementary cycles", so it cannot be used to support the claim that his model involves elementary cycles. Sure it involves cycles (a synonym for periodiciy) associated with elementary particles, but it does not say explicitly that these cycles are "elementary cycles" in the sense used in the article, i.e. it is not a verbally explicit link as you suggest it is. You may believe that the logic of the link is direct and unassailable (and you may be right), but that does not mean it is explicit. Perhaps Dolce (or whoever) may have made that explicit claim about de Broglie's model? If so, then Dolce's (or whoever's) work would be a suitable reference. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Steelpillow, Xxanthippe, FoCuSandLeArN and Waleswatcher
 * I have resubmitted the article adding explicit citations in every section. If needed more citations can be added.
 * The link to de Broglie model is explicit in many Dolce's papers. Indeed Elementary Cycles is based on the "postulate" that "Every rest elementary particle is an intrinsically periodic phenomenon", which is nearly a exact quotation of de Broglie's hypothesis given above and in the article. See for instance http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.1140.pdf: " the formalism described in this paper is based on the fundamental assumption “of existence of a certain periodic phenomenon of a yet to be determined character, which is to be attributed to each and every isolated energy parcel [elementary particle]"" or http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.0315.pdf "In fact, by using de Broglie’s words, the formalism is based on the fundamental assumption “of existence of a certain periodic phenomenon of a yet to be determined character, which is to be attributed to each and every isolated energy parcel [elementary particle]”" N4tur4le (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Dear Steelpillow,
 * I have undone your corrections. The link with de Broglie work has been discussed in above and I think this link is clear now.
 * I have also restored the citation to "R. Penrose". In his book "Cycles of Time" he explicitly says that every elementary particle is a clock, thus this his cyclic description is not only about cosmology. This Penrose's claim is also explicitly reported in Muller paper published on Science. Check yourself from the reference in Elementary Cycles.
 * From Penrose's book "Cycles of Time", page.93:
 * "for there is a clear sense in which any individual (stable) [isolated] massive particle plays a role as a virtually perfect clock. [...] In other words, any stable massive particle behaves as a very precise quantum clock, which ticks away with [Compton] frequency [Compton periodicity] "
 * This is an explicit link to Elementary Particle whose basic postulate is
 * Every rest elementary particle is a reference clock of Compton periodicity
 * N4tur4le (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My biggest complaint is that it's very difficult to understand what in the article is (1) Standard textbook quantum mechanics, versus (2) Standard textbook quantum mechanics described in an unusual way, versus (3) An aspect of the theory that contradicts standard textbook quantum mechanics. If I look at any given sentence in the article, it takes me quite some time to figure out whether it's in category (1) or (2) or (3). It shouldn't be so hard.


 * I have the impression that there is a lot of category (2) in the article. Now, it is not always a bad thing to describe a familiar concept in an unusual way: It can help prod one's intuition. However, it is often a bad thing, and I think that in this article it is definitely a bad thing. For example, I would rather that the article use a normal term like "wavelength" instead of a weird term like "spatial recurrence".


 * Hmmm, perhaps I'm complaining about the theory more than the wikipedia article. The underlying problem is that it is a dumb theory that deserves to be criticized and ignored, but not enough critical papers have been published, so criticizing it would be original research. Even "making sense of it" would probably be original research. Oh well. :-P --Steve (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Steve
 * The article is about an interpretations of quantum mechanics so it is not strange that it looks like "(2) Standard textbook quantum mechanics described in an unusual way". Such an interpretation is based on the fact that, according to all experiments, the canonical description of quantum mechanics is correct. Indeed in Elementary Cycles all the axioms of ordinary quantum mechanics are derived from a simple single postulate of "intrinsic periodicity" (see discussion above about de Broglie). The theory is also able to derive from cyclic relativistic dynamics the Feynman formulation and the Bohr-Sommerfeld formulation of quantum mechanics, as well as many non trivial quantum phenomena described in the references. Reading the demonstrations backwards Elementary Cycles say the physical principle behind the mathematical axioms of quantum mechanics is "intrinsic periodicity".


 * If you cannot decide between (1) (2) or (3) it is because it derives ordinary quantum mechanics in a novel way, though this has its origin in de Broglie Einstein ideas and other fathers of modern physics.
 * I will add a comment about the term spatial recurrence if you wish and try to use wavelength, but the meaning is exactly the same.
 * I have counted 15 peer-reviewed publications on the theory, and similar concepts are expressed in many papers from the Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft (see recent http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548). The idea has been awarded by an international prize from FQXi in 2011 where it has collected good votes from FQXi members and general public. This means that it has passed critics from experts who have accepted its validity as also confirmed by the many publications. In any case you can express your opinion, of course, but it is not up to you to establish if in a theory is "dumb" and if it "deserves to be criticized and ignore" just because you do not understand it (maybe you need more time to read and think about it). N4tur4le (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first part of Steve's comments. It is hard to know the pedigree of each dense statement. For example the fact that "spatial recurrence" is used instead of the more familiar "wavelength" needs to be made explicitly crystal clear. better still, if the source material permits, the term "wavelength" should be used throughout.
 * Another example of obscurity is the way in which Penrose's book Cycles of Time is referenced for a point quite off the main topic of the book, but without saying where in the book the reference may be found. [Update 20:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC) ]: I am told that the relevant passage in Penrose is, "...any individual (stable) [isolated] massive particle plays a role as a virtually perfect clock. [...] In other words, any stable massive particle behaves as a very precise quantum clock, which ticks away with [Compton] frequency [Compton periodicity]." The link to the phrase "elementary cycles" is not made, so the reference does not even support the claim that there is a link - even if one can find it.
 * Whatever the merits of this theory (and I confess I don't understand this word salad well enough even to dismiss it), the article is currently in no state to go live. The originator reverting attempts to be helpful and clean it up does not bode well for it in future. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Steelpillow
 * I have eliminated the word "recurrence" and used wavelength and the term "periodicity" where possible. The point is that Lorentz transformations "mix" space and time as well as energy and momentum, this means that the relativistic transformations "mix" the temporal periodicity and the wavelength of "periodic phenomena" (e.g. relativistic waves). In analogy with the space-time four-vector and the four-momentum, this means that the time periodicity and the wavelength can be written as a four-vector which is named space-time periodicity in the article, see section "Basic formalism and space-time periodicities". Please let me know if there are other similar corrections that can be done.
 * The logic for the link to Penrose is this: from the introduction section of the article you see that "In Elementary Cycles every particle is described as an elementary clock", or from the section "Postulate of elementary space-time cycles" we have "This postulate defining the theory of Elementary Cycles can be equivalently expressed in different ways:
 * Every rest elementary particle is an intrinsically periodic phenomenon of Compton periodicity [1] [8] [8] [2]
 * very rest elementary particle is a reference clock of Compton periodicity [1] [8] [3] [5] [4] [2] [6]
 * In other words "Elementary Cycles", which is a nick name to address this interpretation of quantum mechanics, is equivalent to say "every elementary particle is a reference clock". This is the definition of the theory (Elementary Cycles = every particle is a reference clock). Now, this aspect of elementary particle, for which Elementary Cycles fully derived, has been explicitly pointed out by Penrose who says in his book "any stable massive particle behaves as a very precise quantum clock, which ticks away with [Compton] frequency [Compton periodicity].", or similarly by de Broglie with his Louis_de_Broglie, and others. This aspect is mostly relevant in the description of time flow and causality, also described by Penrose in his book, see section "Time Cycles and Time Flow".
 * I have restore the citations to de Broglie and to Penrose because they were eliminated without checking them carefully. For instance it is now clear for the quote above that Penrose cyclic description is not only about cosmology but it concerns also elementary particles, contrarily to what you said.


 * In general I would really appreciate constructive comments to improve the article. From some comments in this discussion, for example "this is a dumb theory which deserves to be ignored" I see an "a priory" opposition against its validity. It could happen that one manages to get a paper published on a completely dumb theory, but in this case we have too many papers, and journals like Ann.Phys., Europhys.Lett., Found.Phys. are serious scientific journals. The idea has been presented in many important conferences, for instance ICHEP2014 (see announcement of the Higgs boson discovery) and awarded by FQXi. All the people involved in these peer-reviews, publications and conferences would have destroyed such a theory if it were really dumb. Finally, saying that an idea, certified by peer-reviews and suggested by well regarded scientists (Penrose, 't Hooft, de Broglie, etc), "deserve to be ignored" is against the basic principles of Wikipedia to disseminate informations  and not to hide information.
 * I have objective reasons to say that this article is very interesting for wikipedia readers and it is not OR. Therefore I would like to invite you to have a positive and objective attitude about it. I am aware of the fact that it must be largely improved to be published so I would like to ask you for help in this task. Also I think you should seriously try to figure out about the validity and novelty of the approach to quantum mechanics proposed in the article and give me feedback. Thank you N4tur4le (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear all,

I would appreciate help to improve this article draft. References to de Broglie and Penrose were removed without checking them, with this message:
 * rm deBroglie ref (not adequate to establish link) and Penrose ref (his cycles are cosmological)) Steelpillow.

But I have restored them because the link to de Broglie are clearly stated in peer-reviewed papers and it is not true that Penrose cycles are only cosmological but also referred to elementary particles, according to his book.

In the introduction (and repeated in the body of the text) of deBroglie's seminal PhD thesis he said
 * " "we proceed with the assumption of the existence of a certain “periodic phenomenon” of a yet to be determined character, which is to be attributed to each and every isolated energy parcel [elementary particle]” [14]"

Elementary Cycles (which is essentially a nick name) is defined in this way (postulate):
 * Every rest elementary particle is an intrinsically [de Broglie] periodic phenomenon of Compton periodicity [1] [8] [8] [2]

This is explicitly said in every Dolce's peer-revived papers. E.g.:
 * [Elementary Cycles] can be regarded as the natural realization of the de Broglie assumption [of intrinsically periodic phenomena] at the base of wave mechanics (wave-particle duality) [ref. and quotation to de Broglie]. [arXiv:1110.0315, pag.2, Ann.Phys.(2012)]
 *  The key assumption of [Elementary Cycles] is (a generalization of) the de Broglie hypothesis [ref. and quotation to de Broglie] [arXiv:0903.3680, pag.3, Found.Phys.]

Penrose cycles refere also to elementary particle, exactly as in Elementary Cycles. From Penrose book "Cycles of Time", page.93
 *  any stable massive particle behaves as a very precise (quantum) clock, which ticks away with [Compton periodicity].

The basic assumption (postulate) of Elementary Cycles can be equivalently expressed as
 * very rest elementary particle is a reference clock of Compton periodicity [1] [8] [3] [5] [4] [2] [6]

as explicitly said in Elementary Cycles, for instance:
 * As also noted for instance by R. Penrose, under such an assumption of Intrinsic Periodicity (IP) [Elementary Cycles] every isolated particle is a relativistic reference clock [3, 6], i.e. as “clocks directly linking time to a particle’s mass” [7] [arXiv:1305.2802 Introduction, pag.1, Europhys.Lett.]
 *  Indeed, under this assumption of intrinsic periodicity [Elementary Cycles], every isolated elementary particle can be regarded as a reference clock. [arXiv:1110.0315, pag.5, Ann.Phys.(2012)]

All these links cannot be more explicit.

The article is of interest for Wikipedia readers and by far with more reliable sources and rigorous evidences than similar articles already present on Wikipedia, e.g. Scale Relativity, which in comparison are mere conjectures. So, please try to figure out about the idea and give fair feedback. Thank you. N4tur4le (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The original articles on Scale Relativity have been cited a 100+ times. Dolce's articles on "Elementary Cycles" have received hardly any citations, most of which are self-citations. Also "other stuff exists" is not a proper argument. As it stands, I simply do not see "Elementary Cycles" as proposed by Dolce passing the bar for WP:Notability. Note, that being similar to ideas proposed by famous physicists does not make a proposal notable.TR 11:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have problems with this draft at many levels. First, Dolce does not give a name to his ideas - the phrase "elementary cycles" is one he uses occasionally among several others which he uses more often, and appears to have been adopted by N4tur4le without independent reference. The phrase is in effect empty of meaning, as there is no reliable source defining it. Another problem is that, while most cited authors such as Mueller and de broglie treat the quanta themselves as intrinsically cyclic, Dolce's essays claim that the underlying spacetime is intrinsically cyclic. I cannot yet fathom his reasoning on this, but it appears to mark his theory out as something not only novel but unsupported by the cited authors. A third problem is that N4tur4le seems unable as yet to grasp the nature of original research or of citation. Just because someone says something equivalent, this does not make the link explicit, only implicit. To claim on that basis that it is explicit constitutes OR. It is only when Dolce makes the explicit claim, that we can also make it explicit. Furthermore, we need to cite Dolce but not say de Broglie, since Dolce cites authors such as de Broglie in order to make his claim, while de Broglie himself does not make the explicit claim. This kind of issue makes it impossible to discuss the content sensibly and leads to constructive edits being reverted by someone who appears incapable of understanding why they have been made. Whatever the merits of Dolce's ideas, this article is not going to do them justice unless and until the originator is prepared to let more experienced editors fix it up. You cannot both ask for help because you are out of your depth and then reject that help because you still don't understand yet. There are other systemic problems, but these will do for now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear TR,
 * Elementary Cycles was awarded by an international prize from FQXi in 2011 where it has collected good votes from FQXi members, jury panel and general public. Is this an element of WP:Notability?N4tur4le (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. Winning fourth place in an essay contest (with 10 others) might help towards notability of the author (but not reaching the bar in this case), but does not make the idea notable. The fact that the "winning" essay has not been noted by the scientific community (it has received only 2 self-citations), confirms the fact that it is not notable.
 * I fear you are wasting your time here. The subject is simply not notable. If it ever gets accept for creation, it will almost instantly be flagged for deletion, and will be deleted. I am sorry about the amount of work you clearly put into this, but I am afraid nothing will come from it.TR 08:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Steelpillow (Talk),
 * All this problem seem to be caused by my inexperience with Wikipedia editing. My apologies but I am struggling to enter into the logic of it. Evidently I am missing something, so, from now on, I will let more experienced editors fix it and follow editors advice.
 * Problem 1) The nick name "Elementary Cycles" is arbitrarily extracted from the paper titles "elementary spacetime cycles" and "elementary cycles of time". It seems to be used as synonymous of the terms "intrinsic periodicity", "periodic phenomenon" or "vibrating string". Elementary particles are in fact described as vibrations associated to elementary spacetime cycles, similarly to a particle in a box. Any suggestion for the most suitable name to be attribute to this interpretation of QM?
 * Problem 2) The cyclic description of spacetime (also described as compact spacetime with boundary conditions) is the characterizing and novel aspect of Elementary Cycles. Dolce motivation for this is that 1) spacial and general relativity fix the metric of spacetime (differential structure) without saying the size of spacetime 2) in QM space-time always appears in phasors (waves of fields) as angular variables whose periodicities are determined by the de Broglie - Planck relation and the Planck constant. These boundary conditions are the quantization condition of the theory, in analogy with a particle in a box.
 * Problem 3) You are right, I cannot grasp the difference here. You say It is only when Dolce makes the explicit claim, that we can also make it explicit. But in Dolce papers he says "[Elementary Cycles is] the natural realization of the de Broglie assumption [of intrinsically periodic phenomena]" or "it is based on the de Broglie assumption of periodic phenomenon" or "every particle can be though of as a de broglie internal clock" add the explicit quotation of de Broglie hypothesis. In the first Dolce's paper [arXiv.0903.3680, Found.Phys] the name "de Broglie" appears 44 times, 57 times in [arXiv:1110.0315, Ann.Phys]. The citation to de Broglie can be removed, but how is possible to mention this more or less implicit link to de Broglie idea in the article?  Similar arguments hold for the citation to Penrose and Dolce's claim As also noted for instance by R. Penrose, under such an assumption of Intrinsic Periodicity (IP) [Elementary Cycles] every isolated particle is a relativistic reference clock [3, 6], i.e. as “clocks directly linking time to a particle’s mass” [7] [arXiv:1305.2802 Introduction, pag.1, Europhys.Lett.]''


 * This was my first article on Wikipedia so I have a lot to learn. I have invested time to write this article and I do not want to waste it. Moreover I firmly believe that this subject is of interest to Wikipedia readers for its novelty, its historical motivations and its pedagogic value (by assuming "Elementary cycles" aspects of QM mechanics are derived in a rather intuitive way). I will follow your indications trying to become a good Wikipedia contributor.


 * We cannot invent a name for this theory, we have to wait until a reliable source publishes a name. Meanwhile, if the topic proves notable, we will just have to pick a descriptive title for the article but be clear in the text that it is not the name of the theory.
 * You say that, "In QM space-time always appears in phasors (waves of fields) as angular variables whose periodicities are determined by the de Broglie - Planck relation and the Planck constant. These boundary conditions are the quantization condition of the theory, in analogy with a particle in a box." Is this something that Dolce takes as well-known, or something he makes as a novel proposal? My admittedly limited understanding of the conventional approach is that the quanta are what appear as phasors, in a classical or at best relativistic spacetime.
 * As an example of citation, if Dolce writes say, "my formulation is equivalent to the de Broglie description of a particle as a cyclic wave," then we might write something like, "Dolce claims that his mathematical formulation is equivalent to the de Broglie description as a cyclic wave.[cite where Dolce says that]". We do not need to cite the de Broglie paper because what de Broglie wrote is not at issue here. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a scientific paper.
 * As an example of Original Research, if Penrose writes say, "every particle has an intrinsic periodicity" and we define Elementary Cycles to be the same thing, then it would still be original research to write, "According to Penrose, every particle has an [Elementary Cycle]." &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * N4tur4le, It is part of standard textbook quantum mechanics to say "A system with energy E has a wavefunction whose phase oscillates with period h/E (in the Schrödinger picture)". This fact, which no one disputes, is already well described on wikipedia, especially the article Stationary state, not to mention in every quantum mechanics textbook. I infer that Elementary Cycles Theory is stating something more than this uncontroversial fact--otherwise there would be no point in you or Dolce inventing this term ("Elementary Cycles Theory") or writing these articles about it.


 * That means, when de Broglie or Penrose or whoever makes some statement about periodic cycles, you have to figure out whether they are saying the obvious and uncontroversial statement I wrote above ("A system with energy E has a wavefunction whose phase oscillates with period h/E (in the Schrödinger picture)"), or are actually making a statement that goes beyond that to specifically support Elementary Cycles Theory. I have the impression that it is the former. --Steve (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Steve (talk),
 * Thank you for your comments. These help me to show the analogies and differences with respect to ordinary textbooks. The difference between ordinary textbook and Elementary Cycles Theory (ECT, could be this a good name for the article?) is very subtle. ECT can be defined with the same exact words used by de Broglie to define the wave-particle duality: in short "every elementary particles is a periodic phenomenon". ECT brings this de Broglie statement to its extreme consequences (if you allow me the analogy, it is like relativity brings the extreme consequences the fact that the speed of light is constant). The de Broglie statement is raised to a postulate. From a mathematical point of view this means, for free relativistic particles, to impose de Broglie periodicity as constraint to the particles.To see how this goes "beyond" undulatory mechanics we can consider the analogy of de Broglie periodic phenomena with sound waves or strings in a piano. Ordinary QM is like saying that a "de Broglie periodic phonomenon" of period $$T = 1 / f$$ is a (monocromatic) wave with frequency $$ f$$ (from the Planck relation this yields the energy $$E = h f$$ which is then quantized by imposing commutation relations to obtain quantized energy $$E_n = n E = n h f $$). In ECT the "de Broglie periodic phenomenon" is described as the set of all the harmonic waves allowed by the periodicity, similarly to a vibrating string in a piano, the possible quantized frequencies are $$f_n = n h f / T$$ (the Planck relation here yeilds directly to quantize energy $$E_n = n E = n h / T = n h f$$ without any further quantization, the condition of periodicity is the quantization condition, see section "derivation of the commutation relations"). In both cases "particles are periodic phenomena": in ordinary QM they are represented as monochromatic waves (then quantized), in ECT they are represented has all the possible harmonics waves allowed by the periodicity (this harmonic set is already quantized).   Examples are given in sections "Black Body radiation" and "free relativistic particle".
 * This shows that the links with de Broglie is exact if expressed in words, but the mathematics goes "beyond". Can you see now the difference? The point is: how can I describe this link to de Broglie (and Penrose) in the article? Thank you.N4tur4le (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S.:The link to Penrose seems to be more direct, because in both cases the assumption that "every elementary particle is a reference clock" is limited to the interpretation of the arrow of time (as far as I know de Broglie never discussed the topic of the arrow of time). For Penrose book "But the key point is still that to build a clock we do need mass. Massless particles (e.g. photons) alone cannot be used to make a clock, because their frequencies would have to be zero; a photon would take until eternity [infinite Compton period] before its internal ‘clock’ gets even to its first ‘tick’! This fact will be of great significance for us later." In ECT this is expressed by saying "the internal clock of the photon is frozen". I must read Penrose's book but here he seems to decompose the flow of time in terms of these clock ticks similarly to ECT, see section "time cycles and time flow".

Having tried to introduce Dolce's work in one or two places, it is clear to me that he has not yet received sufficient independent review for his work to be accepted on Wikipedia. I think the best we can do is keep an eye out for suitable references to appear. I'll keep trying with M&uuml;ller's work (below) for now, as there does seem to be more substance out there. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Mueller's model
A useful source here seems to be Mueller, H.; "Quantum mechanics, matter waves, and moving clocks", to be published in the proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi" 2013, arXiv:1312.6449v1. Here is some of his preliminary explanation:

The clock is then constructed not from the single frequency a de Broglie wave but from a sum of all possible waves and the mathematics closely parallels the Dirac derivation. One step Mueller does not appear to take is to explicitly view these clocks as characteristic of the underlying spacetime, although they are clearly being used to derive relativistic phenomena. As such, I am not sure if it constitutes a novel interpretation so much as an advance in conventional understanding. Nor am I sure if Dolce (see above) is stepping beyond Mueller or not. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dolce and Muller papers have some overlaps but they are mainly focused on different aspects of "periodic phenomena". Muller steps beyond Dolce in metrology phenomenology of these particles clocks and also presents an interesting analysis of Dirac particle (zitterbewegung) which in Dolce works is only mentioned ("the generalization to Dirac particle is provided by the zitterbewegung "). On the other hand, Dolce steps beyond Muller in theoretical aspects of quantum mechanics. Muller derivation of the path integral frankly doesn't add anything new to ordinary Feynman formulation. As in Feynman derivation he assumes that particle can take different paths without giving a fundamental motivation for the composition of single infinitesimal classical paths. Moreover fundamental aspects for the cunstruction of the path integral, such as orthogonality and completeness relations, hilbert space, etc, are completely missing. In Dolce's view the composition of infinitesimal classical path is a direct consequence of the infinite equivalent paths with different winding numbers that a periodic phenomenon can undertake, section "feynman path integral". Th quantization of the energy is also missing in Muller while in Dolce is directly linked to the assumption of periodicity.
 * If the "clock is constructed not from the fingle frequency a de Broglie wave but from a sum of all possible waves" then it seems to be in agreement with Dolce. N4tur4le (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I am about to get lost here. How does your suggestion that "fundamental aspects for the construction of the path integral ... are completely missing" fit with Mueller's claim that "We will thus arrive at a space-time path integral ..."? Is it a different path integral? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just meant that Dolce derivation of the path integral from particle clocks seems to be more rigorous (though Mueller's paper is more accurate in other aspects) because I don't see at the moment some ingredients in Mueller derivation which I suppose are given for granted, but I am still studying the paper. In any case, Mueller claim that from space-time path integral can be derived in terms of particle clocks is in agreement with Dolce's. N4tur4le (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Mueller also cites D. Dolce, Eur. Phys. Lett. 102, 31002 (2013), which according to EPL is "Elementary spacetime cycles", where Mueller remarks that, "The description of matter waves as matter-wave clocks has ,,, recently been applied to ,,, the foundations of quantum mechanics." &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Steelpillow (Talk)
 * I edited introduction the article trying to follow your advice. Could you check whether I am moving in the correct direction? Then I will continue with rest of the article. I have specified that the name Elementary Cycle is descriptive and the theory at the moment has not a specific name.
 * I have used your example of citation using as much as possible quotations from Dolce's papers. For the remaining part of the introduction I have rephrased Dolce's claims avoiding plagiarism but keeping the original meaning. So every single sentence is directly extrapolated from the papers.
 * The imposition of boundary conditions to relativistic waves as quantization condition is the central part of Dolce's proposal and it is definitively a novel aspect. It is not sufficient to introduce phasor to describe quantum particles, in ordinary quantum mechanics you need also to quantize them by imposing commutation relations (or boundary condition is semi-classical non relativistic quantum mechanics such as in the particle in a box). In Elementary Cycles the commutation relations are replaced by the condition of periodicity, from which the commutation relation can be derived (see section "commutation relation" in the article). The quantization through boundary condition is extended to relativistic quantum mechanics. Contrarily to common opinion the whole quantum mechanics can be derived from semi-classical arguments (waves + boundary conditions) and not the opposite as commonly thought (semi-classical physics is a particular approximation of quantum mechanics).  N4tur4le (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You are certainly moving in the right direction. I am beginning to wonder whether a section in the article on geometrodynamics might be a good place to introduce the subject, as Dolce has so few citations as yet to give him credibility. I have tried to understand his ideas well enough to draft a very simple and non-mathematical introduction at User:Steelpillow/sandbox. Is it accurate? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think another good start would be to create an article on the Matter wave clock. This is one of Müller's more notable achievements and can stand as an article in its own right. It will then allow a shorter explanation of the theoretical models and interpretation, since it can be referred back to. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I took the plunge and created a stub article on the matter wave clock. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See my comments at Talk:Matter wave clock.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Steelpillow,
 * Your introduction is interesting but I have some comments to do in order to keep things as simple as possible. Before this, I would like to remember to people involved in this discussion about clocks, particles and waves (or them as you wish) that we are discussing about science. Claims are scientifically verified if they are stated in peer-reviewed papers (reliable sources) and these must be taken for correct if not falsified by subsequent publications. Moreover wikipedia has rules that we mus try to apply without personal bias. Without taking in mind this we will never conclude this discussion, as it demands us to dig into the history of physics and into foundational aspects of nature. My opinion is that, we should first try to understand the historical origin (de Broglie, Schrodinger, Bohr, Penrose, Ferber ...) of the idea and arrive to the latter developments (Dolce, Muller, Catillon, 't Hooft, ...). The hystorical nature of the subject and the deep connections with the wave-particle suality and quantum mechanics in general could generate one (or more) articles of pedagogical interest for wikipedia readers. For a very interesting hystorical introduction to the idea and de Broglie wave particle duality I absolutely recommend the following paper by Farber A missing link: What is behind de Broglie's “periodic phenomenon”? link (among the various interesting things I have discovered in this paper that Penrose quotation about particle clock must be anticipated to the '70).
 * On the merit of Steelpillow's introduction it is absolutely inessential to refers to spin 1/2 particles to introduce particle's internal clocks as proposed by Muller (also because his paper is not published as long as I can see). All the introduction can be equivalently more intuitively referred to spinless. This is essentially the wave particle duality as discovered by de Broglie: the Lagrangian of a relativistic particles can be written in the phase of a periodic phenomenon (e.g. a wave) and, vice versa, the phase of a periodic phenomenon can be used to describe the motion a a relativistic particle (regardless the spin). This is clear from his 1924 PhD thisis, chapter the "action principle in undulatory mechanics" and phase harmony, or wave particle around page 7. The idea goes like that (the energy E is the Hamiltonian H of the particle, dx / dt = q): an infinitesimal wave displacement is $$Exp[-i(H dt - p dx)/hbar] = Exp[-i d t(H - p q )/hbar] = Exp[i d t L/hbar] = $$ where the lagrangian of the particle is $$ L = p q - H$$. This known aspect of the wave-particle duality is described in the article Elementary Cycles, section "Path Integral" and more in deep in Dolce's papers, eq.(65-67) for the free particle and eq.(86-88) for interaction. Same consideration holds for the covariance of the formalism. The relation between the particle internal clock and spin 1/2 particles, including the geometrodynamic description of the Dirac equation in terms of space-time and Dirac matrices are already known from the zitterbewegung  or other papers from Hastenes. Her I see contraddiction with Muller as the electron after a de Broglie period from spin up passes to spin down so that the real periodicity of the Dirac equation is twice the de Broglie periodicity, according to the zitterbewegung.
 * Finally I want to let you note that Muller experiment of a clock linking time and mass has been anticipated by Catillon at all in 2007 link Experimental observation compatible with the particle internal clock.
 * Something definitively wrong is to say that a space-time path integral that is equivalent to the Dirac equation. The Dirac equation (or similarly the Schrodinger equation for spinless particles) is not sufficient to describe the whole QM of a particle: you need to impose anti-commutation the the Dirac field to have QM (or commutation for spinless particles). On the other hand the Path integral is completely sufficient to have QM (it contains Dirac or Schrodinger equation, and anti-commutation or commutation relations). Here I also see something not really convincing of Muller's arguments: the Path Integral of a spin 1/2 particle necessary involves Grassmann variables which are missing in Muller's paper. I suggest to not emphases too much on Muller work at least until it will not be published, similar statements and links between quantum mechanics and particle clock are present in Dolce's papers for bosonic particles while aspects related to the Dirac particles are given by the zitterbewegung.

More thoughts in the next edit. N4tur4le (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection Tensor density?
The page might need some protection for a while. Some ip know-it-all doesn't behave. See history and talk page. YohanN7 (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP seems to know (at least something) about the subject, but has been pushing a POV (one convention over another) for some time, simply ignoring that consensus (as usual) should be reached when an edit war has occurred/is occurring, and in the meanwhile, before people agree, the original version should be kept. (He/she is aware of this.) I have personally not been involved except for a couple of recent reverts and pleas to him/her to discuss the matter on the talk page. YohanN7 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And now he/she is editing other peoples posts (changing their meaning) on the talk page. Here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATensor_density&diff=615334072&oldid=615333828 YohanN7 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Using animations for quantum physics - Talk:Quantization (physics)
Dear Physics experts,

Xxanthippe suggested us to bring this issue to this page so that we can settle our debate. In brief : we added an animation to the article about quantization and this animation belongs to a group of animations which can be found in commons.wiki or in this website. Xxanthippe considers that they are not serious on scientific side. We disagree and give in the quantization article talk page all the references and quotations to explain why. Could others give their opinion in the talk page of quantization or here ? Thanks in advance. Jubobroff — Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Schön scandal
See talk:Schön scandal on whether the article should be about the scandal or the man, and thus the name of the article would be changed. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict on Measurement problem
There is an edit conflict developing over this addition to the introduction to Measurement problem. Opinions from quantum mechanics knowledgeable people would be welcome. The Talk page discussion is at Talk:Measurement problem/Archive 1. -- Chetvorno TALK 06:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Planetary nebula FAR
User:Arianewiki1 has nominated Planetary nebula 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles on Atmospheric Refraction
I noticed quite a few articles with closely related topics. I would like to discuss a new structure, before starting any merging or clean-up.

Current articles and their contents:
 * 1) Atmospheric refraction
 * Focus on calculation and the impact on astronomical observation
 * 1) Mirage
 * Concise verbal description of the cause containing a brief discussion of the temperature gradients
 * Distinction between inferior and supperior mirrag
 * "Mini-Article" about Fata Morgana:
 * Main article link to (4)
 * Short description of various aspects
 * Description of two examples
 * 1) Mirage of astronomical objects
 * Short section "Mirage vs Refraction"
 * Elaborate descriptions of different phenomena containing many images and historical accounts:
 * Inferior mirage
 * Mock mirage (very short)
 * Novaya Zemlya effect (7) (Longer than main article)
 * Green flash and green rim (6) (Historical Accounts are not contained in the main article, but otherwise the main article is of much better quality)
 * List of other effects causing similar observations, but "Not a mirage"
 * 1) Fata Morgana (mirage)
 * 2) Looming and similar refraction phenomena
 * 3) Green flash
 * 4) Novaya Zemlya effect

unfinished, will continue --Murata (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IPO: An Inclined Planes system Optimization Algorithm
Dear editors: Is this a notable topic? Should the old AfC submission be kept and improved, or deleted as a stale draft? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The topic is valid but I am not sure if it is (yet) notable enough for its own article. Certainly, the draft only manages a couple of badly-written lines once it gets past the excessive background waffle. If this were to be saved it would need a better title too, I don't myself think it worth rescuing, better to start afresh. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is perhaps more mathematics than physics. I agree with Steelpillow. There is only one reference pertinent to the topic of the article, namely the last one. I found another one by the same authors, but no independent reference. I doubt the topic crosses our notability threshold. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on the above discussion I have deleted the draft under db-g13. It can be refunded if the topic becomes more notable in the future.  Thanks for taking time to investigate. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Geiger-Marsden experiment
I am requesting a reassessment of the Geiger-Marsden experiment article, as I have completely rewritten it. I think it deserves a better score.Kurzon (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with Talk:Alan_Guth
Are there any people knowledgeable about astronomy with some time to look at the discussion above, as well as the recent edits to Alan Guth? My judgment is that there is an editor who seems very eager to make a counterfactually-titled section based on a very obscure interview quote, who has been persistently dominating the talk page and then restoring his edits against all comers, labeling any edit that removes his favorite version as "vandalism". However, I can't very well counter-edit against him on my own, and I would appreciate other people to take a look at what has been written and weigh in on whether it makes any sense. If you agree with me that the whole premise is heavily slanted and counterfactual, it couldn't hurt to watch the page and make sure the additions are kept out. Thanks for having a look, SCZenz (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up to SCZenz's request, there hass been an edit war discussion created to come to a resolution regarding the editor in question. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EPS Europhysics Prize
Dear physics experts: This draft was never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. Is this a notable prize? Right now the title redirects to European Physical Society. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. The European Physical Society is a prestigious institution, it awards a number of prizes, the people who receive them take them seriously (e.g. of the two Nobel prize winners I just looked at, Andre Geim lists it in between his Nobel prize and his knighthoods, and it's included in Georg Bednorz's official Nobel biography). It's not the most important article that WP could have, but it certainly passes the threshold for notability. Djr32 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay; I have added a few references and moved the article to mainspace. It may need some TLC from someone here, since I don't know anything about physics.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Notable or POV?
Anyone interested in expressing an opinion on the divergence defined on arbitrary curvilinear coordinates as $$\operatorname{div} F = \partial_i F^i$$, as one editor insists in Stress–energy_tensor? —Quondum 04:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014
Is anyone from WikiProject Physics going to be at Wikimania in London next month? I'm fairly local, it might be nice to meet some of the names I've been interacting with over the years! Djr32 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Outline of biophysics
FYI, "Outline of biophysics" has been requested to be renamed to Biophysical techniques; for the discussion, see talk:Outline of biophysics -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Laura Mersini-Houghton
There's what seems to be some sort of POV editing going on at Laura Mersini-Houghton by a fluctuating IP editor. By their own admission they are not a native English speaker, and as far as I can tell they don't really understand the original research policy, despite my attempts to explain it. I don't want it to turn into a back-and-forth edit war here, so I think the best thing to do is to get a few extra eyes on the article to establish a proper consensus. The discussion is here. Thanks. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 07:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been keeping a bit of an eye on this article, as you might imagine, given that one of the editors there also works on Alan Guth and the discussion seems to have many issues in common with that page: a heavy focus on a particular scientific priority question, some apparent misunderstandings of the relevant Wikipedia policies, and rather confrontational treatment of those who disagree. I have a sneaking suspicion that neither you nor that editor would find me the most helpful person to show up and put in my 2¢ at this time, but if there's an eventual conclusion that the discussion will not lead to consensus accepted by that editor then I would be happy to pitch in with an edit or two.  I think really the lede should be gracefully dodging the priority issue; part of the trouble is that, by itself, the idea in question (of "other universes" pulling on astrophysical objects) is not a very strong scientific claim.  Its importance depends on the influence the idea had on others, and also on the degree to which it is made quantitative and tied to a wider model, and this is of course precisely why we rely on secondary sources rather than date stamps when we say who was first to have an idea!  In any case, I do encourage other editors to have a look and see if they can find a way to weigh in helpfully.  -- SCZenz (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I support this edit, although I'd suggest "argued" --> "argues" in the last sentence. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With a GS h-index of somewhere around 11 in a highly cited field this BLP might have a hard time passing WP:Prof at AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Indeed, it seems to have been a near thing: Articles_for_deletion/Laura_Mersini-Houghton -- SCZenz (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I see that I voted myself! Xxanthippe (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
 * I don't actually care for cosmology or that sort of thing, so I find it hard to judge exactly to what degree this is common, but she or her work (with her mentioned by name and quoted) seems to get profiled or covered in the mainstream media pretty frequently, so criterion 7 or just WP:GNG may apply. I only know this because for whatever reason there were about a dozen citations for the idea that she's a proponent of the multiverse theory, which spanned around a 7 year stretch, some of which explicitly mentioned her as being "well-known" or something like that. She was also featured in some BBC documentary as well, according to the article (I didn't watch the thing). Maybe that's a normal amount of media coverage for a cosmologist, though. Either way, seems like the "no consensus" result was primarily because while most people were in favor of a keep, they were lukewarm about it. Based on what I'm seeing here, I feel about the same way (weak keep).


 * By the way,, I'm not sure that your presence over there would be disruptive or anything (I was glad to see your perspective about the priority thing), I can see an argument for avoiding accusations of some kind of recruiting or canvassing on my part (though it's not like we were on precisely the same side in the discussions over at Alan Guth, so it'd be hard to make a case for some sort of meatpuppetry/false consensus argument). I'd say it's entirely up to you - I would have no objections to your involvement. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 11:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)