Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive July 2017

Emergent gravity
The article Emergent gravity used to redirect to Induced gravity (proposed by Andrei Sakharov in 1967) and is currently redirected to Entropic gravity (proposed by Erik Verlinde in 2009). Both target article state that their topic was synonymous to "emergent gravity". A quick Google search seems to provide evidence that the current link seems to be ok: most of the current websites talking about "emergent gravity" seem to talk about Verlinde's ideas. However, here is my question: is the mentioning of "emergent gravity" in the first line of "induced gravity" still ok? (in particular if before 2009 the term was clearly used for induced gravity). In this case, possibly a disambiguation page linking to both articles would be more appropriate than the current redirect to only Verlinde's notion. --Dogbert66 (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not clear to me that induced gravity and entropic gravity are distinct from each other. Could it be that they should be merged? JRSpriggs (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Simple argument: Verlindes theory builds on String theory, Black Hole thermodynamics and the Holographic Principle, which were developed during the 40 years between the two theories, and hence were unknown to Sakharov. Hence: different things. Unfortunately Induced gravity and Entropic gravity share many "See also"-Links, most of which should be removed from either article. --Dogbert66 (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Solved via changing Emergent gravity into a disambiguation page. --Dogbert66 (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

COI request at Synchrotron Radiation Source
Hello. An editor with a conflict of interest at Talk:Synchrotron Radiation Source is waiting for a review on information they want added to the article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Cleaned up Selwyn Wright‎
I did some cleaning of the article and left a message at Talk:Selwyn Wright. More might be needed. It was a link to http://new-relativity.com/ in the article that made me look into it. That page says: "New Relativity (NR) corrects and extends Einstein’s relativity. Correction allows Einstein’s relativity to be explained naturally in terms of a propagation medium, i.e. in a causal (predictable) way, allowing new and interesting predictions regarding time travel, colonizing the universe and solving the theory of everything." Sounds fringy to me. - DVdm (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the GS citations, it looks possible that the subject would not pass WP:Prof. Fringe category should be replaced. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC).

Deep Carbon Observatory looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar
Of possible interest to WikiProject members: The Deep Carbon Observatory (DCO) is looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar. DCO is an initiative involving about 1,000 chemists, physicists, geologists, and biologists collaborating to study various aspects of carbon deep within Earth. The project's Engagement Team, which is based at the University of Rhode Island (URI), would like to facilitate improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to deep carbon by providing an experienced Wikipedian with access to 9,000 deep carbon-related publications as well as full remote access to the URI library's online resources (databases, ebooks, etc.). The Visiting Scholar will also receive a $3,000 honorarium and, if convenient, will be invited to URI for a visit (expenses paid). The Visiting Scholars program connects Wikipedians with educational institutions based on shared interest in a topic. Any editor in good standing is welcome to apply. Professional experience is not a requirement. For more information, see the Deep Carbon Observatory Visiting Scholars page. If you have questions, you can ping me here or leave a message on my talk page. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Updated. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)