Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive June 2007

NPOV/COI Help?
I came upon a physics page that looks to have some big rules violations, see Unruh's interferometer, Talk:Unruh's interferometer. I don't have expertise either in that area of physics nor (more importantly) with wikipedia rules, and since my attempt to edit was met with a very emotional response from the author/subject (yes, the same person), I'm hoping someone here will back me up. At issue is not whether this guy is right or wrong (which I don't know or care about), but whether he should be using the wikipedia to advance his views. See also User_talk:Christopher_Thomas for more background. Thanks.PhysPhD 03:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * you're right. a one-sided presentation of the author's, possibly still ongoing, back-and-forth with Prof. Unruh. unencyclopedic in attitude, content, and scope, IMHO. Mct mht 19:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but there is nothing emotional. So far various researchers misatribute my words to Unruh. People must know what Unruh have said, which is apparently wrong. A lot of people analyze the experiment in the correct way, reach to conclusions published already by me, and then misatribute the correct analysis to Unruh. This is not tolerable. If one wants to present Unruh's position then he MUST know what Unruh said in his papers. So I have requested PhysPhD to read first, before he edit something on the topic. I have NOT requested PhysPhD do cease editting on the topic. Currently the article presents two positions, one of Unruh, and one shared by me and Tabish Qureshi and even Shahriar Afshar, who spotted also error in Unruh's analysis. All presented facts are correct, no person has been misrepresented. Danko Georgiev MD 02:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Particular misunderstanding is here Talk:Afshar_experiment see prof. Tabish Qureshi misrepresented Unruh attributing him MY THESIS. Week ago before Qureshi's post the same error occured by Art Carlson, wikieditor with PhD in physics, who also attributed MY THESIS to Unruh and after prof. Unruh posted in Wikipedia, Art Carlson appologized for misrepresenting Unruh's thesis. It is easy to misattribute my thesis to Unruh, because my thesis is easily reached by logical reasoning, while Unruh's thesis is apparently mathematically false. However people are not careful in their reading of Unruh, and BELIEVE that Unruh cannot be wrong, so the correct thesis must be Unruh's thesis. This is an appeal to authority and has nothing to do with science Danko Georgiev MD 02:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Keshe Theory NOTABLE  New theory about the genration and control of gravitational fields  Notable
Needing help

I have explained this problem to editor of physics porthole and I was advised to come to this section.

I have developed a user page with help of the advisor of the wikipedia help line over past two or three weeks.

The subject is about gravitational field forces and is under the user name of  Keshe Theory.

I would like to move this article or part of it into a part of talk where it can be commented on or corrected or debated, but not for it to be deleted.

My technology has already been assessed by different governmental and scientific organisations, and this is for the first time I am putting it in public domain for discussion, even though I have internet site with over 30000 hit per month.

I have already developed prototypes and tested the outcomes, and in some cases the independent investigations have been paid by federal governments.

Can you please advise how to do this, or direct me to the way it has to be done.

Thank you in advance Keshe Theory 20:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC) keshe


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not the proper forum for your physics conjectures. That kind of thing just has no place here.PhysPhD 03:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The page User:Keshe Theory looks like an article on the Keshe Theory in user space. This is the equivalent of using Wikipedia to advertise the Keshe Theory without actually creating an article. This is also highly inappropriate; the guidelines at User page state that user pages should not be used for "extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia", and this user page certainly does discuss a topic that is unrelated to Wikipedia. I will ask the user to remove this content voluntarily. If he does not, I will bring this to Miscellany for deletion, which looks like the best place for this type of thing. Dr. Submillimeter 22:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Liquid is theChemistry Collaboration of the Month for June
Liquid is an important article for both physics and chemistry, but currently it's a very weak article - a poor Start-Class. The chemistry folks will be working on this a little during June (our COTM is not too active these days, though), we'd appreciate some help for physics if any of you have the time. Thanks, Walkerma 04:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Edgerck is conducting tests on physics articles
See here. I think he is tesing how easy or difficult it is to include false information in wiki articles while sticking to the wiki rules. Count Iblis 17:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * His experiment does not seem well-designed to me. His data will suffer from the vagueness and debatability of the issues he is trying to collect data on. He did remove some comments on article talk pages left by User:Count Iblis here and here, which is a violation of WP:TALK, though Count Iblis has not complained. He is using up some of the time of experienced editors trying to respond to what seem to be eccentric changes to articles. Conceivably Special relativity, Introduction to special relativity and Mass in special relativity might wind up better-referenced after some of this furor dies down, but on the whole his experiment does not seem beneficial to Wikipedia. EdJohnston 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said at Talk:Special relativity, this sounds like a violation of Don't create hoaxes which, among other things, says "Please do not attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it.". JRSpriggs 07:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Big Bang FARC
Big Bang is now on Featured Article Removal Candidates. Anville 17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not any more. --ojs 23:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances
Started monumental paper, please feel free to chip in. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeking an adopter familiar with technical writing
Hello, I'm Peter. I'm currently a 6th form student, and I'm interested in being able to make some contribution to Science and Mathematics related articles, but primarily Physics related articles. I know that there is a special section for adoptees to seek adopters, but most of the users putting themselves forward for the program seem to be involved in reverting vandalism, fixing formatting, patrolling recent changes etc. But very few are involved in writing articles, and none in the area of the more technical article topics like Physics.

I don't require a lot of time. I am fine with the editing syntax and the way Wikipedia works, and I am very willing to look things up and try to find my own answers. What I need is someone who can occasionally check up on my writing and tell me how to improve - preferably someone who has experience in writing technical articles. I also sometimes have trouble knowing what copyright to choose when uploading images. I would be really grateful if someone who meets these needs could adopt me, though I appreciate that any experienced technical writer may not have time to take on an adoptee.

I'm sorry if I've posted this in the wrong section. I know it isn't related directly to the Physics WikiProject, but I though this would be my best bet at getting the sort of person I'm looking for.

Thank you. Iomesus 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the adoptee program, but if you ever have a question or want me to look over an article feel free to ask me on my talk page. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kindness, Laura. I've added your user page to my favourites. Iomesus 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast your vote at the energy article straw poll
A new user turned the energy article into a disambig page; we are trying to fix the problem presently. Please cast your vote at straw-poll overview, on the proposed solution. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging astronomy and astrophysics
See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomy. This really needs to be done. Dr. Submillimeter 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New archivist needed for this talk page
I have been archiving (or overseeing the archiving by Werdnabot, before it quit) this talk page since about October 2006. However, due to a need to focus more on making money rather than spending it, I will probably have to drastically reduce or stop editing Wikipedia at some uncertain time in the next three months or sooner. Therefore, I would like to resign as unofficial archivist of this talk page and ask someone else to step forward and take over the job. Recently, my practice has been to archive a contiguous block of sections beginning with the first one on the page roughly once per week. I have been taking sections which are about 18 days old or older. I create a new archive file for each month and begin it with a header and an invocation of the "talkarchive" template. The new person may wish to continue this practice or change it; that is up to him. He might also consider using which is being used by  (formerly CMummert) to archive Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. JRSpriggs 07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to archive this page again. So someone else will have to do it. JRSpriggs 09:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've set up MiszaBot to do archiving here. Unless I screwed up the settings, it should archive discussions older than 21 days, starting a new archive whenever the current one gets bigger than 128kB.  If someone prefers other settings, they're easy to change.  I think links to the archives from this page still have to be updated manually.  Gnixon 21:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to archive by month, similar to the last 9 months we already have. The way, the truth, and the light 21:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cohesion (chemistry) Scientific Peer Review
Greetings. I'm Sonic is Cool!, formerly Gabycs, and I wish to announce the scientific peer review of Cohesion (chemistry). For those who know about the science of chromatography and its connection to cohesion, I invite you to comment on either the article's talk page or the scientific peer review page for cohesion. Hope you can help! Regards, Sonic is Cool!! 22:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Particle model of matter
Could someone take a look at the recently-created Particle model of matter? I'm not sure if there's anything worthwhile in it; it seems like it should be deleted or redirected. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added the PROD tag since a redirect to Atomic theory doesn't seem necessary. Gnixon 19:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User page for User:Keshe Theory nominated for deletion
The user page for User:Keshe Theory has been nominated for deletion. This is basically an article promoting a pseudoscientific theory on a user page. As an article, it would be deleted because it is not supported by reliable references. Please go comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Keshe Theory. Dr. Submillimeter 09:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This page was deleted. However, the following images are still at Wikipedia Commons:
 * Image:Keshe Fields-cores earth.jpg
 * Image:Keshe Earth-Inner-Cut 300.jpg
 * Image:Keshe Fields-cores.jpg
 * Image:Keshe Solar-system 500.jpg
 * Image:Keshe cola plasma reactor.jpg
 * Image:Keshe generator.jpg
 * Image:Keshe Space2.jpg
 * Could someone get these pages deleted? Thank you,  Dr. Submillimeter 12:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific reason to delete those images? I can't see them fitting any of the criteria laid out here. And you never know, they might be useful to someone else.  (The commons doesn't just exist to serve wikipedia, after all.)--Starwed 22:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These could probably be deleted under the "is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project" criteria. The material promotes a non-notable pseudoscience concept that is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and I do not see where else the material might be used.  Most images cannot be used for anything other than promoting the Keshe Theory.  Many of them have something related to the "Keshe theory" written into the images, and the others show devices related to the theory.  They do not seem like they would be useful for anything.  Dr. Submillimeter 01:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the images are now up for deletion; see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Keshe Theory and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Keshe Space2.jpg. Mike Peel 11:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ... and they have now been deleted. Mike Peel 21:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, the user has contacted me twice asking for his page to be restored (see my talk page). I have directed him to Deletion Review each time, as I do not have any ability to restore the page anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also been contacted with the same text on my talk page - I look forward to seeing if the user starts a review. --Fritzpoll 22:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Heat
I have performed a complex edit on these articles, please see the discussion at Talk:Heat (disambiguation). The way, the truth, and the light 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To complete this change, I would need to have the disambiguation page moved to Heat, but I will not propose that unless I gain consensus for this change. The way, the truth, and the light 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Heat is not the same thing as thermal energy. Confusing the two of them is extremely poor form. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy and is analogous to work being the transfer of mechanical energy. --ScienceApologist 21:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to see ScienceApologist's comments. Therefore, I would like to ask The way, the truth, and the light to refrain from deleting his comments.  Dr. Submillimeter 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To be clear, ScienceApologist added exactly the same response at Talk:Heat (disambiguation), and I think TWTTATL wanted to confine discussion all in one place. (There was probably a better way to suggest this than deletion, though!)--Starwed 07:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and he posted it two other places, too. Anyway, I'd like to see some comments (at either place) about my proposal. The way, the truth, and the light 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please help combat The way, the truth, and the light's inappropriate introduction of misconceptions into the pages related to heat. Thanks all. Also, if there are any administrators here, could they move heat (thermodynamics) back to heat? That was a move that was highly inappropriate. --ScienceApologist 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully understand the distiction in thermodynamics, as I indicated on Talk:Heat (disambiguation) and you willfully ignored in your reply which you inappropriately posted at four different places. I am not introducing any misconceptions. The way, the truth, and the light 21:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Show me one modern reference that uses heat to refer to thermal energy or stop this advocacy. --ScienceApologist 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved back, with pleasure. -- Hoary 11:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath
In case people are interested, The way, the truth, and the light was blocked for edit warring regarding this topic, and ScienceApologist has written a declaration that he has become completely disgusted with Wikipedia and is quitting. Dr. Submillimeter 10:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Losing ScienceApologist would be a great shame. I hope that he will reconsider now that his opponent has been blocked. JRSpriggs 10:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can someone please point to the exact action of The way, the truth, and the light that seemed to be upsetting him so much? I'm honestly a bit confused as to what the fuss was about, and from what I've seen, it seemed to be more a misunderstanding than an actual argument.  --Starwed 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In the future, if anyone has a disagreement with The way, the truth, and the light, I suggest seeking immediate administrator intervention. The editor has a history of edit warring. Dr. Submillimeter 20:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging Rotational Motion
Both Rotational_motion and Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis are on near enough the same topic, and much of the content is shared word for word between both articles. I don't think there is really any dispute over whether they need merging, but what title should they be merged under? I think that 'Rotational motion' is the better option as it keeps things open. Also the article 'Rotation around a moving axis' does not exist, so 'Rotational motion' seems sufficient.

Once merged the article definitely needs some attention. The introduction in particular seems very comparative rather than directly informative. Iomesus 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The simpler title is definitely preferable in my opinion. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 23:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The articles should clearly be merged. Both of them are about what I would call Rotation about a single axis, which would be my preferred title.  This is the level at which first year physics textbooks talk about rotation.  However, rigid objects can make more complicated rotations than just rotating around one axis at a time.  This requires a much more sophisticated mathematical treatment than these articles attempt, which is useful for understanding tumbling projectiles and gyroscopes, among other things. In principle, Rotational motion could be about the general treatment of rotation, but I'm not offering to write it. Cardamon 07:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Magnetic field
Could we get some more eyes over at Magnetic field. I just stumbled onto it a few days ago, and it appears that an anon (81.***) seems rather insistent on passing of high school physics analogies as the real deal. I changed the intro, which had some oversimplification errors in it, using the intro in electric field as a model, which created IMO an accurate yet simple description. However, he/she reverted most of it this morning, I essentially reverted her/him, and I really don't want to be drawn into a revert war - hence my request to the project to bring in more outside eyes before going to a RFC. The anon seems obsessed with Faraday's lines of force, constantly saying the the Lorentz force law cannot explain all magnetic field interactions (like the attraction b/n two bar magnets) and even appears like he/she sees her/himself as a crusader against a conspiracy perpetuated by a physics "the Man" establishment (admittedly, some other knowledgeable editors may have been a bit gruff/short with the anon). Thanks in advance for any help. --FyzixFighter 15:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A while ago I thought I'd take a stab at improving the page, but quickly realized it would take more effort than I was willing to put forth alone. One point: the introduction from a few months ago was mostly ok; you might want to dig back and look at it.  --Starwed 10:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Abeles matrix formalism needs simplification and wikification
It would be greatly helpful if an expert could help simplify and explain Abeles matrix formalism. Anybody game?

-- Guroadrunner 07:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

New information on Lightning Page to Sprites
Appearently, the streeks or tendrils are incorrect. Using a fast past cameral, they found out that they are balls of lightning that shoot down then up at 0.1 the speed of light. Followed the talk page to here. So, not sure who takes care of lightning. Thanks, CarpD 6/12/07. 00:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Livescience article
 * Video evidence
 * older information, 1999
 * I updated the Sprite information, please check my writing if you get a chance. Thanks, CarpD, 6/13/07.

Galileo
Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. 00:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)