Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive September 2008

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything
I started to revert an IP who is adding blog entries, but then noticed other blog entries extant. I'd like a few other eyes looking this over, please : ) - jc37 11:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything
 * I've been looking it over for a long time. It is a difficult article, because some of the most knowledgeable sources are, in fact, the blogs.  (There are zero peer-reviewed journal articles.)  That might mean it's due for a massive pruning, but several editors would be strongly opposed to that. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

List of baryons - Severe factual error on parity?
After reading part of Griffith's book on elementary particle, it seems I've got the sections on parity wrong. Can someone confirm or infirm this? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think the section List of baryons is currently wrong, or grossly over-simplified. A wave function can be symmetric (even), anti-symmetric (odd), or neither (far more likely) regardless of what kind of particle it is. The Parity operator performs a spatial inversion &mdash; replacing $$\vec{x}$$ by $$- \vec{x}$$ &mdash; but it can also change other things. If we simply performed a spatial inversion and did nothing else, a solution to the equations of motion would be mapped to something which is not a solution. Such an operation would not be very useful. So the idea is to modify (change sign or not) the variables in such a way that the Parity operator takes a solution to a solution while also performing a spatial inversion. Variables which must retain the same sign are even. Variables which must change sign are odd. A particle is said to have even parity, if the values of its wave function are even in this sense. The particle is said to have odd parity, if the values of its wave function are odd, i.e. if one must not only flip the function left-to-right, but also impose an additional negation on its values in order for it to still be part of a solution to the equations of motion. Read the section Parity (physics). JRSpriggs (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Atomic models
I created this template so people could quickly-browse atomic models. The skeleton is there, but little meat. Help is appreciated. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Optics question
I made an article Mathematical descriptions of opacity to synthesize and relate the zoo of different ways to describe how quickly light is absorbed in a medium (e.g., complex index of refraction, skin depth, complex permittivity, AC conductivity, etc.). Anyway, a small snag is that I can't figure out whether "attenuation length" and "absorption length" are the same or not (ditto "attenuation coefficient" and "absorption coefficient", their respective reciprocals). The articles Attenuation length and Scattering theory say they're the same; Absorption coefficient says they're different; and the related articles attenuation coefficient and Beer-Lambert law don't address the issue. The textbooks I have on-hand don't seem to address this. Worse, it's very possible that there are multiple conflicting definitions, in which case I'd want to know which fields use which definitions. Does anyone have an answer to this? Thanks! :-) --Steve (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dirac large number hypothesis
I've almost given up trying to provide this article (Dirac large numbers hypothesis) with some respectability. The author of a published paper is basically using the article as an advertisement for his own work and he has twice reverted my edits. Maybe somebody else can restore an objective tone to this article. Thanks. Lucretius (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The author is User:Scottfunkhouser, and indeed, his edits seem more self-promotional than they are informative, irrespective of whether his theory is correct or not. As such, he's fallen into a newcomer trap. Might be good if some old hands intervened and at least pointed out how one goes about doing things in WP. I'd do this myself, except that I am in the embarrasing position of having recently told-off another socially-challenged newcomer on my talk page. In other words, I've been less-than-graceful myself. Sigh. linas (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

article request: spin stabilization
... used in missiles and satellites. Noticed the term during current FAC of AMX-30E Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 07:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RMS power
RMS power has been prodded 70.55.89.214 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gauss' law" versus "Gauss's law"
The Gauss apostrophe convention in this article (and many others) has been changed back and forth at least twice already, and now User:Lingwitt is proposing changing it yet again from its current "Gauss' law" to "Gauss's law". If anyone disapproves, they should engage in a discussion at Talk:Gauss' law.

Personally, I don't care either way. I just would feel bad if Lingwitt spends hours and hours changing the spelling across Wikipedia, only to have someone else later spend hours and hours changing it back yet again. :-) --Steve (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Gravity drag - OR ?
The unsourced article gravity drag contain some very bad "physics" - for example, its says "As orbital speeds are approached ... momentum (or equivalently centrifugal effects in the rotating frame of reference around the center of the Earth) cancel the gravitation of the Earth" (my italics). Is it perhaps original research ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is correct and simply states what is well known in rocketry. Perhaps it could be re-phrased to make it clearer to the layman. It is not saying that gravity goes way; it is saying that when the acceleration of gravity is balanced by the acceleration of the centrifugal force (in a reference frame rotating around the center of the Earth), then the entire thrust of the rocket can be used to permanently raise its orbit (by thrusting in the direction which is the projection of the rocket's velocity on the plane perpendicular to the direction to the Earth). Otherwise part of the thrust is "wasted" simply to keep the rocket from falling back to Earth. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is blatantly incorrect in several places, such as:
 * It says that "momentum ... cancels the gravitation of the Earth" !
 * Then rephrase it. It's describing the effect of centrifugal force acting in the corotating frame of reference, centered on the planet which is opposing the weight of the vehicle.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In the previous paragraph, starting "Acceleration is a vector quantity ...", it introduces a definition of "efficiency", apparently |a+g|/|a|, which can be greater than 100%, and which is maximised when the thrust vector a points in the same direction as g !
 * That's actually correct. The change in velocity is greater if you thrust straight down.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The caption on the diagram next to that paragraph talks about a lift-to-drag ratio for orbiting spacecraft !
 * No, it nowhere says or said that.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Drag forces in physics always act in the opposite direction to a body's velocity. This is clearly not the case for gravity, so the concept of "gravity drag" is at best mis-named, and at worst a muddled misconception.
 * That's aerodynamic drag. This is not an aerodynamic drag. Do you have a citation for the claim that drag is in every case in physics always in the direction of travel?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "For a solid object moving through a fluid, the drag is the component of the net aerodynamic or hydrodynamic force acting in the direction of the movement ... Therefore drag acts to oppose the motion of the object, and in a powered vehicle it is overcome by thrust." - from Drag (physics). Gandalf61 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which bit of 'moving through a fluid' and 'aerodynamic or hydrodynamic force' didn't you understand? This article has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Gravity drag involves no fluid and does not involve aerodynamic or hydrodynamic force in any way shape or form.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On the face of it, much of the article reads like patent nonsense. However, if you can add sources to confirm that this strange pre-Newtonian concept is "well known in rocketry", then my concerns will have been addressed. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That equation is actually correct. Just because an efficiency goes above 100% doesn't make it wrong. This is a bad faith edit of yours.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Due to the fact that energy cannot emerge from nothing and the Second law of thermodynamics ... the mechanical efficiency of any machine will always be less than 100%" - from Mechanical efficiency. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about energy, it's about the change in velocity. Which bit of the difference between velocity and energy don't you understand?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article seems to be engineering gibberish and poorly written (from a physics perspective). It however seems like a reasonable concept if working in the context of launching rockets. I have had little luck googling gravity drag (most results link back to WP as a source). "Gravity losses" however gives many hits to pages (mostly fora) discussing rocket design and using it for this particular concept. I see lots of reasons why this article should be improved (with proper sources). I see no real reason for deletion. Bad physics is some times useful as good engineering. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
 * It may be a "reasonable concept", but without sources it is OR and a neologism to boot. I too have tried googling and only found clones of the article and unrelated uses of the term with different meanings. I see that the article has now been tagged as unreferenced. If references are not forthcoming the next logical step will be an AfD nomination.
 * (Incidentally, I don't agree that "bad physics is some times useful as good engineering". Engineers may use simlified physics or pragmatic approximations, but if they actually used bad physics, like believing that "momentum cancels gravity", then their bridges would collapse and their planes would fall out of the sky.) Gandalf61 (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not bad physics.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have found at least one engineering text that actual discusses "gravity losses" in this sense. I'll add it to the article. This doesn't remove the fact that the article itself is very imprecise (and possibly incorrect), but at least it validates the topic of the article. I don't have full text access to the reverenced text (I found through the amazon search inside feature), so I based on that text I can't judge if the article itself is correct.
 * (on the subject of bad physics) When ignoring the curvature of the earth, then indeed a horizontal component of the momentum will cancel gravity (in the form of a centrifugal force). Bad physics or not, such an approach may in fact be very useful for example if you are hust concerned with calculating how powerful a rocket one must build to reach orbit at a certain height. (TimothyRias (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC))
 * It's not bad physics though. Forces that appear in rotating reference frames is covered in Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). A vehicle in a circular orbit is in a rotating reference frame around the planet.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some more searching. I've found at least one NASA report that actually uses the term "gravity drag" in the sense meant in the article. (link a 1985 report on the possibility of a manned Mars mission. It is not much of source as it only uses the term in the passing (explaining the use of a fudge factor)). It seems at least that it is a real term used by some engineers in the field of rocket trajectories. The term "gravity loss" seems much more come though so a move of the article may be in order. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC))


 * After looking at how the term is used in other Wikipedia articles, I have finally made sense of it. When thrusting against gravity, delta-v (integral of thrust per unit mass over time) is (of course) not equal to change in speed. Rocketeers seem to view this difference as a "loss" of delta-v, which they out down to "gravity drag" or "gravity losses". Anyway, I will trim the article to remove the "momentum cancels gravity" rubbish and the bogus "efficiency" calculations. Maybe the article should also be renamed, but I can't be bothered with that. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, it was bad before, but you've added no references, and took out a lot of stuff that you probably didn't need to. You also added 'In orbital manoeuvres it is usually assumed that thrust is applied in short bursts, so gravity losses are negligible.' which is completely wrong in every respect.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I thought I was being generous by not simply nominating the article for AfD. At least I made it consistent with the usage of the term in other Wikipedia articles. And if you only disagreed with one sentence I wrote, you could have just changed or removed that sentence, rather than edit warring.
 * Go ahead and waste your time, so I can laugh at you on the AFD page as well.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Vector considerations" section, in particular, is irretrievable and unsourced gibberish. How can momentum cancel gravity ? How can a rocket in space have a lift-to-drag ratio, since there is no lift or drag ? Where is there any source that talks about "gravity drag" as an efficiency ratio ? How can an "efficiency" of more than 100% ever make sense (see mechanical efficiency) ?
 * Because the metric is strictly about velocity, not energy. There's energy stored in the potential energy of the vehicle and energy in the propellant and exhaust of the vehicle which you haven't considered.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * However, if you have different ideas for improving the article, then please implement them, and if you have references, then please add them too. At least we agree that the old (and now current) version is bad - so let's make it better. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to Wolfkeeper: I invite you to reconsider the tone of your remarks in the light of WP:CIVIL. Sadly, you are giving the impression of being more interested in picking a fight and stirring up a wiki-drama than working towards consensus and improving the article. I expect to see better behaviour from an experienced editor. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

During orbital manueures gravity loss is significally smaller in comparison with rocket launch, but still not equal zero, gravity losses increased for smaller Trust to Weight ratio of spacecraft due to the nature of spacecraft finit burns. [User:Frigate] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.24.232 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturalness
Could anyone find a reference to support the contents of naturalness (physics)? I've come up with a blank, even after using book search tools; there are plenty of uses, but I can't find a definition anywhere. -- The Anome (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know it is usually attributed to Gerard 't Hooft. Here is at least one reference that uses the term as in the article.
 * This article references the principle with:
 * G. ’t Hooft, Naturalness, Chiral Symmetry and Spontaneous Chiral Symmetry Breaking, lecture given in Cargese Summer Institute 1979, 135.
 * Which is not really that helpful. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Another often cited source of the Principle is Susskind Phys. Rev. D 20,2619 (which is available in digital format DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.20.261). In this article he attributes the definition he uses for naturalness to K. Wilson.
 * The other reference above in detail is:
 * (TimothyRias (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC))
 * (TimothyRias (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

AfD nomination of Kender engine
Hi, there is a nomination of Kender engine for deletion. The article states that it is a derivative of the Stirling Engine, which is under this project's scope. As I don't know if the Kender engine is worthy of inclusion/deletion, I thought I would alert you folks of the nomination in order that we get an informed opinion. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article alerts
A while ago, there was a request for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when articles within their scope are entering or leaving some workflow, e.g. when nominated for deletion or as GA candidate. (See User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts.) The request was in fact made by WikiProject Physics, so I presume you are interested in using the bot.

The bot is now implemented in most parts, and currently awaiting approval. Following that, it will be run in a test phase with selected WikiProjects for a number of weeks.

We would like to invite your project to participate in this test phase. That is, a list of article alerts will be posted at WikiProject Physics/Article alerts. It can be transcluded into your main project page (see example). There are no obligations when you participate, but your feedback about the bot is requested. See User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts/Test phase for details.

If you do not wish to participate in the test phase, please leave me a short note on my talk page. Many thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wardenclyffe Tower
It would be great if a few experts in the field would look this over. It certainly seems a most exciting issue, as the size of the article, its content, the strong opinions and some mentioned sources on the talkpage suggest that Tesla's concept of wireless energy transmission of industrial-level electric energy was and remains very feasible, but especially as they all suggest that Tesla obviously knew about stuff such as waves in plasmas, magnetohydrodynamics, the ionosphere, ELF transmission communication, intentional telluric current, Schumann resonances, planet earth's self-capacity and its use as a cavity resonator, and Zenneck waves as far back as around and shortly before 1900, and that his only problem was financial support as soon as his entrepeneur investors found out that he intended to provide free electricity out of thin air for everyone on earth as a quasi-socialist public service; J. P. Morgan asked Tesla, "Where do I put the meter?", but Tesla neither knew nor cared. --80.187.125.4 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is obvious crackpot stuff. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Cold fission"
Found this at WP:PROD. Does anyone know "Cold fission" ? 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know very little, but it appears to be legitimate, though stub-class. I cleaned it up a little.  Wwheaton (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Gen Rel Intro
Introduction to general relativity 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. [unsigned comment by 07:18, 8 September 2008 User:DrKiernan ]