Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive September 2017

Unit symbol discussion
There is a discussion about the definition of unit symbols at Template talk:Infobox unit that some of those interested in this topic might be interested in. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Electromagnetism uniqueness theorem
This new article could probably stand review from someone from this project. Probably not the kindof thing our run-of-the-mill new page reviewer is going to be able to assess. Timothy Joseph Wood 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe something substantial could be written on that (when made precise) topic. Jackson's book (if I remember correctly, it was some time ago) begins with theorems of this sort. Green's identities play a role here. YohanN7 (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Pseudophysics
I'm concerned about an article on Nassim Haramein that has popped up recently. He's presented as an 'autodidact theoretical physicist', but has no reputable work. His main claim to a peer-reviewed publication is this paper, which is published by these people. It's grade A bullshit (here's a brief analysis) but his fans understandably don't see it that way. Here's an analysis of his next physics paper, and here's the one before. There hasn't been any formal scientific refutation (because it isn't science), so there's little to cite beyond blogs to to counter the increasingly impressive promotional material in the article. He has a following of very committed followers who are convinced he's the next Einstein - I haven't attempted to edit the page because I know exactly what will happen.

The fate of his previous Wikipedia page is here. I'm not sure what's the best thing to do about it. I wouldn't necessarily argue that he shouldn't have a page at this point, just that it should reflect reality. I think it needs some scientifically literate people watching it, because he does a very good job at presenting himself as an eccentric-but-competent physicist. It's far from immediately obvious to a sympathetic eye that the problems with his work are substantial rather than superficial. I've posted on WP:FRINGEN as well. Bobathon71 (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've tagged it with the appropriate templates. The article seems to be written by a single contributor, which is a bit suspect. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 10:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. – Bobathon71 (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The article was previously deleted in 2008. Since then, someone made a documentary about him, The Connected Universe, narrated by Patrick Stewart. So if we tried to delete it again, maybe odds are higher that it would be kept. It might still be worth trying though. --Steve (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Presenting one's work at a conference basically means nothing (APS meetings generally have a session into which they squeeze the fringers and the kooks); sending one's work to the Library of Congress means nothing; being published in AIP conference proceedings means almost nothing. Boasting of these things is just angling for the appearance of notability. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There is now an AfD open for The Connected Universe. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Belatedly, here's the AfD for Haramein. Lots of unreliable sources, single-purpose accounts and claims that we're just not sophisticated enough to understand his brilliance. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and insults in edit summaries. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The AfD has been closed with a decision of delete. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * So, let's prepare already for Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein (4th nomination) and Articles for deletion/The Connected Universe (3rd nomination). - DVdm (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you're more correct than I want to think about right now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And here we go, as expected. - DVdm (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been salted now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing is tastier than the dry saltiness of ripe, aged, hard old cheese. - DVdm (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Vacuum bubble
Now a redirect. Is there a better redirect? Should we have an article? YohanN7 (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting question. There are at least three kinds of vacuum bubbles I know of: vacuum bubble Feynman diagrams (Feynman_diagram), false vacuum bubbles (False_vacuum), and vacuum bubbles arising from cavitation (Cavitation). The redirect might be better as a disambiguation page. --Mark viking (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Feynman_diagram is what I had in mind primarily. But with that section in place there is no urgent need for an article. Though it needs a diagram, and is a bit harsh on the reader starting out with path-integrals. In QED at least, the same conclusions (I think) can be reached using brute force in the perturbation expansion of the S-matrix (using operator formalism).


 * Changing the redirect to a disambiguation page looks like an obvious first measure? YohanN7 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Vacuum bubble now changed to disambiguation page. (Should such pages be tagged in some particular way?) YohanN7 (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks good, thanks for creating it. i don't think anything is needed beyond the disambiguation template. --Mark viking (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester
Hi all, thanks for contributing!

This topic is near and dear to me and I have never been terribly happy with the existing article. I have done a rewrite. Please see it here.

I look forward to people's sundry input, feedback and revisions. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * In rewriting this article should one have a look at interaction-free measurement, too? Honestly, I like this title better (by far). There are also results for searching "quantum seeing in the dark", naming still other scientists. Maybe, essential differences evade me. Purgy (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for contributing. Are you suggesting that the IFM article also needs help (it seems to)?  Or are you proposing some content from that article be incorporated into the bomb tester article?  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not in a state of knowledge to suggest anything in quantum physics. However, it is my strong conviction that in maturing a theory should get rid of promotional buzzing, and I consider "bomb-testing" as such in this here context. IFM is both less buzzing and more descriptive by far, and seems to me to cover this topic quite well, so, if suggesting anything at all, I'd like to see the currently small amount of WP-text on this topic collected under the title "IFM". A section on History could certainly mention all the buzz words like "bomb testing" and "seeing in the dark." Maybe, the moon now has a nonzero probability of existing, without looking at it. :) Purgy (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

New article
A new article entitled Infinite Derivative Gravity has been created from a redirect that pertains to this project. I am not sure it will show up in the new article feeds. So, I am letting people here know about this article and please check it out for accuracy and acceptability. It is way over my head. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)