Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive September 2019

Degenerate Higher-Order Scalar-Tensor theories
Could someone please have a look at Degenerate Higher-Order Scalar-Tensor theories and add it to the Wikiproject? Bellowhead678 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sorry I didn't get to it sooner; I think I had the vague impression that someone else had already looked at it. I'd be happy to take off the "too technical" warning if the intro had a few sentences more context leading the reader into the topic. It's intrinsically a technical subject, but it's also an opportunity to write one level down. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Shaking motion article
A lot of changes recently in Zitterbewegung by a viXra advocate, please somebody take a look when possible.--MaoGo (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked and I cut. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I also wiki-linked some journal titles while I was there (might as well, right?), an edit which they, for some reason, undid. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The text added in the edits MaoGo noted includes a lot of WP:SYNTH and editorializing (it is "puzzling" that Dirac did this and "baffling" that he did not do that; the ideas of thus-and-so are "elegant and attractive"; a random historical factoid "may be usefully mentioned"). It is also replete with unreliable sources, like three instances of the author promoting their own viXra postings, and two "citations" to personal emails. Under no circumstances is it acceptable encyclopedia content. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The conduct issue is now at AN/I. As for the physics, well, it calls mass-energy equivalence a rather inexplicable consequence of special relativity theory. "Rather inexplicable"! That's at least ten points right there. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to say we're getting pretty high on the Baez index, but XOR beat me to it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The AN/I discussion has been archived, gently fizzling without action needing to be taken. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Review request: Draft:Signed Particle Formulation
Draft:Signed Particle Formulation needs a subject matter expert to review. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ by StarryGrandma, with whose evaluation I concur. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is seemingly the old Wigner quasiprobability, but branded as a novel formulation in order to obtain salary from the Bulgarians. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like Wigner quasiprobability, but over-elaborated and badly explained. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

A promotional bio that relies very heavily on primary sources
Jean-Pierre Petit has 103 source citations, almost all to primary sources. The subject _may_ be notable for writing a series of comic books on physics-related topics, which could account for its absence from AfD. The article needs more than just pruning, by one or more editors with the technical expertise to take it on. My advice: bring chainsaws. —Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the BLP is ridiculously long and trivial. I suggest stubbify. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
 * So, cut most content referenced to primary sources? I recognize some of the stuff referred to as "speculative" or "controversial" in the article as crackpot or junk science, but could use help editing the rest. Should we leave a stub with his educational details and text about his comic series? Since the article has a record of tendentious edits by one registered editor and several IPs from France, I hesitate to enjoin the forces of chaos here. I'll make a start, and would appreciate help form folks with physics expertise. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now only half of the refs are to primary sources. Still could use more eyes on the remaining mess. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I cut a conspiracy-theory-flavored claim about the scientific community censoring his work and removed the "See also" section for being a junk drawer. It's possible that some text about his "Janus cosmological model" could be retained, but the case for that rests upon a line in the responding-to-viewer-mail portion of a YouTube video and one statement by a physicist calling it physically and mathematically incoherent. In other words, it's not the strongest of cases. I looked into the citation record to see if anybody had paid attention, and found that basically no one did. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I found the talk page on French Wikipedia interesting, with multiple contributors making similar points. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Quantum psychology
Potentially of interest to the community here: Articles for deletion/Quantum psychology. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now closed as delete. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article appears to still be there. Who is supposed to delete it and when? JRSpriggs (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted, with the closer then creating a redirect to a book of the same name as a spelling variation. -- 09:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that, Mark. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Huge speeds! Fantastic discovery!! Aliens here we come! Call the Express!!!
Please see comment at Talk:Herbig–Haro object where I'm scratching my head at rather florid claims regarding speeds. I'm wondering if the text is the same as when achieving GA and FA status? Surely not. Shenme (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe count zeros next time before you claim ~0.2% the speed of light would be faster than the speed of light. --mfb (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And as mentioned at the talk page. My astonishment has met a (quite valid) brick wall. :( Shenme (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Geophysical Planet Definition
See Articles for deletion/Geophysical Planet Definition Fdfexoex (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)