Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive July 2007

Which special relativity?

It appears to me that there is not just one version of special relativity, but a range of versions which vary all the way from

• "Low" special relativity — Newtonian physics plus correction terms involving 1/c^2. For example, m is replaced in most places by m+E_k/c^2 to get the relativistic mass.

to

• "High" special relativity — general relativity with the Riemann curvature tensor fixed to be zero and thus the gravitational constant must also be set to zero.

Where in this wide range should we fix what we call "special relativity"? JRSpriggs 10:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Should this kind of 'decision' not be based on what definition is used by most physicists? Or am I mis-interpreting your words "we" in your question, and you are asking what that definition actually is? Awolf002 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, we wikipedians sometimes use classical-like vector algebra with dot-products and cross-products (a 3+1 dimensional perspective), and sometimes use tensor algebra (a 4 dimensional perspective). In each case, we are describing the same physical content, but the way of thinking about it is different. Do we want to continue doing things in this haphazard way or do we want to settle on one method or the other? Or both, for that matter? JRSpriggs 07:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, I do not have my physics text books handy, but I think what is mostly done is this: For the introduction of special relativity, tensor math is "overkill", since all you need conceptually is the 4 dimensional time+space vector and the Lorentz transformation. Then you insist on the necessary constraints (e.g. the invariance of physical variables in the equations) and you get to the mathematically correct formulation of special relativity. This seems didactically and historically sensible to me. Once, you need to expand this framework to address general relativity you would "complicate" the math by the more complex metric tensor g. How does that sound? Awolf002 08:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Where, exactly, do you see "high special relativity" discussed? A quick skim of the WP article special relativity shows no such usage, which is in keeping with standard classroom presentation. The standard textbook presentation includes a hand-waving "just ignore gravity for now", and "you'd need to learn GR to understand gravity". Leave it at that. -- right? There are also concepts in cosmology about flat universes and what not, but these are inappropriate for an SR article. So I guess I'm saying that I don't understand what the issue is, or why there's an issue. linas 23:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you refer only to tensor math, then using both 3+1 and 4 is correct: the 3+1 approach is suitable for introductory discussion, while the 4D notation is for use after the concept is well-understood. Please note that even in GR, for calculations such as the precession of the perhilion of mercury, even then you eventually have to go back to 3+1 so that the astronmers can figure out where to aim the danged telescope. linas 23:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Linas that the issue here confuses me. Is the issue that in elementary treatments one writes equations with time and space explicit and separate quantities, while in more advanced treatments one uses 4-vectors and the accompanying tensor notation? Joshua Davis 07:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tensor math does have a place in special relativity, even disregarding gravity altogether. The electromagnetic field is an antisymmetric tensor of order two, and the stress-energy tensor (also order two) does have uses in SR applications. Anarchic Fox 05:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This occurred to me when I was thinking about the fact that I had written the section Lagrangian#Special relativistic test particle with electromagnetism in the 3+1D notation rather than the 4D notation, and I was wondering whether that was the right thing to do. Other than that, I did not really have any specific problem in mind. I just wanted to know whether you-all feel that we should have a policy about how we present special relativity. For example, the energy of a free particle could be written in several different ways:

$E_{k}={\frac {p^{2}+{\frac {E_{k}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}{2(m+{\frac {E_{k}}{c^{2}}})}}$ where ${\vec {p}}=(m+{\frac {E_{k}}{c^{2}}}){\vec {v}}$ see Talk:Kinetic energy#Making the relativistic equation look more like the classical one

$E_{k}={\frac {mc^{2}}{\sqrt {1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}}-mc^{2}$

$E=mc^{2}{\frac {dt}{d\tau }}={\frac {mc^{2}}{\sqrt {1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}}$

$E=-mg_{0\beta }{\frac {dx^{\beta }}{d\tau }}$.

Ultimately, these are equivalent, but they look quite different. JRSpriggs 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The first eqn looks kind of weird and is pretty non-standard and confusing, suggest avoiding it entirely. The second and third are standard extbook presentation. The fourth is "landau-lifschitz"-y and is a part of a set of gymnastics routines for learning the 4D notation. In itself. its not very edifying; but as a part of a group of other related formulas having the metric tensor in them, it can help the reader get oriented. I remember dozens of expressions all having ${\sqrt {-g_{00}}}$ in the numerator or denominator. I call it "landau-lifschitz"-y because this material is suitable only for your brightest, most promising students ... linas 17:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentals

In my opinion (and that doesn't say much), I think the most important thing to keep in mind on a topic like this is fundamentals. Think about it, if you set up your own equipment, it makes no sense not to continue and take it a step further! What do you lot think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deimtchek (talk • contribs)

Eh? What? What topic are you talking about? Which article? To what or whom are you responding? How about providing a little context! JRSpriggs 05:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he was talking about SR--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 08:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If so, I still do not know what he is asking. JRSpriggs 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No merge of thermal energy, internal energy, and heat

There seems to have been some kind of edit war brewing over the last weeks at the heat and thermal energy articles between several editors, primarily User:The Way, that caused User: ScienceApologist to quit Wikipedia. In any event, the situation still continues; please review Talk:Heat (disambiguation) and Talk:Heat and give your opinion or vote: here . --Sadi Carnot 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this is resolved (no merges). Gnixon 16:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange syntax

As a mathematician I'm accustomed to such usages as this:

It follows that

$a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2},\,$

where a and b are ....

etc. Lately I've come across a number of Wikipedia articles that say things like this:

It follows that

$a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}.\,$

Where a and b are ....

A period is put at the end of the equation and the initial W in Where is capitalized as if it's the beginning of a new sentence. Or sometimes the period is omitted; it seems physicists (at least here on Wikipedia) often omit the period after an equation even when it's at the end of a sentence. The first time I saw this I thought it's obviously a gross gramatical goof by someone who wasn't paying attention to what he was writing. After a couple of dozen times, I'm thinking maybe this usage is actually standard among physicists. Can anyone confirm or deny anything? (Sometimes in certain moods I start to wonder if physicists consider it their sacred duty to be offended by any attempt to be precise in the use of language.) Michael Hardy 12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The second version looks like it uses incorrect grammar to me. Feel free to fix it. (I wish that the journals in my subject has some style guidelines regarding the integration of equations into sentences.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Most physics journals officially use the Chicago Manual of Style, a document which most physicists (including me) have never read. Physicists are not offended by precise use of language but most don't consider it to be part of their job description. We tend leave journal copy-editors to fix errors like the one you mention (on WP, guess that means you!). On lax usage in general, it's telling that interational standards and conventions on fundamental physical quantities are usually agreed by engineering organisations (e.g. IEEE), not organisations of physicists. PaddyLeahy 16:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The first version is correct. The second is a result of sloppiness or (forgivable) ignorance. Gnixon 18:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the first version is correct(the second seems very bad from a grammatical point of view). Out of laziness punctuation is often omitted after equations, but I wouldn't call it a "physicist style". It's true that we physicists get a little ornery when criticized on the precision of our language; kind of a quirk of the field, I guess. Joshua Davis 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Spin ice, Geometrical frustration and Geometrical frustrated magnets

I've just read the above articles. As far as I can see:

• Geometrical frustrated magnets should be called Geometrically frustrated magnets, and I propose to move it.
• Furthermore, much of the material there duplicates and expands upon what's at Spin ice.Theerfore, I propose to excise much of it and move it to Spin Ice

As far as I can see, a Spin Ice is not geometrically frustrated. It has a certain residual entropy, yes, but this is not as a result of any kind of frustration, but as a result of a large number of degrees of freedom. If this is correct (and I'm writing here in the hope that somebody will help!), then I think we should:

• Remove the example of ice from geometrical frustration
• Merge geometrical frustration and the newly created Geometrically frustrated magnets

Comments please! Chris 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The new article, to which the old one was moved, is geometrically frustrated magnet; the title is singular, not plural. The plural would offend Wikipedia conventions unless some special reason for its use is cited. Michael Hardy 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics: pseudophysics?

After a long period of stability, a number of edits were recently made to the John Bedini article in an apparent attempt to advance his unproven theories. This included replacing a longstanding statement that his device designs "do not adhere to the first or second laws of thermodynamics, which relate to conservation of energy" with what seems to be an agenda-advancing statement that the devices "(do) adhere to the laws of non-equilibrium thermodynamics".

I've reverted nearly all of the additions to restore the article to its relatively neutral and terse state. I did leave in a mention of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, though; it now says the devices "demonstrate principles of 'non-equilibrium thermodynamics' — that is, they do not adhere to the first or second laws of thermodynamics, which relate to conservation of energy."

However, I'm not sure the implied contradiction between the field of non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the laws of thermodynamics is correct; I'm just railing against what seems to be an attempt by proponents of his theories to dishonestly associate them with what is characterized in Wikipedia as a legitimate branch of physics.

So, is non-equilibrium thermodynamics legit, or is it pseudophysics? Should I characterize it differently? Is it even applicable? How can we continue to improve the John Bedini article? I'd appreciate some more eyes looking at it because I don't have time to police the article on my own. Thanks! —mjb 10:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked over non-equilibrium thermodynamics and John Bedini articles. I've certainly know there is a field called "non-equilibrium thermodynamics"(although I think one would usually say "non-equilibrium statistical mechanics") but I'm not really qualified to judge an article about it. I would say that what I know about it loosely resembles what is in the article, but there could be major mistakes or misinterpretations. For instance, I know that entropy as it's usually thought of is an equilibrium concept and there is a bunch of research in progress about generalizing it to non-equilibrium settings. Also, the stuff about non-conservation of energy seems a bit dubious but could still be right. The energy of an open system has no reason to be constant(even in equilibrium thermo, if you have a system at fixed temperature one expects that the energy will have fluctuations about some mean value).

The John Bedini article seems fine as is. I think most(including myself) would say his ideas are pseudoscience but the article points out a lot of criticism leveled against him. The main issue there is whether or not he is notable enough for an article. If so, the existing article seems even-handed enough. Joshua Davis 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

After a very very quick skim of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, it looked perfectly legit. Was there something specific in there that seemed wrong? Joshua is right, this is a field generating active interest in physics. For example, recently, there was a new and quite legit experiment that demonstrated a momentary violation of the second law by building an actual Maxwell's daemon that somehow worked for a little while, using some trick I can't remember. Oh, why look, actually the article on Maxwell's daemon reviews this new work! Bravo. linas 02:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Maxwell's daemon article says the Leigh experiment (Nature 2007) doesn't violate the 2nd law because of its external power source. Gnixon 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As to Bedini, this version is quite entertaining, a true melodramatic read, with dirt-floored basements and accusations of neglect. But Bedini is just a minor sub-plot to the real melodrama at Royal Rife. Wow! linas 02:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(Light bulb goes off in Linas' head) I think I finally understand the appeal of pseudoscience: Its got all the thrills of reading fiction, be it whodunits or Harry Potter, with the added pleasure-twist that it might be true, and further, that you don't have to wait for the sequel, you can just dig more dirt yourself. Wow! linas 02:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and people who are into it always feel they're being censored and unfairly dismissed when they fail to achieve recognition for their untested but "clearly revolutionary (if it works)" theories. The author of the "1974 Crane, Rife, Bearden, Dr. Robert Strecker" section you're referring to and which I deleted is trying (and failing) to make a case for it to be restored on the grounds that Bedini and Rife's work needs more publicity, and on the grounds that if Albert Einstein's article and its forks can have controversial details explained at length, so should these guys' articles. I didn't point out the obvious bit that Einstein has been and continues to be written about at length, but I did mention that these arguments are typical of people who want to misuse Wikipedia and that WP policies were devised largely to prevent this sort of thing.

I acknowledged that he might have a case for retaining a mention (with careful wording) that in 1974 Bedini and others sought to validate certain claims of Rife and that the group drew certain conclusions and that a video exists which purports to demonstrate some of Rife's claims. However, all the drama and details of the experiments in the rambling prose that I deleted is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Why do pseudoscientists and their followers always ramble incoherently?

Anyway, I'm afraid the Rife and Bedini enthusiasts are going to continue to flout the spirit of the policies and guidelines while attempting to adhere to the letter, which could lead to more questionable references to perhaps legit but immature and possibly irrelevant fields like non-equilibrium thermodynamics and citations of books related to it. —mjb 08:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, it is the personal drama that makes pseudoscience interesting. Real science tends to stick to cold, impersonal facts. The history of science can record the drama, but by the time the history is written, the science tends to be done, and the drama is over. By contrast, the history of pseudoscientists is rarely written and documented, and so one is very much in terra ingocnita, one is actively unravelling a mystery. Better yet, the mystery does not require a PhD and a research budget to unravel; almost anyone can participate. The drama is far from over; it remains a living thing that can continue to be mined. The very act of suppression is what makes it a gnostic pursuit. linas 04:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cosmosophy prodded

User:Banno on July 12 2007 WP:PRODed cosmosophy. 132.205.44.5 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Relativity priority dispute

I'm wondering about the legitimacy of the sources in this article. In particular, some of the self-published stuff by Bjerknes raises some eyebrows, particularly since it's hosted on a website called jewishracism.com.-Wafulz 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As it is generally taught in college courses, there was some dispute about the chronology of Einstein's discoveries and whether others had discovered some of the key ideas before him. This is especially true with regards to the differential geometry of G.R. which was a particularly amazing acheivement for Einstein seeing as he was not trained as a mathematician unlike Riemann and others working on the problem. Nevertheless, the consensus of historians of science has been that Einstein is rightly credited with the discovery, though the great man theory of history probably has something to do with why he is remembered more than his predecessors. Einstein disparaging is a popular anti-Semetic passtime and so we need to be careful that we do not give a springboard for that kind of advocacy. --Mainstream astronomy 13:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The article's coverage of Bjerknes is interesting. He published a book "Einstein: the Incorrigible Plaigarist." An author of an earlier Science article on the subject reviewed the book very critically in Physics World, calling Bjerknes "monomaniacal." Bjerknes' reply to Physics World was declined publication. As Wafulz seems to be pointing out, that section of the article appears to take pains to describe Bjerknes favorably. Some sections of the article probably have WP:NPOV#Undue weight issues. Gnixon 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The explanation I've heard is that Poincaré and Lorentz knew the transformation before Einstein published his paper on SR, but Einstein was the first to derive them from basic postulates (that the speed of light is universal and that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames). Anarchic Fox 09:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Egads, why is the article so long? Huge chunks of it are block quotes, too. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

X and Y bosons

There is a merge proposal, standing intact for months, to merge X boson and Y boson articles into X and Y bosons, just like W and Z bosons have common article. So it would be really good itea to merge those two, because X and Y bosons are related in same way as W and Z bosons.

It also looks like there is extremely low edit activity on those articles. --83.131.77.66 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Incredibly mindless merge done. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for New Page

I would like to propose that someone who has enough knowledge on the subject creates a page called "Status of String Theory" which details the general consensus of the scientific community regarding the acceptance, falsification, and verifiability of String Theory.

I say this because as a layman, I do not have access to information on the latest tests with CERN or Fermilab colliders, and would like to know more about whether the theory ever is directly confirmed or not.

• This is an excellent suggestion, as most of us want to know about the state of the art in physics, appreciate that String Theory somehow meets this description, (if the hype is to be believed), but somehow are not easliy able to find accessible yet comprehensible summaries of this proposed physics. Maybe Ed Witten or someone of his calibre might jump in here. PD 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fritz Zwicky and Tired Light

I have recently been cleaning up the biography of Fritz Zwicky. It had originally included an enormous amount of material relating to tired light, IMO far out of proportion to its importance in a biography. But much worse, all the material related to modern fringe ideas by Lyndon Ashmore in particular. Similar problems have existed, and been resolved, in the past in the Tired light page. My changes have just recently been reverted or partially reverted by an anonymous editor, and the modern tired light stuff is back, justified by appeal to the authority of Feynman and Ashmore. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know the best way to handle this. I requested 3rd party assistance; a 3rd party Wikipedia expert duly showed up and declared the dispute a bit too technical. I have flagged the contentious section as being under dispute and indicated a drastic edit I wish to apply in the discussion page; which is essentially another revert to what I did a few days ago. Input from people with good understanding of the relevant physics and of Wikipedia conventions would be very much appreciated! -- (Duae Quartunciae 10:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

I reverted back to your version which is more in keeping with WP:UNDUE policy. Good luck. --Mainstream astronomy 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the changes by Mainstream astronomy, which were a little hasty. I think enough consensus is developing at Talk:Fritz Zwicky for trimming the section. We just need to give this a little more time, perhaps just a couple more days, to allow for other people to comment. (Besides, Duae Quartunciae could improve his passage.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. The problem seems to be fixed. One guy had some difficulties comprehending WP:NOR, and has now taken his ball and gone home. I've put up an improved version of what was there before (thnx Dr. Submillimeter) and am now cleaning up the rest and adding a bit more stuff to make it a real biography. We can call this a wrap; though if anyone has useful input on the article feel free to jump in. -- Duae Quartunciae 07:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Velikovsky

I lost my account password on my other computer and so began editing as User:Velikovsky to look at some of the catastrophism pseudoscience. I was surprised that Ian Tresman was editing he is extremely well-connected in the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies and makes much of his living by doing web-design for that group. I don't think he should be editing those pages and posted a WP:COI warning on his page which he did not take kindly too. He also reverted a change I made to Anthony Peratt's page about his new-found amicas with Velikovsky supporters. This user reverted it and placed a warning at User talk:Velikovsky. I'm in over my head. Can anyone help me? --Mainstream astronomy 20:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend posting comments about this at WP:ANI and asking for administrator intervention. Dr. Submillimeter 20:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is too much. The kind of absurdity he is promoting is way over my head, and so I've decided to volunteer elsewhere. Good luck, you all need it. --Mainstream astronomy 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you asked me to help you out, but I've been busy lately. It looks like there's already a thread on the COI noticeboard and involvement with Arbitration Enforcement, so I don't think I'll be able to help past this point (though I'll be sure to monitor the discussions). If you're not SA, then it's awful that you've been wrongfully implicated in a new ArbCom case. If you are, then I'm sad to see you go a second time.-Wafulz 13:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Physics

I've just made a number of significant changes to the long-stagnant Physics article. The most important changes were cutting a gigantic History section (covered by History of Physics) and moving two illegibly large tables to subpages. From the remaining content, I've tried to create the skeleton of an article with expanded coverage of the major theories and fields of research, but a lot of work needs to be done.

I'd appreciate it if folks around here would consider expanding the subsections of Physics they're interested in. Right now they could all be considered stubs. Alternatively, you could tell me I'm a dunce for messing with the article so much, but I'm hoping these changes will put it on the right track. See Talk:Physics#Changes. Thanks, Gnixon 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Nuclear physics style guide

I was just reading about Stellar nucleosynthesis, and added the following to Talk:Oxygen burning process.

 Isn't the 2 superscript on D redundant? It seems like consistency would be best, ideally any (non-1) superscripts on an H base, although the links could obviously continue to point towards the specific isotope's page.

Is there a style guide about this? I did not turn up anything via google… --Belg4mit 05:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cenetic Energy for deletion?

"Cenetic energy" dosn't get any hits on scholar.google.com and dosn't cite anything. The first contributor (who suspiciously has this article as his/her only contribution) wrote that Neil Turok (real scientist) came up with it. Even so, "cenetic energy neil turok" has no non-wikipedia hits on google. I've signed this article up for deletion and the debate on the deletion proposal can be found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_17 EverGreg 16:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pran Nath

Hello, could someone please assess Pran Nath for notability? It was recently {{prod}}-ed. I reversed that, but now I'm not sure if I should have.

His work seems to involve theoretical elementary particle physics and supersymmetry. His faculty page is here.

Thanks, Tualha (Talk) 00:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

He does seem at least a bit notable. Here are some indicators apparent to me as total non-expert.

• He is very active at arxiv with a lot of different co-authors (144 results)[1], over a long period of time right up to the present. This is a good sign.
• He was added to the Supergravity page in a historical reference in March 8, 2007; section mSUGRA.
• He was added to the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model page, again in relation to mSUGRA, on July 2, 2007.
• He was added to the "Notable faculty" section of Northeastern University in March 19, 2005; with three others. Extending the list of notable faculty from 3 to 6.

-- Duae Quartunciae 02:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, though, that the mentions in supergravity and Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model were both added by an IP at Northeastern. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes; it does look that there is a bit of pushing going on there, but I don't think that should weigh in the balance all that much if the additions have been uncontroversial. As seems to be the case, I think. It's very technical. By the way, I have also run a search using Web of Science, and obtained 117 cites for P* Nash at Northeastern, with 36 citations average per paper; h-index 36. Also impressive. -- Duae Quartunciae 02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

One other thing. Both the references in the supergravity and Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model pages are historical, referring to a 1982 paper, which has genuine notability by the Web of Science search. 599 citations, or 23 per year since 1982. The graph of citations show a growth in the citation rate, to around 35 to 40 per year since 2000. There are two co-authors. -- Duae Quartunciae 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My expertise is in a different area than his, but my understanding is that Pran Nath is pretty well known and respected. As evidence of a sort for this, one can take a look at this site (http://www.pascos04.neu.edu/) about the 2004 PASCOS conference and Nathfest. PASCOS (Particles, Strings and Cosmology) is a annual international physics conference and evidently Nath is important enough that they held the 2004 meeting in his honor. --Joshua Davis 05:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we add some of this to the article...it is still one sentence.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 05:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added some of it. There's room for more. I've put in a References and Notes section, and an External Links section. Is it time to remove the "orphan" template? -- Duae Quartunciae 05:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it, as the template docs indicate that the 3 meaningful links to the page are enough for such an article. I also removed the unneeded expand template. (The documentation indicates that it shouldn't be used on pages which are already tagged as stubs.) --Starwed 08:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Tesla Coil

It's been suggested to me that I mention the status of Tesla Coil. I don't know how to put this delicately, but someone making extensive "contributions" is a free energy enthusiast and does not seem to know much about electricity. I haven't gotten through my electromagnetism book yet (blush), but I've designed and built a MOSFET Tesla coil, and done EE professionally for many years. Somebody put a banner on the page saying that it was within the realm of Wikipedia Project Physics, but they don't seem to have stuck around. Anybody who knows the subject is welcome to weigh in; very welcome; that's all I'm saying. FETSmoke 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it, and while I'm no expert, I might be able to drag up a few like yourself. But I don't see the banner proclaiming it to be physics. I'm assuming I'm blind...Tsani 18:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Tsani

Anthony Peratt and WP:PROF

The article on Anthony Peratt is currently up for deletion. We could use some input from someone familiar with plasma physics, specifically plasma cosmology, on whether he is Notable by Wikipedia standards. Cheers, CWC 10:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know this guy, but apparently three governmental agencies find him notable. I'm not getting into the apparent war. Don't know what the arguments are about and don't care. But my vote as an outsider is that he stays and that he is "Notable".Tsani 18:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Tsani

What does it mean to be found "notable" by three government agencies? Anyhow, the article was deleted before this comment was made. Dr. Submillimeter 20:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Physics (again)

I've been making some major revisions to the long-dormant Physics article. My changes have been rather WP:BOLD and largely unilateral, due to the almost complete absence of any editors frequenting that page over the past few months or responding to my comments on Talk:Physics. After shedding an obscenely awful History section, I've expanded sections on Theory and Research, largely by stealing big blocks of material from other physics articles (many of which were pretty bad).

The current status is that each subsection has a reasonable amount of text, but not all of it is well-written, and some subsections are still pretty thin. I'd love it if some of the folks around here could swing by and have a look at their areas of interest. There should be something to start from in each section if you prefer to make incremental changes, and if you're willing to try complete rewrites, that would be welcome, too. If you make changes to a section, consider updating the leads of the main articles (on, e.g., particle physics), which are likely to be pretty similar. Please keep in mind the need to limit excessive detail in this very broad article. Thanks in advance!! Gnixon 06:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Update With recent interest and much editing by the anon User:68.224.247.53, there is now lots of info in many sections---in fact, often too much. It would be great if some of the experts around here could apply some editorial judgement to limit sections to the 3 or 4 "several" paragraphs recommended by WP:SUMMARY. For example, what are the most important things to discuss about quantum mechanics? Thanks, Gnixon 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the changes... you've made it a much better article. Well done! I have to run; real life calls. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the quantum mechanics section does a good job overall, but it spends too much time discussing its history (astrophysics has a similar problem). I suggest shortening the events mentioned, and removing Bohr altogether, since although his model is very important for the history of QM, it's the only finding mentioned there that has been superseded altogether. Anarchic Fox 06:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about historical articles

What guidelines are there for what historical articles should be included under this project? I'm wondering in particular about archaic, obscure and/or obsolete theories like Central Fire. Anarchic Fox 07:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-gravity page problems

There have been some very curious recent edits to the Anti-gravity page. This is on the periphery of physics stuff, but it seems to have become a magnet for some rather odd ideas.

The latest edits are horrible, in a number of ways; but I'm not going to do anything about it myself for the time being. The problem is that the edits are by someone who has serious issues with me personally, and is inclined to go into long screeds about my various sins. It's hard to follow, because the edits are apparently from Germany, and their English is very poor. It shows up in the articles they edit, and the comments on talk pages. What is worse is that the they are rather extreme crank physics, imo.

All the edits are from anonymous isp accounts, 84.158.*.*. The article where I met them before is the biography of Fritz Zwicky, and discussion on the talk page is very illuminating. The Anti-gravity page is of low importance, and if I try to do anything about it then it may make matters worse by aggravating the unknown editors with my existence. I would appreciate someone else having a look. Check out all diffs from any 84.158.*.* isp; they go back into June, I think.

The whole effect is pretty bad. I would really love these guys to create an account and use it, instead of having a whole heap of different ISP addresses. Mostly I don't think they should be editing physics articles at all, or indeed anything written in English. Someone needs to tell them also to TALK about such major changes as they are doing at present... but it might not help because the talk seems even less coherent than the edits.

I don't know what the best thing to do about it might be, or whether any action by me will just inflame them. So please take a look, someone else. Thanks! -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "of low importance" is the key concept here. Without looking into it beyond a glance at the article, my off-the-cuff advice would be to just let those anons wear themselves out editing for a couple weeks. Others can come in and clean things up once they move on. Gnixon 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's very good advice; thank you. I will take it. I would like others to be aware of the situation, and just keep a quiet eye on it. There is no urgency to engage, as Gnixon points out. But I think it fairly likely that they will be looking for more articles to "fix" -- especially on cosmology. Back in July 13 they indicated an intent to move on after getting nowhere with putting lots of modern tired light stuff into the Fritz Zwicky biography. See also Talk:Fritz Zwicky. This new spurt of activity indicates that they have returned. Is there a convenient way to look at contributions from a pattern, like isp 84.158.*.*? Thanks -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. Gnixon, you fixed some WP:POV by 84.158.92.236 on the Big Bang page, 11:09, 12 May 2007. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Click on "My contributions", then change the URL. It's hard to singlehandedly counter the edits of a rampaging crackpot, as those who frequent this page will know. If these guys are causing lots of problems, you're probably doing the right thing by getting others to keep an eye on their edits. If they're blatantly violating some policy, you can ask an admin for help (file at ANI if needed). If others get involved and they won't listen to polite reason, you can try filing an RfC at some point. But it's generally hard to do anything unless there are enough people hanging around an article that the crackpot is clearly working against consensus, so it might not be worth doing anything besides waiting for them to lose interest and let you clean up. Remember, if they're interested in things like anti-gravity, they may add info that most people wouldn't know---maybe after you change its presentation, it will be a valuable addition. Just my 2 cents, of course. Gnixon 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User 84.158.*.* out of control

This is much worse than I had thought.

This guy has been working hard in good faith, but his grasp of wikipedia conventions, of English, and of physics are all poor. He uses an IP that shifts around all the time, for which he has apologised many times but says he can't do anything about it. He has been editing many pages, some very high quality ones, for the last two months or so I think. Usually it gets reverted. Sometimes not. Tracking will be difficult.

I have a feeling this kind of IP shifting, even if not deliberate or malicious, can result in the IP addresses being banned. It's not because anyone using them is a bad person, but because it makes administration and tracking so much harder. At least, that is how I understand WikiProject on open proxies... can someone confirm? If so, we should collect all the IPs he is using, and submit for a collective ban. I think getting an account would resolve the problem for him. He could still contribute, but his contributions could be reviewed better.

Pages where he has been active, even if briefly. Photon, Mechanical explanations of gravitation, general relativity, Fritz Zwicky, Big bang, Non-standard cosmology, Solutions of the Einstein field equations, Divergence theorem, Dark matter, Cosmic microwave background radiation, Observational cosmology and I am sure there are more. I got most of those just by guessing where to look.

Usually he gets reverted. I've seen some errors left uncaught, I think. There's a minor error at Divergence theorem. Here's the diff, which is still in place. [2]. The phrase "mainly spherically selected shell" looks like nonsense, and the extra formula does nothing useful; just introduces confusion by conflicting notational conventions. This is minor compared with what he usually does; I guess the worst stuff generally gets picked up.

He periodically gets very upset at the unfairness of the censoring being applied to his views and the glaring failure of wikipeda, in his view, to cater to "thousands of dissidents" or to allow for a clear expression of the many errors he has identified in conventional cosmology and physics. He apologizes for his poor English on talk pages, but has no compunction about putting it in article pages with no notice in the discussion page. He does not use discussion pages much, unless sometimes to complain when he gets reverted — in which case you get a lesson in mangled physics and complaints about all the amateurs who change his scholarly inputs. He put a long complaint on Jimbo's talk page including complaints about me and how terrible it was that I was honoured by being made a part of this physics project. I ignored it. Can be admired at permanent link [3]. Also has shown up at User_talk:^demon/Archive3, User_talk:Ems57fcva, and others. He has made formal complaints, to no effect, at (for example) FURG and Wikiquette alerts archive14, May 29 2007.

I'm going to start collecting IP addresses; I think other people should do the same. Drop them off here, please. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give some diffs showing edits he made and diffs of the reversions of those edits in cases that upset him? Maybe a softer touch by others could help. (Maybe not.) Gnixon 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly advocate a soft touch. I don't think any action need be taken against the editor himself at all.

I think the IP addresses should probably be banned; not because of the editor himself, but only because of their nature as wandering IP addresses. If I understand it, MedaWiki requires that such addresses be banned, just for maintaining any hope of adminitrative control.

Wfckehler should make an account for himself, and use that, and everything carry on as normal. Someone might like to have a quiet look for possibly unfortunate edits in the past, but mostly they get fixed anyway in the normal course of events. Once he has a proper account we can watch what is happening and engage in the usual consensus process of wikipedia, without malice or aggression and with recognition that he's trying to help. The main thing will be to emphasize at the start that the banning of wandering IP addresses is a matter of the technical running of MediaWiki software — not a complaint about the editor. The WP:OP project seems to cover that... if I have understood it correctly, that is. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I note that in one of his many contributions, Kehler acknowledges the problem, and offers to use other computers. See FURG notice board archive. I have accordingly reported 110 IPs that were being used in this way to the WP:OP project. They will not be able to use those IPs at all, I think, whether through an account or not. But since they've offered to use a stable IP, I have no bad feelings about asking for a ban on all the open IP addresses. This should fix it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think he is using open IP addresses, but dynamic IP addresses, which is a different thing. And, unfortunately, probably not bannable. So that solution don't work. I'm very unhappy with the idea of just letting it be until he gets bored. This has been an issue in many pages. Here is what I have found so far with a hacked script to pull out the info:

Article	Edits	Time	Discussion
Anti-gravity	19 edits	from 13 June -- 23 July	talk page	1 edit	on 19 July
Big Bang	14 edits	from 11 May -- 25 May	talk page	11 edits	from 11 May -- 12 May
Cosmic microwave background radiation	2 edits	on 18 June	no discussion
Dark matter	4 edits	from 18 May -- 15 June	no discussion
Divergence theorem	2 edits	on 12 June	no discussion
Exact solutions in general relativity	2 edits	from 3 July -- 5 July	talk page	5 edits	from 3 July -- 17 July
Fritz Zwicky	59 edits	from 16 May -- 12 July	talk page	26 edits	from 18 May -- 13 July
General relativity	3 edits	from 13 June -- 15 June	no discussion
Graviton	7 edits	from 28 June -- 30 June	talk page	1 edit	on 17 July
Mechanical explanations of gravitation	3 edits	on 27 June	no discussion
Non-standard cosmology	36 edits	from 12 May -- 13 June	talk page	17 edits	from 12 May -- 13 June
Observational cosmology	2 edits	on 11 June	no discussion
Photon	5 edits	from 28 June -- 30 June	talk page	20 edits	from 30 June -- 17 July
Pioneer anomaly	2 edits	on 3 July	no discussion
Schwarzschild metric	3 edits	from 15 June -- 17 June	no discussion
Solutions of the Einstein field equations	19 edits	from 14 June -- 3 July	no discussion
User talk:^demon	6 edits	from 29 May -- 30 May
User talk:Jimbo Wales	9 edits	from 18 July -- 23 July
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG	2 edits	on 5 July
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts	3 edits	on 29 May

That's old information; he is continuing to work away at Anti-gravity, and a revert war is brewing there. I frankly think a revert war would be a GOOD thing, now; it would at least get a result and convey the idea that discussion is important. He really needs to engage discussion rather than just edit everything to fit his WP:POV. He refuses to debate on the talk page; one of his recent comments there was

• (rv: Sorry but before people discuss, they must KNOW; e.g. all eliminated now linked like related ###WIKI-BOOK + ARXIV.ORG ### and other erased links - or not WFCKehler ?)

The links he mentions are to unreliable sources, the relevance involves WP:SYN, it's horrible. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dynamical friction with 84.158.*.* insertions

The article on Dynamical friction is another one I have just found with additions from W. Kehler. As usual, the English is very poor, and there is no attempt at discussion for his additions.

The addition in this case may have some validity. Zwicky did propose a gravitational drag effect for photons; so perhaps I should not merely delete the section outright. Has there ever been a proper analysis of gravitational drag on photons? Anyhow, I have put a comment on the discussion page, and as before, I would really appreciate input from a physicist.

Thank you to Gnixon for fixing the problem I raised above in relation to Planck mass. I think that there are probably quite a few of these additions to various physics articles being made by 84.158.*.* of dubious credibility. Is there a way to find the list of contributions for a range of IP addresses? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. I have now gone ahead with a major rewrite of the troublesome section, which makes it doubly important that a real physicist checks it for errors! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)