This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

195.245.149.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently made a series of edits to several cosmology articles, mostly concerning heat death and related concepts. It's hard for me to tell whether the edits are legitimate or not; if someone with expertise could look them over, that would be handy. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, Holevo's theorem could use work. I've heard it called Nayak's bound based on his strengthening of the theorem (weakening its conditions), but I'm not confident enough in my knowledge to edit the article, other than to add a comment with the reference.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have posted the following viewpoints about what I see as a bias in the first paragraph, which excludes an alternative view of the universe. I note that that talk page is seldom visited, and thus re-post here; hoping to find out if these views find a receptive response. QUOTE The first paragraph seems to me as being totally oriented to presenting an atomistic Newtonian single (external to the universe) observer frame of reference, which assumes the existence of universal laws, the interchangeability of particles of the same category, and independence of all particles. This is in strong contrast to the Liebnizian view of a relational universe characterized by entanglement; and where all movement and position is relative to other objects, not to a fixed and eternal frame. This is obviously in need of a broader approach, as it encourages this view which has existed since Newton. although it has been moved in the other direction by Einstein, in for example the EPR theory which has been proven correct, and by John Bell's work.

Lee Smolin makes an interesting presentation of both views in his "Life of the Cosmos" I refer those interested to it, as my own knowledge is insufficient to discuss it meaningfully on an expert level. UNQUOTE This is NOT a philosophical question only, although presently an intractable one. Idealist707 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The text in Portal:Physics is based on (copied from an older version of?) the lead of Physics. I kind-of prefer the current version of the latter. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 21:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the first three paragraphs of the text in the portal is copied from the lead of the Physics article. (Here is the diff [1].) The fourth paragarph is copied from the section entitled Philosophical implications of the Physics article. (Here is the diff [2].) Also, I notice there is not much difference between the opening lines of the Portal version and the current Physics version. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

An editor at White hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has added what looks like truly strange fringe material. I reverted it once, they re-added it, claiming that the book citations they provide are sufficient to include it. Someone else can handle this diplomatically, as I'm rather stressed with thesis work at the moment. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Least count (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is in terrible shape, having no references at all. Can anyone knock it into shape?  Chzz  ►  14:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like a candidate for Wiktionary, definition plus examples. Sometimes articles are bad simply because the subject is better served being detailed in a different fashion. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the edits of Special:Contributions/9p4gh9gkj and Special:Contributions/89.110.0.62, do they seem familiar? Dmcq (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked for an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antichristos‎. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Monte Carlo method in statistical physics should be putted as computational physics category. (By the way, I edited that page whose references are from a phd thesis (not mine). Should I use that as reference, or refer to the books/papers that phd thesis referred to? (I'm kind of new as wiki editor). Jorgecarleitao (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To add an article to a category, add [[Category:Computational physics]] near the bottom. I've just done it this time. As for the sources, you shouldn't cite books/papers unless you've read the books/papers themselves and seen they do support what the article say (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the Monte Carlo method is an incredibly inefficient way of calculating. So it probably does not deserve to be in that category. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

why do you say that? explain or state sources... Jorgecarleitao (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would efficiency or lack thereof make a difference for categorization? Trial division is listed in Category:Primality tests, after all. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think JRSpriggs's comment is just meant as a gratuitous rant that we shouldn't fuss about. :-) It's funny--just this afternoon I was getting chided by someone for using molecular dynamics instead of the allegedly-more-accurate Monte Carlo. :-) --Steve (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be inefficient, but often anything else is even more inefficient. Financial houses spend millions on fast computers to do Monte Carlo methods associated with calculating Bayesian statistics from high dimensional data. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is, but for the problems it's usually used for it's not like there are much more efficient methods. (But I have a conflict of interest here, my BSc thesis being about a modification of the Metropolis method.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 10:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I was just looking into the computation of virial coefficients for the hard sphere gas in d dimensions a few days ago, and unfortunately, the only available results for them (except the first few) are from Monte Carlo integration. :( Count Iblis (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I called it "incredibly inefficient" is that an increase of precision by a factor of ten requires an increase in the number of trials by a factor of one hundred (ten squared). JRSpriggs (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is actually fortunate situation for theoretical physicists. You can formulate most of the intractable theoretical physics problems as some path integral over a huge configuration space, which you can always in principle attack via Monte Carlo simulations (in some cases there may be additional complications like the fermion sign problem, which makes this even less efficient). So, this means that there isn't always a straightforward solution to theoretical physics problems, and that means that people can earn a living doing theoretical physics. :) Count Iblis (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please help out at tired light. An editor who wrote a monograph for Physics Essays (a fringe journal of pretty low reputation) keeps trying to insert his work and the work of his friends into that article. He doesn't really have a leg to stand on, so if you all would help get rid of this kind of spam, I'd appreciate it. Also, he's acting pretty ridiculous on the talk page of that article.

140.252.83.241 (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Tired light

The page right now is locked down with pseudophysics promotion intact. Please go to the talk page and support a better version based on better sources and not pseudophysics: [3].

128.59.171.194 (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Could your members please take a look at this article? It's totally unintelligible to a general reader, even one who tries to follow the wikilinks. It also needs some work with its referencing and categorisation, but I assume it's notable. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks generally correct but is atrociously written. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

Lol. Agreed. I hope you lot can help improve it. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This should probably be merged/redirected to negative resistance, which does a much better job of covering the same material. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added appropriate merge templates to get discussion rolling. Discussion thread is at Talk:Negative resistance#Merge from negative differential conductivity. I've split extended discussion out to its own sub-heading, as the page name has been a point of spirited contention in the past. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The usage of Super Nova is under discussion, see Talk:Darius Force.

65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MEASURE#A template for physical constants?. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 14:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Gamma-ray burst is today's featured article, some more attention might want to be paid to it for the next few days. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Coulomb gas is currently a red link. Two articles link to it. Should there be an article with this title? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google Scholar check suggests that it's a frequently-used term in solid state physics referring to a two-dimensional electron gas. Hadn't seen it before myself, though, so my understanding may be a bit off. On-wiki coverage seems to be at Electron liquid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which could stand improvement itself (it needs references, and reads like it might be copyvio, though it's possible it was just written by someone who uses the same writing style as textbooks). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer that a Coulomb gas article be on the mathematical physics technique used in statistical physics where one maps certain 2d models to the Coulomb gas system to study its critical properties. This is, I think, the most widely used application of the Coulomb gas, see e.g. here for a famous result in mathematical physics. Count Iblis (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK is co-operating with the Institute of Physics to involve IoP members in improving Wikipedia's physics coverage. As part of this, there will be a training workshop along the lines of the Cancer Research UK workshop that was run earlier this year by Mike Peel. The IoP workshop will take place in London, on a date to be confirmed but around the start of September. We are looking for experienced Wikipedia editors to help out, whether by taking attendees through training materials, helping newcomers one-to-one, or providing on-wiki help. Wikimedia will be able to pay reasonable travel expenses and provide lunch on the day for volunteers. If you're not within reach of London, I'm still interested to hear from you because we hope to run similar workshops elsewhere in the UK, with the IoP or other scholarly bodies. Please email [email protected] , telling me your UK location and what help you can provide. It would be great to have some of this wikiproject's participants involved in a project which brings in more expert editors. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a professional astronomer, an experienced Wikipedia editor, and a member of the IoP based in the UK. Let me know (via my talk page) if you set a date. Modest Genius ^talk 16:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly good news. If I lived in the UK I would help out. I am available online for on Wiki-help. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Heliosynchronous orbit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been prodded for deletion. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion thread at Talk:Heliosynchronous orbit#Prod discussion. I'm not comfortable unilaterally de-prodding it, though I think the article does have merit and could be improved with available references. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a heated dispute at Center of gravity. I'm not privy to the details or competent to judge the merits of the case, but it's apparently claimed that the article is basically false, or at least that one of the competing versions is false, and if this is true this would not be a good thing. Just a heads-up if anyone wants to take a looksee. Herostratus (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Need help at Talk:Center of gravity above. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive May 2011#Need help at Talk:Center of gravity. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone here has time and the expertise, could we get some help at An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything? Two users are disputing the proper way of discussing the theory advanced in this paper. Both sides accuse the other of POV-pushing. I don't, at all, understand the physics involved, so I'm not of enough use, as some of the issues deal specifically with whether or not other scientists have directly refuted Lisi's theory, and to what extent Lisi himself still accepts his own theory. Appreciate any advice you can give on Talk:An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything. Note that I just requested that the article be fully protected for a short time so that the two editors will not keep reverting each other during the discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Newcomb's formula has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this project subscribes to WP:AALERTS, so we get daily reports on those discussions as long as the article is tagged with the {{WP Physics}} banner. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't tagged until I tagged it, just now. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Spacial separation from the velocity vector, well, I tried to translate that into plain approachable English, hope I did ok. The Orbit of the ISS needs explaining, why is it 51.6 degrees inclined. Some say it's so the Soyuz can reach the station, some say it's so the shuttle can reach the station, you'd read the whole article and still not know which is right (both) or why. And the HTV ? launches through an 'instantaneous launch window' ? whats that about? but one of the crew took some snaps of the launch from the station. We could use some help here. Anyone got 10 minutes ? Please come to the ISS talk page to help. Penyulap _talk 15:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated International Space Station for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Please understand, this is about an effort to improve the article, and get some new blood and new ideas into this article. Penyulap _talk 15:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)