Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics Main / Talk	Taskforces A (talk) · BPH (talk) · FD (talk) · G (talk) · R (talk)	Article watchlist Discussion watchlist	Members	Quality Control (talk)	Welcome

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PSR J0348+0432

There's a request for help in evaluating this submission at WT:ASTRO. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There are currently four articles which mention this pulsar including Tests of general relativity#Strong field tests: Binary pulsars where it is a red-link. Apparently, it is the best example we have now of a close binary star which is presumably emitting gravitational radiation in a strong-field regime. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, I brought it into main article.Earthandmoon (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Attribution is now broken, because of the way this article was introduced into articlespace. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the "attribution" problem. The article appears to have been moved into main space in a way that preserves the edit history. What else could you mean? JRSpriggs (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The history was spliced after a request was made to WP:SPLICE to fix the copy-and-paste move. The fix was done by Anthony Appleyard, which occurred after I posted this notice to WPPhysics -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. And thanks to Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) for fixing the article's history. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(Inessential) proposal: New flow diagram of physical theories

See also: talk:quantum gravity#New flow diagram of physical theories

Where theory X lies in the hierarchy of physical theories.

Although File:Quantum gravity.png is very nicely made, how about a more complete one in SVG? This could be used in the articles suggested by the diagram other than just quantum gravity, if others approve. One unfortunate problem is the amount of whitespace in the middle and top-right corner, but it can't be helped without removing content... Feel free to criticize. Thanks, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 08:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Before we can even consider using this diagram, you need to be very clear about one thing — what exactly does the arrow mean? JRSpriggs (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

... also (1) what do the colours mean ? and (2) where is thermodynamics ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The arrows show the directions which accumulate/contain the theories. Special relativity combines classical mechanics and electromagnetism. Classical field theory contains classical EM and Newtonian gravity. Special relativity and quantum mechanics combine into relativistic quantum mechanics. Etc.

And thermodynamics can be derived from classical statistical mechanics. It's not supposed to contain every branch of physics, just the main (fundamental) ones (hence the name of the file).

For the colours: yellow is classical, blue is quantum, red is relativistic, green is special relativistic quantum physics, black is general relativistic quantum physics.

The double-headed arrows mean the theories are interrelated within one theory, i.e. classical physics is classical mechanics and classical field theory, while quantum theory is QM and QFT...

I honestly thought these things would be fairly self-evident given the labeling and would not have to explain. That's an indication for not including it, which is fine. In that case, should I just convert the original File:Quantum gravity.png to SVG for the quantum gravity article (that was the original idea)? M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 14:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your double headed arrows must be removed. The concept is unclear and these are not equivalent theories. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait for more opinions before collectively making all proposed changes. Thanks for feedback. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 15:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Modified it, to include a bit more, removed double arrows, changed green -> purple = blue + red. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• The second version of your diagram appears to be missing an arrow from "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics" to "Relativistic Quantum Field Theory".
• It is not clear to me in what sense "Classical Field Theory" is included in "Electromagnetism" and "Classical Gravity" rather than the other way around.
• Some items in your diagram (mostly those about statistics) appear not to have articles on Wikipedia by the name you used. Either the name should be changed or they should not appear in the diagram. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Made suggested fixes.

However there is statistical field theory so presumably there would be a relativistic formulation called relativistic statistical field theory, but that's probably too extrapolated for now so it was removed [I can't even find much literature on this right now - there is plenty on statistical field theory (not necessarily relativistic), but none specifically on any relativistic formulations]. Additionally it's sort of strange there is no overall article on relativistic statistical mechanics: thermodynamics and kinetic theory etc can be formulated in curved spacetime (c.f. MTW), anyway removed that for now also.

Dropped the "statistical/deterministic" separation which the reader can deduce/infer by reading the articles.

The topology of the diagram is as simple as I can make it, without removing the intersecting arrow from classical field theory to QFT. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops… I missed this interesting topic for some reason. A good illustration, especially colours, but I do not agree with most arrows.

Lorentz–Einstein relativity does not depend on Galilean relativity, nor does “upgrades” it. These are different and alternative (mutually exclusive) models of the space-time. Indeed, it is easier to derive Galilean group from Poincaré group than versa. The fact that Galilean relativity appeared first is a matter of history, not one of logic.

Quantum mechanics is in some sense an “upgrade” to classical mechanics, but equations of Schrödinger and Dirac do not require anything of classical mechanics. Relation between them is not direct: it is quantization which links classical and quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is only partially a “mechanics”, and they also are alternative, indeed.

Field theory is not an extension of mechanics. Newtonian mechanics assumes an action at distance (including potential energy), to which the field idea is directly opposite.

Could the picture, instead of arrows, shown a kind of Euler diagram? How paradigms combine one with another to form theories. Such as:

• Galilean relativity × particle × action at distance = classical (Newtonian) mechanics
• Lorentz–Einstein relativity × particle × action at distance = relativistic dynamics
• Galilean relativity × field = classical field theory
• Galilean relativity × wave function × action at distance = (Schrödingerian) quantum mechanics
• Lorentz–Einstein relativity × wave function(?) × action at distance = relativistic quantum mechanics
• Lorentz–Einstein relativity × wave function × field = quantum field theory

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Some comments and questions:

• What is the times symbol supposed to mean in this context: "and" in the logic sense?
• Why include "action at a distance" when this is just a characteristic of a theory and not a theory in itself? Same for "wavefunction"?
• True, classical mechanics combined with EM did historically lead to SR, but conceptually this is the order they are taught and understood. The arrows above show how initially separate theories combine and they are correct... Except perhaps for the disconnected theories like classical/quantum particle mechanics and classical/quantum fields, as you say, in which case it would be better to just remove those arrows entirely.
• An Euler/Venn diagram would introduce overlapping circles of disconnected theories, i.e. RQM as the intersection of SR and QM, then QM as a subset of QFT and SR as a subset of QFT? No matter, just need to warp the shapes, but it could look weird...
• QFTs are not always relativistic by default, they can be non-relativistic also (considered before).
• Above, you haven't mentioned how GR fits in, I'll try to fill that in.

I'll get the image drawn and uploaded soon... Thanks for further feedback M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 20:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• “×” means hybridization, you can think of it as the logical conjunction, yes.
• “Action at a distance” is a paradigm alternative to “field”, but logically independent of other aforementioned paradigms: yes, not a standalone theory. “Wave function” – a paradigm alternative to “particle”, but logically independent of other aforementioned paradigms, including “field” (a good physicist should know that superposition of wave functions does not imply superposition of fields). Possibly, more correct names are “amplitude” or “quantum state”.
• Possibly, something more than arrows would be appropriate?
• (no opinion)
• QFT – point taken, it is just wave function × field, but prepending a Lorentz group is the standard implementation.
• General Relativity – replacement of Lorentz–Einstein relativity with the principle of gravitational relativity. Gravity itself is an alternative (the fourth in my list), not a paradigm. The principle of g.r. is its interpretation alternative to “force” (see fictitious force for explanation of this alternative is a broader context).

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Main physical theories as a Venn/Euler diagram.

First, I tried to reform the previous version as an Euler diagram. Better? Anything wrong and we can take it from here. (We might take this to yours or my talk page, either is fine, to prevent cluttering this page). M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 23:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, “Relativity” side is fouled up. I highly appreciate your efforts, but… let us stop on your blocks layout, which consistently expresses your thoughts. In the future, I could make another diagram to express my thoughts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue why relativity is "fouled up" considering "relativistic physics" refers to SR and GR, and GR contains SR, and has the overlap with classical field theory and quantum theory for relativistic QM/QFT.

Nevertheless, enjoy creating your own anytime. Thanks, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 07:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass not from Higgs?

I saw a new video on YouTube which claims that most of mass is not from the Higgs mechanism after all. Please see YouTube video "Your Mass is NOT from Higgs Boson" by 1veritasium. Rather he says that it is from the energy needed to suppress background fluctuations of the chromodynamic field in the 'flux tubes' connecting the quarks within nucleons. Is this right? JRSpriggs (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the Lund string model and QCD string for quark confinement separate from the Higgs mechanism? (That's as I know so far... could be wrong). M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 06:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

He also says that our diagram File:Quark structure proton.svg is wrong, i.e. that within a proton there is one Y-shaped flux tube, not three straight-line flux tubes. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Dual Ginzburg-Landau theory is an approximation of QCD and does give a prediction Y-shaped flux tubes; see for instance, [1]. But I don't know if such a prediction has been verified either in lattice QCD or in experimental particle physics. --Mark viking (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Mark and Maschen, thanks for your responses. You seem to be implying that 1veritasium's video is consistent with the best available theoretical thinking. Right? JRSpriggs (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I watched the video and most of what he was gesticulating about seemed reasonably consistent with current thought. Digging deeper, this paper confirms that there is some evidence that Y junction flux tubes have been seen in lattice QCD calculations and that most of the mass of baryons like protons and neutrons is bound up in the confinement potential energy, whether you take an asymptotic $1/N_c$ approach or a flux tube approach. --Mark viking (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Still, this doesn't explain the missing mass of the universe (dark matter), which is not affected by anything but gravity, so is therefore not interactive with the higgs field? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

To 65.94.76.126: Dark matter is characterized by having little or no interaction with electromagnetism and being non-baryonic (i.e. not composed of quarks) and $\rho+\frac{3p}{c^2} > 0 \,$ (so that it causes the expansion of the universe to slow). This says nothing about whether it interacts with the Higgs boson. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not watch the video, but the claim that most of our mass is not due to the Higgs mechanism is well known and is represented correctly by our (wikipedia) pages. The Higg's mechanism is responsible only for the mass of elementary particles such as electrons and quarks, etc. (See the lead of Higgs mechanism.) But most of our mass is due to neutrons and protons which are composite particles. Their masses are significantly greater than the elementary quarks that make them up. (See proton#Quarks and the mass of the proton.) This mass difference is due to the energy of gluon, if I understand it correctly, which is unrelated to the Higgs mechanism. Mark and Maschen know much more about it than I. I would have no hope, of understanding anything from their level. It took me a while to understand what they were saying, though, which is why I wrote this remark.TStein (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The video and the article linked don't make clear a fairly prosaic explanation of much of the mass: kinetic energy of the quarks. This is an angle emphasized heavily by Frank Wilczek in his book The Lightness of Being. Their confinement ensures that in the ground state, they have sufficient momentum to be travelling very close to the speed of light. It is a while back that I read it, but I got the impression that this relativistic mass was the dominant source of mass (perhaps 95% of the mass of the proton, if I'm not misremembering it), greater by far than any contribution from gluon fields and all other mechanisms. The elaboration on the exact nature of the gluon tubes seems to me to be missing the point. — Quondum 20:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

To Quondum: Since kinetic energy (and its equivalent mass) is proportional to rest mass (due to Higgs), this does not take Higgs out of the picture. The kinetic energy of particles without rest mass (like photons) could be anything (invariant under a change of scale), so it is inconsistent with the fact that bulk matter has a definite mass. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

To JRSprings: Actually there is one problem. If classically there is a scale symmetry on the quantum level it can be broken (see dimensional transmutation and conformal anomaly) There is a scale anomaly in QCD with massless fermions, the mass scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$ is introduced in radiative corrections. Though the trace of scale invariance is still there - this new mass scale is arbitrary, but every other mass is proportional to it (and in reality only the proportions of the observable are relevant). That's funny, I just mentioned at the end of discussion another example... Of course in reality fermions and vector bosons have a mass thanks to a Higgs and this new scale is fixed by these masses. Yes, they are not responsible for much mass in the universe. No, they are not accounted by QCD confinement of massless particles (electrons don't even interact strongly) VeNoo (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

To JRSprings: proportions of the observable masses... VeNoo (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick question to the astrophysics experts

I was just clearing up Commons category Category:Stellar evolution a little bit and were creating a new category called Category:Pre-main-sequence evolution. Now I'm not sure If I moved some files in error.

Please consider File:Stellar evolutionary tracks-en.svg as an example. Is this graph showing pre-main-sequence evolution (and is therefore correctly categorized) or does it show evolution after hydrogen fusion stops and is therefore showing the evolution of the star after leaving the main sequence? --Patrick87 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A Pre-main-sequence star is a star that has not yet reached the main sequence. The file you mentioned shows the main sequence and post-main-sequence evolution for a number of different star types. Evolution after hydrogen fusion stops is I believe considered post-main-sequence. So I would say that this illustration is not about pre-main-sequence evolution. --Mark viking (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know what a PMS star is. What I don't know is how to tell whether the image shows pre- or post-main-sequence evolution since they look very similar. There is a very similar image to the first one at File:Hayashi track it.svg that clearly shows pre-main-sequence evolution. Probably I only got confused because I found it first. But I want to be sure the image in question really shows post-main-sequence evolution. --Patrick87 (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

These tracks are definitely post-main-sequence, not pre-main-sequence. --Amble (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Conduct of IP 84.20.238.83

The IP 84.20.238.83[2] has been repeatedly placing references to un-notable papers on several important physics articles.[3] He even added one to the article on Paul Dirac. He continues to do this after several warnings on his talk page. I sugggest that a block may be needed here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC).

Physics for People Who Hate Physics

Unfortunately, many of our articles are written this way:

"The simple approach to physics is too dogmatic, & the people who advocate it are theorists, not real physicists, and should not be allowed to teach theory courses like this one. (Dogmatism is reserved for the accompanying lab course.) Beginning with a simple, general understanding is too formal: A real physicist works through all the examples, & then tries to understand it later; hindsight is more educational than foresight. It is only by repeating all the same mistakes that physicists made historically that one can learn history (although the student may need to repeat this physics course). This method was good enough for all physicists so far (except the formalists of the 1960's & 1970's), so it's good enough for the future. To follow history one must teach things the way they were first learned -- as a confusing mess. By this method physics can be shown to be as manly as any other subject, & its intrinsic simplicity & beauty can be buried at the end of each topic, by which time it will not be noticed."

Count Iblis (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. We have a lot of articles on topics which could be quite interesting, but for the fact it's a long list of derivations in some obscure notation, with little mention of what the effect means physically or is good for. We have our work cut out for us... a13ean (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Observers in a quantum mechanical context

Oh dear. I thought I'd bring myself up to date with thinking on the relevance of the observer in quantum mechanics but got to Observer (quantum physics) with its focus on human beings. I'd kick Capra right out but I don't know the current range of reasonable opinions. There is a welter of articles in this area and Quantum mind–body problem seems better to me but even there Dan Brown appears on-stage![4] To be fair he is dressed in new age robes. Also, Measurement in quantum mechanics starts off in a high-minded fashion but it looks like some sort of rot has maybe set in and at Measurement in quantum mechanics#Wavefunction collapse someone has inserted an extended editorial criticism of what is to follow. Can anyone with knowledge, energy and a sharp sword do anything about this? Thincat (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it a tad strange that an article on the observer in quantum mechanics would fail to mention his importance in the various interpretations and place such undue emphasis on consciousness-driven collapse (without listing any interpretations that advocate it). Regarding the second article, I went ahead and moved the "editorial" comments to the talk page. I'm almost certain that, while the section could be clearer, it doesn't have any glaring errors, but what the comments boil down to is a (well-founded, to me) complaint that a lot of the formalism has been skipped/simplified. --Anagogist (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Event (particle physics) and particle collision

The former is an unsourced stub for 8 years, which definitely is not good. The latter currently is a redirect to particle accelerator, which is plainly incorrect, because collisions occur not only in accelerators, but also with cosmic rays, during (or after) various nuclear reactions, and so. This unhealthy condition should be rectified, such that both items pointed to the same article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll change particle collision to redirect to Event (particle physics) and have a go at expanding (including to just add sources) - it looks like half a dictionary definition, which is simply unacceptable. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 14:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Radiative symmetry breaking

I improved a bit the Coleman-Weinberg potential page (still the work needed, the CW potential doesn't even mentioned there as such...) and thought that it's a good idea to place more info on spontaneous symmetry breaking by radiative corrections not there but on the spontaneous symmetry breaking page or even make its own page (though I have less enthusiasm for the latter) VeNoo (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

New important article: Symmetry in quantum mechanics

Considering

• how painfully vague and unclear generators, groups, representations etc. are explained in the context of QM symmetries,
• there is some important content for relativistic quantum mechanics which couldn't fit into that article,

I wrote a summary style article in attempt

• to outline in plain language what the subject is about
  • hopefully explain some irritating and confusing notations,
  • clarify what is exponentiated and differentiated and Taylor expanded with respect to what...
• prevent riskfully damaging other articles trying to rewrite them,

allowing group abstractions to be furthered in main articles like

• representations of the Lorentz group,
• representation theory of the Lorentz group,
• generator (mathematics),
• all the other painful articles on group theory and group representations.

Also

• it parallels with symmetries in general relativity,
• last year there was concern about the opaqueness of group theory in QM here at this wikiproject.

There could be trillions of typos, and it needs more content added and more tightening up, which I can do in time anyway, but others are free to complain on the talk page as usual. One section completely absent is a section on gauge theories in QFTs, which is obviously critical for an article of this type.

So... before tearing it up to merge bits in other articles, or propose for deletion, or find any case for removing it in any way, or complaining "Maschen has created yet more mess for us to clear up" - please think first. Thanks. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 00:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not a small task you've taken on, but looks like a great start. Symmetry in quantum mechanics and QFT is a big subject, certainly big enough for a standalone article. Right now the article concentrates on continuous symmetries, but C, P, T, symmetry under particle exchange, supersymmetry and topological conservation laws (e.g., instantons) probably belong in there, too. Scale invariance and the renormalization group play a role in QFT, too. --Mark viking (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, as always.

Yes, aware of and forgot to mention previously that particle exchange, isospin, C, P, T, symmetries, CP violation, the CPT theorem, Lorentz violation, which quantities/operations are conserved/preserved in which fundamental interactions, also need to be in there also. Even matter/antimatter is not mentioned.

Some things like supersymmetry are already mentioned but should be expanded on.

I don't know enough about the scale invariance/renormalization group, topological conservation laws, and instantons, so will leave that for those inclined and knowledgeable. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 06:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A great start on a vast subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC).

New (very short) article: Rate (particle physics)

This arose from event (particle physics). Do people think it should be merged anywhere? There must be far more to this quantity than what I wrote. I'll look around for more refs. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 12:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Cross section (physics) looks like a good place for it. There is little overlap and the concepts are strongly related. --Anagogist (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I partially had that in mind also, just notifying in case someone had more to write about it (probably unlikely). If there are no objections anyone is free to throw it into the Cross section (physics) article in it's own section (with the sections of rate (particle physics) becoming subsections of course). Thanks, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll do this now. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 12:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Stress tensor a DAB page?

Apologies if it's been raised before and caused irritation, but why is this a DAB page? It's an overall list of stress tensors. The variety of stress tensors combine with the momentum density of associated matter continua or fields into the relativistic stress-energy tensor, don't they? It would be helpful to link to this list without and let the reader see there is a list, considering that we're not supposed to link to DAB pages. Maybe even extend it into a very short summary style article describing the nature of stress tensors and what I just said (if correct). Thanks in advance. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 15:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The engineer who uses stress and strain tensors to model bridge flexure very much hopes that his bridge never enters the relativistic regime :-) More seriously, stress tensors are used in different contexts. In mechanics of materials, stress and strain tensors can for instance model the infinitesimal force and elastic deformation of a material object in equilibrium, where relativistic effects are negligible. In this application, there is no momentum. Since stress tensors are used in different ways in different fields (physics, civil, aeronautical and electrical engineering, etc.), disambiguation seems a reasonable thing to me. There are conceptual similarities among the stress tensors that could be described. The commonalities suggest that a DAB concept type article WP:DABCONCEPT could be appropriate. --Mark viking (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit that was biased on relativity, but it could describe what you point out also, that applied engineers and theoretical physicists calculate with them. I picture a section titled "engineering applications" which has a brief overview and list of links, followed by another section "physics applications" briefly describing the relevant absorptions into a relativistic stress-energy tensor, or some similar structuring.

It may not work, since both applications will be intertwined. In any case, I'm not insisting on anything at all, just a suggestion.

Certain pages which look like DAB pages are also just lists like generator (mathematics). M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 17:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Photon: a QED expert needed

Hello. I request a review of my edit [5].

First I became dissatisfied with parts of a previous version (which is slightly ambiguous and unclear) and posted to the talk page. Later I made my own effort to change it, but now I am equally dissatisfied with the result: all this explain mathematics, not physics. What can be done with it? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Toroidal moment: fringe?

This article strikes me as being nonsense (or babble, of you prefer). Someone with more knowledge than I have should determine whether this should be deleted. — Quondum 01:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If it is fringe, it is of a fairly mainstream sort. The cesium result was published in Science in 1997 and another article on anapole monents of protons was published in Science in 2000. The evidence in condensed matter is weaker, but there is still the CuO Science paper referenced in the article and a Cr2O3 paper in JETP, both by different research groups. Based on the sources, it looks pretty solid to me. --Mark viking (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence in the article, "A toroidal moment is an independent term in the multipole expansion of electromagnetic fields besides magnetic and electric multipoles.", is clearly impossible. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

While the topic is solid from a source point of view, the article could definitely use some work. I agree that the first sentence as it stands, doesn't make much sense. One can break down currents and charges into longitudinal, poloidal and toroidal components and look at how these components play out in the multipole expansions. A nice exposition of this that seems reasonable to me at first reading is in the online article Complete electromagnetic multipole expansion including toroidal moments. There is a Physics Reports article, V. M. Dubovik, V. V. Tugushev “Toroid moments in electrodynamics and solid-state physics”, Phys. Rep. 187, 145-202 (1990). that I don't have access to at the moment, that probably goes into some detail as well. --Mark viking (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on this. So at least it seems that the concept (toroidal dipole/anapole) is receiving serious attention, and that appears to address something that may have been swept under the rug before. I may be off-beam, but the reporting on anapoles in Marjorana fermions may be a little overblown, but that's an separate topic. — Quondum 19:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Marcelo Samuel Berman

I just removed a fresh string of new edits to Marcelo Samuel Berman, all based on a primary source and looking like wp:OR. Left warnings at User talk:187.59.21.11 and User talk:177.202.75.190. Can someone have a close look at what's going on there? Looks like a fan club. - DVdm (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

New article: Spherical basis

I started it for now, it's relevant to this wikiproject because of spherical harmonics and quantum mechanics. It is incomplete and probably full of typos/inaccuracies, and I intend to finish it soon, but it's been sitting in my userspace for a very long time so for now it's been moved into mainspace allowing others the freedom to edit it, if inclined. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 08:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Content has been split from spherical basis to tensor operator, which as you all already know requires the formalism of spherical harmonics and QM, and has other applications. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 12:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Long Hertzsprung Russell Diagram.jpg

image:Long Hertzsprung Russell Diagram.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Stellar metamorphosis

Stellar metamorphosis has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Differing Matter Content of the Milky Way Galaxy.png

Should image:Differing Matter Content of the Milky Way Galaxy.png be nominated for deletion ? Or should it be moved to commons? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

New maintenance lists

I've been coding a bit, and the result is a number of new maintenance lists that might be of general interest:

• User:HhhipBot/Physics pages is a complete list of the pages within the scope of WikiProject Physics. It was originally inspired by our Index of physics articles series, but with some major differences: The list is divided (roughly) by field rather than the first letter of the page name, it includes hidden links to all talk pages, and it's automatically generated, thus low-maintenance. Its main purpose is to serve as an on-wiki project watchlist in combination with the Related changes feature, like this:

• general
• AMO
• applied
• condensed
• fluid
• particle
• theory
• bio
• pub/hist
• meta

• User:HhhipBot/Physics candidates is the same kind of list for articles that do not have a WP Physics tag, but are member of a tagged content category. In many cases this situation is justified, but there are many others where it would be worthwhile to check whether the article should actually get a project tag, whether it's in the right categories, and which of these categories should have a project tag.
• User:HhhipBot/Cleanup listing/Physics lists all physics articles that are tagged for cleanup, grouped by the type of cleanup needed. It's basically a copy of the cleanup lists generated by Svick's tool, but on-wiki, so it can be watchlisted and the article links are internal (that is, protocol-neutral). Bonus features are that each section can be individually transcluded, and several ways to find new or recently resolved issues.

The underlying code is still under development, but ready for some beta-testing. At the moment the bot is only run supervised, the long-term plan is to run it automatically about once a week. Comments and suggestions are welcome! — HHHIPPO 12:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Very good work which is not neglected. Thanks for your efforts! M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 12:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

EarlyTeslaCoil.PNG

image:EarlyTeslaCoil.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Dilation as field (DaF): fringe alert

A piece of non-academical (or marginally academical) science, partially based on works of a fringe scientist Piotr Ogonowski. FYI I attended on one his presentation, tried to communicate with him, so I really know what I said. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be almost entirely the work of Gigantmozg (talk · contribs) who has been adding links to it from other articles. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the mention in Time dilation. There's more (see Special:Contributions/Gigantmozg), but I'll leave those to others. - DVdm (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, I did not notice that Gigantmozg is (a bit shortened) transliteration for “giant brain” in Russian. Was Ogonowski’s visit to Moscow a month ago purely coincidental? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at WP:AfC

Hello, can anyone give this article a glance over Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Asymptotic Safety, firstly to check if it's not some common physics joke, and secondly to check if it makes sense. I think the opening paragrph could use re-writing in plainer English, but recognise we have to document complex stuff sometimes. Any help with this appreciated Rankersbo (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a physics joke. I think the idea of a nonperturbative fixed point as a fix for perturbative non-renormalizability of quantum gravity was proposed by S. Weinberg, a prominent physicist, but proving that this fixed point exists is a difficult exercise. Such an approach was already mentioned at Ultraviolet fixed point#Asymptotic safety scenario in quantum gravity It should be asymptotic safety, not Asymptotic Safety. The author seems quite keen; they have already created the associated article Physics applications of asymptotically safe gravity outside AfC. I agree that the lead para could be written more simply and with more context. This review of asymptotic safety in quantum gravity is fairly extensive and provides a nice secondary source for the topic. --Mark viking (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. As I'm the author of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Asymptotic Safety, I shouldn't comment on its scientific correctness. Nevertheless, I have some questions/comments. 1.) Is it possible to change the title? The term "Asymptotic Safety" can be applied to many areas in physics, while the article mainly concerns quantum gravity. So I propose the title "Asymptotic Safety in quantum gravity". 2.) The term "Asymptotic Safety" has usually been capitalized in the literature. However, since many journals insist in lowercasing, now both versions "Asymptotic Safety" and "asymptotic safety" are common. I could change it, although I prefer the capitalization. 3.) I highly welcome any suggestions for rewriting some sentences of the opening paragraph in plainer English, however, without altering the content. 4.) Concerning the article Physics applications of asymptotically safe gravity: What does it mean if an article is created outside AfC? Can it be moved to AfC? --&reasNink (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi &reasNink, welcome and thanks for writing these articles. It's fine for you to comment on an article you wrote. Although it may seem like it, we are not here to pass judgement--ideally it is more of a conversation among editors. In answer to your questions, yes it is possible to change the title of the article, both in the transition from AfC or after the article has been created. According to the Wikipedia Manual of style WP:MOS, article title should use sentence case, so the new title should be "Asymptotic safety in quantum gravity". I proposed using asymptotic safety in the body of the article because the topic seemed more like a generic concept, like asymptotic freedom, than a proper noun. It is also fine to for you to have created Physics applications of asymptotically safe gravity outside the AfC process. It is just that new editors often wait for their first article to get through AfC before creating other articles. But you did nothing wrong. --Mark viking (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark viking. Thanks for your answer! You convinced me to use the lowercase version "asymptotic safety" (unlike most articles in the literature) globally in the article. So can somebody change the title to "Asymptotic safety in quantum gravity"? (I don't know how this can be done...) I apologize for the beginner's mistakes I commit! --&reasNink (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Asymptotic Safety

Can someone give Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Asymptotic Safety a technical review and see if there is any reason it shouldn't be summarily accepted as an article? You can add commentary to the top by using the {{afc comment}} template (subst: not required, contrary to any documentation that says otherwise). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)