Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive May 2014
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Is the Italian physicist Vito Latora notable?
Is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vito Latora notable? See the existing discussions linked near the top of that page. Note: Some of the references are in Italian. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- have a look at the citations [1]. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC).
AfC submission - 14/05
User:Meea/Total absorption spectroscopy. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Is the fermion ball described in [2] the same as that object described in our article fermi ball ? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- From a quick search of available material on Web of Knowledge, it sounds like the two are different things. Every article dealing with Fermi balls (capital F) mentions them in similar fashion to the wiki article, but the papers that refer to fermion balls view them as simply that - balls of fermions. I'm not well-versed in this aspect of astrophysics, so unfortunately I can't be of more help.
- As an aside, if you're planning on improving the article - find some better references for the Fermi ball, that arxiv paper is terrible! Primefac (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Physics people. I just happened across this article, and it has been in a sorry state for 7 years. For a start, it doesn't know whether it is talking about "ionic conductivity" or "ionic conduction". Is there anyone who is well-informed about this topic, and who would be willing to help explain the concept properly in the lead and fix the remaining bits of the article? — This, that and the other (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Constructor theory
Hi, I have created a new article stub for Constructor theory. I hope to fill out a little more in the coming days, but if anybody else can pitch in - especially someone who understands these things better than I do - that would be good. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The article reads like physics-babble and OR and OSYN to me. If you want it to survive you will have to find better sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
- You can add computing-babble and philoso-babble too. I have tried to present the ideas logically, but clarifying it further runs an even greater risk of OR/SYN, the article is a bit stuck with the one or the other. You could argue that it's TOOSOON, but there must be an awful lot of people reading that New Scientist feature article and turning to Wikipedia for enlightenment and additional sources, I thought that something no less intelligible would be better than nothing. Thanks for the comment, I do take your point. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, a difficult decision. New Scientist publishes a lot of gee-wiz junk and is by no means always a reliable source for science matters. Maybe it would be best to wait for more material in the mainstream science literature. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
- OTOH David Deutsch is not your average gee-whizz junkster and he is writing within his field of expertise. I'd expect that whatever he has to say on the matter would be notable for one reason or another. Published material seems to be as much philosophical as physical at this stage. I guess I felt that the philosophy at least was now well-enough documented to deserve an article. When it comes to the philosophy of science, do we tend to engage with the Philosophy WikiProject? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for bringing the matter here anyway. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC).
- And thank you too for highlighting some weaknesses in my presentation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks for bringing the matter here anyway. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC).
- OTOH David Deutsch is not your average gee-whizz junkster and he is writing within his field of expertise. I'd expect that whatever he has to say on the matter would be notable for one reason or another. Published material seems to be as much philosophical as physical at this stage. I guess I felt that the philosophy at least was now well-enough documented to deserve an article. When it comes to the philosophy of science, do we tend to engage with the Philosophy WikiProject? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, a difficult decision. New Scientist publishes a lot of gee-wiz junk and is by no means always a reliable source for science matters. Maybe it would be best to wait for more material in the mainstream science literature. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
- You can add computing-babble and philoso-babble too. I have tried to present the ideas logically, but clarifying it further runs an even greater risk of OR/SYN, the article is a bit stuck with the one or the other. You could argue that it's TOOSOON, but there must be an awful lot of people reading that New Scientist feature article and turning to Wikipedia for enlightenment and additional sources, I thought that something no less intelligible would be better than nothing. Thanks for the comment, I do take your point. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- The article reads like physics-babble and OR and OSYN to me. If you want it to survive you will have to find better sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
Relationship between mathematics and physics
Relationship between mathematics and physics is a new article that could use some work. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Relativityman
Relativityman (talk · contribs)
Can someone else have a look at the edits by this editor. Seems like nonsense to me but someone else might be more familiar with the material or source, and I'm running out of reverts. Thanks.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- This user is pushing a fringe theory: the paper cited in Physical constant was presented at a Natural Philosophy Alliance conference, which has statements like "The 'light cone' is junk. The Big Bang is junk." RockMagnetist (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely fringe. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fringe. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
And one more, ACMURPH (talk · contribs), who would "like to see/contribute more stuff on Biophotons and Light/Energy healing", though he has yet to edit outside of /Members.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, we do have an article on biophotons and articles related to tantra techniques, chakra meditation and the like. If ACHMURPH chooses to contribute to those articles from the perspective of a believer, I wouldn't object. Just so long as we don't get any more How the Hippies Saved Physics and Tao of Physics fringiness like we see occasionally creeping into articles dealing with quantum entanglement etc. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)