![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 720 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Excess-precision values:
Cool endeavor from yours, a task which I would not be capable of myself. However, wanting to read the article to discover cool stuff, I stumble upon the first highlighted paragraph. The information paradox is not the fact that anything that went passt the horizon is doomed to "crash" on the singularity (which in fact nobody knows what it is exactly they are talking about) but is a quantum problem. It involves Hawking radiation, and the fact that unitarity is apparently lost when the BH evaporates, because of the no-hair theorem. Namely, all the information that was trapped in, as long as it stays inside somehow does not pose a serious problem, but as soon as it is radiated back into an observer's frame, the information is supposed to be totally scrambled i.e. thermalized. Quantum mechanics forbid that. Several attempts at solving the issue are still not entirely convincing. I will stop here since I fall short of being a specialist. But please, make amendments on this first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.199.1.52 ( talk) 14:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
This article currently has just two real references, neither of which does much to support the bulk of the material in the article. Although there has been a {{ more citations needed}} template since 2013, a lot of new material is being added with zero references to support it. I'm especially concerned about @ Greg L's statements above that he wrote the article based on unpublished personal communication with Dr. Mathur. An editor with as much tenure as Greg should know that unpublished communication is not an acceptable source for an article. Some of the recent material added, such as this, which explicitly contradicts other sources and claims that they are incorrect, needs very strong sourcing, yet it has none at all. As it stands, this article's sourcing is quite abysmal. CodeTalker ( talk) 20:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
While trying to write this article at a reading-difficulty level akin to ‘Scientific American’, which would be appropriate for the general-interest encyclopedia that is Wikipedia, I was (trying to) study up on Killing vector field, which is central to Steven Hawking's theory of Hawking radiation. The lead of the article—what is supposed to be the “accessible” initial part of an article—read as follows today:
“ | In mathematics, a Killing vector field (often called a Killing field), named after Wilhelm Killing, is a vector field on a Riemannian manifold (or pseudo-Riemannian manifold) that preserves the metric. Killing fields are the infinitesimal generators of isometries; that is, flows generated by Killing fields are continuous isometries of the manifold. More simply, the flow generates a symmetry, in the sense that moving each point of an object the same distance in the direction of the Killing vector will not distort distances on the object. | ” |
“ | In mathematics, an isometry (or congruence, or congruent transformation) is a
distance-preserving transformation between
metric spaces, usually assumed to be
bijective.[a] a. "We shall find it convenient to use the word transformation in the special sense of a one-to-one correspondence among all points in the plane (or in space), that is, a rule for associating pairs of points, with the understanding that each pair has a first member P and a second member P' and that every point occurs as the first member of just one pair and also as the second member of just one pair... In particular, an isometry (or "congruent transformation," or "congruence") is a transformation which preserves length ..." — Coxeter (1969) p. 29 |
” |
And no, no target readership for Wikipedia is legitimately Ph.D.s; they seldom come here. Greg L ( talk) 23:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I want to give a well-deserved public shout-out to Viktor T. Toth, who created the Hawking radiation calculator cited frequently in the article. Mr. Toth provided invaluable feedback while I struggled with this article.
It's worth noting that I independently calculated (which is to say, double-checked) many of the values cited to his online calculator until it was clear that the calculator A) uses correct formulas, and B) of course, isn’t capable of occasional calculation mistakes like I am.
During our many email exchanges, it’s clear that Mr. Toth not only truly and deeply understands the direct and tangential theories underlying the formulas of black holes and Hawking radiation, but also has an uncanny ability to use plain-speak when communicating arcane scientific issues. In particular, Mr. Toth utterly shamed me into diverging from a near-exclusive particle-based treatment of Hawking radiation towards a wave-based treatment. Without connecting the dots between waves and particles, one would be doing a disservice to our readership.
Thank you, Viktor.
Greg L ( talk) 01:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I didn’t want to lose this scientific paper and a fascinating graph in the paper that shows every size and mass of object in the universe that ever existed. It is beyond the scope of this article, but many people who are interested enough in this article to visit this talk page will find this interesting.
In the graph, the white “instanton” dot at the intersection of “quantum uncertainty” and “forbidden by gravity” (general relativity) is the Planck mass (2.176×10−5 g, or the mass of a cubic salt crystal measuring 0.216 mm on a side) compressed into a volume of one Planck length cubed, at the Planck density. And, as the paper says, the temperature of the Hawking radiation emitted from the instanton is the Planck temperature. At the upper right-hand corner of the graph, the big black dot is the Universe, which fits on the “black hole” line.
I hope others find this helpful in connecting the dots between general relativity and quantum physics. Greg L ( talk) 03:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
With regard to your deletion ( ∆ edit here) of the pronunciation of “Chandrasekhar” claiming that it is “superfluous and inaccurate,” I’d have to agree with you that I may not have chosen the best option (there are many different pronunciation guides). But given that a Goggle search on “pronounce Chandrasekhar” yields scores of websites and YouTube videos on how to pronunce it, this clearly demonstrates a long-felt need for an easy-to-follow pronunciation guide. One of the websites alone had 18 different ways of pronouncing it.
And I dare estimate that fewer than one in a hundred people know how to follow the IPA pronunciation guide ( /ˌtʃændrəˈʃeɪkər/), so those IPA guides aren’t useful for 99+ percent of our readership. Between the abstruse IPA guides and given the scores of on-line pronunciation guides, I see no foundation for stating that including a pronunciation in the English-language version of Wikipedia is, as you alleged, “superfluous.”
Given though, that there are many different ways for English-speaking people to pronounce his name, the pronunciation given preference at the top by Google, chaan·druh·say·kr is A) properly formed and B) now authoritatively cited. You may find the newly formed and properly cited form, in the second paragraph, here in the article.
Greg L ( talk) 00:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I’d like to share a thought about this article. Someone mentioned that they could find some of the information mentioned here elsewhere on Wikipedia. Well… sure. Since fuzzballs are a type of black hole, there is obviously overlap. But, no; for the most part, the impression is false because the implementations and focus points differ greatly. Also, since many people learn visually, I created five static images and one animation for this article. As with all images, the wikipedian community is welcome to use these new images across the project.
Before contemplating deleting sections of this article in the erroneous belief that a given bit of information is properly and accurately given an encyclopedic treatment elsewhere on Wikipedia, please…
Keen attention must be given to citations that purportedly support assertions of fact but don’t. Some editors might even be purposely using wholesale fakes to make unsuspecting wikipedians accept on face value that the “cited” assertion is correct and correctly cited. This phenomenon is endemic across Wikipedia’s science-related articles.
For the most part, this article (Fuzzballs) is focused on the distinctive properties of fuzzballs and how they differ from classic black holes and neutron stars. I’ve endeavored to delve into very specific aspects of fuzzballs, such as how their mean densities differ from those of neutron stars. Such points of fact are either poorly covered elsewhere on Wikipedia or are not covered at all.
Importantly, while laboring on this article, I noted glaring and wildly incorrect assertions in articles I linked to, such as
this version of "Neutron star", which falsely asserted as follows:
This is, of course, nonsense. Neutron stars have no “typical” temperature. Neutron stars are left-over cinders that don’t generate heat through fusion; they are like a spatter ball of hot metal from a welder’s torch that start out exceedingly hot and rapidly cool. Neutron stars can be tens of millions of kelvin immediately after formation and inexorably cool down to hundreds of thousands of kelvin after millions of years.
Critically, none of the five citations (simulated in the above quotation) that supposedly “cite” that statement supported it. Most of them were cited to books that are hard to access without inter-library loans, but two of the citations were to websites that didn’t even have temperature as an attribute being discussed. Click here to explore the actual “citations.”
Errors like these tend to start a vicious circle where nonsense on Wikipedia is regurgitated on science-related websites and then wikipedians turn around and use those websites as citations to support the falshood!
It’s easy for a non-scientific, all-volunteer army of contributors on Wikipedia to introduce errors—particularly in science- and math-related articles. The false information regarding temperature was introduced 26 December 2013 and at that time cited a scientific paper on ArXiv, " The Neutron Star Mass Distribution", that didn’t discuss temperatures at all.
After that wildly false bit about temperature had been on the Neutron star article for 3612 days (10 years!), I finally corrected it. I spotted far too many other errors on the Neutron star article for me to address; it’s a mess right now and suffers from thousands of small drive-by shootings over more than a decade. The community must do its part to correct it and the many other science-related articles on this project. That Wikipedia’s articles are a mess should come as no surprise to any wikipedian who’s been around for any length of time.
To address the problem of incorrect or false citations, the community should consider requiring that all citations must reference the specific part of the website or the specific chapter, figure number, or table number in a scientific paper. An example of this is as follows:
Of course, citations should ideally be from secondary sources but this isn’t always possible on arcane scientific subjects. Note that
WP:SCHOLARSHIP reads as follows regarding primary sources, Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. When adding citations referencing scientific papers, “caution,” I think, means pointing out precisely where to look in the paper and what one can expect to read when they get there. This is demonstrated in the above example. Doing so will make lives easier for all wikipedians; expecting this practice to be the norm will improve the project.
Greg L ( talk) 04:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Some of the more salvageable material on this page is the comparisons between qualitative properties of a fuzzball and that of a classical Schwarzschild black hole, but unfortunately a lot of it rests on misconceptions about the latter. A Schwarzschild black hole is not a spherical event horizon enclosing an empty spherical volume with a tiny grain of infinite density (the 'singularity') at the centre. Spacetime is incredibly distorted near the Schwarzschild radius and gets even more distorted inside; the interior volume and radius of the black hole are at best extremely difficult to describe; and the singularity is not a massive object that exists in space, it's a region in the future of the interior of the hole where general relativity breaks down. Almost all physicists agree that the singularity is unphysical and that a complete theory of quantum gravity should take over before it arises; the interesting aspect of the fuzzball seems to be that it takes over at the event horizon during formation of the hole. Phantom Hoover ( talk) 13:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Phantom Hoover: What you’ve done on this article is a demonstrably clear combination of Wikipedia:Vandalism (On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge) and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The record of everything you’ve done here cannot be erased for all to see and unambiguous and the end result makes your intentions clear as glass.
I’ll be taking you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if you engage in any more of this. Greg L ( talk) 14:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Phantom Hoover: What you’ve done on this article is a demonstrably clear combination of Wikipedia:Vandalism (On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge) and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.
The record of everything you’ve done here cannot be erased and is there for all to see. The intent of your actions is clear and unambiguous.
Several days ago, after the looked at your contributions history. Seeing your proclivity at deleting large swaths from articles (accompanied by edit comments like “ Because it's part of the proof, you dolt.”), I tried to avoid your promised disruption, I rolled the article back to this version dating to 13:59, 5 August 2023 except I deleted a {More citations needed|date=July 2013} from it. That version of the article had errors and didn’t have a single citation.
I left that version up for a couple of days in hopes that you would settle down and lose interest in vandalism and violations of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
Here’s what you did: all you did just now was to roll it back to the August version (the one with zero citations, except you made THESE minor changes to the lead to falsely make it appear that you had made edits in earnest to add value.
I hadn’t intended to set a trap for you; I merely wanted to avoid needless wikidrama and allow you time to cool down.
I’ll be taking you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if you engage in any more of this.
Greg L ( talk) 15:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a clear-cut case that doesn't need to go to ANI. Phantom Hoover's actions speak louder than words. As @
Greg L: alleged, this is a clear-cut case of disruptive editing that purposely made the article much much worse just to prove SOME sort of point. Or maybe the objective was just to annoy another editor. The above thread (Pronunciation of Chandrasekhar) where the two got crosswise over the inclusion of a pronunciation provides a good clue as to the underlying motives of Phantom Hoover and why he/she would harm the project like that. In the name of "improving an article" one doesn't roll it back from a modern version with 31 citations to a shadow of the article that has zero citations with the stated intention to one day make is suck less.
I'm restoring the original version, which is clearly superior. Phantom Hoover would be well advised to edit constructively throughout Wikipedia from hereon. MLee1957 ( talk) 20:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Phantom Hoover: You are persistently editing against consensus here. MLee1957 and I both see your continued removal of large swaths of material as disruptive editing to make a point. You must discuss such radical measures here on this talk page. Greg L ( talk) 05:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I am frankly gobsmacked that you would engage in such provocative actions while there is an ongoing ANI. Greg L ( talk) 05:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
on the distinctive properties of fuzzballs and how they differ from classic black holes and neutron starsis a sensible goal for the article. Bringing in wave-particle duality, charcoal briquettes, complaints about science YouTube, etc., doesn't actually work towards that goal. Some of the removed material could potentially be suitable for other articles, while some of it isn't encyclopedic. (E.g.,
online popular culture sites such as physics discussion boards, science websites, and even a university physics professor on YouTube writing calculations on a blackboard were promulgating a misunderstandingbelongs on a personal blog, not here.) XOR'easter ( talk) 18:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm just going to dump some papers I've found that may be accessible enough to extract some useful details from:
I'm particularly curious about what fuzzballs are actually predicted to look like, mostly because I'd always assumed they looked exactly like black holes emitting Hawking radiation until you start probing the microstructure near the horizon. I suppose any viable model more or less has to, otherwise it would be inconsistent with the event horizon telescope images. But I don't remember seeing any sources that clearly say that, so I'm wondering if it's something I made up in my head. From what I've seen of the state of the theory it's possible that questions like what happens to a ray of light hitting a fuzzball simply have no settled answer at this stage, and the article would have to reflect that if so. Phantom Hoover ( talk) 23:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe add back a very few that are not already linked, that will be eventually worked into the article per seealso, thank you, Malerooster ( talk) 14:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The "Picture of a Black Hole" over the Hawaiian island is extremly misleading to non-scientific readers, as it makes one think that a Black Hole is a normal sphere sitting in a flat space with a euclidean shape, volume etc. That is clearly not the case, if you know anything about general relativity, and leads to misconceptions amongst laypeople. 159.205.161.203 ( talk) 09:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 720 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Excess-precision values:
Cool endeavor from yours, a task which I would not be capable of myself. However, wanting to read the article to discover cool stuff, I stumble upon the first highlighted paragraph. The information paradox is not the fact that anything that went passt the horizon is doomed to "crash" on the singularity (which in fact nobody knows what it is exactly they are talking about) but is a quantum problem. It involves Hawking radiation, and the fact that unitarity is apparently lost when the BH evaporates, because of the no-hair theorem. Namely, all the information that was trapped in, as long as it stays inside somehow does not pose a serious problem, but as soon as it is radiated back into an observer's frame, the information is supposed to be totally scrambled i.e. thermalized. Quantum mechanics forbid that. Several attempts at solving the issue are still not entirely convincing. I will stop here since I fall short of being a specialist. But please, make amendments on this first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.199.1.52 ( talk) 14:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
This article currently has just two real references, neither of which does much to support the bulk of the material in the article. Although there has been a {{ more citations needed}} template since 2013, a lot of new material is being added with zero references to support it. I'm especially concerned about @ Greg L's statements above that he wrote the article based on unpublished personal communication with Dr. Mathur. An editor with as much tenure as Greg should know that unpublished communication is not an acceptable source for an article. Some of the recent material added, such as this, which explicitly contradicts other sources and claims that they are incorrect, needs very strong sourcing, yet it has none at all. As it stands, this article's sourcing is quite abysmal. CodeTalker ( talk) 20:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
While trying to write this article at a reading-difficulty level akin to ‘Scientific American’, which would be appropriate for the general-interest encyclopedia that is Wikipedia, I was (trying to) study up on Killing vector field, which is central to Steven Hawking's theory of Hawking radiation. The lead of the article—what is supposed to be the “accessible” initial part of an article—read as follows today:
“ | In mathematics, a Killing vector field (often called a Killing field), named after Wilhelm Killing, is a vector field on a Riemannian manifold (or pseudo-Riemannian manifold) that preserves the metric. Killing fields are the infinitesimal generators of isometries; that is, flows generated by Killing fields are continuous isometries of the manifold. More simply, the flow generates a symmetry, in the sense that moving each point of an object the same distance in the direction of the Killing vector will not distort distances on the object. | ” |
“ | In mathematics, an isometry (or congruence, or congruent transformation) is a
distance-preserving transformation between
metric spaces, usually assumed to be
bijective.[a] a. "We shall find it convenient to use the word transformation in the special sense of a one-to-one correspondence among all points in the plane (or in space), that is, a rule for associating pairs of points, with the understanding that each pair has a first member P and a second member P' and that every point occurs as the first member of just one pair and also as the second member of just one pair... In particular, an isometry (or "congruent transformation," or "congruence") is a transformation which preserves length ..." — Coxeter (1969) p. 29 |
” |
And no, no target readership for Wikipedia is legitimately Ph.D.s; they seldom come here. Greg L ( talk) 23:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I want to give a well-deserved public shout-out to Viktor T. Toth, who created the Hawking radiation calculator cited frequently in the article. Mr. Toth provided invaluable feedback while I struggled with this article.
It's worth noting that I independently calculated (which is to say, double-checked) many of the values cited to his online calculator until it was clear that the calculator A) uses correct formulas, and B) of course, isn’t capable of occasional calculation mistakes like I am.
During our many email exchanges, it’s clear that Mr. Toth not only truly and deeply understands the direct and tangential theories underlying the formulas of black holes and Hawking radiation, but also has an uncanny ability to use plain-speak when communicating arcane scientific issues. In particular, Mr. Toth utterly shamed me into diverging from a near-exclusive particle-based treatment of Hawking radiation towards a wave-based treatment. Without connecting the dots between waves and particles, one would be doing a disservice to our readership.
Thank you, Viktor.
Greg L ( talk) 01:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I didn’t want to lose this scientific paper and a fascinating graph in the paper that shows every size and mass of object in the universe that ever existed. It is beyond the scope of this article, but many people who are interested enough in this article to visit this talk page will find this interesting.
In the graph, the white “instanton” dot at the intersection of “quantum uncertainty” and “forbidden by gravity” (general relativity) is the Planck mass (2.176×10−5 g, or the mass of a cubic salt crystal measuring 0.216 mm on a side) compressed into a volume of one Planck length cubed, at the Planck density. And, as the paper says, the temperature of the Hawking radiation emitted from the instanton is the Planck temperature. At the upper right-hand corner of the graph, the big black dot is the Universe, which fits on the “black hole” line.
I hope others find this helpful in connecting the dots between general relativity and quantum physics. Greg L ( talk) 03:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
With regard to your deletion ( ∆ edit here) of the pronunciation of “Chandrasekhar” claiming that it is “superfluous and inaccurate,” I’d have to agree with you that I may not have chosen the best option (there are many different pronunciation guides). But given that a Goggle search on “pronounce Chandrasekhar” yields scores of websites and YouTube videos on how to pronunce it, this clearly demonstrates a long-felt need for an easy-to-follow pronunciation guide. One of the websites alone had 18 different ways of pronouncing it.
And I dare estimate that fewer than one in a hundred people know how to follow the IPA pronunciation guide ( /ˌtʃændrəˈʃeɪkər/), so those IPA guides aren’t useful for 99+ percent of our readership. Between the abstruse IPA guides and given the scores of on-line pronunciation guides, I see no foundation for stating that including a pronunciation in the English-language version of Wikipedia is, as you alleged, “superfluous.”
Given though, that there are many different ways for English-speaking people to pronounce his name, the pronunciation given preference at the top by Google, chaan·druh·say·kr is A) properly formed and B) now authoritatively cited. You may find the newly formed and properly cited form, in the second paragraph, here in the article.
Greg L ( talk) 00:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I’d like to share a thought about this article. Someone mentioned that they could find some of the information mentioned here elsewhere on Wikipedia. Well… sure. Since fuzzballs are a type of black hole, there is obviously overlap. But, no; for the most part, the impression is false because the implementations and focus points differ greatly. Also, since many people learn visually, I created five static images and one animation for this article. As with all images, the wikipedian community is welcome to use these new images across the project.
Before contemplating deleting sections of this article in the erroneous belief that a given bit of information is properly and accurately given an encyclopedic treatment elsewhere on Wikipedia, please…
Keen attention must be given to citations that purportedly support assertions of fact but don’t. Some editors might even be purposely using wholesale fakes to make unsuspecting wikipedians accept on face value that the “cited” assertion is correct and correctly cited. This phenomenon is endemic across Wikipedia’s science-related articles.
For the most part, this article (Fuzzballs) is focused on the distinctive properties of fuzzballs and how they differ from classic black holes and neutron stars. I’ve endeavored to delve into very specific aspects of fuzzballs, such as how their mean densities differ from those of neutron stars. Such points of fact are either poorly covered elsewhere on Wikipedia or are not covered at all.
Importantly, while laboring on this article, I noted glaring and wildly incorrect assertions in articles I linked to, such as
this version of "Neutron star", which falsely asserted as follows:
This is, of course, nonsense. Neutron stars have no “typical” temperature. Neutron stars are left-over cinders that don’t generate heat through fusion; they are like a spatter ball of hot metal from a welder’s torch that start out exceedingly hot and rapidly cool. Neutron stars can be tens of millions of kelvin immediately after formation and inexorably cool down to hundreds of thousands of kelvin after millions of years.
Critically, none of the five citations (simulated in the above quotation) that supposedly “cite” that statement supported it. Most of them were cited to books that are hard to access without inter-library loans, but two of the citations were to websites that didn’t even have temperature as an attribute being discussed. Click here to explore the actual “citations.”
Errors like these tend to start a vicious circle where nonsense on Wikipedia is regurgitated on science-related websites and then wikipedians turn around and use those websites as citations to support the falshood!
It’s easy for a non-scientific, all-volunteer army of contributors on Wikipedia to introduce errors—particularly in science- and math-related articles. The false information regarding temperature was introduced 26 December 2013 and at that time cited a scientific paper on ArXiv, " The Neutron Star Mass Distribution", that didn’t discuss temperatures at all.
After that wildly false bit about temperature had been on the Neutron star article for 3612 days (10 years!), I finally corrected it. I spotted far too many other errors on the Neutron star article for me to address; it’s a mess right now and suffers from thousands of small drive-by shootings over more than a decade. The community must do its part to correct it and the many other science-related articles on this project. That Wikipedia’s articles are a mess should come as no surprise to any wikipedian who’s been around for any length of time.
To address the problem of incorrect or false citations, the community should consider requiring that all citations must reference the specific part of the website or the specific chapter, figure number, or table number in a scientific paper. An example of this is as follows:
Of course, citations should ideally be from secondary sources but this isn’t always possible on arcane scientific subjects. Note that
WP:SCHOLARSHIP reads as follows regarding primary sources, Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. When adding citations referencing scientific papers, “caution,” I think, means pointing out precisely where to look in the paper and what one can expect to read when they get there. This is demonstrated in the above example. Doing so will make lives easier for all wikipedians; expecting this practice to be the norm will improve the project.
Greg L ( talk) 04:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Some of the more salvageable material on this page is the comparisons between qualitative properties of a fuzzball and that of a classical Schwarzschild black hole, but unfortunately a lot of it rests on misconceptions about the latter. A Schwarzschild black hole is not a spherical event horizon enclosing an empty spherical volume with a tiny grain of infinite density (the 'singularity') at the centre. Spacetime is incredibly distorted near the Schwarzschild radius and gets even more distorted inside; the interior volume and radius of the black hole are at best extremely difficult to describe; and the singularity is not a massive object that exists in space, it's a region in the future of the interior of the hole where general relativity breaks down. Almost all physicists agree that the singularity is unphysical and that a complete theory of quantum gravity should take over before it arises; the interesting aspect of the fuzzball seems to be that it takes over at the event horizon during formation of the hole. Phantom Hoover ( talk) 13:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Phantom Hoover: What you’ve done on this article is a demonstrably clear combination of Wikipedia:Vandalism (On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge) and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The record of everything you’ve done here cannot be erased for all to see and unambiguous and the end result makes your intentions clear as glass.
I’ll be taking you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if you engage in any more of this. Greg L ( talk) 14:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Phantom Hoover: What you’ve done on this article is a demonstrably clear combination of Wikipedia:Vandalism (On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge) and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.
The record of everything you’ve done here cannot be erased and is there for all to see. The intent of your actions is clear and unambiguous.
Several days ago, after the looked at your contributions history. Seeing your proclivity at deleting large swaths from articles (accompanied by edit comments like “ Because it's part of the proof, you dolt.”), I tried to avoid your promised disruption, I rolled the article back to this version dating to 13:59, 5 August 2023 except I deleted a {More citations needed|date=July 2013} from it. That version of the article had errors and didn’t have a single citation.
I left that version up for a couple of days in hopes that you would settle down and lose interest in vandalism and violations of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
Here’s what you did: all you did just now was to roll it back to the August version (the one with zero citations, except you made THESE minor changes to the lead to falsely make it appear that you had made edits in earnest to add value.
I hadn’t intended to set a trap for you; I merely wanted to avoid needless wikidrama and allow you time to cool down.
I’ll be taking you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if you engage in any more of this.
Greg L ( talk) 15:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a clear-cut case that doesn't need to go to ANI. Phantom Hoover's actions speak louder than words. As @
Greg L: alleged, this is a clear-cut case of disruptive editing that purposely made the article much much worse just to prove SOME sort of point. Or maybe the objective was just to annoy another editor. The above thread (Pronunciation of Chandrasekhar) where the two got crosswise over the inclusion of a pronunciation provides a good clue as to the underlying motives of Phantom Hoover and why he/she would harm the project like that. In the name of "improving an article" one doesn't roll it back from a modern version with 31 citations to a shadow of the article that has zero citations with the stated intention to one day make is suck less.
I'm restoring the original version, which is clearly superior. Phantom Hoover would be well advised to edit constructively throughout Wikipedia from hereon. MLee1957 ( talk) 20:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Phantom Hoover: You are persistently editing against consensus here. MLee1957 and I both see your continued removal of large swaths of material as disruptive editing to make a point. You must discuss such radical measures here on this talk page. Greg L ( talk) 05:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I am frankly gobsmacked that you would engage in such provocative actions while there is an ongoing ANI. Greg L ( talk) 05:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
on the distinctive properties of fuzzballs and how they differ from classic black holes and neutron starsis a sensible goal for the article. Bringing in wave-particle duality, charcoal briquettes, complaints about science YouTube, etc., doesn't actually work towards that goal. Some of the removed material could potentially be suitable for other articles, while some of it isn't encyclopedic. (E.g.,
online popular culture sites such as physics discussion boards, science websites, and even a university physics professor on YouTube writing calculations on a blackboard were promulgating a misunderstandingbelongs on a personal blog, not here.) XOR'easter ( talk) 18:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm just going to dump some papers I've found that may be accessible enough to extract some useful details from:
I'm particularly curious about what fuzzballs are actually predicted to look like, mostly because I'd always assumed they looked exactly like black holes emitting Hawking radiation until you start probing the microstructure near the horizon. I suppose any viable model more or less has to, otherwise it would be inconsistent with the event horizon telescope images. But I don't remember seeing any sources that clearly say that, so I'm wondering if it's something I made up in my head. From what I've seen of the state of the theory it's possible that questions like what happens to a ray of light hitting a fuzzball simply have no settled answer at this stage, and the article would have to reflect that if so. Phantom Hoover ( talk) 23:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe add back a very few that are not already linked, that will be eventually worked into the article per seealso, thank you, Malerooster ( talk) 14:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The "Picture of a Black Hole" over the Hawaiian island is extremly misleading to non-scientific readers, as it makes one think that a Black Hole is a normal sphere sitting in a flat space with a euclidean shape, volume etc. That is clearly not the case, if you know anything about general relativity, and leads to misconceptions amongst laypeople. 159.205.161.203 ( talk) 09:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)