![]() | 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. |
Some Physicsprof ( talk · contribs) has nominated Spherical model and Rodney J. Baxter for deletion. As the author, I would be biased, but I definitely think they are notable enough. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Discussion regarding a relatively new article, Plasma Universe, is underway on various related talkpages. In particular, on Talk:Astrophysical plasma and Talk:Plasma cosmology there has been discussion of merging the new article with these points. Please add your comments and possible remedies. -- ScienceApologist 16:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is an edit war continuing to simmer over at Tired light. User:Harald88 seems to think that Paul Marmet's work qualifies for inclusion. I do not. We need some other people to help us determine a resolution. -- ScienceApologist 18:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Some wikiprojects (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals) seem to very systematically identify their most important topics and work to improve those articles. Would anyone here be interested in an initiative like that? -- SCZenz 21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what is should be called, but I'm interested in an article that would describes and compares such terms as:
For examples, the shape of an axial magnetic field, azimuthal magnetic field, poloidal magnetic field, radial magnetic field, toroidal magnetic field, etc. -- Iantresman 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps of interest... A peer review of Introduction to quantum mechanics has started here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Introduction to quantum mechanics/archive1. -- SCZenz 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been working my way through the list of Dead-end pages (pages that don't link anywhere) and I came across Digital magnetofluidics. The original article contained the sentence The consequent dipolar interactions among the particles form chain-like clusters, which follow the magnetic field lines and aggregate further to form long clusters and I've changed dipolar to bipolar as I've never heard of dipolar and in any case I think that they're synonymous. Could someone just confirm this for me? Additionally does anyone have any ideas where I should link bipolar to as at the moment the disambiguation page makes no mention of bipolar in this context? Thanks RicDod 17:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Is this indeed, as this new article claims, "more fundamental and general than the uncertainty principle" for which "many attempts were made to formulate it mathematically, but they were not successful"? -- Lambiam Talk 01:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This article certainly needs carefull consideration. I draw you attention to several points.
This has also been edited into Uncertainty principle. Googling "Certainty principle" Arbatsky returns 115 hits, many of them wikipedia clones. Not impressive for something "more fundamental then the uncertainty principle". Zarniwoot 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If this article has already been deleted, then the present version can be speedied as a recreation of deleted content. I'm hesitant to do this without first checking with most of the lurkers here, though, to see if the researcher cited has been vocal enough to merit mention (albeit likely with an appropriate heavy disclaimer on the article). As for sock checking, it can be requested at WP:RCU, but my reading of WP:SOCK suggests that there isn't currently grounds for it (no vandalism or vote-stacking being done). Disclaimer: I'm not an admin. -- Christopher Thomas 04:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems Arbatsky references have entered about 40 of our physics articles [2]. As he is essentially an unicted author [3], I suggest we just summarily rervert all references to Arbatsky in all articles. -- Pjacobi 07:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear friends, (1) the new article was not a re-creation of the old one, the content was very different, (2) I have seen a long discussion on the page User_talk:Rcq and found that, according to WP policy, there is no reason to wait for reinstatement of the article (the arguments of RCQ about reinstatement of the history are incorrect). So I created a new one. (3) All talks about whether Arbatsky and the journal are "well-known" or "not-well-known" are just demagogy and nothing more. (4) An opinion of a specialist is welcome. If somebody has objections about the certainty principle, on the purely scientific ground, you are welcome to discuss them. Hryun 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You are right, my friends. And I completely agree with you. But this topic was already discussed on the page User_talk:Rcq. Hryun 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(1) Sorry, but I cannot agree with you. If an article has been published in a not-well-known journal, you cannot use this only fact against it. (2) I do not want to make more problems here than necessary. I am open for a civil discussion. (3) I do not want to waste time of administrators more than necessary. But please, do not ask me to agree with obscurants. If you cannot say anything more wise, we will have a battle here. Sorry. Hryun 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(1) I even can send an issue of the journal to you. But it is expensive... (2) I hope that "Wikipedia is not a battleground". This is why you must accept the article. (3) If you really care about the content, you can place some appropriate tag on the article (something about "neutrality" or "POV"). I will not remove it. (4) The original article was created not by me, but by User:Slicky. The content was very different. Hryun 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear friends, I am waiting... On my talk page I explained to ScienceApologist that you will not be able to block my access to WP. And in direct creation/deletion battle I will win. So, I ask you to suggest something more wise than you already have written above. Do not try to just ignore me. Thank you. Hryun 18:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(1) I do not want to be rude, but I do not see any comunity consensus. I see only several people, who break WP policy in an attept to suppress article on the subject, in which they are incompetent. (2) What do you suggest me to write on the Deletion Review page? I do not have anything to add. Everything has been said, everything has been discussed. You deleted the article against WP policy. (3) As regards my cleverness. I know that the battle will be long and difficult. It is not something that can be solved in one day, and possibly in one month. The main result of the battle will be not reinstatement of the article, but your recognition that you break WP policy, not me. (4) But I do not want to go this way at all. I hope that you will pay a little more attention to the details of the situation, recognize that situation is unusual, and recognize that in this very specific situation you just are not right. (5) I also recommend you to ask some independent expert in the subject. With best wishes, Hryun 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Uncertainty principle has been edited to include this severel times. It is agaist consensus and it may be in violation of 3RR as well. Zarniwoot 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest to introduce in the official WP policy a rule that everything that mentions "Arbatsky" or "Certainty principle" is forbidden. That will solve the problem. The best remedy against headache is guillotine. Hryun 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Really? And it prescribes to remove all links to Arbatsky's site? Sorry, I did not know that. Hryun 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a list of the puppets? [4] ? - lethe talk + 15:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
User:213.33.246.48 added a link to this website at
Canonical quantization. This might be our attention seeking friend. I have not removed it (yet). I have removed it.
Zarniwoot
19:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a person, editing under a variety of names, who is adding the template {{ Physics Series}} to a number of articles. I got into a disagreement with him/her already because he was over-writing the {{ physics}} template (which I was trying to add features to) for the same purpose; that disagreement seems to be over and he/she seems to be satisfied with the new template name, but now I have another question... Is {{ Physics Series}} really a desirable template to have in our major articles? See, for example, particle physics, which had its original picture moved waaaay down the article in order to accomodate the template. -- SCZenz 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Appearently B. Roy Frieden, a Professor Emeritus of optics, discovered, late in life, that everything is related to everything and that information theory and ergodic theory and fluctuations etc. is the theory of everything and so on. Seems to be a manic phase, headed for a fall. Thus we have the highly suspect Extreme physical information article, which is at least pseudoscience and is probably worth an AfD discussion. There's leakage to Fisher information (bottom of article) and Lagrangian (section on "informqation lagrangian"), and possibly other places. The external web sites for Frieden's theories are crankier than my own cranky writing, ergo are far too far out there to be considered science. linas 15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wish I'd seen this earlier. Linas, your instincts are correct: Frieden's claims have been vastly overstated (especially by Frieden himself). Basically, Frieden has what initially appears to have an interesting idea. Unfortunately, closer examination reveals that while he claims to have a method for writing down Lagrangians from putative information theoretical concerns, but others (including myself) who have examined his papers claim that this "method" is no method at all but ad hoc case by case reasoning. There was an extensive discussion on sci.physics.research several years ago (back when that newsgroup was still worth reading). --- CH 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is some more information:
Note that B. Roy Frieden is Em. Prof. of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona. The data.optics.arizona.edu anon has used the following IPs to make a number of questionable edits:
Frieden's work is highly controversial; see
Therefore, Frieden's POV-pushing edits pose a problem for WP.--- CH 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Followup: I have now exchanged some emails with Frieden and he appears willing to discuss these issues. He feels his new book (which I haven't yet seen) may clear up some of my technical objections to the earlier book. --- CH 20:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I've created this article and added some basic content, but it still needs some work. Please have a look at it and see if you can improve it. O. Prytz 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I put up Physics equations for AfD, but some feedback from some people in the physics project might be useful. -- Koffieyahoo 05:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I've asked before, but air ioniser needs some attention from people who actually know atomic physics. It also needs references, to prevent it from getting gummed up again by future biased editors trying to sell products with "good ions" or whatever. I'd do it myself, but I find a lot of conflicting info online. — Omegatron 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I had hopes that this article would be recreated in a more neutral light, but it appears to have fallen into a very biased POV again. Some editors with more time than me should look into this. -- Philosophus T 07:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added some features to the {{ physics}} template so that we can automatically list physics articles according to the importance of the subject and the quality of the article. See here, where I've written up the use of the template. I'm going to start by adding the caterogizations to the articles already listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Key articles, and I'd be deleted for the help. The purpose of all this, in my view, is to help us focus a bit of attention on essential articles that should be excellent but may not be. -- SCZenz 09:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to get automatically numbered equations that can be referred to in wiki articles? Count Iblis 18:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is a notable crank theory. Could someone who knows more about this decide whether to AfD it? It might be uncontested anyway, I can't imagine any supporter would allow the article to stay at that name. -- Philosophus T 10:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
After seeing this edit to this page, I've blocked CSZenz ( talk · contribs) indefinitely as an impersonator of User:SCZenz and probably a sock of User:Hryun. - lethe talk + 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's time to scrape together all of the information available on these sock puppets and head over to WP:ANI. Best to block that IP or IP range and be done with it. -- Christopher Thomas 01:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, a new user, Haisch ( talk · contribs), who is in real life fringe physicist Bernard Haisch, is edit warring regarding his wikibiography Bernard Haisch and some articles in which he has an interest, Journal of Scientific Exploration and Stochastic electrodynamics. Please see also his user talk page, my user talk page, and the Paul August's user talk page.
Haisch also edits as an anon from the pltn13.pacbell.net domain (Southwestern Bell InterNet Services; geolocated in San Jose, CA)
Important note: the pltn13.pacbell.net domain has also been used by Jack Sarfatti, who as you all know has been permabanned. I'd like to avoid that kind of mess from repeating itself with Haisch. In any case, be aware that Sarfatti continues to occassionaly edit as an anon, and ironically he has also used this domain. Even more ironically, Sarfatti doesn't care for Haisch and myself have sometimes reverted sarcastic comments by the Sarfatti anon in various articles mentioning Haisch! (Just to add to the confusion, another user (apparently), DrMorelos ( talk · contribs) apparently also edits as the anon 69.109.222.23 ( talk · contribs) and claims to have earned a Ph.D. from an American University and mentions other things which fit both Sarfatti and Haisch. However, DrMorelos appears to have distinct fringe science interests.)
Returning to the edit war by Haisch: I feel (see the talk pages) that I have bent over backwards to
Remarkably, in a comment on my user talk page and without any prompting from me, Haisch himself raised the issue which most concerns me about allowing persons to edit articles about controversial "scientific" topics in which they are directly involved:
If I go and seek funding from a philanthropic organization for the Digital Universe Foundation, as I am doing, and they look me up on Wikipedia, your negativity may cost me a grant... and I will never know that. Make no mistake about it. Wikipedia has tremendous influence, and that is precisely why must be both accurate and fair. The Wikipedia is perceived as no mere gossip sheet. Your words could deprive my organization of a million dollar grant because of your implicit judgment of my scientific career.
Needless to say, the issue which troubles me is that Haisch implicitly admits to a million dollar financial incentive :-/ to slant the WP in a pro-Haisch manner. I find this deeply disturbing.
In the matter of Bernard Haisch, the original version of which I wrote and which Haisch keeps rewriting, I told him several times (and followed through on my promise) that I am willing to discuss his objections line by line. I told him that I feel it is in the best interests of WP readers (and even himself) that he restrict his comments on articles on controversial topics in which he is directly involved to the talk page, but let me implement any changes in the article itself. I have been through several iterations of this with him already, and have made a handful of minor factual corrections he suggested and also made other changes. However, Haisch seems to insist on editing his own biography, an despite repeated polite warnings, he continues to leave insulting messages in various talk pages, which makes discussions with him unpleasant. He also continues to edit his own biography (breaking up the flow of ideas and adding a pro-Haisch slant). I have asked him to take a break for a few days to calm down but he also appears unwilling to try this. Please help me discourage him from edit warring until he calms down enough to respect WP:CIV. TIA --- CH 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Gee, I don't know if anyone is reading this page anymore, but I ask someone who isn't burned out on cruft control to take a good look at this one. --- CH 20:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Even the name is misleading, since I wouldn't call this a "theory". --- CH 20:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a notice that some articles related to the recent "water as fuel" stories has shown up on Wikipedia. I've read a little on this and I don't know what the hype/truth ratio is but it is pretty high. This guy Dennis Klein has "invented" a new gas called "HHO" or "Aquygen" which he generates from water and uses to fuel a car, for welding, etc and differs from Brown's gas by the appearance of Magnecular bonds. Ruggerio Santilli is the theorist part of the team. The whole thing smells funny, electrolyzing water to get "Aquygen", then burning it as fuel and hyping the whole thing as "energy from water". PAR 14:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that the Brown's Gas article has references to this subject as well. PAR 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I find the article Physicist to be inoffensive and well enough written but to be completely redundant with other articles. Please discuss its proposed deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Physicist. Alison Chaiken 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems like I keep finding evidence of noxious shilling everywhere I look... The most recent edit by this anon (apparently none other than Roy Frieden in real life) is particularly egregious. Not sure whether I should recuse myself since I posted some criticism to sci.physics.research in 1999; see the talk page.--- CH 08:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Following the links of Magnecular stuff (also called Sarfatti's Magnecules, see point 25 of the crackpot index), I've searched for other Wikipedia articles linking to http://www.rexresearch.com/:
There is a striking cluster of links from all Coal related articles, but I'm not perfectly fit to judge this.
But I've put the Möbius resistor on AfD, a 1966 patent which found no application.
Pjacobi 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Some articles linked to rexresearch.com: Tesla turbine- Coal- Testatika- Möbius resistor- Andrija Puharich --- CH 02:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I am too exhausted from other cruft patrol to try to do much about this, but this article is a real problem in terms of presenting pseudoscience as respectable, misstatements of fact, and so on. --- CH 20:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, thank you! --- CH 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to take a look at it, too, as I feel a little responsible for it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As it looks like the AfD result will probably be keep, so I've started rewriting physicist after the first half of chemist because I like the way that article talks about the profession itself instead of just the subdisciplines. I just barely got a start on it, but I wanted to let everyone know and maybe get some input on what you guys think the article should cover. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Depending on who's doing the talking, we (Haisch and Rueda) are credited or blamed for more than we have done. Let's just look at the published papers in Phys. Rev., Annalen der Physik, Physics Letters A, Astrophysical Journal, Foundations of Physics. We have used the tools of stochastic electrodynamics to show that you can derive an equation of motion-like result (both Newtonian and relativistic) if the quantum vacuum interacts with matter in certain ways. Basically we are putting all the burden of providing momentum on a zero-point radiation field as defined in SED theory, which in turn creates an inertia-like resistance on matter.
All we have done is propose a quantum vacuum based alternative to the ever-elusive Higgs field. There is nothing illegitimate about that. Is this right or wrong? I don't know yet.
The other thing we have done in a recent paper is to show that IF (big if) the above is correct and if zero-point radiation can be treated as light rays following curved geodesics (isn't that standard GR?) then the principle of equivalence automatically appears since accelerating through the quantum vacuum is the same as being fixed in a gravitational field and having the quantum vacuum fall past you. I find this very intriguing and suggestive that we may be onto something. But who knows?
All the other stuff is other people's work attributed mistakenly to us or popular writing speculation by us and others. Scientists always speculate, which is okay as long as you qualify it as such... and we always do.
Here are a few points.
(1) Our approach is based on special relativity and is consistent with general relativity.
(2) For the record, I love the Big Bang and our Ap. J. paper on stochastic acceleration is consistent with the Big Bang.
(3) We have never done any research on polarizable vacuum (although I think it is a neat idea).
(4) The inertia free propulsion stuff is always qualified with a big "maybe someday" and is only clearly identified pop speculation.
(5) It is absurd to call research in journals like the one's above which range from pretty respectable to pretty prestigious as fringe science or worse. That is just plain wrong. Moreover we were even generously funded by NASA (not the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program) and Lockheed Martin to do this research.
Let's begin a fact-based honest discussion to correct the numerous errors and NPOV violations in Hillman's rewrite of Stochastic Electrodynamics which does not even scratch the surface of 40 years worth of research by lots of physicists other than Haisch and Rueda. Haisch 00:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason it is here is to ask for the intervention of other knowledgeable physicists, so please do not remove this yet. So when exactly are you willing to review a list of errors in your article? Haisch 06:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
unity by doing some less controversial edits in other areas. linas 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
An edit war has broken out on this template. PPM claims that Perpetual motion machine is a biased term, and that Free energy device is better. I claim that Perpetual motion machine is by far the more common term, and should be used. Would other editors care to look into this? Thanks, -- Philosophus T 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This is a far the more neutral term. Perpetual motion machine is by far from a neutral term. This policy of Neutral point of view is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Perpetual motion machine 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... It actually appears that PPM is going around making the usual reversions, like {accuracy} on Cox's timepiece. PPM, please stop doing this. As I am already at 3R, and PPM is at 4R, on the template, could someone please look at it? -- Philosophus T 14:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm 3R. Perpetual motion machine
No the second wasn't it. Perpetual motion machine 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Template:Perpetual motion machine now has its own talk page to debate this silly change. -- Michael C. Price talk 17:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, comments are still requested on the saner discussion on modifying the template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience. -- Christopher Thomas 03:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a little irregular, because the article in question has been the subject of heated debate, up to and including a ruling by the Arbitration Committee. The history is long and sordid, but thanks to the many editors who have worked to clarify the issue, the article itself is pretty solid. Earlier today, I noticed that John Baez called it an "excellent" article [7], and I had to wonder. . . The continued sock puppet presence means that it'll be a long time before the page ever qualifies as "stable", which is a key Featured Article criterion, but it would still be nice to evaluate the page and see what the physics community thinks.
My own suspicion is that most or maybe all of the disruptive edits are coming from a community of one. It will be a happy day when this person grows tired and finds something else to do.
All comments are welcome. Due to restrictions posed by the Arbitration Committee — I said this was an irregular situation! — it is probably best to discuss changes on the Talk page first, just to avoid accidentally being confused with a sock puppet and being needlessly reverted.
Yours truly, Anville 19:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to prodding, I've produced an article draft intended to replace event horizon. See the relevant thread at talk:event horizon for details. It's not perfect; what I'm looking for is opinions on whether or not it's worth taking it as a starting point for a replacement. If so, we can swap it in and then perform additional polishing as-needed. -- Christopher Thomas 05:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked KraMuc. See WP:AN/I#Indefinite block of KraMuc. Please discuss there and not here. -- SCZenz 10:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we get some more feedback? So far only one outside comment. --- CH 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone fancy cleaning this mess up, or shall we put it to AfD? -- Bduke 08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Geologician ( talk • contribs) has been editing time to state that models of the universe that involve time repeating itself require spacetime to be embedded in a six-dimensional space. I've reverted, he reverted back. Mike Peel ( talk • contribs) added a citation request and a note on Geologician's talk page, Geologician removed the citation request and added a figure he drew as the requested "proof". I've left a note on Geologician's talk page attempting to point him both WP:RS and to Riemannian geometry, and to explain that embedding the manifold in a higher-dimensional space is an unnecessary (and possibly impossible) operation, but I seriously doubt this will have the desired effect. Additional people with a grasp of geometry contributing to maintenance of time would probably help. -- Christopher Thomas 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Still waiting for at least one more editor to revert his changes to wheel of time and time. If I do it without that happening, it'll look like I'm edit-warring. -- Christopher Thomas 18:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Still waiting. We've had junk at this article for weeks now, because I don't want to be accused of edit-warring if I revert it. -- Christopher Thomas 16:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears that magnetic photon is probably total whack. One of the principle actors is Rainer W. Kühne, an atlantis expert. I'm tempted to AfD it except that the mention of Abdus Salam confuses the issue. linas 03:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking for input about a nomenclature issue. See Talk:Exergy#B or ψ or Ξ or X?. On the Second law of thermodynamics page, exergy is X. I thought I'd seek some input from physicists before flipping it over to B. Please discuss this on the Talk:Exergy page. Plenty of work to do there too if there's a systems ecologist/engineer/physicist around. Flying Jazz 06:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This AFD could use some qualified eyes on it. Thanks. - Motor ( talk) 14:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've finished another rewrite of the article. It looks like the phenomenon described is both real and well-published; the original version of the article was just garbled as heck. Please take a look at Photon induced electric field poling to sanity check the new version. -- Christopher Thomas 04:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Some Physicsprof ( talk · contribs) has nominated Spherical model and Rodney J. Baxter for deletion. As the author, I would be biased, but I definitely think they are notable enough. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Discussion regarding a relatively new article, Plasma Universe, is underway on various related talkpages. In particular, on Talk:Astrophysical plasma and Talk:Plasma cosmology there has been discussion of merging the new article with these points. Please add your comments and possible remedies. -- ScienceApologist 16:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is an edit war continuing to simmer over at Tired light. User:Harald88 seems to think that Paul Marmet's work qualifies for inclusion. I do not. We need some other people to help us determine a resolution. -- ScienceApologist 18:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Some wikiprojects (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals) seem to very systematically identify their most important topics and work to improve those articles. Would anyone here be interested in an initiative like that? -- SCZenz 21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what is should be called, but I'm interested in an article that would describes and compares such terms as:
For examples, the shape of an axial magnetic field, azimuthal magnetic field, poloidal magnetic field, radial magnetic field, toroidal magnetic field, etc. -- Iantresman 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps of interest... A peer review of Introduction to quantum mechanics has started here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Introduction to quantum mechanics/archive1. -- SCZenz 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been working my way through the list of Dead-end pages (pages that don't link anywhere) and I came across Digital magnetofluidics. The original article contained the sentence The consequent dipolar interactions among the particles form chain-like clusters, which follow the magnetic field lines and aggregate further to form long clusters and I've changed dipolar to bipolar as I've never heard of dipolar and in any case I think that they're synonymous. Could someone just confirm this for me? Additionally does anyone have any ideas where I should link bipolar to as at the moment the disambiguation page makes no mention of bipolar in this context? Thanks RicDod 17:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Is this indeed, as this new article claims, "more fundamental and general than the uncertainty principle" for which "many attempts were made to formulate it mathematically, but they were not successful"? -- Lambiam Talk 01:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This article certainly needs carefull consideration. I draw you attention to several points.
This has also been edited into Uncertainty principle. Googling "Certainty principle" Arbatsky returns 115 hits, many of them wikipedia clones. Not impressive for something "more fundamental then the uncertainty principle". Zarniwoot 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If this article has already been deleted, then the present version can be speedied as a recreation of deleted content. I'm hesitant to do this without first checking with most of the lurkers here, though, to see if the researcher cited has been vocal enough to merit mention (albeit likely with an appropriate heavy disclaimer on the article). As for sock checking, it can be requested at WP:RCU, but my reading of WP:SOCK suggests that there isn't currently grounds for it (no vandalism or vote-stacking being done). Disclaimer: I'm not an admin. -- Christopher Thomas 04:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems Arbatsky references have entered about 40 of our physics articles [2]. As he is essentially an unicted author [3], I suggest we just summarily rervert all references to Arbatsky in all articles. -- Pjacobi 07:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear friends, (1) the new article was not a re-creation of the old one, the content was very different, (2) I have seen a long discussion on the page User_talk:Rcq and found that, according to WP policy, there is no reason to wait for reinstatement of the article (the arguments of RCQ about reinstatement of the history are incorrect). So I created a new one. (3) All talks about whether Arbatsky and the journal are "well-known" or "not-well-known" are just demagogy and nothing more. (4) An opinion of a specialist is welcome. If somebody has objections about the certainty principle, on the purely scientific ground, you are welcome to discuss them. Hryun 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You are right, my friends. And I completely agree with you. But this topic was already discussed on the page User_talk:Rcq. Hryun 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(1) Sorry, but I cannot agree with you. If an article has been published in a not-well-known journal, you cannot use this only fact against it. (2) I do not want to make more problems here than necessary. I am open for a civil discussion. (3) I do not want to waste time of administrators more than necessary. But please, do not ask me to agree with obscurants. If you cannot say anything more wise, we will have a battle here. Sorry. Hryun 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(1) I even can send an issue of the journal to you. But it is expensive... (2) I hope that "Wikipedia is not a battleground". This is why you must accept the article. (3) If you really care about the content, you can place some appropriate tag on the article (something about "neutrality" or "POV"). I will not remove it. (4) The original article was created not by me, but by User:Slicky. The content was very different. Hryun 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear friends, I am waiting... On my talk page I explained to ScienceApologist that you will not be able to block my access to WP. And in direct creation/deletion battle I will win. So, I ask you to suggest something more wise than you already have written above. Do not try to just ignore me. Thank you. Hryun 18:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(1) I do not want to be rude, but I do not see any comunity consensus. I see only several people, who break WP policy in an attept to suppress article on the subject, in which they are incompetent. (2) What do you suggest me to write on the Deletion Review page? I do not have anything to add. Everything has been said, everything has been discussed. You deleted the article against WP policy. (3) As regards my cleverness. I know that the battle will be long and difficult. It is not something that can be solved in one day, and possibly in one month. The main result of the battle will be not reinstatement of the article, but your recognition that you break WP policy, not me. (4) But I do not want to go this way at all. I hope that you will pay a little more attention to the details of the situation, recognize that situation is unusual, and recognize that in this very specific situation you just are not right. (5) I also recommend you to ask some independent expert in the subject. With best wishes, Hryun 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Uncertainty principle has been edited to include this severel times. It is agaist consensus and it may be in violation of 3RR as well. Zarniwoot 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest to introduce in the official WP policy a rule that everything that mentions "Arbatsky" or "Certainty principle" is forbidden. That will solve the problem. The best remedy against headache is guillotine. Hryun 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Really? And it prescribes to remove all links to Arbatsky's site? Sorry, I did not know that. Hryun 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a list of the puppets? [4] ? - lethe talk + 15:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
User:213.33.246.48 added a link to this website at
Canonical quantization. This might be our attention seeking friend. I have not removed it (yet). I have removed it.
Zarniwoot
19:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a person, editing under a variety of names, who is adding the template {{ Physics Series}} to a number of articles. I got into a disagreement with him/her already because he was over-writing the {{ physics}} template (which I was trying to add features to) for the same purpose; that disagreement seems to be over and he/she seems to be satisfied with the new template name, but now I have another question... Is {{ Physics Series}} really a desirable template to have in our major articles? See, for example, particle physics, which had its original picture moved waaaay down the article in order to accomodate the template. -- SCZenz 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Appearently B. Roy Frieden, a Professor Emeritus of optics, discovered, late in life, that everything is related to everything and that information theory and ergodic theory and fluctuations etc. is the theory of everything and so on. Seems to be a manic phase, headed for a fall. Thus we have the highly suspect Extreme physical information article, which is at least pseudoscience and is probably worth an AfD discussion. There's leakage to Fisher information (bottom of article) and Lagrangian (section on "informqation lagrangian"), and possibly other places. The external web sites for Frieden's theories are crankier than my own cranky writing, ergo are far too far out there to be considered science. linas 15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wish I'd seen this earlier. Linas, your instincts are correct: Frieden's claims have been vastly overstated (especially by Frieden himself). Basically, Frieden has what initially appears to have an interesting idea. Unfortunately, closer examination reveals that while he claims to have a method for writing down Lagrangians from putative information theoretical concerns, but others (including myself) who have examined his papers claim that this "method" is no method at all but ad hoc case by case reasoning. There was an extensive discussion on sci.physics.research several years ago (back when that newsgroup was still worth reading). --- CH 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is some more information:
Note that B. Roy Frieden is Em. Prof. of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona. The data.optics.arizona.edu anon has used the following IPs to make a number of questionable edits:
Frieden's work is highly controversial; see
Therefore, Frieden's POV-pushing edits pose a problem for WP.--- CH 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Followup: I have now exchanged some emails with Frieden and he appears willing to discuss these issues. He feels his new book (which I haven't yet seen) may clear up some of my technical objections to the earlier book. --- CH 20:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I've created this article and added some basic content, but it still needs some work. Please have a look at it and see if you can improve it. O. Prytz 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I put up Physics equations for AfD, but some feedback from some people in the physics project might be useful. -- Koffieyahoo 05:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I've asked before, but air ioniser needs some attention from people who actually know atomic physics. It also needs references, to prevent it from getting gummed up again by future biased editors trying to sell products with "good ions" or whatever. I'd do it myself, but I find a lot of conflicting info online. — Omegatron 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I had hopes that this article would be recreated in a more neutral light, but it appears to have fallen into a very biased POV again. Some editors with more time than me should look into this. -- Philosophus T 07:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added some features to the {{ physics}} template so that we can automatically list physics articles according to the importance of the subject and the quality of the article. See here, where I've written up the use of the template. I'm going to start by adding the caterogizations to the articles already listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Key articles, and I'd be deleted for the help. The purpose of all this, in my view, is to help us focus a bit of attention on essential articles that should be excellent but may not be. -- SCZenz 09:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to get automatically numbered equations that can be referred to in wiki articles? Count Iblis 18:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is a notable crank theory. Could someone who knows more about this decide whether to AfD it? It might be uncontested anyway, I can't imagine any supporter would allow the article to stay at that name. -- Philosophus T 10:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
After seeing this edit to this page, I've blocked CSZenz ( talk · contribs) indefinitely as an impersonator of User:SCZenz and probably a sock of User:Hryun. - lethe talk + 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's time to scrape together all of the information available on these sock puppets and head over to WP:ANI. Best to block that IP or IP range and be done with it. -- Christopher Thomas 01:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, a new user, Haisch ( talk · contribs), who is in real life fringe physicist Bernard Haisch, is edit warring regarding his wikibiography Bernard Haisch and some articles in which he has an interest, Journal of Scientific Exploration and Stochastic electrodynamics. Please see also his user talk page, my user talk page, and the Paul August's user talk page.
Haisch also edits as an anon from the pltn13.pacbell.net domain (Southwestern Bell InterNet Services; geolocated in San Jose, CA)
Important note: the pltn13.pacbell.net domain has also been used by Jack Sarfatti, who as you all know has been permabanned. I'd like to avoid that kind of mess from repeating itself with Haisch. In any case, be aware that Sarfatti continues to occassionaly edit as an anon, and ironically he has also used this domain. Even more ironically, Sarfatti doesn't care for Haisch and myself have sometimes reverted sarcastic comments by the Sarfatti anon in various articles mentioning Haisch! (Just to add to the confusion, another user (apparently), DrMorelos ( talk · contribs) apparently also edits as the anon 69.109.222.23 ( talk · contribs) and claims to have earned a Ph.D. from an American University and mentions other things which fit both Sarfatti and Haisch. However, DrMorelos appears to have distinct fringe science interests.)
Returning to the edit war by Haisch: I feel (see the talk pages) that I have bent over backwards to
Remarkably, in a comment on my user talk page and without any prompting from me, Haisch himself raised the issue which most concerns me about allowing persons to edit articles about controversial "scientific" topics in which they are directly involved:
If I go and seek funding from a philanthropic organization for the Digital Universe Foundation, as I am doing, and they look me up on Wikipedia, your negativity may cost me a grant... and I will never know that. Make no mistake about it. Wikipedia has tremendous influence, and that is precisely why must be both accurate and fair. The Wikipedia is perceived as no mere gossip sheet. Your words could deprive my organization of a million dollar grant because of your implicit judgment of my scientific career.
Needless to say, the issue which troubles me is that Haisch implicitly admits to a million dollar financial incentive :-/ to slant the WP in a pro-Haisch manner. I find this deeply disturbing.
In the matter of Bernard Haisch, the original version of which I wrote and which Haisch keeps rewriting, I told him several times (and followed through on my promise) that I am willing to discuss his objections line by line. I told him that I feel it is in the best interests of WP readers (and even himself) that he restrict his comments on articles on controversial topics in which he is directly involved to the talk page, but let me implement any changes in the article itself. I have been through several iterations of this with him already, and have made a handful of minor factual corrections he suggested and also made other changes. However, Haisch seems to insist on editing his own biography, an despite repeated polite warnings, he continues to leave insulting messages in various talk pages, which makes discussions with him unpleasant. He also continues to edit his own biography (breaking up the flow of ideas and adding a pro-Haisch slant). I have asked him to take a break for a few days to calm down but he also appears unwilling to try this. Please help me discourage him from edit warring until he calms down enough to respect WP:CIV. TIA --- CH 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Gee, I don't know if anyone is reading this page anymore, but I ask someone who isn't burned out on cruft control to take a good look at this one. --- CH 20:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Even the name is misleading, since I wouldn't call this a "theory". --- CH 20:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a notice that some articles related to the recent "water as fuel" stories has shown up on Wikipedia. I've read a little on this and I don't know what the hype/truth ratio is but it is pretty high. This guy Dennis Klein has "invented" a new gas called "HHO" or "Aquygen" which he generates from water and uses to fuel a car, for welding, etc and differs from Brown's gas by the appearance of Magnecular bonds. Ruggerio Santilli is the theorist part of the team. The whole thing smells funny, electrolyzing water to get "Aquygen", then burning it as fuel and hyping the whole thing as "energy from water". PAR 14:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that the Brown's Gas article has references to this subject as well. PAR 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I find the article Physicist to be inoffensive and well enough written but to be completely redundant with other articles. Please discuss its proposed deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Physicist. Alison Chaiken 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems like I keep finding evidence of noxious shilling everywhere I look... The most recent edit by this anon (apparently none other than Roy Frieden in real life) is particularly egregious. Not sure whether I should recuse myself since I posted some criticism to sci.physics.research in 1999; see the talk page.--- CH 08:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Following the links of Magnecular stuff (also called Sarfatti's Magnecules, see point 25 of the crackpot index), I've searched for other Wikipedia articles linking to http://www.rexresearch.com/:
There is a striking cluster of links from all Coal related articles, but I'm not perfectly fit to judge this.
But I've put the Möbius resistor on AfD, a 1966 patent which found no application.
Pjacobi 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Some articles linked to rexresearch.com: Tesla turbine- Coal- Testatika- Möbius resistor- Andrija Puharich --- CH 02:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I am too exhausted from other cruft patrol to try to do much about this, but this article is a real problem in terms of presenting pseudoscience as respectable, misstatements of fact, and so on. --- CH 20:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, thank you! --- CH 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to take a look at it, too, as I feel a little responsible for it. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As it looks like the AfD result will probably be keep, so I've started rewriting physicist after the first half of chemist because I like the way that article talks about the profession itself instead of just the subdisciplines. I just barely got a start on it, but I wanted to let everyone know and maybe get some input on what you guys think the article should cover. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Depending on who's doing the talking, we (Haisch and Rueda) are credited or blamed for more than we have done. Let's just look at the published papers in Phys. Rev., Annalen der Physik, Physics Letters A, Astrophysical Journal, Foundations of Physics. We have used the tools of stochastic electrodynamics to show that you can derive an equation of motion-like result (both Newtonian and relativistic) if the quantum vacuum interacts with matter in certain ways. Basically we are putting all the burden of providing momentum on a zero-point radiation field as defined in SED theory, which in turn creates an inertia-like resistance on matter.
All we have done is propose a quantum vacuum based alternative to the ever-elusive Higgs field. There is nothing illegitimate about that. Is this right or wrong? I don't know yet.
The other thing we have done in a recent paper is to show that IF (big if) the above is correct and if zero-point radiation can be treated as light rays following curved geodesics (isn't that standard GR?) then the principle of equivalence automatically appears since accelerating through the quantum vacuum is the same as being fixed in a gravitational field and having the quantum vacuum fall past you. I find this very intriguing and suggestive that we may be onto something. But who knows?
All the other stuff is other people's work attributed mistakenly to us or popular writing speculation by us and others. Scientists always speculate, which is okay as long as you qualify it as such... and we always do.
Here are a few points.
(1) Our approach is based on special relativity and is consistent with general relativity.
(2) For the record, I love the Big Bang and our Ap. J. paper on stochastic acceleration is consistent with the Big Bang.
(3) We have never done any research on polarizable vacuum (although I think it is a neat idea).
(4) The inertia free propulsion stuff is always qualified with a big "maybe someday" and is only clearly identified pop speculation.
(5) It is absurd to call research in journals like the one's above which range from pretty respectable to pretty prestigious as fringe science or worse. That is just plain wrong. Moreover we were even generously funded by NASA (not the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program) and Lockheed Martin to do this research.
Let's begin a fact-based honest discussion to correct the numerous errors and NPOV violations in Hillman's rewrite of Stochastic Electrodynamics which does not even scratch the surface of 40 years worth of research by lots of physicists other than Haisch and Rueda. Haisch 00:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason it is here is to ask for the intervention of other knowledgeable physicists, so please do not remove this yet. So when exactly are you willing to review a list of errors in your article? Haisch 06:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
unity by doing some less controversial edits in other areas. linas 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
An edit war has broken out on this template. PPM claims that Perpetual motion machine is a biased term, and that Free energy device is better. I claim that Perpetual motion machine is by far the more common term, and should be used. Would other editors care to look into this? Thanks, -- Philosophus T 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This is a far the more neutral term. Perpetual motion machine is by far from a neutral term. This policy of Neutral point of view is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Perpetual motion machine 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... It actually appears that PPM is going around making the usual reversions, like {accuracy} on Cox's timepiece. PPM, please stop doing this. As I am already at 3R, and PPM is at 4R, on the template, could someone please look at it? -- Philosophus T 14:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm 3R. Perpetual motion machine
No the second wasn't it. Perpetual motion machine 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Template:Perpetual motion machine now has its own talk page to debate this silly change. -- Michael C. Price talk 17:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, comments are still requested on the saner discussion on modifying the template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience. -- Christopher Thomas 03:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a little irregular, because the article in question has been the subject of heated debate, up to and including a ruling by the Arbitration Committee. The history is long and sordid, but thanks to the many editors who have worked to clarify the issue, the article itself is pretty solid. Earlier today, I noticed that John Baez called it an "excellent" article [7], and I had to wonder. . . The continued sock puppet presence means that it'll be a long time before the page ever qualifies as "stable", which is a key Featured Article criterion, but it would still be nice to evaluate the page and see what the physics community thinks.
My own suspicion is that most or maybe all of the disruptive edits are coming from a community of one. It will be a happy day when this person grows tired and finds something else to do.
All comments are welcome. Due to restrictions posed by the Arbitration Committee — I said this was an irregular situation! — it is probably best to discuss changes on the Talk page first, just to avoid accidentally being confused with a sock puppet and being needlessly reverted.
Yours truly, Anville 19:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In response to prodding, I've produced an article draft intended to replace event horizon. See the relevant thread at talk:event horizon for details. It's not perfect; what I'm looking for is opinions on whether or not it's worth taking it as a starting point for a replacement. If so, we can swap it in and then perform additional polishing as-needed. -- Christopher Thomas 05:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked KraMuc. See WP:AN/I#Indefinite block of KraMuc. Please discuss there and not here. -- SCZenz 10:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we get some more feedback? So far only one outside comment. --- CH 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone fancy cleaning this mess up, or shall we put it to AfD? -- Bduke 08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Geologician ( talk • contribs) has been editing time to state that models of the universe that involve time repeating itself require spacetime to be embedded in a six-dimensional space. I've reverted, he reverted back. Mike Peel ( talk • contribs) added a citation request and a note on Geologician's talk page, Geologician removed the citation request and added a figure he drew as the requested "proof". I've left a note on Geologician's talk page attempting to point him both WP:RS and to Riemannian geometry, and to explain that embedding the manifold in a higher-dimensional space is an unnecessary (and possibly impossible) operation, but I seriously doubt this will have the desired effect. Additional people with a grasp of geometry contributing to maintenance of time would probably help. -- Christopher Thomas 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Still waiting for at least one more editor to revert his changes to wheel of time and time. If I do it without that happening, it'll look like I'm edit-warring. -- Christopher Thomas 18:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Still waiting. We've had junk at this article for weeks now, because I don't want to be accused of edit-warring if I revert it. -- Christopher Thomas 16:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears that magnetic photon is probably total whack. One of the principle actors is Rainer W. Kühne, an atlantis expert. I'm tempted to AfD it except that the mention of Abdus Salam confuses the issue. linas 03:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking for input about a nomenclature issue. See Talk:Exergy#B or ψ or Ξ or X?. On the Second law of thermodynamics page, exergy is X. I thought I'd seek some input from physicists before flipping it over to B. Please discuss this on the Talk:Exergy page. Plenty of work to do there too if there's a systems ecologist/engineer/physicist around. Flying Jazz 06:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This AFD could use some qualified eyes on it. Thanks. - Motor ( talk) 14:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've finished another rewrite of the article. It looks like the phenomenon described is both real and well-published; the original version of the article was just garbled as heck. Please take a look at Photon induced electric field poling to sanity check the new version. -- Christopher Thomas 04:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)