![]() | 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. |
An IP has pointed out that the images in Meissner effect, the ones with a levitating magnet, are not consequence of this effect but mostly due to vortex lines and type II superconductors [1]. I don't know enough about superconductors to be sure that Meissner it is not related. Does anyone here know something about this phenomena? -- MaoGo ( talk) 15:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC) If you take a look into the talk page of Meissner effect, you'll see it is a recurrent dilemma between the definitions of superdiamagnetism and Meissner, and flux pinning levitation and Meissner levitation. -- MaoGo ( talk) 16:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on the proposal. Thank you for your attention.-- Debenben ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The article is misleading. First it contains a lot of falsehoods (the way the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is cited, the way virtual particles are claimed to be actual particles, the way the Casimir effect is cited as supporting this, when it's entirely explained by quantum electrodynamics, ...), secondly it gives the impression that this is part of the current understanding in modern physics, rather than a historical idea. It needs some serious reworking (ie rescue what's relevant regarding the keyword "quantum foam", remove all the "factoids" that have been added mixing it with "ordinary vacuum fluctuations" (or better the vacuum state in quantum field theories), and have a much shorter article or outright delete it if it turns out too little relevant information is left.) 92.196.78.139 ( talk) 12:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Over at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, there's a bit of chatter about Jean-Pierre Petit, a "French astrophysicist/cosmologist with a section of fringe and conspiracy views that are not explicitly identified as fringe or conspiracy". It's also incredibly promotional about obscure and grandiose cosmological speculations, and suffers pretty badly on the grammatical side. (When I say "obscure", I mean that the paper which the article promotes has received a grand total of 13 citations by the incredibly permissive standards of Google Scholar. Only 3 of those 13 are not self-citations, and 2 of those appear to be duplicates. The article even admits, "Despite being peer reviewed, this non-standard cosmological model has not triggered much interest in the scientific community throughout the years".) XOR'easter ( talk) 23:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
What about the "slow motion edit warring" at Real number#In physics? "This approach removes the real number system from its foundational role in physics", really? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This physical paradox article has a lot of problems. I just wanted to ask you if it is ok to erase the whole new proposal section as it is completely unsourced. Also does anyone has a reference to Feynman's work about this paradox? -- MaoGo ( talk) 16:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The article on Emil Martinec has been nominated for deletion. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
There's an AfD on Grae Worster, a fluid dynamicist. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi
I'm a graphic worker here (and commons) and I would be interested in working with this project. You can view stuff I have made here
Goran_tek-en/Gallery because I want you people working here to see if my line of work is something that you think could be useful for you. Please ping me, thanks. --
Goran tek-en (
talk)
16:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a new article which claims to show why Maxwell's equations are wrong, based on the work of Shuang-ren·Zhao. I think it would benefit from some independent expert commentary.-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 14:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I don’t know enough to do it, but the following text in Quantum gravity needs editing: - “While confirming consistencies in quantum mechanics and gravity at reasonable energies, it lacks near or above the fundamental cutoff of our effective quantum theory of gravity, assumed at the Planck scale, and needs more study. The problem of combining quantum mechanics and gravity becomes an issue only at very high energies, and may require a new way of thinking. . . . Deriving a valid quantum gravity theory at the highest energy scales assumes that such a simplistic and elegant theory. Accordingly, studying symmetries and other clues offered by current theories that might suggest ways to combine them into a comprehensive, unified theory seems logical.”
Thanks — Jo3sampl ( talk) 10:26, 22 February 2018 (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. |
An IP has pointed out that the images in Meissner effect, the ones with a levitating magnet, are not consequence of this effect but mostly due to vortex lines and type II superconductors [1]. I don't know enough about superconductors to be sure that Meissner it is not related. Does anyone here know something about this phenomena? -- MaoGo ( talk) 15:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC) If you take a look into the talk page of Meissner effect, you'll see it is a recurrent dilemma between the definitions of superdiamagnetism and Meissner, and flux pinning levitation and Meissner levitation. -- MaoGo ( talk) 16:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on the proposal. Thank you for your attention.-- Debenben ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The article is misleading. First it contains a lot of falsehoods (the way the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is cited, the way virtual particles are claimed to be actual particles, the way the Casimir effect is cited as supporting this, when it's entirely explained by quantum electrodynamics, ...), secondly it gives the impression that this is part of the current understanding in modern physics, rather than a historical idea. It needs some serious reworking (ie rescue what's relevant regarding the keyword "quantum foam", remove all the "factoids" that have been added mixing it with "ordinary vacuum fluctuations" (or better the vacuum state in quantum field theories), and have a much shorter article or outright delete it if it turns out too little relevant information is left.) 92.196.78.139 ( talk) 12:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Over at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, there's a bit of chatter about Jean-Pierre Petit, a "French astrophysicist/cosmologist with a section of fringe and conspiracy views that are not explicitly identified as fringe or conspiracy". It's also incredibly promotional about obscure and grandiose cosmological speculations, and suffers pretty badly on the grammatical side. (When I say "obscure", I mean that the paper which the article promotes has received a grand total of 13 citations by the incredibly permissive standards of Google Scholar. Only 3 of those 13 are not self-citations, and 2 of those appear to be duplicates. The article even admits, "Despite being peer reviewed, this non-standard cosmological model has not triggered much interest in the scientific community throughout the years".) XOR'easter ( talk) 23:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
What about the "slow motion edit warring" at Real number#In physics? "This approach removes the real number system from its foundational role in physics", really? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This physical paradox article has a lot of problems. I just wanted to ask you if it is ok to erase the whole new proposal section as it is completely unsourced. Also does anyone has a reference to Feynman's work about this paradox? -- MaoGo ( talk) 16:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The article on Emil Martinec has been nominated for deletion. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
There's an AfD on Grae Worster, a fluid dynamicist. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi
I'm a graphic worker here (and commons) and I would be interested in working with this project. You can view stuff I have made here
Goran_tek-en/Gallery because I want you people working here to see if my line of work is something that you think could be useful for you. Please ping me, thanks. --
Goran tek-en (
talk)
16:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a new article which claims to show why Maxwell's equations are wrong, based on the work of Shuang-ren·Zhao. I think it would benefit from some independent expert commentary.-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 14:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I don’t know enough to do it, but the following text in Quantum gravity needs editing: - “While confirming consistencies in quantum mechanics and gravity at reasonable energies, it lacks near or above the fundamental cutoff of our effective quantum theory of gravity, assumed at the Planck scale, and needs more study. The problem of combining quantum mechanics and gravity becomes an issue only at very high energies, and may require a new way of thinking. . . . Deriving a valid quantum gravity theory at the highest energy scales assumes that such a simplistic and elegant theory. Accordingly, studying symmetries and other clues offered by current theories that might suggest ways to combine them into a comprehensive, unified theory seems logical.”
Thanks — Jo3sampl ( talk) 10:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)