![]() | 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. |
There is some seemingly useless information about Avogadro's constant on the Electron rest mass article. May somebody verify its notability? -- MaoGo ( talk) 17:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I recently watched Sean Carroll's debate against William Lane Craig. Sean Carroll mentioned " Quantum eternity theorem". I came to Wikipedia to find out more, but we don't have an article on the subject. I have done a Google search, including scholarly articles, but I am struggling to find a clear description. Can someone with the appropriate expertise create a Wikipedia article, please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
There are issues with Absolute magnitude (C-class, high importance), see the discussion I started at here. For the past 14 years, the article contained WP:OR that is probably wrong, but has since been used in multiple peer-reviewed articles. @ Tomruen:, who originally added it in 2004, has brought the issue to my attention yesterday, and we both are working on fixing it. We need help though! Renerpho ( talk) 05:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I added subst:PR tag to the talk page of a recently much improved article : /info/en/?search=Talk:Bimetric_gravity
When clicking "Natural sciences and mathematics" it answered "Wikipedia does not have a project page with this exact title. Wikipedia:Peer review/Bimetric gravity/archive1"
How is this possible ? This article has previously been rated in 2010.
-- 145.242.20.221 ( talk) 14:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm rolling through the orphaned pages category and came across Microplasticity. I was wondering if the concept necessitates its own article, or if it could safely be merged someplace like Plasticity (physics), under the Metals heading? I'm not very technically-minded so I'm in a bad position to judge. Happy to any necessary legwork though, just point me in the right direction. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion here to rename the article String (physics) to Quantum string. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Anyone know if Blasius–Chaplygin formula and Blasius theorem are the same? Sunlitsky (courtesy ping) stuck a merge tag on them in November without initiating any discussion and I'm not sure they actually should be merged. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
References
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Activities, addressed as a significant improvement
, which I perceive as un-encyclopedic at least, start
here, and are announced starting
here. I do not want to interfere any more and maybe some arbitration is useful there.
Could someone have look at this, please? Purgy ( talk) 07:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The deletion discussion for the article Bimetric gravity appears pertinent to the crowd here. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Finally some additional comments have appeared regarding the merge between Debye frequency and the Debye model articles. Check it out Talk:Debye model#Merger proposal with Debye frequency article. -- MaoGo ( talk) 10:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's something that's bothered me for a while about our fusion articles (and not just ours, which is admittedly a problem for fixing ours). You can read today's featured article, ZETA (fusion reactor), and not find out whether it created any fusion reactions at all. It's clear from reading the article that the neutrons originally thought to be from fusion were (at least for the most part) not, but it's not entirely clear whether there was any fusion. (Note that "we don't know" would be a fine answer, but unless I missed it, that's not there either.)
Similarly, the tokamak article talks at some length about the Q factor, the ratio of fusion output power to the power required to heat the plasma. It explains that a Q of 1 would be some sort of theoretical break-even point, but you would need much higher Q values for a practical power generator, and talks about planned machines that hope to achieve it.
But there've been many many tokamaks already. What are their Q values? Shouldn't we see a nice table with record Q against year, or something? Or can we at least get a confidence interval that doesn't include zero?
I just think it's a pretty obvious flaw in our corpus of fusion articles that you can spend hours reading them and not be able to give a clear answer to the question, "have these machines been able to achieve any fusion reactions at all?". I presume that the answer is "yes", but it shouldn't be so hard to find out. Is there anyone who is competent and willing to fix this in the articles? -- Trovatore ( talk) 06:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I just deleted a paragraph from Quantum psychology which was trivially wrong about quantum field theory. What remains appears to be an amalgam of everything said by anyone who has ever thought that quantum mechanics and consciousness are related or even analogous. I don't think I'll have time to do more with it, but maybe somebody else can. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe the article /info/en/?search=Theophysics should be deleted. It seems to be pseudoscience. 95.116.151.205 ( talk) 15:37, 27 January 2019 (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. |
There is some seemingly useless information about Avogadro's constant on the Electron rest mass article. May somebody verify its notability? -- MaoGo ( talk) 17:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I recently watched Sean Carroll's debate against William Lane Craig. Sean Carroll mentioned " Quantum eternity theorem". I came to Wikipedia to find out more, but we don't have an article on the subject. I have done a Google search, including scholarly articles, but I am struggling to find a clear description. Can someone with the appropriate expertise create a Wikipedia article, please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
There are issues with Absolute magnitude (C-class, high importance), see the discussion I started at here. For the past 14 years, the article contained WP:OR that is probably wrong, but has since been used in multiple peer-reviewed articles. @ Tomruen:, who originally added it in 2004, has brought the issue to my attention yesterday, and we both are working on fixing it. We need help though! Renerpho ( talk) 05:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I added subst:PR tag to the talk page of a recently much improved article : /info/en/?search=Talk:Bimetric_gravity
When clicking "Natural sciences and mathematics" it answered "Wikipedia does not have a project page with this exact title. Wikipedia:Peer review/Bimetric gravity/archive1"
How is this possible ? This article has previously been rated in 2010.
-- 145.242.20.221 ( talk) 14:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm rolling through the orphaned pages category and came across Microplasticity. I was wondering if the concept necessitates its own article, or if it could safely be merged someplace like Plasticity (physics), under the Metals heading? I'm not very technically-minded so I'm in a bad position to judge. Happy to any necessary legwork though, just point me in the right direction. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion here to rename the article String (physics) to Quantum string. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Anyone know if Blasius–Chaplygin formula and Blasius theorem are the same? Sunlitsky (courtesy ping) stuck a merge tag on them in November without initiating any discussion and I'm not sure they actually should be merged. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
References
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Activities, addressed as a significant improvement
, which I perceive as un-encyclopedic at least, start
here, and are announced starting
here. I do not want to interfere any more and maybe some arbitration is useful there.
Could someone have look at this, please? Purgy ( talk) 07:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The deletion discussion for the article Bimetric gravity appears pertinent to the crowd here. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Finally some additional comments have appeared regarding the merge between Debye frequency and the Debye model articles. Check it out Talk:Debye model#Merger proposal with Debye frequency article. -- MaoGo ( talk) 10:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's something that's bothered me for a while about our fusion articles (and not just ours, which is admittedly a problem for fixing ours). You can read today's featured article, ZETA (fusion reactor), and not find out whether it created any fusion reactions at all. It's clear from reading the article that the neutrons originally thought to be from fusion were (at least for the most part) not, but it's not entirely clear whether there was any fusion. (Note that "we don't know" would be a fine answer, but unless I missed it, that's not there either.)
Similarly, the tokamak article talks at some length about the Q factor, the ratio of fusion output power to the power required to heat the plasma. It explains that a Q of 1 would be some sort of theoretical break-even point, but you would need much higher Q values for a practical power generator, and talks about planned machines that hope to achieve it.
But there've been many many tokamaks already. What are their Q values? Shouldn't we see a nice table with record Q against year, or something? Or can we at least get a confidence interval that doesn't include zero?
I just think it's a pretty obvious flaw in our corpus of fusion articles that you can spend hours reading them and not be able to give a clear answer to the question, "have these machines been able to achieve any fusion reactions at all?". I presume that the answer is "yes", but it shouldn't be so hard to find out. Is there anyone who is competent and willing to fix this in the articles? -- Trovatore ( talk) 06:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I just deleted a paragraph from Quantum psychology which was trivially wrong about quantum field theory. What remains appears to be an amalgam of everything said by anyone who has ever thought that quantum mechanics and consciousness are related or even analogous. I don't think I'll have time to do more with it, but maybe somebody else can. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe the article /info/en/?search=Theophysics should be deleted. It seems to be pseudoscience. 95.116.151.205 ( talk) 15:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)