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. |
The other day, I saw that HRShami had created a List of American Physical Society Fellows, catching up to the analogous pages for other fields' learned societies (the IEEE, etc.). The list was incomplete, but I happened to have the data in parse-able form, so I filled it out and split it up chronologically for easier handling. I've tried to correct errors in the APS website data, probably due to typos or OCR mistakes, and I've turned many of the red links blue by identifying them with existing articles. If you're looking for a diversion, it's fun to flip through and look for familiar names. Either they can become articles, or perhaps they already are and just need a piped link. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Can somebody fact check this edit [1] on Paradox of radiation of charged particles in a gravitational field.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 10:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Input welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum gravity: the integral method. - DVdm ( talk) 14:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm unable to reach a consensus with 2 editors on the matter regarding free quarks. Therefore, I need input from a third party (other editors). I'm now unable to edit the article anymore due to it being locked, and I'm an IP.
Editor Cuzkatzimhut has a poor understanding of particle physics. He couldn't provide any valid counter-argument against my claim, which is backed up by many scientific experiments. See Talk:Quark#Free quark. It is clear that he tried to use circular reasoning and ignored all the scientific facts I provided.
Editor Ruslik0 claims that my sources are not reliable.
The information in the quark article was written over 10 years ago. It's outdated, and nobody has updated it for the last 10 years. Now, as physicists gain more understanding of the quarks, physicists discover things that they didn't know for sure before. There are many many sources that support my statement. Here are 3 more sources from many more in addition to the 3 sources above: from Livescience, from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and from European Commission, managed by European Union. It would be nice to hear input from editors that are actually particle physicists in real life or anyone with a deep understanding of particle physics. 14.169.212.232 ( talk) 10:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, the top quark has been observed DIRECTLY. Therefore, claiming quarks can never be observed directly is simply false. Like I said the information in the lede is outdated. It needs to be updated as physicists dig deeper into nature. 14.169.212.232 ( talk) 12:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict)If I understand correctly, IP is saying that aside from the technicalities of quark-gluon plasma and Hagedorn scales, quarks can sometimes be found free (not forming hadrons)? and that the discovery of single top quarks is an example, is that it? -- ReyHahn ( talk) 15:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead currently says, they can be found only within hadrons, which include baryons (such as protons and neutrons) and mesons (all of which are unstable and short-lived), or in quark–gluon plasmas.
So, no, there's no need to remove the "only" — the full sentence makes the meaning clear. I don't think we need to remove never directly observed or found in isolation
, either, since all the observations are indirect.
XOR'easter (
talk) 22:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
never directly observedneeds to be removed. 14.169.100.161 ( talk) 04:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It is well-known that, once produced, top quarks decay very rapidly. For this reason top quarks are observed and studied indirectly through kinematic features of their decay products. XOR'easter ( talk) 06:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
onlyand
never found in isolation. However, what point is being made by including
never directly observed? Surely we are dealing with an ill-defined concept "directly observed", plus the point being made is surely that they are never observed as separate/isolate particles? — Quondum 23:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Incontrovertibly quarks are substantially less direct to detect than the Higgs particle--Not field!-- and gauge bosons. That is the central point in the lede. It suffices to bring it up for the interested reader; you can't really explicate it in detail, when their "reality" baffled the best minds of the 70s. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 02:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
There are indirect observation of free/isolated quarks in the quark-gluon plasma (above Hagedorn temperature). Therefore, below the Hagedorn temperature
needs to be added after "found in isolation".
14.169.100.161 (
talk) 04:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
below the Hagedorn temperatureneeds to be added.
quarks can never be isolated in the vacuum. I would be ok with this change. 14.169.100.161 ( talk) 05:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Funnily enough, we actually did quarks in middle school, along with s, p, d, and f orbitals and various other topics. I wouldn't say we covered those topics well, but they were in the book, and our teacher tried. I think I first met the Hagedorn temperature ... junior year of college, or around then. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
-- ReyHahn ( talk) 16:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
A user has expanded Christofilos effect from books since last month. A critical look by somebody that also knows the subject is welcome.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 15:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I did NOT nominate this article for FAR-- just doing the nominations that were not done by the editor who did.
User:Kurzon has nominated Atom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Could someone please comment to some questions/remarks by new instance 14.169.212.251 of same anon (14.169.171.239) as above? See Talk:Newton's law of universal gravitation#Problematic aspects. TIA - DVdm ( talk) 14:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. 14.186.13.167 ( talk) 17:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Please take a look at this to see whether I'm right or wrong. If I'm right, please make an edit to restore my edit. This is why I hate edit Wikipedia so much. It's so bureaucratic and filled with idiots who don't know enough about a subject yet keep reverting someone else's edit. 9 out of 10 times when someone reverted my edit, it is because of a lack in their knowledge and assumption that I must be a mischief naughty kid because I'm an IP. I usually had to fight with those thick-heads who kept claiming I was in the wrong until someone else with a good knowledge came to my rescue and reolsved the issue for good. In the end, most of my edits (added contents) were restored, but it was so much time consuming every single time! I'm done editing Wikipedia. You all need to respect and appreciate IP better than this. Patrolling editors just treat IPs like vandal-ist these days even if they add good contents. 14.186.13.167 ( talk) 17:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
If you want to be treated as a responsible person (be "privileged"), then act like one, that is, take responsibility for your edits by choosing a name and getting an account.
Any schmuck could say "I am a physicist." whether he is one or not. Identify yourself, give your name and institution, then perhaps I will believe you. JRSpriggs ( talk) 02:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It's strange to see a physicist call the electromagnetic interaction "electromagnetic force", especially when it's used to distinguish it from interaction with light in a more general sense. The edit summary of the third edit could have been more friendly, but that also applies to Zefr. There was nothing unencyclopedic about it. Anyway, the current article version looks good. -- mfb ( talk) 03:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Newly created, appears to need tending, might be COI editing judging by the creator's username and the bibliography. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
How much is Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory) article original research published in Wikipedia and how much is it a notable thing on its own? -- ReyHahn ( talk) 12:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. During attempts to format the physics equations of Surface plasmon resonance microscopy, it was noticed that some appear to be ambiguous and/or erroneous ( short discussion). Would someone from this project be able to take a look over them to see if they're able to spotcheck issues? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 08:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
In the article Solar neutrino, I question the percentages given for the different sources of neutrinos (86% ad 14%). They do more or less correspond to the values one can calculate from the accompanying figure, but I think those figures are also wrong, and the image file gives no reference. I think it's about 92.6% neutrinos from the pp reaction and 7.4% from the others (calculated from Table 1 of this). Does anyone else have something to say on this, with a reference? Also, the article Proton-proton chain reaction says that helium-4 synthesis via Branch I occurs with a frequency of 83.3% (no reference). I found an article that gives that, but it seems to be saying that 83% of the helium-3 goes to Branch I, which is not the same as saying that 83% of the helium-4 comes from Branch I! (Branch I converts two helium-3 nuclei to one helium-4 nucleus, whereas the other branches convert one to one.) But if it's actually that 83.3% of the helium-4 comes from Branch I, then that corresponds to 91.65% ((183.3)/2) of the neutrinos coming from the pp reaction, not 92.6%. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 11:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I have declined this draft as original research. The submitter may be Wicks or his daughter or son, and has also submitted a biography of Wicks, and diagrams illustrating Wicks' work. I would appreciate if another editor can review the draft and offer an opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:24, 27 June 2020 (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. |
The other day, I saw that HRShami had created a List of American Physical Society Fellows, catching up to the analogous pages for other fields' learned societies (the IEEE, etc.). The list was incomplete, but I happened to have the data in parse-able form, so I filled it out and split it up chronologically for easier handling. I've tried to correct errors in the APS website data, probably due to typos or OCR mistakes, and I've turned many of the red links blue by identifying them with existing articles. If you're looking for a diversion, it's fun to flip through and look for familiar names. Either they can become articles, or perhaps they already are and just need a piped link. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Can somebody fact check this edit [1] on Paradox of radiation of charged particles in a gravitational field.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 10:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Input welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum gravity: the integral method. - DVdm ( talk) 14:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm unable to reach a consensus with 2 editors on the matter regarding free quarks. Therefore, I need input from a third party (other editors). I'm now unable to edit the article anymore due to it being locked, and I'm an IP.
Editor Cuzkatzimhut has a poor understanding of particle physics. He couldn't provide any valid counter-argument against my claim, which is backed up by many scientific experiments. See Talk:Quark#Free quark. It is clear that he tried to use circular reasoning and ignored all the scientific facts I provided.
Editor Ruslik0 claims that my sources are not reliable.
The information in the quark article was written over 10 years ago. It's outdated, and nobody has updated it for the last 10 years. Now, as physicists gain more understanding of the quarks, physicists discover things that they didn't know for sure before. There are many many sources that support my statement. Here are 3 more sources from many more in addition to the 3 sources above: from Livescience, from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and from European Commission, managed by European Union. It would be nice to hear input from editors that are actually particle physicists in real life or anyone with a deep understanding of particle physics. 14.169.212.232 ( talk) 10:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, the top quark has been observed DIRECTLY. Therefore, claiming quarks can never be observed directly is simply false. Like I said the information in the lede is outdated. It needs to be updated as physicists dig deeper into nature. 14.169.212.232 ( talk) 12:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict)If I understand correctly, IP is saying that aside from the technicalities of quark-gluon plasma and Hagedorn scales, quarks can sometimes be found free (not forming hadrons)? and that the discovery of single top quarks is an example, is that it? -- ReyHahn ( talk) 15:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead currently says, they can be found only within hadrons, which include baryons (such as protons and neutrons) and mesons (all of which are unstable and short-lived), or in quark–gluon plasmas.
So, no, there's no need to remove the "only" — the full sentence makes the meaning clear. I don't think we need to remove never directly observed or found in isolation
, either, since all the observations are indirect.
XOR'easter (
talk) 22:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
never directly observedneeds to be removed. 14.169.100.161 ( talk) 04:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It is well-known that, once produced, top quarks decay very rapidly. For this reason top quarks are observed and studied indirectly through kinematic features of their decay products. XOR'easter ( talk) 06:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
onlyand
never found in isolation. However, what point is being made by including
never directly observed? Surely we are dealing with an ill-defined concept "directly observed", plus the point being made is surely that they are never observed as separate/isolate particles? — Quondum 23:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Incontrovertibly quarks are substantially less direct to detect than the Higgs particle--Not field!-- and gauge bosons. That is the central point in the lede. It suffices to bring it up for the interested reader; you can't really explicate it in detail, when their "reality" baffled the best minds of the 70s. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 02:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
There are indirect observation of free/isolated quarks in the quark-gluon plasma (above Hagedorn temperature). Therefore, below the Hagedorn temperature
needs to be added after "found in isolation".
14.169.100.161 (
talk) 04:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
below the Hagedorn temperatureneeds to be added.
quarks can never be isolated in the vacuum. I would be ok with this change. 14.169.100.161 ( talk) 05:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Funnily enough, we actually did quarks in middle school, along with s, p, d, and f orbitals and various other topics. I wouldn't say we covered those topics well, but they were in the book, and our teacher tried. I think I first met the Hagedorn temperature ... junior year of college, or around then. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
-- ReyHahn ( talk) 16:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
A user has expanded Christofilos effect from books since last month. A critical look by somebody that also knows the subject is welcome.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 15:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I did NOT nominate this article for FAR-- just doing the nominations that were not done by the editor who did.
User:Kurzon has nominated Atom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Could someone please comment to some questions/remarks by new instance 14.169.212.251 of same anon (14.169.171.239) as above? See Talk:Newton's law of universal gravitation#Problematic aspects. TIA - DVdm ( talk) 14:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. 14.186.13.167 ( talk) 17:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Please take a look at this to see whether I'm right or wrong. If I'm right, please make an edit to restore my edit. This is why I hate edit Wikipedia so much. It's so bureaucratic and filled with idiots who don't know enough about a subject yet keep reverting someone else's edit. 9 out of 10 times when someone reverted my edit, it is because of a lack in their knowledge and assumption that I must be a mischief naughty kid because I'm an IP. I usually had to fight with those thick-heads who kept claiming I was in the wrong until someone else with a good knowledge came to my rescue and reolsved the issue for good. In the end, most of my edits (added contents) were restored, but it was so much time consuming every single time! I'm done editing Wikipedia. You all need to respect and appreciate IP better than this. Patrolling editors just treat IPs like vandal-ist these days even if they add good contents. 14.186.13.167 ( talk) 17:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
If you want to be treated as a responsible person (be "privileged"), then act like one, that is, take responsibility for your edits by choosing a name and getting an account.
Any schmuck could say "I am a physicist." whether he is one or not. Identify yourself, give your name and institution, then perhaps I will believe you. JRSpriggs ( talk) 02:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It's strange to see a physicist call the electromagnetic interaction "electromagnetic force", especially when it's used to distinguish it from interaction with light in a more general sense. The edit summary of the third edit could have been more friendly, but that also applies to Zefr. There was nothing unencyclopedic about it. Anyway, the current article version looks good. -- mfb ( talk) 03:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Newly created, appears to need tending, might be COI editing judging by the creator's username and the bibliography. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
How much is Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory) article original research published in Wikipedia and how much is it a notable thing on its own? -- ReyHahn ( talk) 12:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. During attempts to format the physics equations of Surface plasmon resonance microscopy, it was noticed that some appear to be ambiguous and/or erroneous ( short discussion). Would someone from this project be able to take a look over them to see if they're able to spotcheck issues? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 08:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
In the article Solar neutrino, I question the percentages given for the different sources of neutrinos (86% ad 14%). They do more or less correspond to the values one can calculate from the accompanying figure, but I think those figures are also wrong, and the image file gives no reference. I think it's about 92.6% neutrinos from the pp reaction and 7.4% from the others (calculated from Table 1 of this). Does anyone else have something to say on this, with a reference? Also, the article Proton-proton chain reaction says that helium-4 synthesis via Branch I occurs with a frequency of 83.3% (no reference). I found an article that gives that, but it seems to be saying that 83% of the helium-3 goes to Branch I, which is not the same as saying that 83% of the helium-4 comes from Branch I! (Branch I converts two helium-3 nuclei to one helium-4 nucleus, whereas the other branches convert one to one.) But if it's actually that 83.3% of the helium-4 comes from Branch I, then that corresponds to 91.65% ((183.3)/2) of the neutrinos coming from the pp reaction, not 92.6%. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 11:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I have declined this draft as original research. The submitter may be Wicks or his daughter or son, and has also submitted a biography of Wicks, and diagrams illustrating Wicks' work. I would appreciate if another editor can review the draft and offer an opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)