Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive September 2013

Help needed at Articles for Creation

Please see WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Collision-induced absorption and emission. The draft writer needs some help getting it into shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The article has been moved to mainspace - Collision-induced absorption and emission. Please add the necessary templates, categories, links, etc. (It's an orphan and also needs wikilinks). My knowlege of physics barely developed past high school, almost 30 years ago, so I'm not going to try to fiddle with those details. Reviewers have commented on a problem with illustrations, please help resolve these and other outstanding issues such as incomplete or broken references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to merge quantum mechanical pictures

A user has proposed the merging of Schrödinger picture, Heisenberg picture and Interaction picture into one article at Dynamical pictures (quantum mechanics). You can discuss it at Talk:Dynamical pictures (quantum mechanics). Laura Scudder | talk 20:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Aluminium-can-white.jpg

File:Aluminium-can-white.jpg has been nominated for deletion; it is currently used on a physics article. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/User:Dsweiss/sandbox

Dear physicists: This article appears to have a lot of physics-related words in it. That's all I can say about it. Is it worth improving? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Can be submitted, to improve it one should also read the older original articles by Mark Srednicki e.g. this one, these older ideas have been recently confirmed, the original articles usually contain more explanations of the method (if it is new there is more to explain). Count Iblis (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the topic is notable and the article, while but a stub, already has a few of the more important references for this area of quantum stat mech; the Nature article reference has a good overview of work done on ETH to that point. I recommend Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis as an article title. --Mark viking (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the article is in mainspace at Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis. Perhaps someone here can connect it to other articles and add some categories. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Images of radioactive materials

file:Polonium.jpg and File:Radon.jpg are up for non-free content review. As this revolves around issues of radioactivity, this may impact on images used by this project. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata sister project

d:Wikidata:Physics task force

Hi everybody! Wikidata now has a dedicated Physics project where the global wiki community gathers data of physics related topics. I hope some of you will sign up and make the occasional visit. It would also be nice if the link to the sister project could be added to the project page here: d:Wikidata:Physics task force. I also made a small logo that can go with the link. If you have any questions or need help with using Wikidata you can contact me at d:User:Tobias1984. All the best! --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That brings up an interesting point, there's no WikiProject Physics on Commons or Wiktionary. (though Commons does have an Aviation WikiProject) and such things for Commons and Wiktionary would seem to be good to have. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. There are always physics media and physics words that need some attention. It also doesn't take much time to participate on Wikidata physics. We just talk about certain bits of data we want to save and bots do most of the work. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and set up pages on Commons? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you feel like it you should start it. The physics community is large and a lot of people are already improving physics imagery. I'm sure a few people will sign up. And Wikidata will be rolled out to Commons soon, and there will be a lot to do for the global physics community to organize all the images into semantic categories. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather like to know people will sign up before someone deletes the project as a "personal wikiproject" of only one user -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Something a bit different.

I don't expect most of you to care, but I started editing Wikipedia in 2008, bringing the List of baryons to featured status. Things in baryon physics frustrated me so much I canned my old thesis, and wrote a new one on baryons symmetries and baryon nomenclature, in which I came up with some new concepts, namely that of generalized baryon mass groups, generalized isospin, and also generalized the Gell-Mann–Okubo mass formula to be applicable to a much greater range of baryons (pretty much all baryons except those analogous to the Λ(1405), associated with the 1 in 27 = 10 + 8 + 8 + 1 of the original Eightfold Way). Many of you here helped me understand things, so I want to express my gratitude to all of you, but especially @Linas:, @TimothyRias:, @Steve Quinn:, @A. di M.: / @Army1987:, and @Anonymous Dissident:.

I'll be submitting a paper containing the generalized GMO results in the next few days. In the meantime, the preprint is available at arXiv:1309.0517. It may be of interest to some of you. Feel free to send me feedback on it either on my talk page or via email.

Some parts of it may be of interest to Wikipedia at some point [i.e. after publication], and I'll probably write some sandbox and drafts on the generalized GMO formalism, but I'll defer to your judgement about whether or not the material is appropriate for inclusion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you do not mind saying, which of the three authors is you? JRSpriggs (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm G. Landry. Apparently in particle physics, it's customary to list the authors alphabetically. And apparently this convention isn't known very much outside of particle physics. So author order here is pretty much meaningless. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In particle physics they tend not to publish their papers as well isn't it (i.e they just leave it on arxiv)? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

They publish it here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really sure if you're trying to imply something here, or are genuinely curious, but there's plenty of particle physics journals. J Phys G, Phys Rev D, Euro Phys J A, Euro Phys C, JHEP, ... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything (and I'm aware of the standard journals). It is something I had heard before, that in particle physics people tend to submit less to the standard journals and what is on arxiv is often the end product, presumably for more rapid publication and response. That is why I asked the question. It's a follow on from different things being done in different fields (for example as far as I am aware, in some areas of computer science publication in journals aren't as important as conference proceedings). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well arxiv is used for several things. The vast majority of the stuff on the arxiv are preprints to be submitted to journals. Some journals (like Phys Rev D) will wave publication fees if you submit your paper through arxiv, as it's much less of a pain for them to format and prepare arxiv papers for publication. It's good practice to update things after publication, but you're not required to, and you can leave stuff there even if the paper's been rejected. I know of very few people that considers arxiv to be a "good" final place, as it is not a peer-reviewed outlet (which is pretty important for things like tenure, grants, etc.), and people prefer to cite refereed journals than unreviewed preprints. But arxiv is moderated (which is why you how up with stuff like viXra).

Mathematicians seem more relaxed about peer-review. A famous example is Grigori Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture, which he submitted on arxiv, and couldn't be bothered with the peer review process. But I've only got anecdotal evidence for mathematician's behaviour. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it may be mathematicians I was thinking of, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool! I've downloaded the paper and I'm going to read it when I have some time. — A. di M.  08:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe IRWolfe never dealt with an outright-hostile reviewer :-) It gets old after a while, life is short, walking around in a rage can be so not worth it, unless you're up for tenure or something. User:Linas (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Happened to me once a long time ago. A paper got rejected from Phys. Rev E because it was too mathematical, so I submitted it to J. Phys. A where it was rejected because one of the Referees thought he found an error, but it was not an error, it was just the Referee misintepreting something caused by the Referee not having read the paper and just reading the equations and then missing the proper context. I tried to appeal that decision, but this went nowhere, the editor said that while I was right, the paper was already on arXiv, so need to publish it in J. Phys. A. It eventually got published in the Journal of Mathematical Physics. I've never experienced anything like that ever again. Usually it's the other way around, with Referees writing in broken English that he paper is interesting and well written and should be published with some minor comments. In pure math journals you tend to get more rigorous Referee reports where you can see that the Referee really has read your paper line by line and making all sorts of comments on the content but also on grammar, spelling etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, a few times I didn't get any referee report at all, just a message from the editor that the paper has been accepted. Count Iblis (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll see what happens over the next few days/weeks I suppose :p. I'm honestly not expecting this paper to be rejected [then again, who does?], as this covers the more conventional parts of my thesis. I anticipate some criticism for overlooking mesons entirely, but nothing that would warrant rejection. I suspect the second part of my thesis (new baryon nomenclature) will be harder to publish, since people might just go "this is stuff for the PDG, you have no business sticking your nose in that / the journal is the wrong venue for such discussions". But maybe not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this new article on gravity meet our standards?

There is a new article on the Extended theory of gravity which appears to be yet another (of a huge number) of alternatives to general relativity. However, it seems to use only references to arXiv which as we know is not considered a reliable source. Also there may be issues of WP:COI since the author of the article appears to be from the same institution (National Autonomous University of Mexico) as the some of the authors of the arXiv references. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Too early. Smacks of OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

I've updated the refs, and it turns out many are from reputable journals, and have been cited many times. Most of the remain cite arxiv links are to proceedings and accepted publications, but the arxiv entry / ADSABS database haven't been updated with the exact information. Finding them should be relatively easy for someone with some time on their hands. Only arXiv:1307.0777 seems to be an unpublished/un-reviewed paper. But I too smell TOOSOON / OR. This should probably be AfD'd so a full debate can happen, and the Astronomy project needs to be involved. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, you are ahead of me. --Mariana Espinosa Aldama (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

New initiative: A-level articles

Some of you may be aware that there is a quality-ranking system on Wikipedia. In the past, the ultimate prize was "featured article status" which is controlled by a group of self-appointed Wikipedians who may be from many different backgrounds (WP:FA). One of the things lacking in this process for obtaining "featured article" status is review by experts as to what would be expected for a featured article.

Therefore, I've decided to reinvigorate the quality-ranking system associated with this Wikiproject. In particular, I have already rated a number of articles which are "featured" as "A-level". When I started this project, we had only one "A-level" quality article listed. My presumption is that an "A-level" article is different from a featured article. Right now, the qualifications for getting an "A-level" is that an expert in the subject has deemed it of the quality that would be expected from a serious reference work in the subject. If this system takes off, this can be modified, but for the time-being, I encourage other like-minded editors who would like to see an "expert evaluation" system in place to rate physics articles that they see as worth of the distinction as "A-level". Include a brief note on the talkpage when you do this. Together, we may be able to invigorate the quality control system for Wikipedia articles on physics-related subjects.

jps (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The FAx processes are not "controlled by a group of self-appointed Wikipedians" and their varied background is an asset, not a detriment. A-level reviews are a royal PITA and would suck a lot of time from members of this project for very little benefit that cannot already be achieved through GA or FA reviews (the former which is basically what A-level reviews would be, and the later which are a much more rigourous process than A-level reviews would ever be, and always includes comments from people from the physics project). And A-level reviews would deny us the feedback the community, essentially creating a closed review process disconnected from the core of the community and readers. This is a solution looking for a problem. I for one am against bringing A-level reviews in the project. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, no one likes change, I guess. The problem is that FAs generally do not include expert review and can be bogged down by amateurs posturing and seeking to make arbitrary nitpicks when an article may be really worthy of praise. We don't have to run the reviews the way that MILHIST does. We can run them much more on the level of WP:Expert review, which is a "failed proposal" only because it never was advertised, I think. jps (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not liking change, it's a matter of you having an axe to grind with the FA process. Can you provide even one example where the FA process promoted a physics article to FA status when it shouldn't have? Or one example in the last several years where an FAC nomination for a physics article failed to have WP:PHYS members give their opinions on the article? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I can point to articles that are excellent which are not featured, sure. E.g. Maxwell's equations. The point is that FA processes are designed to not single out content that is expertly crafted and also has the added issue of having a lot hoops which may or may not be relevant for the article in physics. I do have an axe to grind with the particular way that FAC processes have failed other articles, but I thought it might be nice to have a parallel system whereby good content could be identified independently of the FAs and on the basis of expert review rather than amateur hour. jps (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Expert review failed because it is not the way wikipedia works, ever has worked, or ever will work probably. I agree with Headbomb. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No expert review possible? Wow, that's pretty depressing. jps (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it just means that experts can not expect any privileges. I am an expert on a few things and I contribute to wikipedia articles in those areas, but like other editors I have to give reasons and respect consensus. All I was saying is that everytime a proposal is made that appears to give a privileged position to experts, it always fails. There is also the point that we have no way of being sure that an editor is an expert. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Privileges? Who's asking for privileges? I'm just asking for reviews. It sounds more like resignation to a less-than-optimal status quo than an actual dispute with the idea, then. I don't think we need to come up with a way to "be sure" that an editor is an expert. Start off simple through assuming good faith and then, if problems emerge, we can worry about that kind of messiness of verification. As this has never been tried, it's hard to anticipate whether it would actually be a problem or not. jps (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If I could chime in, I've seen featured articles (not in the area of physics specifically) that while being attractive, well-written, well-referenced, correctly punctuated and so on, actually contain quite significant errors and omissions that a careful expert reviewer would probably pick up. I agree that an expert review system would be advantageous to Wikipedia (it's nothing to do with giving anyone any "privileges"). But we couldn't just assume that every editor is an expert - I think we'd need to know who they are and what qualifications they hold in real life. And they'd only be able to put their name to the version of an article as it stands at a given date and time, they wouldn't be responsible for any changes made to it later on. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikiproject Medicine is already working on a collaboration with academics to get a formal system of peer review for wikipedia articles so its hardly unheard of to have peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaborative_publication (where wikipedia articles are formally published and then changes re-integrated in). Nothing about this proposal means that when it comes to changing articles that the experts get more weight than the non-experts; this is merely about attracting reviews to give ideas and suggestions from people who are recognised as actually knowing what they are talking about in relation to a specific field (which don't have to be implemented). Even a loose definition of expert would be a step up from current practice.

FA members are appointed by current FA members as far as I am aware, so yes there is a case of "controlled by a group of self-appointed Wikipedians". Why their "their varied background" would be "an asset, not a detriment", I'm not sure. An expert review system would complement not take away from current processes: anyone in the community can comment on a GA or FA so they can get their outlet there, and any peer review would be non-binding anyway.

"Or one example in the last several years where an FAC nomination for a physics article failed to have WP:PHYS members give their opinions on the article?" Here you go (I took this from the list on the project main page): Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Circumstellar_habitable_zone/archive1. I think even a system of notifying people who claim to be subject matter experts about relevant FACs and reviews would be a good idea and a step up from current practice. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It had plenty of people commenting on it. The article was mostly written by Wer900, who is very involved in astronomy article, and people from WP:Astronomy and WP:Elements comment, which is really just as good, given that this article is only marginally related to physics. And I will point out that the article failed FAC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The point isn't who the nominator is, the point is that no one from this wikiproject commented. It also isn't the point that it failed, the point it is an "example in the last several years where an FAC nomination for a physics article failed to have WP:PHYS members give their opinions on the article". I also disagree that it is marginally related to physics, it specifically discusses an aspect of astronomy with respect to exoplanets etc. Who from wikiproject astronomy/elements commented? I manually searched the names in their members list but didn't get any matches. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Nergaal? Casliber? Cryptic C62?Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that's because physicists are very busy people. Delays in publication because your paper was not reviewed within a reasonable time by the Referees is quite common. Count Iblis (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Headbomb, none of those people are in the wikiproject astronomy members list. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That's because the "members list" is hardly a complete inventory of who edits what. Casliber for example lists themselves as a member of the Astronomy project on their userpage. Nergaal, while unlisted as a member, wrote several FAs on planet-related topics (from their user page Ceres (dwarf planet), Planet, Dwarf planet, Makemake (dwarf planet), Haumea (dwarf planet), Atmosphere of Jupiter) as well as featured lists, GAs, etc... Who is "officially" part of a project is irrelevant. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nergaal:, @Casliber:, @Cryptic C62:, you've been mentioned here; pinging to let you know. Anyways, I personally agree that we should have some sort of mark denoting expert-reviewed articles. Remember, we are writing WP for the benefit of the reader, and a mark that says that an article has been reviewed by an expert would go a long way in helping WP's credibility in our science areas. I'm not saying that every article has to be approved by an expert; that's just a stupid idea, but we should have some way of denoting expert review. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And how would we verify who's an expert? What if a so-called expert tries to unduly push their own theories and disregard other people's contribution in the field? What if the expert doesn't get out content policies, and wants (e.g.) to turn the article into a big mess of math? If an expert reviews something, are we bound to follow every of their recommendations? What if they half ass things, and go "yeah sounds good" but didn't pay any attention to the references? Any sort of formal process is bound to be overly bureaucratic and create many many issues. If you want to get say Jack Steinberger to give comments on say Bubble chamber, (on the talk page, or on a special Talk:Foobar/Comments from Jack Steinberger, or similar) that would be awesome. But anything formal with rules will create problems, and people will start holding one person's take on a topic as the undisputable word of god, as that person is an expert, and therefore their opinion trumps anyone else's.

This is why Wikipedia:Expert_review failed, and why it should stay dead. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that's a real problem, and would have to be discussed. However, I personally believe that for WP's purposes, a good definition would be, say: somebody who is currently or has formerly worked in a laboratory or school in the field of the subject in question, and has been shown to reflect current scientific consensus on the subject (the definition would have to be tight to avoid abuse of the system). Of course, it would need to be discussed further. I do agree with the spirit of jps's idea, as, despite not being an expert myself, I believe that as many articles that we can have checked for accuracy by a trusted individual, the better (note that I'm not advocating for any sort of new "level" such as A-class, but rather just like the presence of a seal on the article or something, akin to the current FA star). StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Forget about the difficulty of credentials verification, and forget about how time-consuming expert reviews would be. You want to know why we shouldn't have expert reviews? Simple: If a piece of feedback is counterproductive, it should be argued against and ignored. If a piece of feedback is productive, it should be implemented. The feedback itself is all that matters, not who says it. Authority does not somehow magically make feedback better. It might help them to find problems more easily, but still need to provide sound reasoning or proper sourcing to show that something is problematic, just like everyone else. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no systematic way to get that feedback from experts at all. There is no process to find and tell an expert (even a loose definiton of expert) of a topic in their area being up for review, even though the classification criteria for articles explicitly mention experts in several places! The fact is, experts are in a much better position to give better feedback than non-experts. We shouldn't be actively rejecting the contribution they might have (and it is well recognised that wikipedia actively discourages subject matter experts and there is frequent commentary that borders on extreme anti-elitism such as by the numerous Randyss on wikipedia). I doubt anyone would have any trust for a journal that used any random person for its peer reviews, so why would wikipedia be different? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to conduct research, and does not count towards someone's publications. That removes a lot of incentive for experts to contribute. There's nothing preventing any of us from sending an email to an expert (I've done that in the past a few times), asking them for feedback on a certain article. If the suggested changes make sense, implement them. If they don't, ignore them. And I would also argue that many of us are experts in our own fields, and more than well-versed in the subtleties of science and scientific writing to find where articles are lacking, either from bad explanations, to lack of referencing, to finding idiosyncratic viewpoints being pushed as mainstream. But any "official" mechanism we implement for "expert review" will pretty much be ignored by anyone's who is not already a Wikipedian, since... how could they even know about an article being in need of review? And since we'll be the experts, and there's no way to verify that we have the expertise we claim to have without revealing our real world identities (which a lot of us don't feel like doing), we're back to square one.

So we don't need a process for this (or "seals" that appear on the article). If you want an expert's opinion, find one, and ask them to give you some feedback. If they agree, you can always post their feedback on a subpage (or talk page section), for everyone to see and discuss. If they don't, then keep their feedback in mind when you edit, but if consensus disagrees with you/your feedbacker, then that's simply life on the 'pedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, experts have little incentive to work on Wikipedia. So what? Right now there is absolutely no system in place whereby expert review (I'm not talking about editing) can be even considered except through the actions of a vested contributor who takes it upon themselves and then, as you point out, does what they please with the information. Something as simple as a little space where this can be done would be nice. In fact, we don't need permission to do this as we could just start subpages of talk:-space, I assume. I thought that this empty space of A-level reviews might be a good place to position these things. I was wrong. I'll just pursue other avenues. However, Wikiprojects could be natural starting points for helping out with the content reviews that are becoming less and less common here. Seriously, have you read FACs lately? There's frequently nothing substantive said in them anymore regarding the quality of the article as content (not just style). jps (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have, and while style-only reviews happen, I haven't seen those on physics topics in quite a while. For reviews, I suppose the natural place to have them is simply on the talk page. If we want a dedicated space for that, then we could use /Reviews subpages or similar. Or have some {{External Review|reviewer=Count Chocula}} template which transcludes the /Review subpage on the talk page, or something ("External" review is a significantly less loaded term than "Expert" review).

The problem I (and many others) have with expert reviews is tying an assessment quality to an external review. If the reviewer is lax, A-level is meaningless. If the reviewer is intransigent, A-level becomes unachievable. If the reviewer turns out to be a quack, or have idiosyncratic views, then A-level becomes misleading. Anything under GA and FA is basically "this is WP Physics' assessment" and Wikipedians can trust this as far as they want to (unregistered editors don't see this when reading the article). GA and FA have their own criteria, and these are visible to the reader, but the reader is aware that these correspond to Wikipedian's opinion on the content. And being Wikipedia-based assessments, it means that all the caveats about Wikipedia apply. But when you throw in the "expert review", and make that visible to the reader, then that A-level certification takes an entirely different signification. The state (or revision) of the article approved for A-level then becomes a reflection on the expert. If a later mistake is found, then that falls on the expert's face for having failed to find the issue. If some idiot makes a decision on reviewed/expert-approved content, and injure themselves/or lose money/whatever, the reviewer may be held legally responsible. The usual caveats of Wikipedia no longer apply, as things were "vetted" by an expert. And there's also the question of who awards the A-level? The expert, after having his criticism address in a manner they consider satisfactory? The community, upon having addressed the expert's feedback, even if the expert is not satisfied? What happens when consensus goes against the expert's wishes? Do we get another expert? Etc., etc., etc. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example of the problem I'm seeing with FACs: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Betelgeuse/archive1. The review looks to be mostly an argument over style and a few off-hand comments on sourcing. The only substantive criticism is about the ongoing issues relating to determination of the luminosity of Betelgeuse. I'm not saying that the article is bad or that the reviews weren't satisfactory from the standpoint of what FAs have become, I'm only saying that there is something missing here in the evaluation of content.

I don't think the points you raise relating to liability are really issues. In most Western countries anyone can sue anyone else at any time, but more to the point there are very few laws (except in the case of Italy with earthquake prediction(!)) that are on the books holding experts legally culpable for their opinions. But not having a gradation system is fine with me. I'm not all that interested in hierarchical ranking of quality in any case. Calling it "external review" would be fine too.

I'm mostly concerned right now that there is no means to comment on content, and my impression from the past where FAs often served that purpose seems to be mistaken. I really think there needs to be some means to evaluate the quality of content or else because this website is so inwardly focused on its own guidelines and procedures, the enterprise runs the risk of turning into an automatic content generator.

jps (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing FA reviews as closed off and includes only "a group of self-appointed Wikipedians". As far as I know I can enter into any discussion on any article under FA review. It is up to consensus to decide the merits of my input, and I have no control over that. Moreover, I can volunteer to review an article and go through the criteria and conduct a review.

Also, part of the criteria for FA status is a high regard for verification. From what I have seen, FA reviewers ensure verification via "high quality reliable sources". These people are not going to willy-nilly give a pass for FA status.

And, as has been stated above, if a knowledgeable view is needed to correlate content with a source, there are plenty of helpful Wikipedia editors, including in this project. Personally, I am glad that the physics project, medicine project, geology project, and militry history project have knowledgable people that participate. This includes vetting the content of articles as a matter of course, not just FA review. For WikiProject Academic Journals articles I can seek advise from a few knowledgeable editors there as well.

So, Wikipedia has been and is a community effort. Hence, for the reasons stated above opposing expert review, I am also opposed to this idea. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

AdS/CFT correspondence

Hello! About a month ago, I nominated the article AdS/CFT correspondence for good article status. I was wondering if anyone here would be willing to review it. Eventually, I'd like to bring the article to featured article status, but first I want to see if it meets the good article criteria.

Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Where are the technical proofs? This seems like a lot of prose and not a lot of quantitative connections as I was expecting. jps (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this the kind of thing you want to call an introduction to AdS/CFT with another more detailed article like with Introduction to M-theory ? I am not sure about this. AHusain (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy (see WP:TECHNICAL), all Wikipedia articles "should be understandable to the widest possible audience". The AdS/CFT article contains a number of technical references, and there are subpages that can be updated with additional technical details. Please let me know if I've misunderstood Wikipedia's policy regarding technical articles. Polytope24 (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good. Put the technical proofs jps wants in those separate articles. AHusain (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the "introduction to" is a better solution. AdS/CFT correspondence should be technical. The WP:TECHNICAL policy isn't really reasonable in hard sciences and is generally ignored. jps (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Understandable by the "widest possible audience" and understandable by everyone aren't the same thing. There are limits on what some people can be expected to know on a specific topic since they have specific prerequisites. That is why the guideline also says "..., but the material permits a more understandable explanation, ...", specifically as highlighted by Wikipedia:TECHNICAL#Technical_content. It even mentions "For example, a detailed derivation of a result is unlikely to be read by either a general reader or an expert, but a short summary of the derivation may convey a sense to a general reader without reducing the usefulness to an expert reader." IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia receives the most praise in my circles for articles where the authors are careful with detailed derivations. I think that the guideline is somewhat misguided for that reason as it essentially disparages the very thing that many academics I talk to think is one the most redeeming qualities of the website. jps (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In my circles, academics praises Wikipedia for being excellent starting points that try to look at the big picture (explanation of concepts + history) with solid referencing. They say "X article explains topic X pretty well, start there". No one, however, would ever tell anyone to look at it for derivations or the nitty gritty math details. At best they would say "The references in the X article may have some insight", but most of the time they will refer to journals and textbooks for derivations and similar. Derivation-heavy article tend to be avoided like the plague. Also note WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The people that I know that use wikipedia within physics use it most often to remind themselves of specific formulas and short derivations etc that they already know (Tip of the tongue stuff). The idea of the derivations is to skip much of the details but give the main points (as the guideline highlights). I know of very few people who actually read full articles on wikipedia, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The "starting point" idea, I think, is how many advise their students to use Wikipedia, but in the deepest, darkest secrets of academe, there are professors desperately trying to throw together material for a lecture and certain Wikipedia pages are known as good repositories for some of the basic points. I guess when I say "careful with detailed derivations", I think the "careful" bit is more important than the "detailed" bit, but careful generally implies a certain level of specificity which generally requires mathematics rather than prose, proofs rather than assertions, etc. jps (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There are also children who are interested in physics and math who use Wikipedia to read about these subjects. The problem for them is that the educational system will keep them dumbed down until they go to university. For them it would be very useful to have self contained derivations and explanations. I know that when I was a schoolkid, I would have benefitted a lot had the internet and Wikipedia existed at that time. I used my father's university level engineering lecture notes to study physics and math from. What was helpful here is that the explanations there were not very rigorous, so it was easy to follow. With some subjects I had a lucky break. E.g. it was only by accident that I browsed a book on complex analysis and happened to directly read from the middle of the book about the residue theorem that I managed to master this subject at the age of 15. It was the fact that I could understand how to apply the residue theorem without properly understanding it, that motivated me to learn more about this subject.

Learning the details about physics and math subjects will also lead to children getting interested in these subjects. The high school educational system is so bad that you don't even get a good idea of what these subjects are really about, so many children later don't even decide to study these subjects because they think it is boring. Count Iblis (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. Until recently, the AdS/CFT article did contain some discussion of the mathematics of anti-de Sitter space, its conformal boundary, and the relationship between the CFT partition function and metrics in the bulk, but I removed this material since it didn't seem to add much to the discussion. At some point, I might create something like a "Mathematical introduction to the AdS/CFT correspondence".

I'd be happy to discuss other ways to incorporate technical details into the article (though I'd rather not just "ignore" the requirements of WP:TECHNICAL and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). But right now, I'd really like to know whether the article meets the good article criteria. Would anyone be willing to work with me on reviewing the article? Polytope24 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You may have more chance of getting good feedback if you also ask at WP:ASTRONOMY. Many clueful people familiar with AdS/CFT would be watching that page. Maybe even more than here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks for the suggestion. Polytope24 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and do a GA review over the weekend. I must warn you though, my background in theoretical physics is limited to 1 semester of QFT. SPat ^talk 17:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that's really nice of you! Don't worry about your background; I've tried to write the article in such a way that even non-experts can understand and verify its content. Thanks for your help. Polytope24 (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Physics articles in most other languages can be improved a lot

Except for a few Wikipedias (the English, the German, and perhaps a few other), the physics articles are typically small stubs and often contain errors. Even if you don't speak the language, you can check the articles using Google Translate. You can do minor edits to correct errors but you have to be careful making larger edits, because Google Translate is not good at grammar. But if you speak a related language with similar grammar, you can with some effort use Google Translate to write entire articles despite not speaking a word of that language.

I've started to make some edits to the Norwegian Wikipedia, it works quite well for me so far. Even if what you write contains some errors, on balance it would still be a good thing to have edited there. Most of these Wikipedias are rather stale, so if you edit there and make some minor grammar errors, chances are that the previous editors who likely still watch the articles but are otherwise dormant, will notice that and will come back to edit again. Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You'd also need to be aware that some editors at other languages are not particularly fond of editors with a poor grasp of their language. So keep that in mind if something happens. Still, improving physics articles in other languages would be good. There's also simple: the Simple English Wikipedia which would not require knowledge of a different language, but would require working with a limited number of words when not absolutely necessary. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It might also be a good idea to add the physics terms to Wiktionary (each language's wiktionary supports words of all languages, with only the definition of the term in the language of that wiktionary, so on English Wiktionary, you will find German terms, defined in English) -- 70.24.244.158 (talk)

Articles on "burning"

Colleagues, there are a few articles on Stellar nucleosynthesis and thermonuclear reactions of various elements: Carbon-burning process, Neon-burning process, Lithium burning, Deuterium burning, Oxygen-burning process, Silicon-burning process, etc. Many of them are stubs. All of them have "burning" in the title. The problem is that "burning" is also a term of combustion physics. Is this term common and widely adopted in nuclear physics books and papers? If it is not a kind of professional jargon, I believe it needs disambiguation, otherwise more precise titles of these articles would be useful, for interwiki, too. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Burning" is the typical term used when describing the major fusion processes in stars. jps (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you jps. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've frequently seen burning associated with stellar nucleosynthesis, and the product of burning one element is "ash" composed of the resultant element. Are we going to write combustion articles by isotope/element? If not, how is this problematic? -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hydrogen, carbon, metals? --Fedor Babkin (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of people talking about the combustion in terms of single elements especially because in the context of combustion what's usually burning is a compound molecule or a mixture rather than a nucleus or a single atom. Do we have sources saying as such? jps (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Aluminum combustion, Lithium combustion. Of course in the context of combustion people don't talk about the burning of a nucleus or an atom, rather about the complex network of branched chain reactions. Wouldn't it be more clear to have articles with the titles such as "Nuclear burning of lithium" vs "Lithium combustion"? --Fedor Babkin (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The "nuclear" adjective tends to be left out. For example, "The main sequence is the location on a luminosity versus temperature plot where hydrogen-burning stars are located." jps (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Same in combustion. That's what disambiguation pages are for. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, except for the fact that there is this term "combustion" which seems to work well. According to the principle of least astonishment, you may have a point that someone who was looking for information on the combustion of carbon compounds might be surprised to find our article carbon burning doesn't have any information on it. However, we can solve this through a disambiguation link on the top of the page in italics. This is the page about the fusion of carbon nuclei in certain stellar interiors. For information on the combustion of carbon-containing compounds see combustion." jps (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that this appears to be a "hot" topic. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel a *groan* coming on. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

jps's proposal sounds perfect to me. The application of the principle of least astonishment together with the principle of least action is highly appreciated. I hope interwiki guys will notice the clarification, too. Some of the interwiki pages have been translated from the English page, and the principle of least astonishment says that it is not surprising to have both es:Proceso de combustión del carbono and pt:Fusão nuclear do carbono. AFAIK, Spanish also has both quema (see es:Nucleosíntesis estelar) and combustión, while some other languages don't have two different terms for burning and combustion.--Fedor Babkin (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Done for carbon. Do any other articles need it? jps (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lithium burning --Fedor Babkin (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. See this diff. Go ahead and be bold and add either a "For" or "Redirect" template to the top of other "burning" pages. Also, check to make sure that combustion is the right page. It certainly is for carbon burning, but I'm not sure about lithium. jps (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quantum jump method

Dear physics experts: Here's an Afc submission in your line. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine for moving to article space as a stub. It can be expanded there. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This stub is on a notable topic and the author has taken some care even at this early stage to maintain neutrality by pointing out competing approaches. I agree that it is ready for main space. --Mark viking (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Although this is out of my field, I think that this quantum jump method is wrong, that is, it will not produce results which are even a good approximation to the truth. I think this because it is mixing together the classical and quantum approaches to probability without using the density matrix which was created to allow that to be done. What empirical evidence is there for the utility of this method? I would bet that there is no reliable evidence for it. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering they have a section showing equivalence to the master equation approach, perhaps that might be a bit of a hasty judgement (also a glance through the 100s of citations shows places it has been employed) IRWolfie- (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, whether it's right or wrong, is there agreement that it's notable (that is, others are writing about it) and should have an article? If there are physicists who have written about why they believe that it's wrong, that could go in the article too. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In the RevModPhys paper on quantum jump processes in quantum optics, the section IV on derivations of the quantum jump approach is instructive. It can be derived from the density matrix. But in the larger picture, the great thing about Monte Carlo processes is that the transition functions don't have to be physical--the resulting states just have to converge to the probability distribution you are trying to sample. In practice, this means that the transition is capable of sampling the full configuration space and that something like detailed balance holds to faithfully sample the desired distribution. Thus all sorts of tricks like simulated annealing, parallel tempering, etc, can be in general used to speed up convergence, as long as they preserve the probability distribution. --Mark viking (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Right or wrong, is there evidence of enough notability for a stand-alone article? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

Absolutely, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What is it? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

The significant coverage in the highly-cited sources already given in the article and the plethora of other sources available from a simple search [1], IRWolfie- (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It's been accepted. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Need technical review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cosmological black holes

Please look through Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cosmological black holes and give a technical review. In particular, is the subject notable and is the existing submission clear and accurate enough to move to the main encyclopedia?

Comments can be added by either using the AFC Helper Script or by adding {{afc comment|1=Your comment goes here}} immediately below the last "afc comment" and immediately above the ----. Please mention that you are giving a technical evaluation and, if you want, your level of relevant technical expertise. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears that this article has already been rejected. For what it is worth, the idea of a cosmological black hole (a region of space, say 10 megaparsecs or larger, with a sufficiently large density of matter to be bounded by a Schwarzschild radius) is a real concept in cosmology and different than that of primordial black holes or stellar black holes. Such black holes have been hypothesized to be in the cosmological voids in the large scale structure of the universe. There is potential for an article on this topic. --Mark viking (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bye-bye CERN orientation

Well! Lots of physicists on Wikipedia this month. Please check out this proposed article. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Headbomb's decline. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC).

I also support the decline per Headbomb's reasoning. --Mark viking (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

One more done, 1,964 left in the queue... —Anne Delong (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

New article today (18/09/2013): Amplituhedron

Is this notable? There are a few links for refs in the article, but two are just videos (one including Youtube), one paper to arxiv, and one link to a website (Quanta magazine). A google search gives this, currently nothing on google scholar (at the time of posting).

It could be notable, but maybe too early? Not sure... M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 08:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like OR drivel. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC).

The word "amplituhedron" is not used anywhere in the Arkani-Hamed "Scattering Amplitudes and the Positive Grassmannian" paper: perhaps a journalist introduced it, or the physicists are using it informally in private communication? -- The Anome (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait: here's Trnka at Princeton using the term: see here. It looks like a really good presentation aimed at the non-domain-specialist: I will have a go at struggling to understand it with my tiny little mind.

A Google search for "amplituhedron site:.edu" also suggests that Arkani-Hamed is using the term. -- The Anome (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

One swallow does not make a summer, still less a Wikipedia article. Perhaps it would be best to wait until there are review articles on the subject. Currently it smacks of WP:Recentism. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC).

Absolutely. But (if this all hangs together) what an amazingly articleworthy topic! But the title will have to change, probably to something like "Arkani-Hamed-Boujali-Postinkov theory" or whatever physicists evetually end up calling the theory itself. -- The Anome (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the amplituhedron is just the form the equation takes, not the theory. jps (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Quanta Magazine article is pretty good, if perhaps somewhat sensationalized. jps (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Quanta article is nicely written, although its author seems to think think that this is the first time that anybody has summed a perturbation series, but in the realms of Gee-Whizzery. It is not a serious scientific paper and should not be used as a reliable scientific source, nor should Motl's blog. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC).

True, though, arguably, Wikipedia is in the "Gee-Whizzery" business to some extent. jps (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Luboš Motl suggests that Arkani-Hamed and Trnka are on the verge of releasing a paper (or several papers) about the amplituhedron. In the mean time, would be nice if someone could expand the existing article to include background regarding the existing positive Grassmannian paper. Zueignung (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This should be a Did you know? article. On the other hand, since it's in the popular press, it may be too newsworthy for DYN. Perhaps there should be a main-page news blurb instead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

- For anyone interested: A relevant matter that I'd like to see clarified - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Amplituhedron.2C_Scattering_amplitude.2C_Scattering_patterns

Thanks - 186.221.170.80 (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

After working on this article, it's my opinion that it is mostly hype at this point. There are no peer-reviewed papers as reliable sources, only arxiv submissions and primary presentations. The Quanta Magazine article is reliable in the sense that it likely accurately reported what the scientists said, but doesn't serve as a reliable source for the underlying theory. The planar limit of N=4 D=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory is not only a toy theory, it is a special theory in that it has superconformal symmetry and is related to integrable models. Often integrable models allow for special techniques to compute exact results; these techniques usually don't generalize to non-integrable models. If they do manage to generalize this to general realistic QFTs, then it will be a major advance to crow about. --Mark viking (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What's interesting is that it doesn't rely on the integrability. He addresses this in this video: http://susy2013.ictp.it/video/05_Friday/2013_08_30_Arkani-Hamed_4-3.html Miserlou (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you confusing integrating for the amplitude vs integrability of the theory? It is still an integrable theory, planar N=4 super Yang-Mills. See the video at minute 40. The integrability coming from this twistor space description is essential to the construction. AHusain (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Bell's spaceship paradox

Maybe a view more eyes should look at this article, which I expanded in the last months. It is established in the literature that the string will break due to relativistic stresses. But Desiderata9 (talk · contribs), which seems to be the new account of Rod Ball (talk · contribs) from 2006, cannot accept it and attacks the article's content for years. (For literature, see (Romain (1963), Evett (1972), Bell (1976), MacGregor (1981), Cornwell (2005), Flores (2005), Styer (2007), Redzic (2008), Peregoudov (2009), Redzic (2009), Gu (2009), Petkov (2009), Franklin (2009), Fernflores (2011), Kassner (2012) as referenced in the article). --D.H (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology

I made some major changes at Plasma cosmology. I don't expect that this will be taken well by the various proponents of this program, but I think my changes are fair. However, if anyone would care to look and help out, that would be appreciated. jps (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Amplituhedron, Scattering amplitude, Scattering patterns

The Amplituhedron is very hot news right now. Many people should be visiting our article for information about it. The principle popular-science-press article about it (https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/) says:

Encoded in its volume are the most basic features of reality that can be calculated, “scattering amplitudes,” which represent the likelihood that a certain set of particles will turn into certain other particles upon colliding.

(1) Our article scattering amplitude doesn't seem to have any information that would be comprehensible to the layperson - we should add something appropriate.

(2) Amplituhedron currently says:

When the volume of the amplituhedron is calculated in N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, it describes the scattering patterns of subatomic particles.

(2A) Are scattering patterns the same as scattering amplitudes or different? How? Should Amplituhedron refer to "scattering patterns" or "scattering amplitude"?

(2B) We seem to have many articles that mention scattering patterns, but no single article or article section that provides a definition of this term for laypeople. Presumably we should create one? (Or a redirect to scattering amplitude if that's appropriate.)

As always, please fix or create the articles as necessary - I'm not trying to simply get answers here that won't help the articles in question.

Thanks - 186.221.170.80 (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks noticing the vagueness. Scattering pattern is a term used in X-ray crystallography and small-angle scattering, but typically not in particle physics; they mean different things. I have changed it to scattering amplitude in the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I put a section on this sort into the N=4 SYM article. I'll expand there if this continues to be a thing. I think this is too specific to merit a separate article. Also it should be a redirect to scattering amplitude; the article just chose to phrase it that way. AHusain (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now redirected scattering pattern/scattering patterns to scattering theory, which I think is probably the safest option. Scattering amplitude, on the other hand, is most definitely a particle physics term. -- The Anome (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

...and the planar limit?

I don't really understand the field in question, but am I right in thinking that the "planar limit" in the N=4 super-Yang-Mills theory being discused in this article is the subset in which only interactions with planar Feynman diagrams are taken into account, as this and this I think suggest? If so, it probably deserves its own article. Or am I talking nonsense? -- The Anome (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much more than you do, I don't really do equations. I gather that dealing with mass and gravity requires going beyond the planar limit into the non-planar region. The inability to deal with mass and gravity is a known issue with twistor theory, from which amplituhedron theory is said to be derived. My understanding is that the equations are currently pretty much unmanageable for the non-planar case due to the explosion of topologies, although ISTR some small progress recently. So as a Wiki editor one might as well bulk out the current stub article with the planar discussion rather than create a new article for it. As ever, when/if the article ever gets too long and rambling, that is a good time to split it. Hope that helps a little. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Off topic here, but I don't know where else to say it. The word "amplituhedron" was coined because these are higher-dimensional analogues of polyhedra. There is already a perfectly good word for that - Polytope. This object should more correctly be called the "Amplitope", and I think that as a word that has a better ring to it too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: would it make sense to link the words "planar limit" in "Amplituhedron" article to 1/N expansion? I've already been WP:BOLD and linked "genus 0" in the N = 4 supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory article to planar graph... -- The Anome (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dewey B. Larson

This article is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Last chance to decide if it deserves a place in the "fringe theories" section. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC) ...and it's gone! —Anne Delong (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As someone who participated in the AfD about this 2 years ago: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dewey_B._Larson, it's a straight up GNG fail. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Submission on relativistic center of mass

Through the Articles for Creation process, a new user has submitted a fairly lengthy article entitled Relativistic Center of Mass. Is this subject already covered anywhere? Should the article be accepted into the main article space, integrated elsewhere, or none of the above? Could use a review by someone knowledgeable. --Delirium (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, looks interesting. Even if there are articles on this, they could link back and forth and/or merged into this article. It's a complex topic that could make it's own article, so I think it should be in mainspace by now and cleaned up after. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 08:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any WP articles that handle the relativistic center of mass; our Center of mass article deals only with the nonrelativistic case. So this topic is reasonable and a nice addition to our coverage. The article itself is well written and well referenced. There is some COI in that the author of the article also seems to appear in some of the references. But those references are all published, peer-reviewed papers and the article discusses other approaches as well, so the article seems neutral enough for a start and can be made more neutral over time. I agree, this article is ready for mainspace. --Mark viking (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Center of mass (relativistic) would be a better title. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. I agree this would be a better title. --Mark viking (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Indifferent on titles, so we could make Center of mass (relativistic) the main title with relativistic center of mass a redirect to it (people could potentially type this in). Let's notify the author User:Hcrater.

M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 19:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on the comments above, I've gone ahead and accepted it; it's now at center of mass (relativistic). It's currently an orphan, though, so could use mentions in existing articles where appropriate. --Delirium (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Radiaitive equilibrium

Your attention is required, can we remove the "tone" lede of that article? Any suggestions? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiative_equilibrium#Remove_of_tone_notice Prokaryotes (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article does not come up to Wikipedia's standards of quality. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC).

Wikimedian-in-Residence at the Royal Society

The Royal Society, the UK's science academy, is recruiting a Wikimedian-in-Residence to help them work more closely with Wikipedia. The position is part-time (one day per week) for a fixed term of 6 months.See here for more information and details of how to apply. For additional information please contact me at francis.bacon [AT] royalsociety.org Andeggs (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)