Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Physics
Get Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Physics essential facts below. View Videos or join the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Physics discussion. Add Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Physics to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics
Members Welcome

WikiProject Physics (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

## Michael Persinger

But I've yet to see an article so-deeply based on primary sources of a complete quack/nutjob/predatory nature. There's at least 4 predatory journals, plus classics like NeuroQuantology, Entropy (journal), and Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research. There's certainly some WP:ABOUTSELF stuff, but the extent of it is mind-bogling, with very little balance to make it clear those ideas are completely without support in the scientific community. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yikes. It may not be as bad as scale relativity used to be, but that's only because it's shorter. I'd support a radical stubbification. The claims about "entanglement" and the like are so incoherent that debunking them would require lending them meaning first. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
For quackery and hoax promotion, it rivals Jean-Pierre Petit before pruning efforts last August/September. We maybe need a [[Category:Quackery and hoaxes]] -- Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I made a first attempt at pruning, but I may have been too generous in letting material remain. Journal of Advances in Physics is another untrustworthy one. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Added that link to WP:UPSD and the CIRWORLD/Rajpub DOI to the WP:CITEWATCH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
A weirdly large number of references are to Perceptual and Motor Skills. I wonder what this journal was doing publishing on topics like "Wars and increased solar-geomagnetic activity". XOR'easter (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm noticed that too and was wondering the same thing. Possibly a case were Persinger got cozy with the editors, and snuck in a couple of nonsense/non-topical papers. The journal wasn't really published through any real known publisher prior to being acquired by SAGE in 2012. Seems the one before that was some "Ammons Scientific" which was exclusively publishing PMS for the majority of its early life, perhaps alongside a second journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

## Acceleration

Eyes requested on the acceleration article. Despite several reversions, an anonymous contributor is insisting that acceleration is not a vector but is a rank-2 tensor. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf61 (talk o contribs)

Thanks for calling attention to this. The page has been protected by Favonian until the 31st. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

## Unified Scattering Function

I've accepted this from a draft. There may be some sort of conflict of interest at play, so it needs to be reviewed and brought up to standard, or sent to AfD. - bradv? 05:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The "lead" is way too long for sure. The idea that the same scaling can apply to multiple setups must be older than 1995, so this might be Beaucage reinventing things that were known before (maybe not under that name). --mfb (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

## Problematic changes to physics articles by an editor

A recent pattern of edits by a single editor seems to seek to rewrite content in a way that disregards and contradicts the sources, for example, these edits at Hartree atomic units, where the editor seeks to redefine the Hartree atomic units in a rationalized form. Similarly, this very long list of edits to Planck units (with a small number of edits by others interspersed), where the the concept of "Gaussian Planck version" and "Heaviside-Lorentz version" is introduced (invented?), an apparent transplanting of the names from electromagnetism. Some broader oversight might be helpful, since the number of edits and articles involved is large, and shows a disregard for edit summaries and the opinions of other editors. It may take significant effort to undo the damage. --Quondum 13:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard the speed of light called the "Planck speed" or Boltzmann's constant called the "Planck entropy" (and a literature search for either finds only false positives and obscure/un-reviewed papers; for "Planck permittivity" there is even less). This does rather look like a person advancing their own pet idea for what a system of units "should" be. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I had some doubts about this string of edits and the sources in it. Perhaps it's time to courtesy ping user Ahri6279 (talk · contribs) and make them aware of this. - DVdm (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
See Natural units#Electromagnetism units, "Of these, Lorentz-Heaviside is somewhat more common,[1] mainly because Maxwell's equations are simpler in Lorentz-Heaviside units than they are in Gaussian units." --- Ahri6279 (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
You can't put some self-invented "new" system into Wikipedia. That's not how popflock.com resource works. --mfb (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Ahri6279, you are exhibiting a strong pattern of disruptive editing. You are causing damage to Wikipedia, and I appeal to you to stop editing until you had read more and understood the principles behind collaboration on Wikipedia. Your comment above is evidence of your misuse of information to sidestep understanding what you are being told. Some examples:
• Your comment above is an extract which refers to two systems of units, neither of which is called Planck units. Not only are you missing the point, but you seem to be violating the principle of policy, specifically: "Policy: [...] popflock.com resource articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other popflock.com resource articles [...]".
• You are ignoring input by others to your edits, and not listening to them on talk pages, including your own. For example, despite this appeal to you on your talk page, you have continued to edit in a way that creates unmanageable edit histories, for example at Plank units, where you have made over 600 edits over a short period, mostly without edit comments.
• Why cannot I do this? Like when you do a document, you will save it over a short period, won't you? ---Ahri6279 (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• The difference is that popflock.com resource is a collaborative project. When you edit your own personal document hundreds of times, you do not make life difficult for other people. When you edit a popflock.com resource article hundreds of times, almost always without providing edit summaries, you do. You can develop and revise drafts in your sandbox. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• You have changed template data so that it is incorrect. This is in contradiction of the sourcing, and causes the template to function incorrectly, which in turn makes many article that us it incorrect.
• This is not damage, the values of these physical constants are given by this app [1], click "shift+7" to find the values of these physical constants. --Ahri6279 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• You have chosen to redefine Hartree atomic units to be a rationalized system, making it incorrect, and ignoring the sources, and reverting my attempt to revert the article to undo the damage without an edit comment.
• I don't know that the Hartree atomic units uses "rationalized" units (${\displaystyle \epsilon _{0}=1}$) or "non-rationalized" units (${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{4\pi \epsilon _{0}}}=1}$), I only know that ${\displaystyle c=\hbar =e=m_{e}=a_{0}=1}$. ---Ahri6279 (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• You should be able to determine that easily yourself. I'll give you a hint: the formula for the Bohr radius (a0) is in the article by that name and can be checked at a reliable source, the referenced NIST page, where you will need to click on the symbol to show the defining formula (though I notice you took it upon yourself to redefine the formula for the Bohr radius with this edit). Then you can try to reconcile that with your edits to Hartree atomic units. --Quondum 19:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• I have not enumerated every instance. Review of your edit history of the last two months shows that you have been been very active, and hence your edits are all the more problematic
I will reiterate: you are damaging Wikipedia, and I appeal to others to weigh in to prevent this. --Quondum 12:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Besides, can I put these things (which are original research) to a subpage (Planck units) of my userpage? Or should I put them to wikiversity? ---Ahri6279 (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
If you click on "Sandbox" in the list of links at the top right whenever you are logged in, you will go to (or be able to create) a subpage in your user space where there are less restrictions - see WP:User pages and WP:About the sandbox. XOR'easter has already pointed this out above. For questions such as this, you can ask at WP:Teahouse. --Quondum 12:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Walter Greiner; Ludwig Neise; Horst Stöcker (1995). Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics. Springer-Verlag. p. 385. ISBN 978-0-387-94299-5.

## Ghosh spa?

A single purpose account Mischievousgnome (talk · contribs) seems to be active promoting publications of a certain Amitabha Ghosh. See:

DVdm (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious implications of using WP as a platform for promotion, the added material is way too fringe to be included; it may not even merit mention in an article about fringe theories. --Quondum 12:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I went through and reverted what others hadn't already taken care of. XOR'easter (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Thx. - DVdm (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

## One-way wave equation

It's possible there's a topic here, but there are strong self-promotion concerns with this new article. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is essentially transcribed verbatim from the one paper (the fourth reference). It does have the feel of promotion of the work of only a small number of largely co-authors on the topic. I find it intriguing that the authors seem unaware of the technique of the Weyl equation (essentially the use of a Clifford algebra), that succeeds in exactly such a factoring of the second-order wave operator into first-order operators in three dimensions plus time. This suggests that the authors really don't have a clue, and their lack of coherence and rigour compounds the impression. While I would not write it off as bunk, it does not seem to merit an article as not meeting notability criteria (we don't have an article for every paper publishing the same thing using a few new words, and it is not really a topic separate from the wave equation, where the factoring in one dimension is already mentioned). --Quondum 02:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Good catch; I hadn't checked for copyright violations. I suppose it's possible that they reinvented an idea under a new name not knowing of the predecessors (if their background is acoustics, then maybe they hadn't encountered the Weyl equation or factorization methods in physics more generally). The term "one-way wave equation" itself seems common enough, but the bulk of this article's text doesn't really seem justifiable. XOR'easter (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

## Scale relativity again

A promoter of this non-notable fringe theory restored 93K of bad content against consensus. I am afraid I will not have time to deal with an interminable argument this week. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)