Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive September 2021
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. 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. |
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
- This is not a physics article, more philosophical. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC).
For editors from author of "Fock symmetry...
Dear editors XOR'easter , LaundryPizza)03 and Primefac,
I am professor of theoretical physics and hope you are PhD both as well. My russian students are very dissapointed to know that the article "Fock symmetry..." is removed (redirected). I don't want to edit and critize the article "Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector". It is of high quality and good written.
Nevertheless, author did not read Fock's original paper. It is a reason why the basic content in section "Fock symmetry" doesn't concern to the subject totally and why the separate article is written. I will allow myself to point out following grounds for the new article:
- Fock theory is done for the momentum space where Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is nonexistent. Why :author does consider it there?
- The Schrodinger equation in momentum space is integral one,
- Fock theory is applied to integral equation that is not discussed in the section,
- Fock's symmetry is mathematical result for momentum space turned into 3-D sphere.
Physical interpretation is valid in physical coordinate space only. So, following words from the section are inaccurate- "Vladimir Fock showed that the quantum mechanical bound Kepler problem is equivalent to the problem of a free particle confined to a three-dimensional unit-sphere in four dimensional space". Here, reader is deceived. No free particle in any physical space in the problem. Fock doesn't give such interpretation. I advice you to remove the short part of the article containing "Fock symmetry", as inadequate to improve the total paper.
I thank editors for critics - "bad English grammar and encyclopedic tone". Nevertheless, you are as well educated editors, could improve short text to write perfect article. Besides, Fock's result is not "homework" at all. I reckon that Fock's prominent result has to be laid in Wiki. At last, author's article #14 is the review of the problem published in Physics-Uspekhi that is general review journal #1 in Russia (and one of the best in the world). Wiki assists to give references of reviews. So, it is not a pattern of self-promotion at all. (Do you advice me to cipher my name?).
Kindly try to calm my students and restore my article "Fock symmetry in theory of hydrogen" or may be select as one of the Articles for improvement . I would appreciate Yours help to compose perfect Wiki English as far as I was not graduated from Princeton University as probably You are. Actually, it is not the difficult part of editors job! Physics in Wiki has to be of high level.
Sincerely Yours
EfimovSP (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't follow. The article on the Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector is already explicitly clear that it's talking about a mathematical equivalence, not a physical free particle in a physical space. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- This looks like an undisclosed paid editor aided in his work by meatpuppets. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC).
- If it is important in any way, you and your students can always find the article archived here: Fock symmetry in theory of hydrogen (old).--ReyHahn (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear ciphered editors,
thanks a lot for Yours diplomatic responses. Final result of our collaboration is following. Article removed as connecting bad English. Editors don't want to polish language. Now, Wiki has not Fock's result at all (or inadequate one. Fock's theory applied for the momentum space, where no Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector). At the same time, according references to Fock's symmetry laid out everywhere. It doesn't accord with Wiki's ambitions to improve presentation of the Quantum theory.
Sincerely Yours
EfimovSP (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear XOR'easter (talk),
I found with pleasure new word in the article "Laplace-Runge-..." that is mathematically, i.e. editors begin to understand something in Fock's result.
It is first step of improving. Next step is to remove inadequate words: "it merely means that this particular physics problem... is mathematically equivalent to a free particle on a three dimensional sphere". No free particle in Fock's theory is considered! It is totally author's interpretation.
Next step: to remove following words: "Fock showed ... that a problem is equivalent to the problem of a free-particle confined to a three-dimensional sphere". It is absolutely inadequate statement. No free particle in Fock's theory.
Third step. Author has certainly to say that no Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is contained in the momentum space. Author knows that and doesn't want to insert very important words here.
You know, theoretical physics is the difficult science.
Sincerely Yours
PhD EfimovSP (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any serious enthusiasts for the early history of quantum mechanics around here? This page looks like it could stand a general tune-up: some unclear phrasing, reliance on pop-science citations like the website for a random TV show instead of books, lengthy uncited stretches, etc. Probably no worse than average for our physics-history pages, sadly, but it happened to catch my eye. XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was created in article space, but was moved to draft space on 23 August, and has now been moved back to article space. Does it accurately report what reliable sources have published about this area of research? It has already been moved to draft space once, so that I won't move it to draft space a second time, which would be move-warring, and I don't know whether it should be nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Helion Energy neutron claims
Helion Energy is one of the companies in Jassby's "voodoo fusion" article found here. An anon editor added a section on the topic, linking to a paper that suggests the system did actually produce fusion neutrons - and thus the implication that Jassby is full of it. But when I read the paper, this statement jumped out at me:
- Most likely it is the result of a non-thermal ion population
This is a famous issue in the fusion world. Many researchers in the 1950s were fooled by non-fusion neutrons being created by various instabilities in the fuel causing ions to be accelerated to super-thermal speeds and then creating neutrons via spallation or similar events. This led to the infamous ZETA debacle in 1958.
So... am I reading too much into this one statement, or am I reading it correctly? Does it, as it seems to, suggest that the neutrons are non-thermonuclear in nature?
Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
RfC regarding nuclear powered devices on top of mountains in India
Please see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Lost nuclear powered device on the top of Nanda Devi and Nanda Kot. I am wondering if this is possible. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Location (talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Discussion now archived here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed this: I recall hearing of these, although I cannot recall the name nor the source where I saw them (it was in an article about lost Soviet devices like seed sterilizers). In the 1950s, the British were intercepting Soviet missile launches from northern Iran, using the telemetry and doppler shift to measure both the success/fail rate and the accuracy of the guidance system. They handed it all over to the US when they pulled out, and the US loved the idea so much they made para-pack versions they could drop in from C-54's (IIRC) to monitor other sites. I don't recall it being a SNAP though. I'll see if I can track it down. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Double-charm tetraquark
Can someone knowledgeable fact-check the Double-charm tetraquark article I created? Particle physics is not even remotely my area of expertise; I've done my best to summarize information from multiple sources. -- The Anome (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)