Talk:One-way wave equation

thread

The derivation of the one-way wave equation from the impedance is new and helpfull to scientists, seismicians and acousticians. The classical 2nd order wave equation does not differ between fore- and back-travelling waves, whereas the one-way wave equation does. The one-way wave equation (1D) is yet known bei seismicians, but cannot be used for 3D wave propagation (many workarounds exist). In the cited article (https://doi.org/10.3390/acoustics2010012) also the exact 3D one-way wave equation for inhomogenous media is derived (that can also be used for the homogenious 3D case). I would be glad if sb. could expand the article accordingly, because me as co-author of the cited article I am obviously not allowed to edit (please see the deletions ). My personal opinion is, that the people that are most familiar with a topic should also be allowed write or support writing of wikipedia articles. Of course the scientific content and correctness can be checked by other users. Thanks for your kind support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJRAIDA (talk • contribs) 11:38 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You may find it helpful to familiarize yourself with the purpose of Wikipedia and the way in which people cooperate to build it into what it should be. It can be challenging when there is a gap between your perception of what it should be and that of those who have been editing the articles for a while. A few helpful links might include WP:Five pillars, WP:Notability, WP:No original research, WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:List of policies and guidelines.

There is no direct rule against editing articles in which you are subject matter expert, but there are times when it is unwise to be creating articles on your own project, for the simple reason that it is human nature to have an inflated sense of the apparent importance of our own subject area. This is something that occurs frequently on Wikipedia: people believing that something "belongs" here. This is what the WP:notability guideline is about ("Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."). The three papers cited here appear to be only primary sources, and so this article may violate both the WP:Notability and the WP:No original research guidelines.

Wikipedia is not for "new" work: it is not a newspaper, a journal, and it does not publish anything, and it is most certainly not the way to bring fresh information to people (to "inform" them). It is only to document established material, to act as a reference for people who wish to find out what is known, how to find to more about it, and to give references to verify what is said here or get more information. I am not suggesting that this article is new work (I think this ground has already been thoroughly covered; you will see that first-order differential operators have routinely replaced second-order operators: see for example Dirac operator). —Quondum 14:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I often wish that I could use Wikipedia to tell the world about my own research, because I obviously think that my work is important and interesting — otherwise, I wouldn't be doing it! But that's not what Wikipedia is for. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your kind and comprehensive answer. I thought, that knowledge is either correct or incorrect. If I write sth. and also cite the source then other editors or scientist can check, modify, add, discuss etc. I am surprised to learn (but respect) that new knowledge is deleted (including peer-reviewed article sources) with reference to a.m. "rules". It is my intention to share new knowledge with others (especially in this times, where such knowledge e.g. can be used by seismicians to solve complex problems) and I thought that wikipedia is a good medium for this. Your comment "I am not suggesting that this article is new work " is not correct and unproven. The "physical" derivation of the one-way wave equation for 1D and 3D is new. In case that you have evidence of earlier physical derivations, please be so kind post it in the article as alternative source. (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC).

Whether the work is new or not is not directly relevant, so I won't try to argue this point. I think you are starting to understand better what Wikipedia is for, and I'm sure it is a disappointment that Wikipedia is not what you had hoped. Anyhow, here the typical reader will mainly be laymen and high-school students, but not many researchers. Journals, arxiv, etc. may be suitable places to publish research results and to get scientists interested in the work, and for others to review and discuss it in print. —Quondum 22:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not true that "new knowledge is deleted". We do not delete pages because the topic is new, but we might delete them for not meeting our notability standards. A topic cannot have it's own page unless it has been discussed in depth by independent sources. We write articles from what these secondary sources say about it, not the primary. Your paper has zero citations according to gscholar, so currently, there is nothing to write an article from. SpinningSpark 06:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest – WITH A MATH EQUATION?

Ok I came here to answer a COI edit request using [[Special:RandomInCategory/Requested edits]]. It's a math article! And there was no COI edit request. here and there (article and talk) I've removed the COI tag and COI edit request. I'm totally confused. HJRAIDA can you explain how you have a conflict of interest with a math article, and XOR'easter can you explain how promoting an idea or one's work is a COI? {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 23:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're advertising your own scientific discovery, that's a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not the place to try advancing one's own career by generating publicity for work that the scientific community has not yet evaluated. The majority of this article is currently HJRAIDA's text based on and pointing to a scientific paper from last month that HJRAIDA co-wrote and which has yet to be cited by any other researchers, let alone incorporated into the standard material that is used in textbooks, taught in courses, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a hazy case, difficult to relate directly to the wording of the WP:COI page (which talks about information about people rather than works). It might not help to label it directly as such, since this invites debate. It is not strange that editors react to people using Wikipedia as a way of increasing the visibility of their work, though, since this is a form of advertising, and this is not what WP is for.

This is better covered under the WP:NOT policy, specifically

• WP:FORUM: "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. [...] Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion."

Since one of the authors of the primary work seems to feel that it is original research and we have not found sources to suggest that it has become "accepted knowledge", this policy seems to apply. In short, it "feels" as though here Wikipedia is being used to publish something that is not ready for being here. —Quondum 13:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that part of WP:NOT is applicable. Also, WP:COI says that subject-matter experts are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia, which (as for all editors) is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. That applies here as well. XOR'easter (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, though deciding what is in Wikipedia's interests requires interpretation in any context, and this interpretation tends to be heavily biased according to your perspective, so this tends to be convincing only to the convinced. Something else of interest here on WP:COI is WP:SELFCITE: "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." —Quondum 19:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Context reframe

Reviewing the one reference ([1]), it would seem like we need a change to the context in which we interpret the concept of a "one-way equation". It would seem to be a convenient approximation rather than a real-world description, a tool for simplifying models of wave propagation at the expense of accuracy. This would imply a rewording of the presentation of the topic. —Quondum 01:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. That summary points back to Lindman (1975), Tappert (1977), and Engquist and Majda (1977), which may be useful. XOR'easter (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything after "The one-way wave equations (in a homogeneous medium) can also be derived directly from the characteristic specific acoustical impedance" is marked with "dubious" and "citation needed" tags, and appears to be based on a paper that we already established to be an unsuitable source. To be blunt about it, why does all that text still exist? XOR'easter (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not well-written. I was hoping someone familiar with the topic would eventually get around to encapsulating the topic from the sources that are there, some of which seem to give a reasonable picture. I was intrigued to see that there are successively more realistic one-way equations: first-order, second-order, third-order differential equations (in increasing accuracy). If it were presented from the perspective of the purpose and the techniques rather than from the perspective of one of the solutions, it might be quite readable. That said, there would be little harm in severely trimming down what is there. —Quondum 22:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Not correct. Multiplication of two one-way wave equations leads to the second order wave equation. Simple to be checked. The one-way wave equation describes wave propagation in a specified direction, whereas the second order wave equation (which is also used to describe single wave propagation) has no information about wave directions due to squared wave velocity c². From this point of view two one-way wave equations contain more information than one 2nd order two-way equation. 178.200.186.218 (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying "no 3D one-way wave equation could be found"

The lead section of the article had the phrase "no 3D one-way wave equation could be found", presumably this should be " no general solution to 3D one-way wave equation could be found", maybe even specifying that this is only for the nonuniform/inhomogeneous case (if that is the case, I don't yet know enough about this topic.) I have changed it to "no general solution to the 3D one-way wave equation could be found,".

The section "Three-dimensional case" is also quite confusing to me, why does it keep mentioning the full wave equation, can't the transport/one-way wave equation be treated separately? In Olver's Introduction to Partial Differential Equations he only treats the 1D case, but introduces the transport equation first and uses that to support his discussion on the wave equation. This seems like a much more natural way to me. Yodo9000 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Yodo9000 This article is so horribly written and (at times) blatantly wrong that it's a complete mystery to me how it ever got out of the sandbox. For example, the second sentence is not only incorrect (consider supersonic flow for example), it is also not backed by the cited references.

After going through the page history, it is pretty clear that this article is just one big attempt by some editors to push their own "publications". One of whom also wrote the last complete nonsensical reply in Talk:One-way wave equation#Context reframe

I would forget about this article. If you're really interested in the topic, I can recommend the book 'Finite Volume Methods for Hyperbolic Problems' by R.J. LeVeque. It places the transport equation in the right context.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that the advection equation and one-way wave equation are mathematically equivalent, it would be better to incorporate this article into advection.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)