Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive February 2021

Mechanothermodynamics

I was working on Draft:Leonid Adamovich Sosnovskiy.; the ed. contributing it has also contributed Mechanothermodynamics, claimed to be a "new branch of physics". and tribo-fatigue, an article making similar but less extensive claims. Ssee alsoDraft:Leonid Adamovich Sosnovskiy. I am in doubt whether either if them is a generally accepted theory or branch of physics, and I saw there were rather few references in Google Scholar to any of Sosnovsky's work. I am not sure where on the line from pseudoscience to not yet accepted but plausible theories this work may lie. I can deal with the ordinary necessary removal of promotionalism and puffery in the bio, and normalizing the Russian references, but I think those with greater knowledge than I should look at the physical science aspects of that bio , and revise (or truncate) and explain the current NPOV for the two subject articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Conceptually there seems to be little new and not much support on Google Scholar. It seems to be a special interest topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC).

This article feels like an acid trip. It's a rather unique combination of pseudo-science, pseudo-mathematics, and pseudo-philosophy. Most fascinatingly, the subject matter is not grandiose stuff like cosmology or particle physics or foundations of quantum mechanics, but engineering. I guess the Soviet Union produced very different sorts of crackpots than the West. In any case, how did this get past AfC? I couldn't find anyone other than Sosnovskiy and Sherbakov writing about this in Google Scholar, and they write about it in the predatory journal "Entropy". Tercer (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The article says, in order to sell the topic, Attempts to combine mechanics and thermodynamics were unsuccessful for a long time. What a bizarre assertion! Suffice to say that Sadi Carnot was a mechanical engineer, and that thermodynamics all along has been about the interchange of heat and work, work being a mechanical concept. XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I think that the article mechanothermodynamics shouldn't have been accepted and that it should be deleted. I have not yet had the time to evaluate tribo-fatigue, but I am not optimistic. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It is true that Sadi Carnot was the first to point out the connection between heat and mechanical work in a heat engine. But this is an incorrect interpretation of Mechanothermodynamics in the spirit of Carnot. You implies that attempt is reducible to thermodynamics since it is all about the interchange of heat and work. I would like to remind that almost two centuries have passed since times of Carnot and Clausius. Since then major advances were made in physics in general and in mechanics and thermodynamics (consider for instance dissipative structures) in particular. For example, mechanothermodynamics takes into account irreversible component of the energy, which is spent on the production of damage, and not just the separation of energy into reversible and irreversible. Therefore, your statement is superficial and does not comply with factuality. Barejsha02 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You did not have time to evaluate Tribo-Fatigue, but you are not optimistic. Do I understand correctly that you evaluate it negatively in advance, without reading Tribo-Fatigue?Barejsha02 (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I took a look again at these articles, as their style is quite suspect: the equations are embedded images, the text is journal style, and some of the figures are quite complex. I then checked the two open access references [1] [2], and bingo: it's a massive copyvio. Figure 3 of Mechanothermodynamics is copied from Fig. 1 in the first article, Figure 4 is copied from Fig. 1 in the second article, the equations in the section "Λ-interactions" are copied from Figures 2 and 3 in the first article. These equations are also used in tribo-fatigue. I suspect we'll find that all of the figures are copyvios if we get access to the non-open access sources.

These figures have been uploaded by Barejsha02, claiming they are their own work. If this is the case then Barejsha02 must be Sosnovskiy himself, and the fact that all their edits are about Sosnovskiy's life and work is a massive WP:COI. In addition to Mechanothermodynamics and tribo-fatigue this user has also written Troppy effect, Ductile iron with special properties, Draft:Leonid Adamovich Sosnovskiy, and Draft:Generalized law of friction, all in the same problematic style. Tercer (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

PS: Another paper by Sosnovskiy, which is a source for more copyvios [3]. Tercer (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear editors! Bareisha02 is me, a former apprentice of Professor Sosnovskiy. For over 20 years I have been working in this new field of knowledge, at one of the largest factories in Belarus. The suspicion that Bareisha02 is Sosnovskiy himself is thus simply groundless. But I am pleased that they assess me as a good specialist in this area, as Professor Sosnovskiy himself. Thank you.

In production, the beneficial results of science are especially tangible. This is one of the reasons why I took up the promotion of articles on Tribo-Fatigue and Mechanothermodynamics on Wikipedia. Another is understanding their implications for the future Barejsha02 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I very highly appreciate the correct and useful efforts of the editor of the project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Leonid_Adamovich_Sosnovskiy to bring it into line with the requirements of Wikipedia and discuss its content with experts. Unfortunately, the beginning of the discussion turned out to be deliberately negative, without the necessary analysis. It is possible, however, to refer to a number of publications (for example, http://www.tribo-fatigue.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61&lang=en), where a number of scientists give an independent and objective assessment of the achievements of Tribo-Fatigue. Barejsha02 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I am just finding this discussion from links associated with this group of articles. I have for some time observed the strange or unusual editing and composing of these articles and tried to clean up some of the most egregious passages of what appears to be some kind of cult-like gospel of writing. If this were a new branch of physics, one should find some secondary sources for the topics. Surely it is a specialized and detailed treatise of a group of phenomena in mechanics and engineering and such, but some of the claims are somewhat over-the-top and the language is so arcane that one has to wonder in many places about the intent to meaning. Often the arguments appear circular (sometimes explaining terms using the terms themselves), not leading to any kind of memorable conclusion. Passages often appear to lead to some kind of worship or adoration of the apparently sole pair of authors and the symposia they conducted. The articles are wholesomely inappropriate for a general encyclopedia, and may well represent a giant copyright problem, as some images are directly lifted from primary sources, yet are described as "own work". So either this is WP:CPVIO or WP:COI from self-publishing. kbrose (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

That sounds about right, kbrose. Unfortunately, these articles fall into the troublesome area where they are too full of technical jargon for general readers to see a problem, while specialist editors have too many other things to do around the site to want to put energy into cleaning the problem up. XOR'easter (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, especially in light of the situation that the vast majority of references cited are in Russian only and not easily accessible to facilitate even rudimentary fact checking. ISTR that there are some rules about that. kbrose (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources in non-English languages are allowed but generally not preferred, for obvious reasons of practicality. The same goes for sources not available online. An article almost entirely reliant on offline sources, or sources that require subscriptions to dig out of digital archives, isn't necessarily a bad thing (historical figures documented in old newspapers, for example). But here, there doesn't seem to be much of an excuse for it. XOR'easter (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, entirely agree. I only left the articles alone because janitorial work is depressing and was hoping DGG to take care of it, since they're the one that asked for feedback. Tercer (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

As for recommendations for actions on these articles, I find it often difficult to just delete stuff that might have some value to somebody, if it is fact-based, but I don't find that these articles contain any new science, they are more or less applications of well-known principles from mechanics, thermodynamics, and engineering in intricate detail to problems in industrial manufacturing, operations, and failure analysis. It is not clear that one needs a new science for this, other than for promotional purposes to elevate or maintain their practitioners' status. Certainly, existing fields, such as tribology cover this, but WP's articles are certainly lacking in quality or detail often, so improvements should be welcomed. What should be radically erased from these articles are the philosophical and emotional grandeur that appears to be the lasting impression one takes home from these articles. This presents a substantial barrier to a neutral evaluation of the scientific and encyclopedic merits. kbrose (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I brought this here because I was unsure of my evaluation. I am used to reading technical material in various fields, and, although not a physicist, know enough physics to realise that these articles had problems. But I needed to know the extent to which they represented a valid but unusual or isolated branch of science, or whether they had no acceptance at all in the international scientific community

I am rather hesitant about fixing them--I can copyedit almost anything , but this would seem to require more than that: to require abridgment and removing duplication; and I don't like to revise to that extent unless I understand the subject. The alternatives, all of which I am capable of, are to stubbify, or redirect, or delete.

I can do what Kbrose suggests above, which is to remove the part that isn't substantial science, and see what's left. That's a standard technique with promotional articles . If others also think that would be a good start, I will do it, but if the eventual result is going to be deletion or stubbification, I'm reluctant to do that much work-, for it would be wasted effort. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I would simply delete everything for being non-notable and fringe. As I said before, I couldn't find anyone other than Sosnovskiy and Sherbakov writing about this in Google Scholar. In any case, at least the copyvios must be deleted, and I don't think there will be anything left afterwards. Tercer (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

A candidate for AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

Dear editors ( DGG and others), I ask for help in finalizing the draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Leonid_Adamovich_Sosnovskiy. I corrected most of the comments, in particular, I deleted unnecessary and superfluous details in Professional employment and Scientific activities, awards, etc. But the article was again rejected. Please help bring it up to the standards of the English Wikipedia so that the article will be accepted. I will also be grateful for the revision and editing of my other articles Tribo-Fatigue and Mechanothermodynamics. Barejsha02 (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

All of them candidates for AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC).

It would be better that someone who knows more physics than I bring the AfDs, but if not, I will, and link to this discussion for details. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear editors, I have carefully studied your comments. They have the most doubts, less rejection, but there are attempts to understand, improve, and even help. And although all the statements are very short, I think that explanations to them need to be reasoned, since the situation is not simple: we are talking about the perception and assessment of new results in science.

1. Let's start with doubts. They are natural. This happens always and everywhere, as soon as something unfamiliar, incomprehensible, unexpected - new appears. Here are some classic examples.

A. Griffith published an article on the strength of glass in 1920. He was the only promoter of his idea. And in the 60s of the XX century, its recognition came: the mechanics of destruction (bodies with a crack).

I. V. Kragelsky in 1939 proposed a hypothesis about the fatigue mechanism of wear during friction; only 2-3 of his employees supported her. And by the end of the 20th century, an understanding prevailed among tribologists: every indenter drives a surface wave of alternating deformation in front of it, so that fatigue wear is one of the leading processes of surface destruction during friction.

In the first third of the 20th century, fierce battles and battles unfolded: quantum mechanics. And even Einstein passed away without recognizing it. And now quantum mechanics is being studied in high school. Discussing the ways and duration of the recognition of new ideas in science, M. Planck wrote: when all contemporaries of a new idea die out, its real recognition will begin.

If we talk about tribo-fatigue, then the situation was common. I can remember: when the first standard “Tribo-fatigue. Terms and definitions” was adopted in the Belarusian State Committee for Standardization and Certification, then three well-known scientists (headed by a corresponding member of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus) were irreconcilable opponents. And in 1999, the standard became interstate (for the CIS).http://www.tribo-fatigue.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73&lang=en&Itemid=

And if in the discussion on Wikipedia there were sharply negative assessments of tribo-fatigue, then it is logical to recall the positive reviews about it. http://www.tribo-fatigue.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61&Itemid=84&lang=en . Barejsha02 (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Tribo-fatigue as a scientific discipline has its own specific objects for research (tribo-fatigue systems), its specific methods of theoretical analysis (mechanics of wear-fatigue damage and fracture, or otherwise mechanics of tribo-fatigue systems), its own specific methods of experimental research (complex wear-fatigue test methods), its own specific methodology ( theory of Λ-interactions), its specific products (original interdisciplinary results for science, production and education), and, finally, its specific tasks (not prevention of wear of friction pairs or fatigue breakdowns of structural elements, but optimal control of complex processes of wear-fatigue damage and destruction with the purpose of minimizing the costs of design, production and operation of the product). If all this is not science or a complex scientific discipline, but pseudoscience, then what is science then? Barejsha02 (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, about the reproaches about advertising: monographs on tribo-fatigue have been published in three great languages ​​(Russian, English, Chinese); the scientific discipline of tribo-fatigue has become academic at universities; international symposia on tribo-fatigue were held in Minsk, Moscow, Beijing, etc .; 147 scientists from different countries were awarded the Honorary Diploma "For Contribution to the Development of Tribo-Fatigue"; in the interests of production, a number of large projects (including Hi-Tech) have been carried out - are these advertising aspirations or special ambitions of two scientists (Sosnovsky and Sherbakov) with their technical jargon? Barejsha02 (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My English in the Tribo-Fatigue article, of course, is not good, and I ask you to help me edit the article. If phrases and sentences are specifically indicated, the meaning of which is difficult to understand and which should be improved, I will, of course, make additional edits. Thanks in advance. Barejsha02 (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be no sharply negative feedback on the Mechanothermodynamics article. Language and content in English - need to be improved. And my request for help, expressed earlier on the Tribo-Fatigue, of course, remains here. Barejsha02 (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I just got a notification from Wikipedia that an IP from Ukraine has been trying to guess my password. I've been using Wikipedia for 14 years now with the password "password123", and never had any problems. It never crossed my mind that somebody would try to steal a bloody Wikipedia account. Ffs. I changed it to an actually secure password. Tercer (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Diederik Aerts

I just came across the page Diederik Aerts and spent a while ... marveling at it. Anyone who is eager to trim advertisement-toned material might want to take a look. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have actually heard about this guy. Legend in Oxford says that he was beaten up by Bob Coecke, then his PhD student. The article is something to behold. There's also this fascinating sentence: Initially, Aerts worked on this idea in silence, but when he found that promising results were obtained [...] he decided to publish these first results of his quantum explanatory framework consisting in considering quantum particles as conceptual entities. Now, who could possibly now this? Tercer (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR tropical cyclone

I have nominated Tropical cyclone for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Femke Nijsse, thank you for calling attention to this! XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Physics Essays

Cross-posting a discussion on the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Physical constants

We're having a wee bit of disagreement at Template talk:Physical constants#A place for exact values, and more input would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

someone take pity on me?

I could use a little translation help at Talk:Richard V. E. Lovelace where I've got a well-intentioned COI editor who is arguing to use the article subject's work to support assertions I know exactly zero about. Like the article subject, her husband, she's also a physicist, and I am most definitely not. I don't think there's any question that the article subject is indeed notable, but (as a for instance) right now she's wanting to use his own scholarly articles to support things I know nothing about and can't assess the sources for, like that he "discovered $P\approx 33$ ms of the Crab Pulsar". Well, I have zero clue. I can't even remember what that wavy equals sign is called. Approximates, maybe? :) I'm willing to keep working with her if I can just get some assistance from someone who is more expert when these kinds of questions come up. —valereee (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

See IAU circular 2213. Looking at the talk page, I can see the problem. I don't edit biographies and I know the rules are strict, but for scientific articles in general, the primary source rules tend to be relaxed (or just ignored!) in the case of peer-reviewed publications. So scientific journal papers (published, not preprints, and not in certain "predatory" journals) tend to be considered not-so-much self-published and if not actually secondary sources then at least considered valid by relevant secondary sources. Lithopsian (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you are doing a good job, Valereee. The Crab Nebula neutron star was a big deal! And yes, "P (period of revolution) approximately equal to 33 milliseconds" sounds about right. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Radiant exitance

There's a dispute that has arisen at Radiant exitance that may need some attention from the physics community. If I follow correctly, an anonymous user is trying to adjust the article based on a theory from a blog, which proposes that emission from surfaces is reduced by incoming irradiance. (The blog author uses this to disprove global warming.) Two people who have been having an ongoing argument in that blog's comments section appear to have brought their argument to Wikipedia and are reverting the article back and forth.

Admins will presumably take care of the reverting, but it would be good to have some more informed physics community attention on the article.--Srleffler (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you reported the issue at WP:AN3? That's how you get the admins' attention.

The physics side of the question seems very clear cut: textbooks against a climate change denial blog. Tercer (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

My goodness, 75 reverts in 24 hours! That is an edit war of epic proportions! 67.198.37.16 (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Superpotential

Hi there, I'm working through the articles needed rewrite backlog and I came across Superpotential, and I am not a physicist and I simply can't make heads or tails of it.

What exactly does this article need? Does it really need a complete rewrite, or is it a victim of drive-by tagging? You can discuss either here or at the article talk page.

Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The talk page does not say what's wrong with it. So yes, its a victim of drive-by tagging. I skimmed it, the tone of voice, the level - it is written at a novice level, a kind-of intro-to-supersymmetry for people who know only the most basic quantum mechanics and not much more. So that would be a complaint - it feels dumbed-down. (And also its a bit muddled.) On the other hand it is missing a good informal introduction. It should not dive into an example, it should say with words, not formulas, what it hopes to accomplish. Motivate the example. So that's missing. I recommend removing the tag, and then just .. waiting till someone motivated comes by to improve it. I'll copy this text to the talk page. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd guess that a student wouldn't encounter that topic until an advanced undergrad course at least (third or fourth year of a physics degree). Per general house style regarding such matters, at least the introduction should be comprehensible to a student who hasn't yet reached that level — say, somebody who has just recently learned the Schrödinger equation. I did a little tune-up and replaced the tag with one that seemed more appropriate. XOR'easter (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Concerns_about_editing_of_Milankovitch_cycles_related_articles

Input from editors who can navigate equations and technical literature would be appreciated. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Mary Ann Mansigh

deletion discussion

---

Female programmer, co-creator of moldyn method. Yo, we all need to come out for this one, especially if you're in the computational community in phy sci, like bigly. Already posted on super- science wp's forum, and several sub-forums as well. It's in the balance, and too close for my liking. If you support Tsingou, the ENIAC Five, the Hidden figures and others, here's your chance to take a stand! Ema--or (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my non-NPOV canvas! Ema--or (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just an issue to discuss. Just wanted to name an issue, which I asked for consultation on, but was not able to get any thing on before the end of discussion. There is the issue of my inconsistencies on Mansigh btw main space and other-space, particularly afd- and Wp project-space, although it is particularly a matter for subjective interpretation. I’d like to end by again apologising for any trouble and thanking anyone who offered any opinion or contribution to the chat, as well as for the space and audience in a place such as this. Bye, Ema--or (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

National Physical Laboratory (United Kingdom)

Highlighting this article as a potential for taking to Good Article standard. There are plenty of reliable sources, some in the further reading section, lots of work needed, and it would be an interesting article I think and a valuable addition. Whizz40 (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata element of Lagrangian field theory

I report this section --Datolo12 (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

AfD notice

I have AfD'ed two MOND-related articles here, you might want to join the discussion. Tercer (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, joy, when an AfD calls for the {{notavote}} template... XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conscious action theory

Bringing to the attention of the community here, as the article says "quantum" in it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we do anything with this sort of thing?

An editor clearly only here for one reason, and it isn't to make Wikipedia better: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Airpeka

Only hitting talk pages, linking to cuckoo theories. Ignore it or report it? Lithopsian (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I left a notice on their Talk page and reverted a bunch of spammy posts per WP:NOTFORUM. If they don't go away, reporting to ANI on general "not here to build an encyclopedia" grounds would be within reason. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I would ignore it for now. All the guy has done is providing people with a good laugh. Spamming talk pages is a problem rather low on the priority list. If he moves to editing mainspace or becomes a nuisance then we can take him to WP:ANI. Tercer (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)