WikiProject Physics
 

WikiProject Physics Main / Talk 
Members  Quality Control (talk) 
Welcome 
WikiProject Physics  (Rated Projectclass)  


This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011 
Big Bang – 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 
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)
Draft:The CHSH Game
Could someone please take a look at Draft:The CHSH Game? Is this a notable topic or should it be merged with CHSH inequality? Cerebellum (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 I have actually written some papers on this topic. In general, nonlocal games are the same thing as Bell inequalities (modulo some technicalities that are not important now), the difference is mostly a matter of culture: computer scientists like to use nonlocal games, while physicists prefer Bell inequalities. Now, the CHSH game specifically is the most important and wellstudied game, and it is clearly notable, but the content of the article refers only to properties studied from the physicist point of view. As it is there's nothing justifying a standalone article. That would make sense if the article covered for example MIP*, parallel repetition, etc. Furthermore, the article duplicates a lot of content from CHSH inequality, Bell's theorem, quantum nonlocality, and Tsirelson bound. Now personally I think the nonlocal game formulation is much more pedagogical than the Bell inequality formulation, and it would make sense to rewrite CHSH inequality to use it. There might be some opposition from historicallyminded people, though, as historically it was invented by CHSH in 1969 as a Bell inequality. It was reformulated as a nonlocal game in the 90s by Tsirelson, and it became wellknown only in the 00s. I don't think anybody would object to a section in CHSH inequality explaining the nonlocal game formulation, though.
 TL;DR: Merge with CHSH inequality. Tercer (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you!! Cerebellum (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 Yes, a merge makes sense here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 I skimmed (i.e. did not actually read) the CHSH Game page, and would like to suggest that it is best left as a standalone page. The problem is that a merge results in CHSH inequality more than doubling, almost tripling in size. The Game page seems to be a selfcontained topic. It's nicely "bitesized"  not too long and not too short. It seems to be suitably structured to be standalone. .. so let it stand alone. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I just saw that The CHSH Game page was created, what was the final decision?ReyHahn (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
ELKO (was Massdimension one fermions)
In response to the Mass dimension one fermions AfD I created Draft:ELKO Theory as the nononsense version written using symbols and formulas and concepts accessible to conventional (grad) students in physics. Before I got very far with it, I discovered that the existing articles about Majorana and spinors and gamma matrices were lacking, and thus spent the next few months enhancing and enlarging those. By the time I got done, I never got around to finishing the ELKO theory page (I had hoped to explain how its the "other" eigenstate of the chargeconjugation operator; but that required explaining why Majorana is one of them. I finished the work on Majorana, but not on ELKO.) A bot reminded me, just now, that I have not touched the article for 5 months ... anyone care to review, critique, and bestyet  just move this to article space? I believe that everything it says is correct. The only "problem" is that it could say much much more. The other problem is I've run out of steam, run out of spare time to do much more in that direction. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 I still have reservations about this article. The sources are so slender. There is no indication that theory is important enough to be discussed in secondary sources like review articles. The impression is that Wikipedia is being used as a textbook to expound somebody's pet theory. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC).
 There are currently two uncited sections ("Solutions" and "Properties"). I'm not of the school that wants a footnote after every sentence, but a somewhat higher density would be helpful; even the specialist readers who can tell how claims hold together would benefit from knowing where in a lengthy source a particular topic is addressed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 OK, seems reasonable. "Any day now", I'll get back to it. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
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 "LaplaceRungeLenz 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 LaplaceRungeLenz 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 3D 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 threedimensional unitsphere 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 PhysicsUspekhi 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 selfpromotion 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 LaplaceRungeLenz 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 "LaplaceRunge..." 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 freeparticle confined to a threedimensional sphere". It is absolutely inadequate statement. No free particle in Fock's theory.
Third step. Author has certainly to say that no LaplaceRungeLenz 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)
Bohr–Einstein debates
Do we have any serious enthusiasts for the early history of quantum mechanics around here? This page looks like it could stand a general tuneup: some unclear phrasing, reliance on popscience citations like the website for a random TV show instead of books, lengthy uncited stretches, etc. Probably no worse than average for our physicshistory pages, sadly, but it happened to catch my eye. XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)