Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Jesubalan primary source, fringe, undue

I just found this article: Bloch lines. The article was generated with a large language model (LLM) like chatGPT. This is indicated by a template which means that this practice is already so common that we have a template. It is laziness at its best. The article barely cites anything inline and has references that may contain information on it, gathered by a simple Google search (the article originally had fake references). I do not know what to think of this, it barely define what it is, it makes me sad.ReyHahn (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Revert it, warn the user that added the wall of crap.

:WP:UPSD will make some LLM stuff easier to detect, btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Should we merge the salvageable parts into domain wall (magnetism)? Also this avoid LLM-creating an article for Néel line.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Just redirected it to domain wall (magnetism). I don't think there's anything salvageable. And yes, I did read through that crap. Tercer (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I left some comments on this article Talk page, I think it should be accepted. I think it would be better as part of cloud feedback but the content seems decent. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion that may be of interest to members of this project at five-dimensional space. --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if this is not the right venue, but: Orders of magnitude (temperature) has problems. Most of the entries at the beginning of the list (up to 1 K as of now) appear – at least to me – as unnecessarily bloated and often almost incomprehensible to a general public. See sentences such as "- 206 / [500 p.12: EDGES]; hypothetical temperature for coherence with the standard cosmological model (scm) of anomalous excess radiowave radiation (ARCADE 2 data) for 21cm radiowave transitions between the spin-singlet and spin-triplet levels of the 1s ground state of hydrogen atoms - the signal of which is presumed exisitng as scm evidence of primordial gas" or "Demagnetized VVP PrNi5 at 0.19 mK pre-cooled 10 mols (which is equivalent to 0.64 kg) of Cu ; demagnetization effected μ range.", plus a weird excess of footnotes.

There is what seems to me an incipient WP:OWN due to an editor in good faith expanding these entries with an idiosyncratic and hard to read style, and opposing any attempt to streamline the entries (see talk page and history). Attemps on talk page were inconclusive. I would like some uninvolved editor to have a look at the page and see if my concerns make sense, and if yes chime in to give some help. Thanks a lot. cyclopia^speak! 09:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've taken a look at the page, and indeed, the article was being destroyed. This is WP:ANI territory. Tercer (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:: While I agree, I tend to think of the order-of-magnitude articles as being a useful way to distract people who want to include every factoid and speculation to entertain themselves, in so doing reducing annoyance elsewhere. These articles probably occasionally need a reset anyway, since they attract cruft. I do not even consider these articles as belonging in WP. —Quondum 14:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Here we have three users that are trying to keep the article in a usable state. I don't think they should be discouraged. Tercer (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"who want to include every factoid and speculation to entertain themselves" - what is speculative about information from sources which shows:

:::*temperatures

:::*proven methods for the obtaining / causing of the temperatures

:::There isn't anything speculative - neither is it possible to state - source based information is somehow not factual i.e. factoids. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 15:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::What is infact destroyed about the article? That is a baseless accusation without actual evidence of something which is destroyed. I think taking content from sources which is relevant can't be classed as destroying anything. The notice "ciatations needed" was the indication I was continuing from - which is obvious since there isn't anyway to prove any of the existing content - the actual reason for the inclusion of sources. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 15:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:You can see infact I have streamlined the entries - that is why I added the notes to reduce the amount of content as you previously indicated. I have infact been doing this - so your statement "opposing any attempt to streamline the entries" is infact false. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 15:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:"expanding these entries with an idiosyncratic and hard to read style" I found the sources - I don't have any complaint or reason to think you shouldn't then proceed to re-write the entries using the existing sources on the basis of the fact the sources include the essential informations:

:*temperature

:*the nature or method of how the temperature is caused

:that you can't understand the information - you then presume that "often almost incomprehensible to a general public" - you've had messages from the readers? what is the basis of this supposed criticism? You state "the general public" - who has stated other then you the information can't be understood? (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 15:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think the "incomprehensible to a general public" criticism can be levied since it is at times incomprehensible to experts, let alone to the general public. The EDGES anomaly entry is an example. All that the anomamly is is basically that the EDGES experiment measured an excess absorbtion signal of 21-cm line photons from the early universe by around a factor of 2, relative to what one would expect. This also is not a "negative tempretaure" in the technical sense; it is merely a relative temperature deficit, so it shouldn't even belong to that category. OpenScience709 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well I will have to review the source to verify if that is correct. I see "Tercer" "restore stable version" which looks reasonable except - no scope for making any improvements - is stable - no way to add anymore information - what is the intended meaning of stable? beyond looking at unsourced information some of which isn't true for example: "2.725 K, cosmic microwave background" is the so-called improved stable v. except the sources don't show this temperature. "1 K at the Boomerang Nebula, the coldest natural environment known" is also not true. How is "stable version" now a preference - you could explain this to me - I would appreciate how a sense of reason that isn't obvious to me at this time. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 17:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I can't do anything now to change the article because I "destroyed" the article - except the so-called stable version restored false information which is the reason that "needs additional citations for verification" was added to the article. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 17:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The stable version is preferred because it was supported by consensus. Of course it can be improved upon; as long as there is consensus about it. That's how Wikipedia works, see WP:CON. Tercer (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:It would be great to have some sort of wikispeicific domain for data tables and timelines.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Onemillionthtree is insisting on the utterly nonsensical claim that at absolute zero "free bodies are still". --Trovatore (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps temperature is one more thing which depends on your frame of reference. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have heard descriptions along those lines for what absolute zero would be in a completely non-quantum model of physics; for dealing with even semi-classical quantum physics I'd just skip straight to talking about the ground state, myself. Sesquilinear (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The article matrix (mathematics) currently contains this text:

:Traditional mesh analysis and nodal analysis in electronics lead to a system of linear equations that can be described with a matrix.{{cn|date=May 2025}}

:

:The behavior of many electronic components can be described using matrices, using techniques like impedance parameters, admittance parameters, and scattering parameters. For example, let {{mvar|A}} be a 2-dimensional vector with the component's input voltage {{math|v{{sub|1}}}} and input current {{math|I{{sub|1}}}} as its elements, and let {{mvar|B}} be a 2-dimensional vector with the component's output voltage {{math|v{{sub|2}}}} and output current {{math|I{{sub|2}}}} as its elements. Then the behavior of the electronic component can be described by {{math|1=B = H · A}}, where {{mvar|H}} is a 2 x 2 matrix containing one impedance element ({{mvar|h{{sub|12}}}}), one admittance element ({{mvar|h{{sub|21}}}}), and two dimensionless elements ({{math|h{{sub|11}}}} and {{math|h{{sub|22}}}}). Calculating the behavior of the circuit now reduces to multiplying matrices.{{cn|date=May 2025}}

In the course of a WP:GAR it has been tagged with the above citataion needed tags. Can someone with expertise in the area help out by providing a reference for this, or otherwise step in there? (I am the one who once pushed the GA nomination of the article, but otherwise just a mathematician with little background in electronics etc.). Thanks! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

World crystal seems to me to be a distortion of some non-mainstream work. The published work does not seem to be a model of cosmology so much as an analogy of two systems of equations. The article appears to be WP:SYNTH to me: works by Kleinert mixed with unrelated works by others. Opinions? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:I know little about cosmology, but I do know that the similarity between relativistic equations and motion of dislocations is well established, e.g. papers by big names such as Frank Nabarro and John D. Eshelby as well as others [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=relativity+and+dislocation+motion&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholar here]. Extending the model from elasticity in crystals with defects back is therefore not necessarily fringe, and similar to the graphene & relativistic equations. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:: The analogies through equational similarities between relativity (special or general) arise in so many contexts that it seems that these are naturally emergent in many systems with any of a very wide array of postulated physics; this has the implication that, as positive evidence, this similarity should be ignored. This article seems to take particular author's mention of a model, and patch it together with fringey Planck-scale stuff to hint that it might have "real world" implications. The article downplays that it is simply a model, does not actually seem to describe anything concrete, and appeals to all sorts of fancy-sounding physics terms. This seems to break so many WP rules that, IMO, we should be able to safely delete the article. —Quondum 12:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As always, we should be driven by reliable sources. Are there reliable sources that present this mathematical analogy as a model of cosmology? If so, the article may be appropriate and should follow those sources. If there are not such sources, the article is WP:OR. --Srleffler (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The article has reliable sources, but not in my opinion for the point of view presented. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)