User talk:PhysPhD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, PhysPhD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Question

Dear PhysPhD, it is better if you reveal your identity at your user page. Otherwise one may have suspicion that you are sockpuppet. Concerning the violation of wikipedia policy I have nowhere violated it, I have just presented what is written by me - Georgiev, in published article!!! This is objective and can be written by anyone who reads my article. The debate is Unruh vs. Georgiev, so it seems unwise to present only one side of the debate without saying what IS Georgiev's thesis in the debate.Danko Georgiev MD 12:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear PhysPhD, again welcome to Wikipedia. I am sorry to say, but it appears that you have promptly found yourself in the midst of the nuttier elements of Wikipedia. I would very much like to assure you that most of WP is not at all like this, and that it is in fact populated by a large number of highly intelligent and rational personalities; I say this in the hope that you will not be quickly discouraged simply because you have found yourself surrounded by cranks. It appears that you have found Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics; I'm sorry to note that it has been a bit moribund of late, certainly not as active and vital as Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. If, perhaps, you do find yourself at wits end, and would like assistance or consolation, then certainly Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics would be a good place to turn. linas 15:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] possiblity of peer reviw

Thank you for your response,

Then is it possible to submit two papers for your peer review section, that once they are approved by your knowledgeable panels then you can bring the matter into the right site.

One paper is titled “The seed of the earth” [1]

The second is “The creation of gravity”. [2]

Thank you Keshe Theory 07:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC) keshe

[edit] Article needing your attention

Hi, can you please look at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluid entropy and vote? I think more physicists should participate in this particular vote. Thanks. Dan Gluck 17:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wishart distribution

Am I right in inferring from your recent edit to Wishart distribution that V is standard notation and Σ is not? I've certainly seen both, and some others, in print. The use of Σ is commonplace in published sources. Michael Hardy 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Σ is probably preferable to V, but there were a lot more V 's than Σ's in the article, so I adopted the all V standard out of laziness. (The article had been using both.) As long as we stick to one symbol throughout the article, I don't much care which. PhysPhD 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-critical string theory: Lorentz invariance

Hi. I checked and all the references I could find in SPIRES-HEP have maximum 8 citings, making this totally unnotable. I have no access to the book (reference no. 1) so I can't judge this; It doesn't appear in SPIRES-HEP by the way. I believe the article violates WP:NOTE and probably also WP:COI (according to the writer's username...). I suggest you nominate it for deletion (or do you want me to do that? I thought giving you the honor for noticing this first). Dan Gluck 20:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that soon.Dan Gluck 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
See User:String4d's remarks. Perhaps we were too hasty? I didn't read any reference, but it sounds possible that if you quantize by other variables you may get something like that (I guess you actually implicitly add some hidden fields which makes the central charge correct). I still don't think it's notable. Dan Gluck 18:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Phys...Holographic principle edits

Thanks for taking a look at my edits, and making some needed improvements.

It seems to me that Wheeler and (Wheeler's student) Bekenstein are quite notable here, with the former having "established" the "trend" (at least according to the latter), and Bekenstein does explicitly describe a "spherical" boundary both in verbage and pictorially.

Per my quick look at a (lightweight) meta-analyses of publication extracts, I noted the appearance of very strong support for the explicitly spherical description by comparing this query, returning 1,020 article references vs. 634 references of articles lacking explicitly "spherical" reference.

This analysis, while lightweight, does seem to back the Bekenstein-Wheeler assumption of a "spherical" boundary, so I wanted to check with you for support in restoring the "spherical" reference.

Thanks again for looking in. WNDL42 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

PhysPhD, thanks for the helpful comment and cite you left on my talk page, I've responded in more detail there. The recent Leonard Susskind paper you provided as a reference is very helpful. As my professional work has been greatly influenced by Gödel, Escher, Bach, I was particularly grateful that Susskind invokes Escher so perfectly. I'd like to continue discussion on the talk page for Holographic principle, hope to see you there. WNDL42 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)