Talk:Scalar wave/Archive1

Scalar field theory
I added a brief mention of scalar field theory, but then noticed that "scalar wave" on WP redirects to this. Are the two attempting to be the same thing in both the conspiracy and physics context or is there some confusion? I can't quite tell at the moment. d hominem 15:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It was part of the pseudoscience wars - sceptics versus woomeisters - as alluded to in the footnotes.
 * On another note - I discover "scalar waves" are a thing in pseudoscience, dash off an article and get bronze already? I'm flattered! - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

" that scalar waves restore certain useful aspects of electromagnetic theory "discarded" in the nineteenth century by those fools... "
I'm a little confused--were the "useful aspects" that were "discarded" actually useful somehow? What do the waves "restore" ? The "useful aspects" themselves, or the idea that there can be such things? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bearden says the useful aspects were "discarded." Hence the quotes. Fuck knows what he actually meant - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, from the 1991 interview:


 * Question1: Can you offer the layman an extremely simplified summary of what scalars are, how they relate to Maxwell's equations, unified field theory, and the limitations of currently accepted quantum physics, relativity theory, and electromagnetics?


 * A: Whew! You've asked for a complete explanation of how to unify the three major disciplines of physics, specify what's wrong with the three present versions of those disciplines that has prevented their unification, and how this was in Maxwell's original quaternion equations (some 200 of which are actually his theory, not the pale four vector equations written by Heaviside and Gibbs). You also asked for an explanation of scalars versus vectors, and how the present vector analysis (of Heaviside and Gibbs) misses the boat with respect to structured scalars. And you've asked me to do it simply, in layman's terms. To say that that's a tall order is the understatement of the decade!


 * So Gibbs, not Poynting. And he thinks the mathematical transformation from quaternion to vector form lost IMPORTANT INFORMATION - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What the arsing fuck
WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN. Any ideas on where they concocted this from?

(On another note, http://www.keylonticdictionary.org looks like a rich seam of woo for those in the mood for new articles.) - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Light-sound waves? I don't... wha? Тy talk 12:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, last time I read something like this, it was because a friend of mine was writing a story involving magic and wanted some science-sounding "explanations" of it. Needless to say, it was a lot of fun - perhaps this is the real explanation? Scarlet A.pngmoral 14:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think you've definitely been had by a source book for a pen+paper RPG. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 14:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, ye of great hope and positive thoughts. RationalWiki:Saloon_bar RPG source books tend not to carry quack Miranda warnings either - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The "Saryshagan howitzer" on Wikimapia
If it's on the Internet, it's true :D Except that, as the original description of the object shows, it's an abandoned S-75 (wp:SA-2) anti-aircraft missile launch site. (See for example this diagram.)--ZooGuard (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there's a reason for it, but why the Star of David Layout? --Revolverman (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Technologically, the battery consists of a central radar controlling six launchers, each covering 60 degrees of the sky, so some kind of six-pointed or six-sided structure is inevitable. I don't know for sure, but I think that in this case, the logic goes like that: Each launcher position needs an access road to place the launcher and then reload it (the loader vehicles have their own separate fortified positions). In theory, you can have a "star" arrangement with a road from each position converging in the center, but then the center will be a congestion point. :) Connecting all the launcher and loader positions with roads allows more flexibility (e.g. if loader A is down, loader B will also be able to service the launchers usually serviced by A). But then each launcher position needs also a bypass road, as it may be busy or destroyed. It's also possible that the entrances of the emplacements need to face in specific directions to avoid all of them being destroyed by a nuclear blast shockwave.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't be serious
I was surprised to see the BIAS (dare I say bigotry) displayed in this article that does everything short of a hissyfit to discredit, negate, ridicule, mock, and generally disrespect those who might have an opposing opinion. Whoever the author is, he/she has only brought discredit upon their self in writing such a ridiculous pile of garbage. Who can take such a rag seriously? Seriously!
 * What, pray tell, is wrong in this article? I've found one thing that is incorrect, but let's see if your conclusions match mine. :) - GrantC (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're going to tell me they don't really cure goat polio, aren't you - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No no, that part is fine. It's this line: "A scalar version is sometimes accurate enough while easier to calculate". In electromagnetic theory, this is a bit of a misnomer. There are two ways to characterize an EM field: by its electric and magnetic field components (both vector fields) or by its scalar and vector potentials. The potentials are actually more fundamental than the fields (the Aharonov-Bohm effect is an example of this), as it is the electromagnetic potential that must be gauge invariant (both for Lorentz transformations in relativity and for quantum mechanics).
 * In general, there are problems in physics for which the scalar wave equation needs to be solved, and there are problems for which the vector wave equation needs to be solved. At the end of the day though, these two subsets of problems are mostly disjoint. To say that a "scalar version" exists that is "accurate enough" is mostly not kosher. - GrantC (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Another way to think about it is that it is indeed possible to break down any vector into its requisite components (which are all scalars). However, this does not make these scalars less "accurate"; it just means that to form a complete picture, one needs to characterize all of them. As to when it's simpler to calculate forces component by component or as vectors, that's more up in the air. For example, calculating the components of a general EM wave requires solving some fairly complicated and difficult coupled partial differential equations, whereas calculating one field from another just requires the calculation of a single curl. - GrantC (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete that sentence, then. Maybe replace it with a sentence or two (or more) about why people use a scalar wave equation. That would really add to the section! Nullahnung (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I'm going to make the change. I'm still mulling over exactly what to write, but I'm thinking I'm just going to rewrite that section and add a few examples. I don't plan to add any technical physics or math, so the readability level of the article should remain the same. - GrantC (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. That said, I'm a physicist, so it would be much appreciated if someone not in the field could take a look and see if the language I used was awkward or too technical. I tried to throw in some context (e.g. the examples of real uses of scalar wave equations) without straying too far from the point, but do feel free to change it if you think I went too far. - GrantC (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I dashed off the original as a mostly-ignorant popularisation, based a bit on untangling the Wikipedia wars on the subject. Yours reads fine to me - David Gerard (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. I think the change helps differentiate between the woo and the real science a bit. That said, I'm sure most people who check out this article don't do so for the "In physics" section... - GrantC (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, aside from the tone of this article reading like a 13 year old who just figured out the bible stories aren't real, there are several scientific papers describing "solutions to the free-space scalar wave equation" called X-waves, seeming to contradict the central thesis of this article. Can actual physicists comment on these articles? I found them through a very cursory search, so I assume this is accounted for? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18263114/ https://opg.optica.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-19-9-8526&id=212821 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470168981 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9901455/

Can you explain why you reverted my edit? There is nothing factually wrong with what I typed. X-waves are indeed solutions to the EM scalar wave equation, and have been experimentally created.