Talk:Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics

Dispute Flag

Ldm1954 (talk · contribs): According to Wikipedia's policies the dispute flag is set if an article contains significant factual inaccuracies, i.e. information that is verifiably wrong. Would you please explain which information is verifiably wrong? Thank you. Cadaik (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The page implies that Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics is a viable model that is widely used, it does not describe in details it's limits or deficiency. There is currently a discussion going on about this page at WT:WikiProject Physics#Second opinions on Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics since there are others who are more expert than I am on electrodynamics, including relativistic and quantum. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The question is whether some information is verifiably wrong, not whether that is widely used. The derivation is comparatively simple if one starts from the assumption that Jefimenko has correctly calculated the electric field from the Liénard-Wiechert potentials. The derivation directly from Maxwell's equations can also be found in the cited journal articles. If one starts from Jefimenko, then the derivation consists only of a Galilean transformation of the force, which, as I am sure you will agree, is permitted for slow relative velocities. Interesting is that the force formula calculated in this way is linked to Weber electrodynamics. Weber electrodynamics is well researched and shows that it is possible to work without a B-field. Cadaik (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"The question is whether some information is verifiably wrong, not whether that is widely used."

Wikipedia is not based on "right" or "wrong", it is based on published reviews. This the only practical approach: we don't need to be expert to read published reviews written by experts. We don't rely on derivations because only experts can know the many subtle issues in derivations. Wide use is also a reasonable criteria, but one that nature results from published reviews.

For these reasons it's not really worthwhile describing the scientific basis for the work. It's interesting but it won't alter the outcome of our discussions unless that description is part of a published review. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that and see it the same way. However, this section is about the dispute flag. When articles are published in top scientific journals such as "IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation", an independent peer review with at least two reviewers selected by the journal itself has taken place beforehand. The same applies to "Electromagnetics". This probably means that at least 6 experts were involved in this case. Cadaik (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Second opinions on Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics

Note: the information below is from WT:Physics, the discussion has been moved here as suggested by Johnjbarton . Ldm1954 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like some second (third, fourth) opinions on Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics. My feeling is that the current page implies that this approach is a viable alternative to standard electrodynamics. (It has other issues such as being a textbook and long sections without sources which are thus OR.) It looks like it was accepted on AfC in good faith by an editor who is not a physics expert, so might not have been aware of the issues.

In the interim I have added a few tags to it. Maybe some clear edits to indicate that it is not fully adequate, or something harsher. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Google Scholar search for "Weber–Maxwell Electrodynamics" only returns a few articles from a single author with a small number of citations—mostly self cites—so the subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The history section in this article indicates that Weber–Maxwell electrodynamics is a new development from 2023, I think it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article. How this passed the draft phase?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides Guidelines here. Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics has been published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Cadaik (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the part of the Guidelines that @ReyHahn is referring to is:

• "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources."

That is the same point I made under the topic "Merge proposal". Review sources tell us that a topic is "notable". Johnjbarton (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

When articles are published in scientific journals such as "IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation", an independent peer review with at least two reviewers selected by the journal itself has taken place beforehand. In addition, some editors usually also read the article. The same applies to "Electromagnetics". This shows that the topic is "notable". Cadaik (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTABILITY in Wikipedia is a technical term with a specific meaning. It should not be mistaken with the dictionary definition of the word "notability". In WP, a topic is notable if it satisfies the criteria at WP:GNG. My concern above is the small number of secondary sources discussing the topic. (Kühn's publications are counted as primary sources). A challenge for you—if you think the topic is notable in this technical sense—is to convince other editors that there is a sufficient number of such secondary sources. To be frank, I think this is likely to fail, as people generally expect to see e.g. review articles that are focused on the topic. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we should go to AfD to make the merge/delete process more formal. However, I cannot do this at the moment. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I will do this later today. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This article seems like a good faith effort to present a complex topic. In my view the primary issues are recency and the corresponding lack of secondary references. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies primarily on secondary references for verified, reliable content. This necessarily means that new work cannot be represented because sufficient time has not elapsed for reviews to appear. We do use peer reviewed primary sources for details but not for large sections (if the authors have a track record) and essential never for entire articles.

I think the present article content would be better as a section in Weber electrodynamics. That article would provide context for this recent work and I think readers would be better served. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, this would not be correct, since Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics has many properties of Maxwell's electrodynamics. Cadaik (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The main problem I have with a merge is the same as what I have with this article. As written it implies that Weber–Maxwell electrodynamics is a complete theory with no deficiencies. Sorry, I do not believe that. In contrast Weber-electrodynamics clearly has sections on why it breaks down.

@Cadaik, are you really claiming that this is a complete and accurate model? Ldm1954 (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The article points out two times right at the beginning that the model is only suitable for non-realistic velocities:

"Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics is a representation of classical electrodynamics expressed in terms of a generalized Coulomb law which can also be applied to moving and accelerated non-relativistic point charges."

"Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics is not suitable for applications in which charged particles move at almost the speed of light. In such cases, it is necessary to use relativistic mechanics."

This is rarely a limitation for electrical engineering or mechanical engineering. In engineering, it is important that a theory is straightforward to apply, satisfies the conservation of momentum, can describe electromagnetic waves and is compatible with both the principle of relativity (even if it is only the Galilean principle of relativity) and the principle of the constancy of the speed of light.

> Sorry, I do not believe that. In contrast Weber-electrodynamics clearly has sections on why it breaks down.

There are at least two independent mathematical proofs that derive the electric field of a moving point charge from Maxwell's equations (see references). A short additional proof then shows how one can obtain the special case of the Weber force from this field. The facts are sufficiently solid to make belief unnecessary. Moreover, an open-source software implementation with numerous examples shows that the simulation results correspond exactly to what is expected in practice.

@Ldm1954, I understand that the model seems strange to you as a physicist, as it seems to contradict some basic assumptions of modern physics. However, this is only superficially the case, as the model is explicitly only suitable for non-relativistic point charges. Cadaik (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Dash to en dash

This page should be moved to Weber–Maxwell electrodynamics, the en dash is the usual way to rely two names in Wikipedia. See for example Born–Oppenheimer approximation. The text should be modified accordingly. That said there is no rush to do that as this might go into an WP:AFD. ReyHahn (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)