This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

Happy New Year!

Double sharp,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
^Complex/_Rational 03:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

^Complex/_Rational 03:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: Thank you! Happy New Year to you too! Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

now lower case like the other gallileans, but based on the old IPA script iota that looks like a squashed reversed esh. Took the curve from Grus. (A typical Greek-font iota didn't work well.) — kwami (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Nice! Double sharp (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Periodic table, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Otto Berg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may remember that aluminum production requires a lot of energy and that has been in short supply in Europe for the past couple of years. This has had a devastating effect on aluminum production in Europe.

Do you think that is something that merits inclusion in the aluminium article? I want to keep the article up to date, but I also don't want to overemphasize recent developments if they don't merit inclusion. I'd like a second opinion from you on that since you both contributed to the article significantly and are quite removed from the sorry developments in Europe.

Please don't feel obliged to rush an answer. I'd like to get back to it one day and go through FAC, but that is not coming for a few months perhaps. R8R (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: I'll look into it. :)

(Just linking Reuters as what I found after a quick Google.) Double sharp (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I looked into it some more and learned it wasn't that big of a deal. At the end of the day, even if the EU ceases all of its production, it wasn't that great anyway. All of Europe (including Russia, Norway, and Iceland, which are not in the EU and which use their own energy, whose production accounts for more than a half of that production) produces around fifth of what China alone produced.

So, it's not that big of a deal.

Interestingly, I remember hearing about it from a very pro-EU channel, which was when I thought I should add it to the article one day. But after some more deliberation, perhaps not.

I used these figures as well as those referenced in the article.

I am only left to wonder why checking that did not occur to me before I wrote to you :)--R8R (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, 1 new moon of Uranus and 2 new moons of Neptune were just announced by the MPC about an hour ago! There's supposed to be 5 new moons of Uranus, but since it's very late for the MPC, I suspect they'll announce the remaining 4 later. Here's the link to the new announcements. Nrco0e (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: Thanks, very cool! I'll start working on updates when not on my phone. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I see there's also another Jovian. Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S/2022 J 1 is an already known moon of Jupiter. That announcement is for its recovery. Nrco0e (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, was about to correct myself when you posted. :) Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fun stuff. Wonder how long before we have 100+ for all the giant planets. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even Neptune? That might take a while. :) Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should have them. Neptune has 15 moons larger than 30km, Jupiter and Saturn the same or less. I wonder if any of the upcoming ground-based telescopes will be capable of detecting them? — kwami (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Exoplanetaryscience: Pinging you so you can update your graphics. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it right now, the neptune graph is giving me grief because 2021N1 is so far out, I'm having to rework it from scratch. It's also important to mention that c02n4 = 2002N5; I have the original c02n4 astrometry on hand and it's the same as the first observations there. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Exoplanetaryscience: Cool! Looking forward to seeing how it looks. Neptune has quite an awkward system indeed. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: the new graphs have been uploaded: the two new moons of Neptune belong easily enough in two of the established Neptune groups (Neso-Psamathe and Sao-Laomedeia). The one new Uranian moon belongs to the Caliban-Stephano group. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Exoplanetaryscience: Thanks! I've updated the timeline... Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and List of natural satellites. Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the timeline, I chose to treat S/2002 N 5 like Perdita by putting it on the list twice. AFAICR, both were published early, but they were not yet generally accepted until they were recovered for real. Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: I notice that articles announcing the discoveries have already started coming out, with just 1 new Uranian moon (and of course the 2 new Neptunians); are the other Uranians then not yet ready? Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that kinda confused me too. Carnegie Science already published a press release and Sheppard didn't acknowledge the remaining Uranians in his website, so I'm guessing they're not ready. Nrco0e (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: Should we still be mentioning them in the lede of Moons of Uranus, then? Double sharp (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of not confusing people, better to remove it and move it to the discovery section instead. Nrco0e (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: Okay. Done. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I want to tell you this---I just did some searching in the telescope archives and it turns out that S/2023 U 1 isn't one of the 5 Uranian moon candidates that Sheppard observed on 7 October 2021. So there's still 5 more Uranian moons awaiting announcement, but I don't know anything about their current status. Who knows if one or more of them are lost, or all of them are already followed up? Nrco0e (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: Huh, that's cool. Well, I guess we'll know more at some point. :)

Still hoping for new numberings, though! Double sharp (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Exoplanetaryscience: Just a heads up that the scales and units are missing from the Uranus diagram in the latest update. :) Double sharp (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I've got some more updating to do on both Uranus and Neptune (proper mean elements, changing neptune's color) but work has been busy the last few days. Sorry for my slowness... exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Exoplanetaryscience: No problem! In the meantime, I've added some text to the caption at Moons of Uranus explaining the scale. Feel free to remove it when the update comes. :) Double sharp (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to share this with you and @Kwamikagami: a few weeks ago, but I was busy then. Anyways, a new paper on Quaoar was posted to arXiv a while ago and was recently accepted for publication (forthcoming) in the Astronomy & Astrophysics journal. The paper analyzes visible-light and far-infrared thermal lightcurves of Quaoar and claims that it is an non-equilibrium ellipsoid with a volume-equivalent diameter of 1090±40 km and axial ratios of a/b = 1.19 and b/c = 1.16, which corresponds to dimensions 1286 x 1080 x 932 km. According to the authors, "We suggest that Quaoar may have originally been rotating fast enough to have obtained a triaxial shape (similar to Haumea), and that the shape was ‘frozen in’." Nrco0e (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: Thanks! (ArXiv link.)

I'd still call it a DP under the definition people seem to be using in practice, though. After all, that's not too different from Iapetus' situation. Double sharp (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the Quaoar article with the new ellipsoid dimensions. I'm also planning to do a total revamp of it. It'll be interesting to see how people are goning to call Quaoar once Kiss et al.'s paper goes mainstream. But just to be safe, I've removed most mentions of Quaoar being considered a dwarf planet in its article. I'll consider readding it later, but only when there is enough debate about Quaoar; I don't want to keep outdated and contradictory statements isolated. As for the articles dwarf planet, list of possible dwarf planets, list of gravitationally rounded objects in the Solar System, and hydrostatic equilibrium, I'll have to delegate that to you (hopefully not to your dismay!). Nrco0e (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: I added some text about this to the articles you mentioned. I'd prefer to generally keep it in the main DP roster until more is written about this, though. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's fair to me! Nrco0e (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:C-Infinity, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Equine-man (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Equine-man: I don't have anything to do with the current version. I originally created this page as a redirect to smoothness, because that's how you read C^∞ as a mathematical term. If the current article is non-notable, then perhaps it would make sense to restore that redirect. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added your addition. Warmest thanks. Tim riley talk 14:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've long noticed that the 7⁻ → 6⁺ transition of ¹⁷⁶Lu with Q value 593.33 keV seems irregular to have such long half-life, as there are β decays with ΔJ^Δπ = 1⁻ whose half-life is short, like ^113mCd → ¹¹³In (11/2⁻ → 9/2⁺, 583.88 keV) and ¹⁷⁰Tm → ¹⁷⁰Er (1⁻ → 0⁺, 313.99 keV).

In Talk:Isotopes of lutetium you wrote: "The second is that, while ¹⁷⁶Hf has low-energy excited states with spins 6+ and 8+ that ¹⁷⁶Lu could decay to (these are only first-forbidden), the spin of ¹⁷⁶Lu is intrinsic while those of these excited states of ¹⁷⁶Hf are due to collective nuclear rotation, which results in a terrible match." I was wondering if you could kindly give some more detailed information. In particular, isn't the decay ^113mCd → ¹¹³In from collective nuclear rotation to being intrinsic?

Also, would you expect the decay process ^212mAt → ²¹²Po (9⁻ → 8⁺, 271.84 keV) to have very long (for example, > 10¹³ years) half-life? Is the spin of both nuclides due to collective nuclear rotation?

Thanks! 129.104.241.193 (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know, to be honest. Collective rotation usually gets invoked for the nonspherical nuclides, though, so it may not be applicable for ²¹²Po so near the magic number. :) Double sharp (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Perhaps I would ask a question on Physics Stack Exchange later. 129.104.241.242 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I opened this PSE question. Would you be agreed with the explanation provided there? 129.104.241.193 (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds more or less like what I vaguely imagined. Clearly, I should go back and study this again, but good to see I at least qualitatively remember this stuff. :) Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 29 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]