Talk:Femtotechnology

Potentially cranky reference

The reference recently added by Casimir9999 (talk · contribs) seems suspect. After reading through it, I have a few points of concern:

• It's written by someone who doesn't seem to be a physicist and who isn't working for a university (the author works at an aerospace firm, according to the publication info).
• It spends quite a lot of time on relatively elementary background about coulomb and nuclear forces, without actually saying much about how this background information influences their proposals.
• It makes several rather suspect claims about the nature of the Strong force (modelling it as an anisotropic force between a nucleon and a larger nucleus, picking handwavy numbers for interaction radii, claiming repulsion within a certain distance rather than treating the whole nucleus as a degenerate lump, etc).
• A couple of statements are made about mathematical analysis of interactions between nuclei and between a nucleus and a nearby nucleon, but there is no description of how these were set up (certainly no detailed presentation of the math used).
• An "experimental evidence" datapoint is plotted in the simulated graph, but is not discussed in the text. And it's a single data point, being used as justification for a graph showing a detailed relation between parameters.
• The article spends quite a lot of time discussing how you'd assemble trusses and tubes and so forth out of nuclear matter with the assumed properties, when the real issue a paper of this sort would have to address is proving that stable configurations like that could exist at all.

Long story short, it's setting off my crackpot index alarms. The fact that the author names the proposed form of matter after himself doesn't help. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Femtotechnology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824103842/http://www.aip.org/pnu/1991/split/pnu029-2.htm to http://www.aip.org/pnu/1991/split/pnu029-2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

About the 2023 notability banner

Suppose I read Pushing Ice and want to know what femtotechnology is, I might turn to see if Wikipedia has something about it. This was the case for me today. I don't know how many copies Pushing Ice have sold but it must be several thousand, to me that is notable. There is also references to actual physicists that have speculated about the possibility of a technology like this. Even if it's never going to be a real tech it is still notable so I don't understand what it is that is required to have this banner removed? — Vultureneck (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)