Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloch wave – MoM method

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Frequency selective surface. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloch wave – MoM method

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A couple of weeks ago, we noticed the term "Bloch wave" is not notable and not used by any reliable sources in reference to Bloch's theorem (see talk page there), we have edited that article to remove references to Bloch wave and moved it to "Bloch's theorem". After noticing this, this article is curious. I have personally visited each of the IEEE articles and the Phys. Rev. B article as well as gained access to the book by Harrington and have verified that not one of them mentions the term "Bloch wave" (nor "MoM method" or even "Bloch" - no reference to the person or theorem) I believe the literature cited is discussing the Method of Moments and there is already an article Boundary element method that covers the term "Method of Moments" as it applies to electromagnetics. The article has was started by @IClausius, who has only contributed to this article and not since 2011, and has been updated mostly by IP users. The users likely did not know of the other article. Some work will need to be done seeing what information should be merged into Boundary element method, but it is obvious this article should not exist, for many reasons: It lacks notability as a term and it lacks any citations on the actual topic it claims to be discussing. I am very confused how "Bloch wave" became so prolific on Wikipedia when academia does not support the term. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Forbes72, Flyredeagle, Headbomb, Myxomatosis57, Daviddwd, Keith D, Mark viking, and Nicoguaro: Ping recent editors from Bloch theorem, Bloch wave – MoM method, and Boundary element method. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frequency selective surface. The article Frequency selective surface is by the same editor,(seems that IClausius (talk · contribs) Scottcr1 (talk · contribs) and EM-Editor (talk · contribs) are also the same person) and there's significant overlap in the equations there. As far as I can tell, the "Bloch wave – MoM method" is just this editor's idiosyncratic name for a particular way of applying the Boundary element method to the study of Frequency selective surfaces. The fact that this was all built by a single editor with a poor understanding [1] of how Wikipedia works makes this a bit difficult to evaluate. I don't think this topic is notable enough for a standalone article, but some of the concepts brought up seem to be worth including in the discussion of frequency selective surfaces. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 23:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I must admit that I didn't really dig into or give thought to the topic while technically editing it back in May. The method discussed here appears to be spectral-domain method of moments with periodic boundary conditions for PEC scatterers; I don't really think that this very specific formulation for periodic media deserves its own article (but MoM, as a separate article from BEM, does, in my opinion). Roger F. Harrington's and Rumsey's articles were cited to be "complementary" to the theory behind the formulation, I believe. I've seldom seen the term "bloch wave" in photonic crystal/periodic media literature; in this case, the full title appears to be the original contributor's own construct, failing WP:NEO. Also it should be noted that some of the content of this article is present on frequency selective surface article (added by the same IP user). The article under this name should be deleted in this case. It would be appropriate to salvage content for FSS article within the limits of WP:DUE. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are 6 (of many) online references for the term "Bloch wave":

1. http://lampx.tugraz.at/~hadley/ss1/bloch/blochwave.php

2. https://safeswisscloud.com/en/blog/1929-bloch-wave-electron-waves-crystal/

3. http://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/~roundyd/COURSES/ph366/bloch-shooting.html

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KN5FIaaZao

5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02790171

6. https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/bloch-wave-204

Any 3-dimensional periodic medium will exhibit Bloch waves, whether it's in connection with electrons in semiconductors or with photons in periodic nanostructures.

The Harrington and Rumsey references relate to the concept of reaction, which is central to ALL (spatial and spectral domain) moment methods and is separate from the Bloch wave formulation. In fact, it was the bringing together of these two concepts (MoM and Bloch waves) that makes this method unique and computationally efficient - vastly more efficient than the plane wave expansion method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_wave_expansion_method

This article should NOT be merged with the Frequency selective surface article because it is a fundamentally different formulation, unique to triply-periodic structures in 3D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.136.117 (talk)

Note: Previous comment left by IP user 172.114.136.117. No one said the internet does not mention "Bloch wave", but rather that the scientific literature does not mention it. See WP:Notability, WP:NEO, WP:DUE. The current page should be deleted as per Wikipedia policy; if you do not believe it should be merged into Frequency selective surface, please provide an alternative. It is standard practice to begin a new section in the article and merge the contents in there, it would not be ambiguous and could clearly state any differences with the rest of material in the Frequency selective surface article. Also, if you have knowledge on the subject, would you mind providing even a single reference for this method that brings together "Bloch waves" and the MoM method? If the article contained any of those, I would not have nominated it here. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Springer reference is not considered scientific literature? Well, here's more:

1. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.106853

2. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsta.2019.0101

3. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500340.2017.1384513

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.136.117 (talk)

Yes, it appears to be scientific literature, and that is fine, but none of these sources discuss the MoM (or at least they never mention MoM or method of moments) and so everything provided is totally irrelevant to this discussion. When I said scientific literature, to be clear, I was talking about textbooks. There are many papers by many scientists and they can use whatever words they want. Wikipedia, though, uses the language that is considered standard and that generally requires using the language of standard textbooks. Sorry for the confusion. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the actual name of this specific method is? We can move the page to whatever its standard name is given there are enough (quality) references to ensure its notability. Also just so you know, Wikipedia is not a textbook and it should not be relied upon for education, especially advanced education; it provides only an encyclopedic overview of notable topics. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in this case is not about (or should not be about) the term "bloch wave". As far as I understand, this particular formulation of spectral-domain MoM under this name hasn't been in included in the scientific discourse (WP:NOTNEO). Unless this specific formulation of the spectral method is covered by multiple independent sources (e.g. subsequent review articles or further independent research), it shouldn't have its own article per WP:OR and WP:GNG. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason why the term "Bloch wave - MoM" does not appear in the literature, including in either of the two IEEE Aerospace Conf. papers cited in the article. When the research was done for those two papers, and even up to (and several years past) the publication of the two papers, the author (having a background in optics) was not yet aware of the concept of Bloch waves from semiconductor theory. So back in the nineties, the author (independent of Felix Bloch) came up with the expansion himself, and only later realized (unfortunately, after publication) that Bloch had already discovered the exact same series expansion over half a century earlier, in connection with solutions to Schrodinger's equation in periodic crystals. So, out of deference to Felix Bloch, the name of the method was changed from "Spectral Domain - MoM" to "Bloch Wave - MoM." The author felt then (and still does) that it is correct to credit Bloch with the periodic field expansion that has been known under his name (in the semiconductor world) for decades. So whether it's a periodic electron wave function in a semiconductor or a periodic optical wave in a photonic crystal, it's the exact same mathematics in both cases, and as a result the Bloch name can rightly be applied to both applications.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.136.117 (talk) 18:21, 2020 September 14 (UTC)

IP user, we are not here to debate which name has the strongest justification. Wikipedia policy (see WP:COMMONNAME) "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". As Myxomatosis57 has said, it is strictly against the rules to use titles that do not appear in reliable sources. You're free to think the terminology in the established literature is misguided, but Wikipedia is not the place to correct the record. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 23:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you appear to be a subject matter expert. It's ok for you to help out in your area of expertise, and I'll take your signature here [2] to be evidence that you're acting in good faith, but per WP:SELFCITE, it would be better if you could be more clear about your connection to the subject matter and which contributions are yours.

\langle

Forbes₇₂ | Talk

\rangle

00:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, maybe the best thing is to just merge it with the Frequency selective surface page.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) Merge into Frequency selective surface page. I believe everyone is on board with that at this point, there have been no further objections. The on IP user who did object was convinced on policy grounds that merging is the best option here. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.