Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics Main / Talk	Members	Quality Control (talk)	Welcome

Evaluating new material versus existing articles.

I encourage my fellow editors to be more generous towards new material. We have plenty of articles that need work. Rather than focusing on borderline issues in new material I think we make more progress by identifying the largest problems over all of the project articles. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you care to be specific? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC).

No, I just want to encourage positivity. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not get this comment is it about new articles or new material in old articles? I think we should be more courageous on trimming old material in old articles too (when properly needed).--ReyHahn (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry my comment was not really about new-vs-old exactly. I want to encourage more even evaluation. I find myself applying a high bar to changes, when the very next article I look at is much worse than the change I just criticized.

The "new" part is important in two ways: the ideas and refs are fresh so helpful suggestions on new material can significantly improve an article. Conversely unnecessary borderline critiques are discouraging if you just finished spending some hours on what you intended as an improvement. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

When should list articles have references?

As most list articles have no references I taught until recently that list articles did not need references, however they do per WP:LISTVERIFY. So I recently tagged Laser acronyms with Template:No references but it was removed as "nearly all of the entries on this list are blue links". Was I wrong with tagging the article? I think that such an article should work as a standalone articles and not depend of other articles. ReyHahn (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this list of acronyms is not notable. In fact these are not even acronyms, they are merely unpronounceable abbreviations of interest to experts in the field. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted him. My main point was that WP:LISTVERIFY does not require references for "obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of apple in the list of fruits". The only references that are possible or useful at Laser acronyms would be references that establish that the acronym is an acronym, or that establish that it is used in laser physics. With respect to that, most of the entries in the list are obviously appropriate. Tagging individual entries of concern is not a problem, but drive-by tagging of the entire list as "unreferenced" was not a productive activity.--Srleffler (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as references go, in that specific list, I'd say the redlinks need it, and those where the articles don't have a reference for the acronym also need it. Like if helium-neon laser didn't mention HeNe with a reference, then HeNe would need a reference. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't usually require references to support obvious acronyms in articles. Wikipedia:Verifiability does not require that. All material must be verifiable, but a reference is only required if the material has been challenged or is likely to be. Editors are of course free to demand that a reference be provided for any statement, but blanket demanding references for statements that are not actually in doubt is pointy.--Srleffler (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be about not wanting to take the effort to source the list than about what the guidelines say.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing things does take effort, and often that effort is better spent elsewhere. Before tagging anything as needing a citation you should ask yourself whether you actually have any doubt about whether the statement is true or think someone else might doubt that it is true. If not, and assuming it is not a direct quotation or something contentious about a living person, then you should not tag it. WP:V explicitly does not require everything to have an inline citation. If you are tagging things "cite needed" that are not actually likely to be disputed, then you are just making pointless work for other editors, and not actually contributing anything useful yourself. --Srleffler (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

While I agree with your point of view in theory, I've had more than one occasion to question an assertion only to be told that "everyone knows". I think almost every fact posted on wikipedia is something someone else might doubt: if they already knew it they would not need to read the article. Thus we should err on the side of referencing when we are unsure. (I agree about not adding 'citation needed'; if you really doubt something unreferenced just delete it.) Johnjbarton (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Fractional Chern Insulator

The article Draft:Fractional Chern Insulator recently failed a WP:AfC, I think because it was reviewed by people who do not know the physics. Perhaps one or two of you would like to help the article, and also check whether it is a duplicate. It is a bit outside my expertise. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly notable, however I think it is such a technical topic that it does not seem to have gotten into a digestible review. Topics like Topological insulator and quantum spin Hall effect still suffer from being written without very little interest to explain basic stuff. I think we need some extra effort from the topological quantum community.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I've accepted it with a bit of copyedit. The sources, which now have arxiv copies so are readable, have some with good review of the field introductions. Trying to see if I can provide some context in the lead at an elementary level, but may not be able to. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to M-theory (2nd nomination)

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to move Stationary-action principle to "Principle of least action"

The principle of least action is described on a page called "Stationary-action principle". Historically the name was "principle of least action" or "Hamilton's principle"; Feynman adopted "least action" in 1948, acknowledging that the action is not always minimal. I found only one reference that mentioned "stationary action principle".

The page was originally "Principle of least action", but it was renamed with the edit comment:

1. The old name is logically/mathematically flawed: the principle does not require the action functional to be minimal on trajectories.
2. The new and the old name are used equally in modern literature.
3. The new name properly depicts the underlying principle.

The first and third reasons are the same reason; not one that is important for readers to recognize the topic. The second reason is unreferenced.

My reading of WP:TITLE:

• Recognizability: least action wins.
• Naturalness: people will search for least action
• Precision: tie, no ambiguity
• Concision: tie: similar length
• Consistency: tie? xx principle vs principle of XX?

Since the move was made once to this name I think I should get confirmation before action. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with you that per notability "principle of least action" is more widely used (it is what appears in the Goldstein). Maybe we should be careful with Hamilton's principle (is it the same?) should that be merged in?--ReyHahn (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with the above, but I am not sure about merging in Hamilton's principle. Bduke (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: such discussions should take place in the corresponding article's talk page; there's even a special template for proposing a change in page title, see details at WP:RSPM. Then you can ping it here about the discussion there. But now that it's underway here, you should at least ping it there. That's the only way past editors will get to notice it. fgnievinski (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

done, thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

OR Now that I have found more refs, including Goldstein's 3rd ed which discusses their decision to adopt new names: I think our readers would be bette served with a page called Action principles that gave an overview of the concepts and advantages, comparing the different principles, summarized the issues, discussed the naming, etc.

I will hold off on any move, and develop this idea first. Johnjbarton (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It should have a proper WP:RM discussion before moving in any case really. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should avoid WP:RMs when the details are not clear or when there are no opposing users. A preliminary survey is always useful.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It not being clear is all the more reason for a WP:RM once there is a proposal to move, before moving. Plus the fact it's been moved before and there's need to discuss it indicates it is a WP:PCM. I do agree a preliminary survey is certainly useful though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think 1948 is long enough ago that terminology from then shouldn't be binding. We say muon instead of mu-meson and capacitor instead of condenser; in 1948, a common meaning of computer was still "the wife of a scientist, paid half salary to operate a Marchant calculator". XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This is universally known as the principle of least action. The caveats can be discussed as normal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Widely, but not universally [1][2][3][4]. I am not sure the choice of title matters so much. XOR'easter (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

All these also mention least action alongside stationary action. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• 2c: Stationary action is clearly the physically correct name, for reasons mentioned above. While more sources do use least action, most of them also mention in concurrence that this is a misnomer, that maximal action or local minima occur in different cases, etc. I would support a proposed move (this isn't a case like Liancourt Rocks where everyone has a different idea of what the "real" name is, we all agree on what is the most accurate descriptor). That said, also as mentioned above, all this should be in a proper WP:RM. Fermiboson (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

As users are requesting, @Johnjbarton: please open an WP:RM I suggest that you propose the three options: (a) stationary action principle (b) least-action principle (c) action principle.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Just an interesting physics tidbit I have stumbled upon: it appears that the name "principle of stationary action" derives from Julian Schwinger's work. Both Feynman and Schwinger developed quantum action principles; both of them renamed the classical Hamiliton's principle! Feynman went with "principle of least action" and the more button-down, mathematically precise Schwinger chose "principle of stationary action". (I have refs for Feynman renaming; it's possible that "stationary action principle" precedes Schwinger but a Nobel laureate's word choice must be significant). Milton, K.A. (2015). Review of Classical Action Principles. In: Schwinger's Quantum Action Principle. SpringerBriefs in Physics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20128-3_2 Johnjbarton (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tractive force#Requested move 1 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tractive force#Requested move 1 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Comparison of chemistry and physics

Does Comparison of chemistry and physics work as an article? It reads more like an essay to me. XOR'easter (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems OK to me. At least there are far worse articles!! Like a large proportion of articles, it just needs a bit of work. Bduke (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that this and other physics articles are currently the targets of a student editing course. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC).

Seems like an essay to me more than a legit topic. Sure one can compare fields, but like... why these two? Why not physics and sociology? Or chemistry and finance? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like an essay to me too. Largely harmless and probably quite useful for some readers if they can find it (it's an orphan right now). The problem is that it isn't an article about comparison of chemistry and physics, it is such a comparison. Normally the articles here are about the subject named in the title: Essay not an essay, it is a description of the written form, history of the essay, and so on. Debate is not a debate. Is comparing chemistry and physics a notable thing to do, with a history to discuss and sources to cite? Maybe I'm being a stickler since few readers will be surprised or disappointed by the current contents, and there exist dozens of other "Comparison of ..." articles. Can it be renamed so it belongs in an encyclopedia? If not, I suggest abbreviating the contents and merging what's appropriate into Physics#Relation to other fields and Chemistry#Practice or both. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It might find a better placed in the Simple English Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC).

Agree that it is an essay. One may be able to say something about comparison of chemistry and physics in popular perception, but the article title is bad. Fermiboson (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe an article about "relationship between chemistry and physics" would be more adequate in the spirit of Relationship between mathematics and physics.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell no reference in this article actually compares chemistry to physics. So the real issue with the article is a complete lack of verifiable references.

As a chemist who worked as a physicist and an engineer, the sentence "Physicists are also employed outside of science, for example in finance, because of their training in modeling complex systems." is clearly physics propaganda from the Institute of physics, not a matter of "comparison". ;-) (The truth of this matter is that too many physicist are trained in comparison to the number of physics jobs). Johnjbarton (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to the heaviest elements

Do we need this introductory article: Introduction to the heaviest elements? Seems like and odd one compared to the others introductory articles for topics like: electromagnetism, QM, SR, GR and M-theory. ReyHahn (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the wrong title for the content. The article reads like the appropriate title would be "Nuclear synthesis". The content is unusually well referenced (assuming they are correct). The footnotes should be in the article.

The content itself seems valuable. Merge? The closest I found was Nuclear transmutation and Synthesis of precious metals. Nucleosynthesis is about Big Bang. But of course we also have Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Related is Synthetic radioisotope. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is there as a boilerplate text section to the articles on superheavy elements. Not sure what exactly the policy on that is. Fermiboson (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I gather that what is meant here is for example Hassium has :

Introduction to the heaviest elements[edit]

This section is transcluded from Introduction to the heaviest elements. (edit | history) Johnjbarton (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Can it just be merged back into hassium? Actually is transcluded inside many heavy elements like bohrium, dubnium, nobelium and so on.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSECTION and WP:PARTRANS are the closest guidance I know of - I've not seen an article transcluded like this one before though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It has started as Template:Superheavy element introduction, then was moved to Superheavy element/Short introduction and finally to the current title. That's because templates should not store article text and subpages are not allowed in article space. However, this page is not meant to stand alone as an instance of introductory articles, rather it's only meant to be transcluded as background material in other articles about individual elements. Therefore, this article cannot remain as it is. I propose to merge it into section Superheavy elements#Introduction, then transclude that section instead (preferably via template:excerpt). fgnievinski (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, that sounds like a sensible plan to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

And while we’re on the topic of essay-like articles…

Car speed and energy consumption. Reads like a student assignment to me. Opinions? I’m leaning towards AfD. Fermiboson (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It started as a translation of the Dutch article dating from 2019 by the same editor. Translation should have been indicated. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to Fuel economy in automobiles.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd support a nomination for merging into Energy-efficient driving. fgnievinski (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that the content is mostly a high school level calculation of F = kv^2 etc formulae, I'm not sure what value there is to a merge. Fermiboson (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Strong Delete as it is very wrong. It is true that driving faster can be less efficient, but the science in the Wikipedia page is incorrect. A standard source on this topic is DOI:10.1016/j.triboint.2011.11.022, which does the analysis right, and is the "Go To" paper that everyone uses. You can see the losses on p233, the article is open source. The correct number for air drag is ~ 5%, whereas Car speed and energy consumption claims it dominates. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Ldm1954 , Thank you for pointing out this discrepancy, that does not touch the argument of quadratic velocity dependence. Holmberg et al. agree on that too. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I would like to understand the logic behind "delete". The excellent reference makes a compelling case that this topic is notable. So isn't the proper course of action to correct the content? Neither of the other articles mentioned here list this reference so aren't they also suspect? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem as far as I can tell is that the stuff of industrial relevancy is already in the various articles mentioned above, like Fuel economy in automobiles and Energy-efficient driving. The original article is essentially a high school physics exercise and has little standalone value. Fermiboson (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we have high school physics readers who would appreciate an accurate article at their level. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Well... we don't make articles on uniform cylinders rolling down fixed wedges. I suppose one could make a case for something like Introduction to vehicle fuel efficiency, but that would definitely not be anywhere close to this article in style or content. See also WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. Fermiboson (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding to what has been said above, the article is very, very inaccurate. The article I cited is a review that was encouraged by both the DOE & the EU. The senior author Ali Erdemir is one of the better known tribologists. I trust him, and I trust that work -- I have worked in nanotribology so this is a "pseudo-expert opinion". Ldm1954 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Overkill, 1739 citations to that article in Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=18027991641630258539 Ldm1954 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Ldm1954, Erdemir agrees on the overall theory and quadratic speed dependence, p. 223. The Holmberg get al. article does not at all consider a range of high speeds, the topic of the Wikipedia article from the source MacKay, Sustainable energy without the hot air, a UK Govt. report. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Fermiboson AfD is probably the way forward. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Fermiboson (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Fermiboson @Ldm195 Thanks for your interest and the important references. They agree with the discussed Wikipedia article which is based on the MacKay UK goverment advice Sustainable energy without the hot air, 2008.
  • K. Holmberg et al. / Global energy consumption due to friction in passenger cars / Tribology International 47 (2012) 221–231 agree with this Wikipedia article, they state on page 223:

"The external air drag is the air resistance of the car when it moves on the road. It is proportional to the square of the driving speed and directly related to the size and shape of the vehicle, usually expressed as a multiplication of the drag coefficient by the projected front area [34,35]. In this study, 60 km/h is assumed as an average driving speed for all cars globally in urban, highway, and any other kind of driving.". Holmberg et al. do not further address the effect of speed.

• • Holmberg et al., Global energy consumption due to friction in passenger cars, transportation and industry, STLE Annual Meeting, Detroit, USA, 5-9.5.2013, echo the MacKay argument for a quadratic dependence on speed on their pages 8 and 9, with similar graphs we can use as reference in the article, and refine the argument.

Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I responded to your comments on the AfD page, perhaps any future science discussion should only be here.

@Hansmuller nobody has disagreed with the quadratic dependence of air drag on velocity. However, there are two issues:

• The tone, which is what @Fermiboson first queried
• The focus on the 5% contributions to energy loss and ignoring the 95% terms which I object to. IMHO this is a case for Blow it up and start over. If you or someone else volunteers to rewrite then perhaps put the AfD on hold, otherwise not. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with the claim that this article is incorrect on science.

The excellent Holmberg et al. article provides evidence that 5% of the energy loss is air drag. However, that 5% is also 100% of the energy loss that a driver of an existing passenger car can affect by daily behavior. No strategy discussed in the Holmberg article affects existing cars; their strategies are all things for governments or technology companies.

I think the article should discuss the reality that personal behavior affects only a small part of the energy loss. That is an important fact that alters the perspective of the discussion. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for International System of Units

International System of Units has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Variational methods in general relativity

Is this article necessary/notable: Variational methods in general relativity. As it does not add anything is it safe to just transform it into a redirect to Einstein–Hilbert action? ReyHahn (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Do it.

The name "Einstein-Hilbert action" is rather obscure compared to "Variational methods in general relativity", so swapping the names might make sense. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Einstein-Hilbert action is only one of many types of action in GR. In general, there are several forms of the action in which the integrand is of the form f(R) sqrt(-g). f(R)=R is not the only functional form that produces Einstein field equations, and the difference is of significance in quantum gravity. The subject is undoubtedly notable and distinct from each other. Fermiboson (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Do not redirect, as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC).

The first line of Einstein-Hilbert action says "The Einstein–Hilbert action in general relativity is the action that yields the Einstein field equations through the stationary-action principle". So "the action" according to this "authority" ;-)

The General relativity page does not discuss any actions, how important can they be? What articles discuss those other actions in GR? How would a reader find them? How would a reader interested in GR discover the Einstein-Hilbert action?

To me this is a pervasive problem in Wikipedia Physics: a large pile of topics interrelated with a maze of wikilinks but few overviews.

(I'm not blaming anyone here, but doing nothing in this case is the least good outcome IMO). Johnjbarton (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I entirely agree that it would be a good idea to have those articles, and I recently talked with someone with relevant expertise who is working on the coverage. It's a highly advanced nche topic so our coverage is necessarily spotty. Unfortunately, I don't know if I can help much on this one as I'm just a lowly undergrad :) Fermiboson (talk) Fermiboson (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

X-ray crystallography

I have started to clean/reorganize this page. Over the years it has become a mess, with people adding material often out of order and context, and also often without sourcing. This project rates the topic highest, although much is outside physics, hence I am asking for thoughts/suggestions here.

Some are obvious, for instance move, correct or rewrite much of the "theory" to a modified dynamical diffraction page (which is only for x-rays). (A proper dynamical electron diffraction page is another project.) I welcome other thoughts. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

X-ray nanochemistry nomination for deletion.

I have nominated it for deletion as it seems to be one author reinventing x-ray damage. Please comment on the deletion page if appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Physical meaning of the Stoney Mass - Potential conflict of interest

• Talk:Stoney units#Physical meaning of the Stoney Mass - Potential conflict of interest

This is a COI edit request from User:AndrewWutke. Looking for a neutral subject expert to review.  Spintendo  04:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Spintendo, I have removed the edit request here - it is appropriate for an edit request about a single page to be at that page. Nothing wrong with posting here to get opinions, but we should not be splitting discussion across multiple pages. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Quondum: Read the reference ( https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ad0090 ) for this. It is right up your alley. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)