Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sbyrnes321 (talk | contribs) at 00:51, 16 May 2019 (→"Conductive" redirect: I like the status quo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Shortcuts
WikiProject iconPhysics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

AfD: Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics

The article Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics has been nominated for deletion.

Whichever way the deletion discussion goes, the article could probably use some attention. Jheald (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took the Gordian approach to the WP:NOR concerns and stubbified the article. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you! XOR'easter (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been closed as a keep. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless plug

Sounds like a good idea! The most obvious fixer-upper is the "possibly contains original research" tag on the Uncertainty of fundamental physical constants section. That looks like a good place to start (maybe it falls under the remit of WP:CALC?). I'll make the time to take a more serious look. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon Belt (2nd nomination)

Potentially of interest, found via the Fringe Theories noticeboard: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photon Belt (2nd nomination). XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now closed as a delete. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mori-Zwanzig formalism

Will someone please review this? If it should be accepted (and I have forgotten the physics and higher math that I learned in college), please ping me so that I can move it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks neutral and with reasonable content to me; it is about a well-established theory and the references seem good at first glance. It looks like a translation of the German Wikipedia article Mori-Zwanzig-Formalismus. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe AfD: Cartan formalism (physics)

This is a pre-AfD or pre-prod notice for Cartan formalism (physics). I spent the entire day staring at that article, trying to figure out how to make it less pathetic. I drew a blank. Please see Talk:Cartan formalism (physics) for more. In short -- the first delete suggestion arrives circa 2006, and a few more get tossed on, and a review of the article history shows many many edits, attempting to clean it up, but with zero substantive change. The worst crime of all: it never actually talks about "Cartan formalism"! But rather then immediately plowing it under with an AfD, I figured some advanced notice to provide time for rumination might be more polite. (Oh, and to be clear, actually, I'm proposing that it be just a redirect to tetrad formalism, not an actual delete. i.e. just blank it.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made it into a redirect to tetrad formalism. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Magnetic diffusion

Requesting a review of this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Should I accept it? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK on a first skim. XOR'easter (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hertz Vectors in Electromagnetic Theory

A review of this draft is requested. Should it be accepted? (The mathematical content is beyond my level of remaining knowledge in this century.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this is just a redirect from a page that has been moved, and the target page is well developed, I think it should be accepted.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like another reviewer accepted while I was asking for advice. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Acuña-Romo equation

Please review this draft, and let me know whether it should be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise against acceptance. The work was only published last fall and has attracted no attention that I can find from researchers other than the authors. WP:TOOSOON. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The draft must be accepted it describes a analytical close form solution of a problem with more than 2 thousands years without solution, the problem has a long history and relevance. Major scientist like Issac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz failed to solve the problem. Compare the problem mentioned in [4] and the problem in [1], it is the same problem of [2], 9:09, 6 May 2019 (GMT+2)
I have declined the draft. The unsigned statement above by the author persuaded me that I needed to decline the draft, because Wikipedia is not a medium for original research, and, if not original research, this is very close to it. The tone of the unsigned response makes it clear that this is a good-faith effort to use Wikipedia for a purpose that is not our purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a straightforward case of WP:TOOSOON to me. I do expect this result to be notable. We just need more time for secondary sources to cover it.--Srleffler (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time articles

An IP editor is adding unverified claims about music theory to the articles on Imaginary time (latest edit) and Multiple time dimensions (latest edit}. I have reverted a couple of times but am getting a typical warrior response. Even if the claims are significant to musicians ("Imaginary Time" seems a popular title for musical works), I do not see them as significant to these topics. Could some more folks take a look? Many thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case where Cardan's labeling of the parts of the solution of a cubic equation, while unambiguous for mathematicians, has caused those without a background in algebra to conclude weird things. As the article on imaginary time states, imaginary time has an entirely different meaning to a mathematical physicist than it does to a poet (and lyrics are poetry). If this were a registered editor, I would suggest discretionary sanctions for pseudo-science. As it is, I suggest semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have forgotten all the math that I learned in college, but this is intermediate algebra. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Gravity

Portal:Gravity, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gravity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Gravity during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Electricity

Portal:Electricity, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Electricity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Electricity during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect this site may be trusted?

Look at talk:Atom #Incorrect mass of neutron, other threads, as well as archives. This miserable crap causing a dense stream of complains for many years—at latest, since 2013—is still listed as a featured article. Whereas you are preoccupied with portals and other toys. If there are no changes-watching eyes and brains among en.Wikipedia’s physicists, then where on the site can one expect to see them? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Petit

Please see Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit. There was an RfC started, but it should probably be removed as too vague. But there are all sorts of back-and-forth claims of conflict of interest, socking, fringe science edorsement, etc. It's a pretty tangled mess, and I don't know this stuff well enough to really help, so I thought I'd post a notice here. It seems related to this bimetric gravity stuff that's been posted about a couple times here recently as well. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to make the same request: for someone who knows physics to take a look at that page and its talk page. There is a very new user who claims Petit is a fraud promoting fringe science; there are long-term editors defending Petit who seem to have spent their entire career here writing about Petit; there are accusations flying around including possible doxxing which I had to remove; it really needs expert input. I found it at Requests for page protection and the argument spilled over to there. I am going to decline the RFP as a content dispute; if you think full protection would help let me know. Thanks for any input. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have full-protected the page for 2 days because of edit warring. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: I just did a substantial cleanup job on the article Thibault Damour, which had a Petit-related "controversy" section that violated WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE and (due to substandard sourcing) WP:BLP for starters. I can easily see an edit war spreading there, too, however.
There may also be WP:BLP issues with that article, with claims and counter-claims about academic misconduct cited to unreliable primary sources. This isn't a good week for me to put time into sorting out a mess like that, though. XOR'easter (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now they've brought up the "right of reply", which as a legal concept has in my experience the dubious distinction of only ever being invoked by physics crackpots. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if anyone wanted to melt the article down to slag, I wouldn't object. But it's end-of-semester time, and not a great season to get stuck in interminable wiki-drama.... XOR'easter (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my comments on that Talk page represent a substantial fraction of the attention that the physics community has paid to the "Janus cosmological model". And now: a time for ANI. XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion at Talk:Classical limit#Discussion on proposed merger??

This concerns the proposed merger of classical limit and Newtonian limit. Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Conductive" redirect

Many pages currently link to Conductive, which redirects to Electrical conductor. I wonder whether it ought to redirect to Electrical resistivity and conductivity, which is a separate article. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Conduction redirects to the Conductor disambig page and Conductivity is another disambig page. All of "conduction", "conductive" and "conductivity" have other usages as well as electrical, for example thermal. I would suggest that Conductive be updated so that it also points to one of the disambig pages. The pages that link to it can then be more readily disambiguated at source. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on context, but I lean towards "conductive" being better in general because it's a less-technical article on a less-technical topic. I feel like non-technical people have a good chance of understanding the concept of "things that conduct electricity", whereas resistance and conductance are more obscure. --Steve (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Room-temperature superconductor

Room-temperature superconductor was just mentioned over at WP:FRINGEN as an article that needs some cleanup. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&oldid=897282916"