Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

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

Integration of Viscous Cosmology and 4.8 keV Fermionic Condensate Model (7.5σ significance)

Hello. I am Alexander Shlyapik, an independent researcher in cosmology. I would like to propose a discussion on the neutral inclusion of the "Fermionic Universe Hypothesis" (FUH) into Wikipedia articles related to the Hubble law and the H0 tension.

My recent work (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19116034) utilizes current DESI (2025/2026) data to present a hydrodynamic resolution of cosmological tensions via a 4.8 keV fermionic condensate. The model provides a statistical preference of 7.5-sigma over the standard Lambda-CDM model by introducing a viscous "Cosmic Brake" mechanism at the 7.76 keV phase transition threshold.

I am aware of the Conflict of Interest (COI) guidelines, which is why I am bringing this to the WikiProject Physics talk page instead of editing the articles directly. Given the 7.5-sigma significance and the relevance of viscous cosmology to the current H0 debate, I believe this warrants a brief, neutral mention in the "Possible resolutions" sections of the relevant pages.

I welcome the community’s feedback on how to properly integrate these findings in accordance with Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources and neutrality.

Best regards, Alexander Shlyapik. Alexander Shlyapik (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose As I described when I reverted your edit to Hubble's law, this work is not peer reviewed. We don't use self published sources except for rare cases of recognized experts reviewing aspects of their field. Wikipedia is a tertiary publication venue: we summarize reviews. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment I should say, I commented on User talk:Alexander Shlyapik#Use of self-published sources, where I also mentioned the existence of WikiProject Physics and suggested to discuss the underlying theory (Viscous Cosmology) and whether it has merit. Renerpho (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

To be blunt about it, the fact that the DOI says "zenodo" in it is enough to conclude that this is not suitable for Wikipedia. This is not the platform to mention novel proposals or models. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:The White Matter Balance Theory (TWMBT)

I hope that this request isn't too completely out of line. To paraphrase Spock, I'm a chemist, not a physicist. (That means I studied sophomore physics, but none of the upper-class physics courses.) Will someone please take a quick look at this draft that I have just declined, and verify that this is just another crackpot theory? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The content is not relevant to the encyclopedia because the article has no references. Decline is appropriate. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It has no references because it isn't based on real physics. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Tagged for G3 speedy deletion. I've encountered drivel like this before. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I doubt that it is an intentional hoax. Looks more like a fairly typical 'theory' from someone who has mistaken Wikipedia for somewhere that will publish a meaningless concoction of sciency words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep, it's run-of-the-mill physics crankery. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

"Omegendlig Velocity", the only thing mentioned that isn't vague waffling about black holes, gives 0 hits on a web search, which makes me think that it's OR to the extent that it's actually saying anything physically meaningful at all. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

"Body mass" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Body mass has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 25 § Body mass until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The Core Contest returns

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value".

The VIT4 listing for physics still shows quite a few start class articles, including turbulence, critical point, osmosis and cloud chamber that might make for interesting projects to work on! Most C-class articles are probably in a similar need for TLC. Signups are open now —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Piezoelectricity#Impact Energy Absorption and Smart Sensing Devices

This section of the piezoelectricity article has been tagged for possible AI content since last fall. It is in many places outdated (e.g., Tire company Goodyear has plans to develop... sourced to a news story from over a decade ago). Attention would be welcome. At the moment, I would not object to deleting the section and starting over. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The area of TENGs and PENGs is full of promo/NPOV work. That specific section was definitely promo/refspam, I went bold and deleted it. Other parts such as the tire section is definitely not NPOV. My opinion is that unless there are actual products on the market with sales in the $10**7 range or more we should not include them, no WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I cleaned the Piezoelectricity#Application section up. The main sections there could do with some sources, particularly newer ones, but otherwise look OK to me. There were some sections which were tacked on, partial Refspam and partial overlap with what was already there; I deleted much of that (with some awful spelling in the edit summaries). I left the electro-momentum coupling section there as I have seen mention of that before/elsewhere, so it is probably OK; I would have no issue if someone felt it did not belong. I also left a couple of other sections in that look real. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox scientist -> Infobox academic

@InfoboxEditor26 has been [systematically] changing scientist biographies from {{Infobox scientist}} to {{Infobox academic}}, eg Wilhelm Röntgen Philipp Lenard Hendrik Lorentz Pieter Zeeman. I think this kind of change should be discussed. It does not seem like a win to me. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Gallileo Physics books

I am interested in opinions about De motu antiquiora and Le Mecaniche which are extended descriptions of two of his books heavily edited by Dantestyrael. The references are certainly not well structured, and I have to wonder if this is how such articles should be structured. As "Physics books" this is at least 75% the right project to discuss/edit/concensus/own these pages. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The majority of De motu antiquiora and Le Mecaniche are inappropriate. A synopsis of a historical work is at best a lengthy exposition supported by a primary source. It's not encyclopedia material. There are lots of sources which analyze these works: we should be summarizing these sources, not creating a new one. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like one or two more opinions; if they are the same I will delete the Synopsis sections. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes I think I should be less strident and idealistic. Perhaps a better strategy is to encourage more additions of analysis sources to the synopsis. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Reference spamming?

@~2026-54372-4 has added the same 2026 book citation to 9 articles. The one in Schrödinger equation did not add verification. I moved the one in Geometric phase from intro to Further reading.

I don't know if this is WP:REFSPAM or enthusiasm. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Their previous edits all added works by the same author (Sinitsyn): [1][2][3][4]. This looks like refspam to me. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Very obvious refspam by a professional scientist. I think what has to be done (I did it) is:

1. Revert all the additions
2. Place a warning on their talk page. I dud it at level 2.
3. Monitor. Hopefully they will apologise, but sometimes they will continue in which case your csn either do a level 3 warning or go to WP:ANI to request a block.

Ldm1954 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Liquid crystal particle analogs?

Similarly to Hydrodynamic quantum analogs, there are now quickly growing these liquid crystal analogs of phenomena from particle physics. Therefore, I have gathered top journal 6 articles covering (already in their titles): Coulomb, charge quantization, annihilation, time crystals, Kibble-Zurek, fusion/fission into this initial article, also emailed some their authors like Ivan Smalyukh asking to help improving it. However, it was deleted and shifted to Draft, and I was suggested to ask here for help? Jarek Duda (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fok state#Requested move 12 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fok state#Requested move 12 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I reverted the undiscussed move.--Srleffler (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)