Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2009

List of Radioactive Elements

List of Radioactive Elements has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It was changed to a redirect on March 14, 2009 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Radioactive Elements. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of side boxes for physics articles

What is the best way to include lists of boring but relatively important and encyclopedic knowledge within the larger prose of an article. In magnetic field, there is a section entitled 'Alternative names for B and H' that annoys me because it interrupts the flow of the article, yet is important enough to keep. What I would love to do is shove it into a side box out of the main flow. I am worried though about creep of editor laziness on my part. (I already shove too many things I don't what to do with into the references.) Is there any policy banning the use of side boxes and/or general guidance about what to do in these situations? TStein (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Organizing Fermi level / chemical potential-related articles

This was a discussion at Talk:Fermi level, but it may be of wider interest. There are strong overlaps and inconsistencies among the articles Chemical potential, Electrochemical potential, Fermi level, and Fermi energy. (Plus a few related related ones, like work function, electron affinity, etc.) Part of the problem is that no one can agree on definitions. Here's my take...

Concept	What electrochemists call it	What solid-state physicists call it	What semiconductor physicists call it	Current location	Steve's proposed location
Total chemical potential of electrons	Electrochemical potential of electrons	Chemical potential (of electrons)	Fermi level or Fermi energy	Chemical potential, Fermi level	Fermi level (plus a short description and "main article" link in chemical potential)
Internal chemical potential of electrons	Chemical potential of electrons	Electrochemical potential (of electrons)	"Fermi level relative to vacuum", or "Fermi level relative to the conduction-band-minimum", etc.	Little bits of Fermi level and Fermi energy, A section of Chemical potential	Maybe Work function, although they're only approximately the same...
Internal chemical potential of electrons at 0K	N/A	Fermi energy (common), Fermi level (rare)	"Fermi level at zero kelvin" or something like that	Fermi energy and Fermi level, (redundantly)	Just Fermi energy
Total chemical potential of non-electrons	Electrochemical potential	Chemical potential	N/A	Chemical potential and Electrochemical potential	Just Chemical potential
Internal chemical potential of non-electrons	Chemical potential	Electrochemical potential	N/A	A section of chemical potential	A section of chemical potential

As part of this, I would propose reducing the electrochemical potential article down to a short discussion of terminology and a link to the chemical potential article, which already covers the exact same concept.

What do people think? Any suggestions or criticisms or better ideas?

In particular, any better ideas for article titles? For example, Fermi level was recently created as article about the first line, but Headbomb changed it to be an article about the third line, because the solid-state physics terminology (third column) tells him that the term "Fermi level" means the concept in the third line. We don't want things like this to happen...we want article titles where everyone can agree what the article should be about. --Steve (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as some input, the concepts of Fermi level and Fermi energy are not unique to just electrons but in principle apply to any fermion gas. (For example, a crude model of a neutron star can be made by assuming that it can be treated as a fermion gas.) It is very clear what is meant by fermi level and fermi energy in this context, and this matches the definition given in the lead of Fermi level (if you think fermion for electron). This is, what I would expect to be treated in the fermi level article. But I concede, that this might be a personal preference due to my background in theoretical physics. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Reassessment request for Transmission electron microscopy

This page has been improved by several editors (>100 edits), with some new diagrams, sections and references, but is still listed as "C" class Class C Revision -- can someone who is more familiar with the requirements review this? Thanks. It has a few "fact" tags still though... User A1 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Combinatorial physics

I was not familiar with the term, MathSciNet gave only 3 hits and no clear definition, ditto for the references supplied. It appears to be a catchy neologism only used by a narrow group of people. Possible WP:Fringe violation. Arcfrk (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Article now renamed as combinatorics and physics. Charvest (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In need of someone who speaks Russian at Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics

I'm trying to copy edit this, but I don't speak Russian so I can't format the references give, or tell if the two entries saying that the IREaE is responsible for the "first radar mapping" of Venus are duplicates of each other, etc... Thanks.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• The format of the reference is the same as that used in Russian Wikipedia, so I've left the Russian and added a translation. The first two bullet points are referring to different sets of observations, as the reference I've added makes clear (unfortunately, it's also in Russian! but it has some pretty pictures!): the early radar observations of Venus apparently came from the Venera 4 probe. Physchim62 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Could you give a translation of the Russian title (placed in brackets) and a transliteration of the author's name for the first ref (unless there's a reason not to, of course). It's very hard to parse the Cyrillic alphabet or to get an idea about what it's about. Something like "J.F. Rodionova, Карты Венеры [Maps of Venus]." (Well, according to Babelfish at least).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Centrifugal force subsection revision

A few editors have commented about a bloated subsection in Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). I've put a proposed revision for this section on the talk page as a simpler, shorter, and more focused summary. The discussion could however use additional voices. Any comments and feedback on the proposed revision would be appreciated. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Perpetual motion

Perhaps I'm wrong, but perpetual motion seems to be a rather dubious page. There's some recent discussion on talk:perpetual motion. If any knowledgeable contributors want to comment, it'd be appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Convective available potential energy / Convective instability

Hello

Two articles (both previously in WikiProject Physics, now one)—Convective instability and Convective available potential energy were merged. Now there is a discussion as to whether it is appropriate to have the merged article recreated to describe the phenomenon in less technical specificity and in a manner appropriate to at least one class of interested readers. If you care, could you please review Talk:Convective instability#Fork?

Thanks, Bongomatic 23:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Quark nominated for GA

The quark article is has been nominated as a good article. It would be nice if somebody who hasn't worked on the article could review it. Thanks. (Note that any established user can review GA articles! So, if you'v never done so go for it.) (TimothyRias (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

Nuclear weapons and the scope of this project

Recently various article on nuclear weapons were added to this project. Since I couldn't find any obvious importance of specific bombs like Big Boy to the development of physics (they belong in the realm of engineering, milhist, etc.), so I removed the banners. Clearly not everybody agrees with this since the banners were readded a day later. So, I am putting it up here for discussion to form some form of consensus. So, do nuclear weapons such as Little boy, Big Boy and their tests such as Trinity test, belong within the scope of WP physics? If so, what importance rating should they be given? (TimothyRias (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

I agree with you. Nuclear weapons are not physics. At best, the engineering uses some ideas from physics, so it is an application. However, it is true that some big name physicists, e.g. Richard Feynman, worked on nuclear weapons. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: All this is only my opinion, not some declaration of how things actually are.) Well these specific ones would be part of the upcoming history taskforce (see #New taskforces above), and so would all bombs with some kind of historical significance to physics (such as The Gadget). Bomb designs (such as Teller-Ulam design), IMO belong in this project too (although probably not the history taskforce). Specific nuclear weapons tests or weapons such as Chagan (nuclear test) or AN-11 bomb are cleary out of the scope of this project. There's WP:WEAPON for them (and all the other previously mentionned article as well). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. I recently evaluated a number of these and I let some through, iirc, and removed some physics tags as well. Like it or not, physics is associated with the Manhattan project. TStein (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Turbulence

The turbulence article is a mess at the moment, see here. For the time being, I reverted to a version of 8 March, and would very much appreciate help to sort things out. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jet engine performance

Jet engine performance has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the ProD. The reason for deletion was essentially that it was badly written. The article met none of the WP:Del that I could see. TStein (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)