Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive March 2023

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Franklin's electrostatic machine

As part of a whole big thing, the article Franklin's electrostatic machine needs a thorough check-up. Possible issues include copyvio or plagiarism from cited sources, sources being cited incorrectly (either with wrong metadata or disconnected from the material they ostensibly support), and sources being treated as reliable when they aren't. I noticed one problem after skimming the page history, but there may be more. XOR'easter (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

See also Experiments and Observations on Electricity for the same reasons. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Something weird going on at Negative mass

Strange edits by a new editor. They remind me of another account, so this is possibly a sock, but I don't have time to look into it right now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Degree vs Order Of coherence

Degree of coherence is well linked to other articles, however today I found out Orders Of Coherence which to me seems to be about the same topic (also the latter has never been wikistylized as the capitalization and plural use in the title). Are these two the same subject? Should I request a merge? I am also concerned for if we need seperate articles for Bose-Einstein correlations (which is a mess even after cleaning it up) and photon antibunching (without photon bunching article).--ReyHahn (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

[Disclaimer: I am very much a non-expert, so rank my opinion very low.] The two terms seem to refer to different concepts (as may be inferred from "degree of nth-order coherence". However, they are evidently so closely linked that they are part of the same topic and should be discussed in the same article, and a merge seems appropriate. It is difficult to know what the merged title should be – maybe Higher-order coherence to distinguish it from Coherence (physics)? —Quondum 18:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if we can give second order coherence its own article (because it is what explains thins like the anti bunching and bunching, and is what most student look at) and maybe make another more technical for higher order coherences where we throw in of the other complications in these articles. --ReyHahn (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I started a Merge proposal. Please join in, specially if you have any objections.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"tensor boson"

How widely accepted is the term "tensor boson", and are there better alternatives for spin-2 particles? Its use seems to be rather limited, both inside and outside WP. I have heard the Higgs field described as a scalar field, and I can understand the derivation of "scalar boson", but the use of the word "tensor" to distinguish it from scalar (as well as "vector" and "spinor") fields seems so utterly wrong. —Quondum 16:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Any in-wiki examples? I think for the graviton it is just more specific to just call it a spin-2 boson.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

These are the only examples that I find:

Boson: "A tensor boson (spin = 2) called the graviton (G) ..."
Baryon number: "graviton — a hypothetical tensor boson"
Glueball (an exception): "Triple-gluon glueballs can have total angular momentum $J$ = 1 (vector boson) or 3 (third-order tensor boson)."
Graviton (infobox): "Family Tensor boson"
Elementary particle: "The hypothetical graviton has spin = 2 and is a tensor boson"

—Quondum 17:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

In order to keep precision, most of those entries could be corrected by changing "tensor bosons" to "higher order tensor bosons" when in reference to vector and scalar bosons.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense in this context to simply follow your first suggestion, and call them spin-0, spin-1 and spin-2 bosons? The terms "scalar", "vector", "tensor" and "higher-order tensor" are just so much voodoo here, given that no coherent connection to the usual use of these names appears to be available in WP? —Quondum 18:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

To me it's fine either way. In articles like boson, elementary particle and baryon number it is clear that scalar and vector bosons are being defined so adding "second order tensor" could make sense. In the infobox of graviton I would just use spin-2 or second order tensor boson. In general, I agree that just writing "tensor boson" without any more indication seems confusing and provides little to no information.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks – tweaked accordingly. —Quondum 21:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a personal note of possibly no great importance to the discussion: The term seems reasonable and potentially useful to me. I'm aware that scalars and vectors are also tensors, but Grice's maxim of relevance comes into play. --Trovatore (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

... which is why I first wanted to figure out how useful it is as a term. But its use is clearly confusing WP editors, as evidenced by linking to Stress–energy tensor and Tensor field, which helps not a jot. If it is not established, it will not meet the criteria mentioned. Even Vector boson is just confusing in its attempt to explain that term. I know what scalar, vector and bivector fields are, and the idea of spin being determined by the order of the tensor is tricky (beyond me). It also does not help with the EM field being a bivector field, not a vector field, etc., and that any of these fields can be treated as a spinor field (OR alert). —Quondum 17:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Johannes Droste

I recently created a draft for Dutch mathematician Johannes Droste. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Best, Thriley (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

What's Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics?

Do we need Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics? clearly many things can be said about this topic, but also about many topics in physics and those do not have a philosophy wiki article. At best it could be merged with philosophy of physics... ReyHahn (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics Lithopsian (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That being, I would then propose a merge, there is no mention of philosophy of thermal physics in philosophy of physics and as short as it is, it easily fits there.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No objection to a merge. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and merged the text. XOR'easter (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment for Electricity

Would anyone like to take a poke at this and maybe bring it to a successful conclusion? XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Electricity has kept its GA status. Astronomy still needs work. XOR'easter (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Flattening

Moved to talk:mode-k flattening

65.92.244.151 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

~~To me, this article, and the edits to Tensor, look kinda fishy at a brief glance.~~ —Quondum 01:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Quondum: Which article, and whose edits to Tensor? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

By "this article", I meant Flattening. On review, I'll retract what I said. What I first thought might be a WP:SELFCITE problem is likely only an interactive trait, so I should not focus on that here. —Quondum 13:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Salvatore Pais

There is an interview on YouTube with Salvatore Pais where he explains / tries to explain the physics behind his infamous patents. I'm not a phyisicist, can you guys please watch the interview and comment on the physics and if what he says is gibberish as the previous-years- criticisms say or if he actually "knows his shit"? His name will forever come up when talking about "secret US breakthrough propulsion" respectively UAP / UFO in general so some professional physicists should review what he says please (and update his article?). Link to interview https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5E6QyAhTB3o Edit: just discovered part 2 on YouTube, now he is talking to theoretical physicist Stephon Alexander:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PE4C7OI7Frg 2A02:8106:208:9200:25EB:89F2:BD87:750F (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Having spent the well over half an hour trying to find anything concrete in this over two-hour video and failing to, I am reasonably confident in saying that it is a masterpiece in unwatchability for anyone who is trying to get to the core of any fresh physics concept that might be contained. It is massively disrespectful to the interested would-be physisict's (and even more so to the trained physicist's) time. Judging from, my sampling, it is just Pais's presentation of a range of topics and effects that could be related. It is is disorganized and rambling (though not incoherent), and spends the bulk of the time simply referencing context (e.g., the challenges of submitting patents in the US Navy), referencing other comments (such as the Schwinger limit), as confirmed by the timeline segmentation with tags. The presenter gives no other reference framework (e.g. what is background, what is built on it) to allow us to review it effectively. I am left guessing that, in it all, Pais does not say anything substantive and what he does say is surface only and not indicative of any deep understanding. Examples such as his drawing attention to the "Planck force" in the Einstein field equations hints at a pseudo-science mindset. Even the host seems unimpressed/puzzled at the end. I would suggest that unless someone is particularly interested in Pais as a personality, don't waste your time on this. —Quondum 13:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reaction and professional comments. Very much appreciated. I also had the impression he didn't "deep-dive" into anything, even if I lack the physics knowledge I felt he repeatedly avoided answering the host's questions and instead often talked about some physics books and other physicists and so on. All that name-dropping "this and that doctor...", "nobel-price winners x and y", "very good book", I subjectively wouldn't think that's how (the usual) physicists actually talk, right? Again thanks 2A02:8106:208:9200:25EB:89F2:BD87:750F (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)