Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive May 2020

Cosmic Dawn Center

Another new article that could stand evaluating. XOR'easter (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks reputable. Is there a problem? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC).

No real indication of notability (not much in the way of sources talking about the Center itself), potential COI editing. XOR'easter (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems scientifically reputable: not new age babble, as its title might suggest. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC).

Facemasks

Physicist review of Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic would be useful. Some related pages, like Vaporized hydrogen peroxide, which for some reason also covers H2O2 plasma, also need work. HLHJ (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What part of that article are you concerned about? What issue depends on physics? JRSpriggs (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Some eyes/opinions on a few points may help ...

Talk:Classical electron radius#Unsupported claim and Talk:Planck units#Conversions between units?. —Quondum 02:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. The former looks like it's becoming one of those time-sink disasters that generally make this whole project less fun and useful for everybody. It did, however, indirectly lead me to look up the fully relativistic expression for the electron-positron annihilation cross section, which has even more square roots in it than I had remembered:

${\frac {4\pi r_{e}^{2}}{\gamma +1}}\left[{\frac {\gamma ^{2}+4\gamma +1}{\gamma ^{2}-1}}\ln \left(\gamma +{\sqrt {\gamma ^{2}-1}}\right)+{\sqrt {\gamma ^{2}-1}}-{\frac {\gamma +3}{\sqrt {\gamma ^{2}-1}}}\right].$

This applies for decays into pairs of photons, not three or more, and which decay path predominates can depend upon, e.g., whether the positronium "atom" is in a singlet or triplet state. Fun! :-) XOR'easter (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Hawking radiation

I noticed that Hawking radiation has a few "citation needed" tags for standard material that is probably explained in dozens of places, so if anyone has references that they find particularly good, those should be filled in. XOR'easter (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Do we need to add them? There is a type of almost troll-like crank who goes around adding s where they are not really needed and wastes peoples' time. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC).

If you think they look superfluous and want to remove them, I won't object (say, if there's a citation at the end of a paragraph that covers the whole thing). XOR'easter (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the citation needed tags seem to relate to requests for more information needed at that point, and if these are explained elsewhere as per Xxanthippe, then perhaps they should be replaced by links to the relevant sections of the article. —Quondum 13:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Milgrom constant

A new article on a term that doesn't actually appear to be used, pertaining to a minority view of physics and cosmology. I redirected it to Modified Newtonian dynamics, but I'm not actually sure it's a term even people who care about MOND would search for, since there are orders of magnitude more MOND papers than instances of "Milgrom constant" or "Milgrom's constant". Maybe, maybe not. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Even our article on MOND calls the new fundamental constant "a₀", rather than "Milgrom's constant". JRSpriggs (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion debate for Relational approach to quantum physics

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relational approach to quantum physics may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Fringe results at One-way speed of light

I undid ([1]) some i.m.o. questionable edits at One-way speed of light. See Talk:One-way speed of light#Fringe results. Eyes and comments welcome. - DVdm (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Scipost

SciPost an open-access journal, has been deleted before. Somebody should check (now that it has more time out there) if its admissibility in Wikipedia has changed.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the old AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Browsing through about half of the links that are not effectively self-published, the dominant patterns is that it is mentioned as an example of an entity in open access publishing model: the topic of most of the references is the model and not SciPost, and in all shows little more than existence of SciPost. I doubt that a keep case (i.e. notability) could be built. —Quondum 14:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the sourcing seems rather poor. Passing mentions, not independent, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)