Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics Main / Talk |
Members | Quality Control (talk) |
Welcome |
Physics Project‑class | |||||||
|
This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011 |
Big Bang – 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Nomination of GRSI model for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRSI model until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Vote to request wikipedia library seek access to APS archive[edit]
Many historic and important primary sources are in "Physical Review". These sources are all behind a paywall. I found that UC Santa Barbara Library removed most of the old physical copies as well. Sources for physics article would be much easier to assemble if we could access them online via the Wikipedia library.
On the page for wikipedia library suggestion you can search for "aps" and click one button to increase the chance of addition. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- What is this about?--ReyHahn (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ReyHahn sorry I was cryptic. I rewrote my post. Hope this helps. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Btw, the upvote button is not visible unless you're logged in to Wikipedia library. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ReyHahn sorry I was cryptic. I rewrote my post. Hope this helps. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
MKS units (again)[edit]
It is being advocated by Dondervogel 2 in edits that independent of the renaming discussion, "system of units" needs to be used for grammatical reasons in MKS units. I am listing here as I remember this being a heated discussion involving many from here. Please comment at Talk:MKS units. (My personal opinion is that it is just "MKS units", and "system of" is irrelevant: meters, kilograms and seconds are units.) Ldm1954 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Would anyone like to try their hand at providing the requested little blue numbers at Galaxy? I started but might not be able to finish. (Already asked at WT:ASTRONOMY, but I figured cross-posting couldn't hurt.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I finished (in part by deleting some text to be sure). I found several cases of unverifiable references and primary refs where secondary should have been used. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I was going to let this go but it seems that the correspondence principle is labeled of high importance. While revising the literature I found that what is presented in the wiki article is a very naive version and it does not address Bohr's version or the problem/definition issues of the modern take on the principle. If somebody wants to help, see Talk:Correspondence principle and Standford Encyclopedia. ReyHahn (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
In 2016 an article for the 750 GeV diphoton excess was created. This excess vanished in August 2016 data. In 2023 publications about a 95 GeV excess were accepted by Physics Letters (1) and Physical Review (2), with many more articles in arXiv. I wonder if this is enough basis for an article 95 GeV diphoton excess. What do you think: is an article justified? Kallichore (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest moving 750 GeV diphoton excess -> Diphoton excess and adding a section for 95 GeV. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I added a short section to the article. I would like to wait with radical changes to the article. It is an open question if the 95 GeV is more than a statistical fluctuation. There is also a lack of press coverage right now. What I find interesting: this article in Scientific American does not mention this excess, but the translation in German does ("rätselhafte Ausschläge bei der Messung von Photonenpaaren"). --Kallichore (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The change has been reverted now. @Mfb: What is you opinion on the question in the beginning (enough basis?)? By the way: Physics Letters accepted several articles, this one was accepted in June 2022. --Kallichore (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a tiny excess in CMS and essentially nothing in ATLAS. With the large number of measurements published we see things like this several times per year. That's why it gets no attention apart from a few theorist papers. If that gets more attention in the future then we can make a separate article about it. Putting it into the 750 GeV article makes no sense either way, it would be a completely different thing. As I mentioned on its talk page, the Higgs produces an excess in the two photon channel (over models without Higgs), too. --mfb (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
This article: Thermodynamics of nanostructures seems weird to me. It is a composition of many different subjects in order to create a global article under that name. It is true that there are many things to study about the thermal properties of nano-sized objects, but it is the title notable? Wouldn't it be better if each topic was in their specific article? Also concerns of with the writing style have been raised at Talk:Thermodynamics of nanostructures. Also importance "mid"? ReyHahn (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- It appears that someone thought that Thermodynamics was short for Thermal dynamics. I have added that the name should be changed to Thermal transport in nanostructures -- wait a week first for comments? I have also added some other tags as it needs massive changes in everything IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, any volunteers to rewrite this article. Thermal transport at the nanoscale is a big topic, and all the current refs are 19 or more years old. While I know a little about the area, I don't know enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:N = 2 superconformal algebra#Requested move 7 March 2024[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:N = 2 superconformal algebra#Requested move 7 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Killarnee (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This looks like synthesis. I am unsure what to do about it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- It seems like the article as it is written has synthesis, as admitted by the author on the talk page. For the topic itself, it is a broad concept that is talked about in many different fields. For instance, this ScienceDirect overview, which admittedly is probably AI generated, talks about information visualization, data analysis, human interface design, perceptual organization, and globalization. This would probably be best presented as a disambiguation page or perhaps a broad concept article. Closeness, a synonym, is a DAB, as is Proximity. Near sets is an article, but also with a lot of synthesis. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}
16:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I prodded, with the following reason:
- Original research and synthesis. Yes, "spatial proximity" is central to geography and economics. Yes, special proximity is modulated by architects when they design buildings, and by urban planners when they alter cities. Yes, spatial proximity is important to user interface design and industrial design, and, yes, many books have been written on these topics. Yes, spatial proximity is studied by neuroscience (the so-called grid cells). Yes, in psychology and psychopathology, there is a concept of personal space. Not sure what gestalt has to do with it. This article is just a synthesis of these ideas; it only fails to mention that spatial proximity is important for quantum systems, and for the placement of satellites in orbit, to avoid e.g. the Kessler effect from excess spatial proximity. I do not see a path for converting this article into anything meaningful, beyond a dictionary definition.
- If it gets unproded, it should move to AfD with the same reason. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC).
- 'Yes, "spatial proximity" is central to geography and economics.'
- Sounds like a argument for splitting in to spatial proximity (geography) and spatial proximity (economics). Johnjbarton (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The gestalt concept is discussed at Principles of grouping#Proximity. That article might benefit from the sources here. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I prodded, with the following reason:
Specialist in General relativity[edit]
Good day! Is there some editor specialist in the (mathematics) of general relativity willing to donate some time to help me improve the recently created article about Tom Ilmanen? I've placed a tag on my own edit there, because I'm a layman and can't write it with confidence. (I wrote the article because of a Quanta Magazine story which seemed cool!). Thanks! Gererhyme (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Rajendra P. Gupta[edit]
Hi, Do you think that Rajendra P. Gupta (Q124980643) is notable enough for an article? He recently published very unusual proposals in cosmology, i.e. File:JWST early Universe observations and ΛCDM cosmology.pdf and File:Testing CCC+TL Cosmology with Observed Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Features - Gupta 2024 ApJ 964 55.pdf , which are commented in several places, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Google hits, list of his publications. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Very, very unlikely. In general Wikipedia only covers established ideas, not new ones which rules against his recent papers. He would need to have multiple papers (e.g. > 30) by others already published or submitted based upon his ideas. With an h-factor of 14 and no major awards I doubt that he would make the academic notability bar WP:NPROF on his other work. (I only found Fellow of RAS which I don't think is major enough. If there is more....) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)