Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Physics
Main / Talk
Members Quality Control
(talk)
Welcome

WikiProject iconPhysics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Nomination of GRSI model for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GRSI model is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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.

Possible delete of Anindya Das[edit]

I have nominated him for deletion here. It is a tricky case, as he has a significant national junior award, but a weak publication history. Comments welcome on that page, am I being too harsh? Ldm1954 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be interested in expert opinions. This page (and some others) were created by a PhD student who claims it/they are notable as he is an expert. I have reservations, but this is beyond my area of expertise. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could be prodded until there are more RS: only arXiv sources now. Nothing proves notability except for RSs. An arXiv preprint is not considered to be a RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Addendum, there is Quantum Task Force with a small number of young members who are focusing, it appears, on adding pages on new concepts, many of which are in arXiv. WP:TOOSOON ??? They are also looking at (the page indicates) other quantum pages such as the EPR paradox and similar which I believe several people such as JohnJBarton, ReyHahn and XOR'easter have spent a lot of time and thinking on. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The effort seems defunct. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took a quick look at the article and its refs.
The quantum singular value transformation is described as an overarching approach for quantum algorithms. In the context of quantum computing this work is notable, with hundreds of citations of the two key papers, at least some are secondary. Yes this is new, but there are lots of citations.
However, the article should be merged into quantum algorithms. That is the context where the value of the approach would be clearer. The current article only contains two sentences that provide any information. Since quantum computing remains hypothetical, I don't think this tiny article needs to be standalone at this time. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your suggestions looks reasonable. Would anyone else like to comment/agree with this edit/redirect -- 1 redirect & 1 delete is not that definitive. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a discussion whether two old studies should be included in the article or not, more people having a look would be good: Page history, Discussion. --mfb (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Norma cluster vs Norma Cluster?[edit]

Not a big issue but I'm unclear how to apply WP:NCCAPS. Is Norma Cluster a proper name? or is Norma the name of a cluster, so Norma cluster? Johnjbarton (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy are likely to be more knowledgeable about this convention, but looking at Category:Galaxy clusters, it seems the capitalized version is the norm. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harold E. Puthoff has worked in mainstream areas of physics and in unconventional or fringe areas. There is a debate here [1], and also his talk, about NPOV and balance in his BIO. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I would say he has worked in "mainstream" areas. Even the most mainstream article he wrote is essentially a riposte against quantum mechanics, albeit one that could have interesting pedagogical implications in the same way that, say, one could potentially show using strictly classical electrodynamics that electromagnetic waves can carry angular momentum. If anyone knows of sources which cite Puthoff's mainstream work and contextualizes it as mainstream, I'd be grateful. So far, all we've got are debunkings and weird journalistic jaunts that seem to suffer from classic wool-pulled-over-the-eyes more than anything. Arthur C. Clarke certainly didn't seem to understand what was going on, but was thrilled to use the SHARP drive in 3001. That may be the high water mark? jps (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a consensus that Harold E. Puthoff is notable? I don't want to spend hours reading sources and writing a section in the article only to discover that it will be deleted. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my opinion here.[2] I encourage uninvolved editors to edit the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Dear physicists:

I think the virtual photon article should be deleted or merged into the virtual particle article. It cites only two sources, and only about a dozen of articles link to it. What do you think? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think nothing is lost if that becomes a redirect. --mfb (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree here.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spin magnetic moment?[edit]

Do we need Spin magnetic moment, "Magnetic moment derived from particle spin"

We have Spin (physics), Magnetic moment, Electron magnetic moment, Nuclear magnetic moment and Nucleon magnetic moment.

The Spin magnetic moment article is comparable in content to the subsection Spin_(physics)#Magnetic_moments. The history is lame because it's just a paraphrase of the spin history. The chemistry section is just wrong (it's about spin, not spin magnetic moment).

I think we should merge Spin magnetic moment into Spin (physics) Johnjbarton (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support the merge. Spin magnetic moment is barely a term.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Altermagnetism[edit]

I've created a stub for altermagnetism, which seems to be very much in the news at the moment. I'd greatly appreciate any help for editors who know more about this subject. In particular: for adding it to the template {{magnetic states}}, is altermagnetism remanent or not? I also imagine the article magnetic structure probably needs to be revised in light of this. — The Anome (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up and especially for researching the key references!
In my opinion altermagnetism is not notable at this time. There are no scientific secondary sources and the experimental reports too new. I see claims for new states of matter phenomena all the time with a couple of news articles and a couple of papers. Of course this case could be different, but we don't know now.
Our readers and especially our editors would be much better served by improvements to Magnetism and Magnetic structure to include this topic as a paragraph. One could be selected as a target of a redirect from altermagnetism. If the topic grows and the paragraph expands, a new article could be split out. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The subject has not yet become notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]
While I agree with John that there are currently not that many published papers, I would still suggest holding off any merging/deletion actions. My impression is that the idea has caught on in the research community, and as an indication of that there are currently 100 preprints in arXiv that mention altermagnetism. In most of them it is a central topic (not just a passing mention). It does not take a crystal ball to see that many of those preprints will get published, and the sheer number of those works will be enough to establish notability. I don't see that this material would be very useful for Magnetism or Magnetic structure, because the new classification is quite technical. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wanted to start such an article but found it was not notable enough yet. WP:TOOSOON.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I agree with Jähmefyysikko about holding off. The number of cites of the original papers is already quite large and there are a couple of secondary sources. I find the topic interesting, and I think it is sound and not fluff -- I was not aware of it. It is at the edge of my area of (in)competence. The band structure results are very solid, I see no reason to question them, this is not cold fusion. The experiments also look solid, and include people I know are careful and trust. Maybe tag (on the talk page?) to revisit it in six months. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please check: Action principles[edit]

I created a new page called action principles as an overview of many pages related to least action. Please check it. If it looks like this page will be acceptable, I will follow up with a formal request to merge Stationary-action principle into it. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I WP:BOLDly merged Plekton merged into Braid statistics. Next I propose to merge Braid statistics into Anyon.

I stumbled upon these from Parastatistics which AFAICT is not physics but math. From the physics point of view it would be WP:FRINGE: there are no para-thingys. The concept comes about by reasoning "what if nature were different?". Like "what if we had faster than light travel" but not nearly as fun ;-). Johnjbarton (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated this for deletion as it seems to be too soon to me. Please comment on the deletion page. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems inconsistent with the discussion above for Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Altermagnetism.
Altermagnetism was proposed in 2022; Rydberg computers appeared in a lengthy Rev. of Mod. Physics article in 2010. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please weigh in at Talk:Azimuthal_quantum_number#Proposal_to_rename_to_"Orbital_quantum_number" if you have an opinion on my proposal to rename. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're not doing this.
Resolved
Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A move request was started here: Talk:Atomic_theory#Requested_move_21_February_2024. ReyHahn (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerns on what to do with Heisenberg's entryway to matrix mechanics have been raised here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science#Is this an introduction to Heisenberg matrix mechanics?. ReyHahn (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Archimedes' screw#Requested move 17 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was made by somebody following this competition [3] The article as it currently stands has no valid sources (2 YouTube videos and some unpublished lecture notes). I am not even sure that the name is the right one (it is not used by the sources), do you know a better name? Or should we go directly for a removal discussion? ReyHahn (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both videos are excellent, certainly as good as any I've seen in article External links. They really give a sense of experiment. I copied the first on into Zeeman effect External links.
The article is incorrect in places and indirect. It focuses on "shadows" rather than absorption, a different physical effect.
I suggest rename to "Zeeman effect demonstration", delete the redirect from 'quantum light dimmer', and merge in to Zeeman effect. (Which I have already done ;-) Johnjbarton (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. What have you already done?--ReyHahn (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was only suggesting that the External link I added may be sufficient. The article is short and I disagree with more than half of it (shadows); the rest is unreferenced.
On the other hand a real "Zeeman effect demonstration" article would be great if we could find references. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gull wing#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]