Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics Main / Talk	Members	Quality Control (talk)	Welcome

Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"?

I recently joined Wikipedia and my first suggested edit was to Megasonic cleaning. My guess is that this article would belong better as a subsection of the article on Ultrasonic cleaning. The help article Help:Introduction_to_talk_pages/All suggested that I draw some attention to it, since the article is a bit obscure.

Merge Effective theory and Effective field theory?

I am not sure this merge was totally obvious so I proposed a merge dicussion at Talk:Effective theory#Merge discussion to merge effective field theory into effective theory (currently a stub). ReyHahn (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Page rating

I have noticed that at least two enthusiastic editors (with not that many edits to date) are going alphabetically through unrated articles. Almost all science (including physics) they look at end with a "Low-importance" rating. I can't fault this, since if this project does not rate one of its articles then by default it is not an important one. Alternatively some of us might want to review the project ratings...

Just a thought. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Field electron emission

The article field electron emission is too long per WP:SIZE. I propose a split discussion at Talk:Field electron emission#Splitting proposal ReyHahn (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Mioara Mugur-Schächter

On this biography of a living person, a lengthy summary of an unreviewed manuscript has been posted. In my opinion the content is consequently original research. I've removed it a couple of times, but IP user(s) keeps reposting it. Before taking additional action I want to be sure that my opinion on the content is agreed. Please take a look at Talk:Mioara_Mugur-Schächter#Deleted_summary_of_unpublished_book. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Computational chemistry

Dejasj and I are having a discussion (polite disagreement) on the external links on Computational chemistry, specifically under the section Specialized journals on computational chemistry and the link to WebMO at the top, are allowed under WP:EL. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to ban me from editing

Tercer has posted a request to ban me. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_TBAN_for_CIR_editor. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for consensus to replace the first part of Quantum entanglement

Quantum entanglement is poorly sourced and out-dated. My attempts to improve the article have been repeatedly reverted by @Tercer. In each case I opened a talk page topic to see if there were points of view I missed. We're now up to 7 reverts. To resolve these disputes I have prepared a draft with the content as I think reflects reliable mainstream sources. I am asking for consensus to put this draft in place of the corresponding current sections. Please weigh in at Talk:Quantum_entanglement#Request_for_consensus_to_replace_first_sections_of_article_with_draft. In my opinion there is no technical issue in the disagreement, just sourced content vs one editor's opinion. This is an interesting and timely topic; the disputed sections don't contain a bunch of math. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

White dwarf at FAR

I have nominated White dwarf for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Current sources and sinks

I found this obscure article Current sources and sinks thinking it was going to be about electroamagnetism or a best a generelization of fluid dynamics theorems to different areas of physics, or even generalizations into complex analysis. However I just found neurobiology explanations. Should this article be renamed into something neurobiology related? Should it be kept or deleted? What do you think? ReyHahn (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Current sources and sinks which I think is a better choice for a discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Now at Talk:Current source density analysis.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Volt, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Lead of Energy

The IP at WP:RFED seemed to bring up a good point, should the lead paragraph of Energy read mass and energy may also be converted to one another instead of matter and energy may also be converted to one another? Remsense ‥ 论 23:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Having found the original diff, I've decided to cross my fingers and be bold pending broader approval. Remsense ‥ 论 23:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That statement started out bad, and that in no way improved it. It perpetuates the layman's misconception that anything is "converted" into or from energy: energy simply changes form (it is strictly conserved), and mass is just a manifestation of energy. I'll take a look at rewording it. —Quondum 00:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. My goal was to avoid making it more annoying to fix! Remsense ‥ 论 00:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I just had a look, and to my surprise in the whole article there is only one mention of free energy, with zero useful information, none of enthalpy or Gibbs free energy and there are 11 of entropy. That seems a bit unbalanced to me. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Good observation. This would need a subject matter expert (presumably with a chemistry background) to improve. —Quondum 16:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Is X17 real enough?

There is a stub page Attila Krasznahorkay which is currently justified based upon the discovery of the X17 particle; created by a relatively new user on Dec 2nd and I tagged it as part of WP:NPP. I am skeptical about the Attila page, particularly as the editor (@Vazulvonal of Stockholm) added today a misrepresentation of a CNN article (which I corrected). I don't know enough about HEP to know if the simple route of redirecting the Attila page to the X17 page is the right course, I think there are others here who have forgotten more about HEP than I know. (The X17 page itself may also be an issue.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I happen to have visited Atomki. They still believe in the X17 particle. Nobody else does, though. Tercer (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

People want to believe anything these days. The fact that we have a B-class LK-99 article shows how scientists and non-scientists are desperate to believe in something revolutionary independently of the data. Aside from ranting: I do not know what to draw from this, but Wikipedia golden rule is: if notable sources cover it, it is worth it.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)