Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive August 2022

Alessandro De Angelis (astrophysicist)

I have noticed that several/most contributions of HistorySc20 (talk · contribs) revolve around the work of Alessandro De Angelis... I am concerned there is a conflict of interest here, so I'm bringing up the issue for review both and at WikiProject Astronomy to ensure that Wikipedia remain neutral. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"Vital article" status of Fourth, fifth, and sixth derivatives of position

There's a discussion here that technically (by the rules at the top of the page) can't be resolved without at least one more participant. XOR'easter (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Does it make any difference which articles are declared "vital"? As far as I understand this is just a list that some editors create and everybody else ignores. Tercer (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The lack of discussion suggests that yes, it is mostly ignored; at the very least, it's way, way down the list of things on Wikipedia that need fixing. I'd rather it be fixed, though, on the off-chance that anyone does use that list to set their priorities or gauge how good our physics coverage is. It would be at most a small benefit, but for a small time investment. XOR'easter (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:International_System_of_Units#Is_"speed_of_light"_misleading?

Ongoing discussion about what the term 'speed of light' means. Please opine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Sigh... And now there's an RFC on the matter. Please comment and put this thing to rest once and for all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge g-factor/gyromagnetic ratio

A merge proposal between gyromagnetic ratio and g-factor (physics) has been created. You are invited to provide comment. ReyHahn (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Speed of light survived the Main Page

Our article on the speed of light was featured on the Main Page a few days ago and is still experiencing elevated viewer flux. Thanks go out to all those who have contributed improvements over the years. XOR'easter (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

... Well, now there's a debate happening on the Talk page. So it goes. XOR'easter (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Adam Becker

There is a current request from Adam Becker to review the criticism of his book to gauge whether it is balanced for a BLP. This was posted at BLPN but is detailed at his article talkpage.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"International System of Units" or "SI" in leads of unit articles

Previously, some of our articles on units of measurement have begun by mentioning the International System of Units eg

The newton (symbol: N) is the International System of Units (SI) derived unit of force.

Other articles have only mentioned SI in the first sentence. Today, while implementing a discussion about the infoboxes, an editor has also changed many to a more uniform pattern eg

The newton (symbol: N) is the SI derived unit of force.

My feeling is that a broadly non-technical audience would be better served by retaining "International System of Units" eg

The newton (symbol: N) is the International System of Units (SI) unit of force.

in which I've also dropped the explicit "derived" to avoid implying there might also be some non-derived unit of force. Can we find consensus here rather than by to-and-fro at each article? NebY (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the distinction between base and derived units is too arcane for the lead. As for SI versus International System of Units, I don't really have an opinion. Both are unsatisfactory. SI is too cryptic for the non-initiated, and International System of Units is too long. Tercer (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur about the base/derived distinction. How about The newton (symbol: N) is the unit of force in the International System of Units? I think that flows a little better, getting to the salient point of what the unit measures sooner. XOR'easter (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I like that, but I'd still put (SI) at the very end, as in The newton (symbol: N) is the unit of force in the International System of Units (SI). The abbreviation is so common, it seems odd to leave it out entirely. PianoDan (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of "X is the SI (commonly known as metric) unit of Y" in the introduction, then a short explanation of its status as a base/derived unit in an appropriate subsection (e.g. the definition section)? Ava Eva Thornton (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The "commonly known as metric" parenthetical is not unreasonable but seems a little awkward. Putting a brief explanation of the base/derived business in the definition section, if it isn't already there, sounds good. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I'd rather not digress into an awkward discussion about metric systems in the first words of an article about a specific unit. (It is also common for people to quite correctly call non-SI units metric and several remain common - mbar, bar, mmHg..... Let's not open that can of worms so soon.) I like PianoDan's mod of XOR'easter's version; both get cleanly to the point and are helpful to the reader.

The beginning of Newton (unit)#definition is a good example of straightforwardly describing its status at an early point: A newton is defined as 1 kg⋅m/s2 (it is a derived unit which is defined in terms of the SI base units) NebY (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that NebY's suggestion is a straightforward definition: it is heavily centered on the historical (no longer primary) "base units" abstraction (too arcane, as per Tercer), and completely fails to mention what it is a unit of. As an example of a more relatable description of the same thing, it is the force required to accelerate 1 kg at 1 m/s², but this is too technical for the introductory sentence of the lead. I think XOR'easter's version is simple and direct, and reads easily. In one short sentence, it tells the reader exactly how to think of it, and does not side-track into abstractions such as nonessential categorization of units. 172.82.47.242 (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: I wouldn't put that as the first sentence of the lead; I was responding to XOR'easter's "Putting a brief explanation of the base/derived business in the definition section, if it isn't already there, sounds good" by quoting the start of the Definition section of Newton (unit). I'm pretty sure I didn't write it but I do like it as the first sentence of a definition section, more than I do the start of the definition section of Henry (unit). I still support The newton (symbol: N) is the unit of force in the International System of Units (SI) for the first sentence of the lead.

SI Brochure 9 continues to distinguish base and derived units, explaining

"Nevertheless, the concept of base and derived units is maintained because it is useful and historically well established, noting also that the ISO/IEC 80000 series of Standards specify base and derived quantities which necessarily correspond to the SI base and derived units defined here."

NebY (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies: I misinterpreted your intent. Yes, the distinction and use of base and derived units remains, even though there seems to be a distinct tone of reluctance in the 9th SI Brochure to keep it this way. Indeed, eliminating them without concurrent changes elsewhere would be well-nigh impossible. They now seem to be handy intermediate definitions rather than the basis upon which the whole of the SI rests. 172.82.47.242 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah good, thanks! Yes, reluctant acquiescence, and "handy" is spot on. NebY (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"International System of Units" may be (somewhat) long, but unlike many acronym-derived terms, for a lay reader it shows exactly what's on the tin, no in-line or footnote elaboration needed. (In some otherwise non-technical articles it might be worth a quick note that it's largely based on the metric system, like when referencing direct quotes -- this was a consideration for example during Fukushima disaster when news updates were throwing around several units and contexts so conversions had to be managed and presented in a manner appropriate for the likely readership.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I've started by adjusting first sentences as above, begiining with Newton (unit). NebY (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I've now updated all SI base units, all SI derived units with special names that @NebY had not already updated, all SI multiples of the metre and second that had their own articles, and all SI derived units without special names with their own articles I could find, though I had to adjust the wording on some of them, e.g. the kelvin and Celsius articles. Ava Eva Thornton (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, a long task which I'd started slowly either to see if there'd be any pushback (nope) or out of sheer laziness. :) NebY (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Fringe gravitational theories of antimatter

Isn't basically all of Gravitational interaction of antimatter#Theories of gravitational repulsion fringe theories? Authors like Ruggero Santilli are not accepted mainstream physics. Elsewhere in the article there is an amazing amount dedicated to the ideas of M.J.T.F. Cabbolet, including his personal refutation against Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft.

Somebody please take a look and clear this fringe promotionalism. 171.66.135.71 (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's true, there is WP:UNDUE emphasis on Cabbolet and Santilli. I would be careful, though, not to remove too much about the fringe theories. If we report only the mainstream position the article will consist of a single sentence "Antimatter falls down". It's true, but not very interesting. Tercer (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)