Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive May 2018

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Deletion discussion for Einstein's thought experiments

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein's thought experiments. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Another case for a united entropy article

There is a proposed merge between Entropy and Entropy (energy dispersal). The later being (a 2013 creation that needs attention from an expert) an article that only seems to give a new interpretation of entropy. Surely we don't need an article of entropy for every interpretation there is of entropy (entropy (order and disorder), entropy (information theory), Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory, Entropy (astrophysics)). Sadly, the problem is already there and I don't know if we can come up with one entropy article. For the moment I'm against the merge, to not mix up the mess. Discussion at Talk:Entropy#Proposed merge with Entropy (energy dispersal) --MaoGo (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget Introduction to entropy.
In my opinion, there should be at most two articles - the main entropy article and maybe one more on information theory. Introduction to entropy should be part of the main article. The energy dispersal article should probably just be deleted, or at least merged into the main article. Order and disorder and astrophysics should be merged with the main article, as that material is not in any way separate from it. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

HTML errors in physics articles

The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely. I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found some high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.

The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the succession box. It appears to have two {{s-start}} templates, which causes it to look strange now. Removing one of those would probably solve the problem.

This second list is "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. The highlighting for the first link indicates that the problem for that article is in ''{{math|''ψ''}}''. I'd guess that removing the duplicate wikitext for italics would address this problem.


Note that the highlighting from the lintid code won't work reliably after the article has been edited, so for pages with multiple errors, it's best to try to fix them all at once. For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Just in case you need this list re-generated, here's the query:

Extended content
{{{1}}}

Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Why two work articles?

Why is there an article for Work (electrical) ? I don't know the full history of the renaming and moving of the article, nevertheless it is too similar to Work (physics) except that it applies only to electrostatic forces (not even variable fields). --MaoGo (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

MaoGo: I don't know the history either. There is also a work (thermodynamics). I can think of a lot of good reasons to have 3 separate articles (and maybe even a fourth work (mechanical). A person interested in electrical work does not need to see details about the other forms of work for instance. Further, an article on electrical work can focus on issues and examples that are peculiar to electrical systems such as EMF and Voltage. The article on work (electrical) does not do the latter at all but at least it does the former by not having information that irrelevant to electrical systems. TStein (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

George Gruner article

The article on George Grüner has been identified as needing some TLC in a COI edit request. I wasn't sure which subdivision of physics his would fall under, A BPH FD, etc. His scholastic body of work is significant, and yet, not being versed in physics, I've found it difficult to peruse his articles to determine what he is most notable for in that field. Can anyone offer some suggestions? Thank you in advance for any help you can provide!   spintendo          11:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Condensed matter physics. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC).
Maybe nanotechnology --MaoGo (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I gave the article a first round of cleanup, but someone else should double-check it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick help on this. It's much appreciated!!   spintendo          14:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Assasinated Iranian physicist deletion

There's a discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darioush Rezaeinejad. I saw it in the Dabsolver physics and I thought I should share it here. --MaoGo (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(...and let us all remember that if we watch the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts we'll get notified of this and all other physics-related AfDs! Very convenient. :-D ) --Steve (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Nice tip! --MaoGo (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger of Ultrasoft/soft/hard radiation to Ionizing radiation

I have suggested that

be merged into

For the discussion, see Talk: Ionizing radiation#Merge (2018) from Ultrasoft radiation & soft radiation & hard radiation to Ionizing radiation

-- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Moved to Talk: Ionizing radiation § Merge (2018) from Ultrasoft radiation & soft radiation & hard radiation to Ionizing radiation

Pulse propulsion

Do we have an article on pulse propulsion ? We have an article on nuclear pulse propulsion (ie. Project Orion) but during Project Orion, they developed the proof of concept model using conventional explosives, pulsed propulsion with non-nuclear explosions. This kind of drive should be covered somewhere. -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Not an expert: maybe this article Pulsed plasma thruster and Pulsed nuclear thermal rocket --MaoGo (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Quantum superposition

That article is a mess. I restored some old material because without it the bulk of the article was orphaned and incomprehensible, but it needs work in case anyone wants to take it on. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we need this article? "Equilibrant force"

Equilibrant force --MaoGo (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No.Waleswatcher (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a concept in engineering statics[1] and classical mechanics[2]. it's mentioned in the Brittanica rigid body article.[3] WP would be incomplete if this was not covered somewhere. --Mark viking (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a term used in enough introductory books that it is a reasonable candidate for a search query, so we ought to cover it. There's only so much that can be said about the concept, though, so it might be better off merged into some other article on mechanics. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It should be added to Wiktionary, wikt:equilibrant force; -- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion: Fine electronic structure

I just proposed the article fine electronic structure for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fine electronic structure. I tried to rescue the article before as I thought I could learn a little about spin-orbit and other corrections to the band structure of solids. But this is not a notable subject nor is referred to it as fine electronic structure. Look at the article as it was before: [4] --MaoGo (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Unruh effect predatory paper

An IP keeps adding a source in the Unruh effect article using the description Citing predatory open access journal, see [5]. If it is a predatory journal I don't think that we should accept it (it is not even an inline citation). Can anyone confirm? Here is the link to the paper [6]. --MaoGo (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what a "predatory open access journal" is, but that paper is gibberish. I removed it from the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Waleswatcher: see predatory open access journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I reverted some other edits by that IP as well, all papers by the same set of authors. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Articles from predatory journals should be considered with significant skepticism, as the articles in such journals are effectively self-published with little or no peer review. It can happen that a formerly non-predatory journal changes hands and becomes predatory, so not all articles are unconditionally unreliable. But IMO, like citing unaccepted/unpublished Arxiv papers, citing a paper from such a journal would need a justification for the exception. In this case, I agree that this general cite looks like a refspam article that is likely unreviewed. --Mark viking (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Arxiv is at least moderated, so while it's not the best of sources for a lot of things, I'll take anything in arxiv over something from a predatory journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

K-k-k-kerr Bblack Hhole

I found another instance where capitalization of redirects matters here at WP. If you type "Kerr bla" into the search box you will see both Kerr black hole and Kerr Black Hole show up as suggestions. The first redirects to Kerr metric and the second to Rotating black hole. Quite different articles.

Kerr metric has Rotating black hole in its See also section. And Rotating black hole mentions Kerr metric linked in text.

So... "Kerr black hole" and "Kerr Black Hole" ought to resolve/redirect to the same article. Which? Shenme (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The term "Kerr black hole" is more specific than "rotating black hole", as a Kerr black hole is necessarily uncharged. I'd say that Kerr black hole and the alternate capitalization Kerr Black Hole should both redirect to Kerr metric. XOR'easter (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Spot on, Kerr metric is the best target. --Mark viking (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Change made. XOR'easter (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_May_2018&oldid=847534618"