Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive November 2017

Need some FA reviewers

I took ZETA (fusion reactor) to FA, but it failed simply because there weren't enough reviewers - two supports. Would anyone here be willing to take a look at the prose if I re-post it now that it's been two weeks? One or two "ayes" would do it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks quite good, generally! This line confuses me: "Steady current does not induce a magnetic field, but a single pulse of such current, essentially half of an AC cycle, would work." A steady current will of course induce a steady field, so I am probably mixed up on what is supposed to be getting induced in what. And why are pulses better than AC, when from the sounds of it there are zero or near-zero voltage intervals in both? No doubt the point intended to be conveyed is quite simple, but if I'm confused, perhaps other readers will be too, and so maybe revisiting that paragraph would be a good idea. XOR'easter (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not know why Maury Markowitz put that sentence in or what he might have meant, but it is just wrong. I deleted it. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Electromagnetic buoyancy

Hello! I came across this while de-orphaning and need some guidance on the topic from knowledgeable people. Basically: is it something notable enough that we should have an article? If not, should it be merged or redirected somewhere, or should it be deleted outright? I'm happy to do the legwork in any case, I just need to know what to do and I don't have sufficient knowledge to make the right call. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it should just be deleted. I have never heard of it before. It gives no explanation to make it plausible. It has no references. Googling it just gives pages which echo this article or are unrelated. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete as zero sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC).

It's an actual term going back to 1953 at least, but the sub-stub article does not give a clear understanding of what it means. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'll take it to AfD and I'll ping you guys there if you want to comment :) Thanks for the input. Wait, I see that XOR'easter has added sources and context to the article, so I'm not going to AfD. Thanks for the improvements, XOR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear Structure

How to know the no. of isotopes for a given element ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Sroy (talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

For each element, there is an article named "Isotopes of [element name]". For examples, see Isotopes of hydrogen, Isotopes of iodine, Isotopes of lead. You will notice that there are usually two lists of isotopes: (1) the most common or important isotopes, and (2) a more comprehensive list including isotopes with very short half-lives. This illustrates a definitional problem with your question — how common or stable does an isotope have to be for you to count it? JRSpriggs (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Scientific images from WSC2017

Please take a look in here about newly uploaded scientific images on commons during Wiki Science Competitions 2017.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Vacuumsimple.png on False vacuum

An editor has added a frankly poor-quality infographic to false vacuum and restored it after being removed twice. My gripes are with the poor understanding of physics that it conveys (e.g. "It's believed this [Higgs] boson is the source of all matter" and "When a particle passes through a Higgs field, It [sic] emits kinetic energy, and slows down.") and the fact that it's basically a bunch of non-editable text, which really goes against the idea of Wikipedia. Please see Talk:False_vacuum#On_File:Vacuumsimple.png — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Monochromatization

I was reviewing Draft:Monochromatization and I thought I'd get a second opinion from the project. It might be a theoretical way to increase resolution, but since it's never been implemented can it really be considered notable? Primefac (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I accepted it, with a disambiguator to distingish from monochromatization in optics. There's plenty of RS in serious journals, it meets WP:N. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Having read it, I cannot make out exactly what this is. Is monochromatization the "decrease of the collision energy spread"? If it is, the article doesn't actually say that. Or is it by "introducing opposite correlations"? Or is it "can be accomplished through a non-zero dispersion function"? And what do you mean by "both beams of opposite sign"? I think you're trying to say that there is a particular arrangement of magnets that decreases the particle's spread of energies by increasing their physical dispersion? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: I'm not trying to say anything in particular, but monochromatization is term imported from optical monochromators (from mono = single / chromatic = colour). The idea of a 'single color' means selecting light of a single wavelength, although since that can never really be done, this becomes a narrow distribution of wavelengths (e.g. a monochromator giving you 365 ± 1 nm is better than one giving you 365 ± 5 nm). In particle physics, this is pretty much the same idea, except applied to an energy spectrum of particles, rather than a wavelength spectrum of photons. Making up some numbers, if current technology lets you select 350 ± 10 MeV particles, a monochromator selecting 350 ± 1 MeV particles would give you an increase in resolution / decreasing in energy spread. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

Superb, so let's actually say that in the article! Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Dresselhaus effect

If someone can take a look at it would be nice, but mostly it lacks talk page wikiproject template. MaoGo (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It is completely indecipherable. Every term in it is in-universe, with no explanation of anything. I'm sure you can explain this without resorting to jargon. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Although it could do with expansion it seems OK to me. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

"spin–orbit interaction", "energy bands" and "inversion symmetry" are not explained anywhere in the article. There is no real discussion of any of the physics. It does not tell me what the effect is (other than jargon), what causes it, or what it means. The only possible way to understand it is to click through to the linked articles that may or may not help the reader. Why, for instance, does this effect occur mostly in inversion symmetry? The article on inversion symmetry certainly doesn't say, and this one can't be bothered to say either. Then there's the totally random section of jargon and math, which is unhelpful to anyone who doesn't already understand it. Just explain things, that's why people come here, not to play choose-your-own-adventure with inlinks. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

All those terms can be found in Wikipedia. I note that you describe yourself on your talk page as a failed physicist. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

And most of them don't mention anything about this topic. And why should the reader have to go to a different page to read about the topic they came to this page for? And what's with the personal attack? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

An article that is helpful to experts is better than no article at all. An article that is helpful to both students and experts is better still. Maury, your suggestions are reasonable, but I gently suggest that you should phrase your suggestions like "This article has room for improvement in being accessible to non-experts, for example explaining terms X,Y,Z and concepts A,B,C", rather than taking a negative tone. (I am a bit rusty on condensed-matter physics so can't help improve the article myself.) :-D --Steve (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I know it is not in its best state. I will be editing it in the next few months. But I appreciate if anyone with more expertise can help. It is anyway an advanced subject, so it would be hard to explain it for zero-knowledge layman. In any case, I consider it is a must have article. MaoGo (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I added an pedagogical paragraph to the lead. Perhaps it will help. --Mark viking (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I modified the explanation to make it more scientiffically correct. No need to explain invoke the heuristic idea of the electron frame of reference. Please, dont hesitate to leave comments. MaoGo (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)