Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 22:39, 10 January 2025

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

Shortcuts

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011

Archives

Big Bang – 2005

2006 — 2019

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielittlewood (talk • contribs) 07:55, March 30, 2024 (UTC)

Principle of locality content issue

@ReyHahn and I have agreed on a change. @Tercer has reverted us both. Please help us resolve this on Talk:Principle_of_locality#Fixing_an_issue_in_the_QM_section. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Noctilucent cloud

Noctilucent cloud has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"failed star"

Notices of the American Mathematical Society article on Wikipedia editing.

This was posted on WT:MATH but it mostly also related to physics:

Eppstein, D.; Lewis, J. B.; Woodroofe, Russ; XOR'easter (2025), "Princ-wiki-a mathematica: Wikipedia editing and mathematics" (PDF), Notices of the AMS, 72 (1): 65–73. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnjbarton (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Fizeau experiment

Fizeau experiment has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gravitomagnetic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gravitomagnetic 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/Gravitomagnetic 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.

This one was missed by Article Alerts, likely because it doesn't have a talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

String of new pages onPlatonists and similar

There is a stack of pages created directly in mainspace by the new user Transhumanistnerd0, all of which seem to take a particular, unconventional view and are poorly sourced.

I have tagged a couple for notability because at the very least the sourcing is weak and does not convince me that WP:BURDEN is satisfied; I always prefer to give editors a chance to improve versions. Before doing anything else (e.g. draftify, PROD, AfD) I would be interested to get feedback. Perhaps even someone(s) would help improve those pages if they are reputable topics. (Or this philosophy has been seen on Wikipedia before...) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on how explaining a well established Philisophy of Mathematics is not in alignment with Wikipedia policy? You attack the view as “unconvential” which suggest personal bias rather than any objective metric. Additonally the sources are fine and each member of the list already has established Notability. Your argument seems to boil down to “I neither like nor understand Platonism therefore it shouldnt be included on the site” Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that Platonism isn't notable, it's that your article List of Platonist Mathematicians doesn't say anything about it, it just copies material from their articles. It's a synthetic intersection of otherwise notable topics to make a list article about, as there aren't sufficient sources discussing the Platonism of those figures in specific being cited. Remsense ‥ 论 12:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see makes sense thank you, but arent list pages also valid Wikipedia pages? I see a lot of them Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, list articles are valid, and like other Wikipedia pages there are rules and guidelines for when and how to create them. You can read more about list articles at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The notability requirement for list articles is at WP:NLIST. If I'm reading it right, it says that to create a list of Platonist mathematicians, you need to provide a reliable source that discusses Platonist mathematicians, to establish that the concept of the list is notable. --Srleffler (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see thank you for this guidance Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article "List of Platonist Mathematicians" is not notable because there are no sources use such a list, see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The article is not correctly formatted as a list. It looks like a normal article. It should be renamed eg "Platonism in Mathematics". (Most of its content will be deleted unless it has better sourcing) Johnjbarton (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article might be more interesting and useful than a list of Platonist mathematicians, anyway. Mathematical Platonism might be a better title, but we would need help moving the article there over the redirect.--Srleffler (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would a category be more appropriate? I find it is hard to discover mathematcicians with verified views on this topic Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These look like a decent start:

Horsten, Leon (2022-01-25). "Philosophy of Mathematics". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Linnebo, Øystein (2023-03-28). "Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Cole, Julian C. "Mathematical Platonism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

XOR'easter (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could definitely use an article on mathematical Platonism. It is a notable subtopic of the philosophy of mathematics, and one we don't already have an article on. Tagging individual mathematicians as Platonists, whether in a list or in a category, is not a helpful way of achieving that goal, and would require a clear public statement of mathematical philosophy from each mathematician listed. We are unlikely to find such a statement for most mathematicians, in large part because most mathematicians are not philosophers of mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is consensus here to change the name of "List of Platonist mathematicians" -> "Mathematical Platonism" (capital because Plato?) and encourage @Transhumanistnerd0 to use the refs added by XOR'easter to alter the content to match that topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a redirect at Mathematical Platonism so we are out of luck on the move. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Wolfram's "ruliad" was deleted back in April. We don't need another one. The sourcing on the new one is unacceptable: writings by Wolfram himself are primary sources, which we shouldn't use; postings on the arXiv are almost always unusable per WP:SPS, and a book from 2014 can't contribute to the notability of a topic invented years after that. A literature search finds nothing better. (Unsurprisingly.) I have accordingly proposed Ruliad Theory of the Universe for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter, since your PROD of Ruliad Theory of the Universe was contested (i.e. deleted without explanation) I am going to shift to Talk:Ruliad Theory of the Universe where I have placed a request for a {{TempUndelete}} of the deleted earlier version so I and others can better judge how to proceed. (Of course you can just go straight to an AfD.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Platonist mathematicians and List of Platonist physicists must be deleted at least per WP:NPOV. Indeed for having such lists one needs either mathematicians or physicists that qualify themselves as Platonists, or a neutral authority that provides such a qualification. Here, we do not know who qualified these people as Platonists. So, one must consider that this qualification is a WP:POV of a unknown philosopher or the editor who wrote this article. This goes against the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon the input here (thanks to everyone), i just put PRODs on both list pages. If these are contested then I will do AfDs.

For reference, Ruliad Theory of the Universe now has an AfD, the appropriateness of Wenitte Apiou is being debated (independent of this discussion) while David Bessis has been reviewed as appropriate for Wikipedia. This topic is probably "done". Ldm1954 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both PRODs were contested with a statement that "concensus was not reached" so both lists now have AfDs. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that David Bessis meets the notability standards for academics or authors. One book generally isn't enough. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do biographies much but I would have figured there's an argument for Bessis for WP:NPROF#C1 -- his papers The dual braid monoid and Finite complex reflection arrangements are $K(\pi ,1)$ have both been very influential. (Obviously now this is moot, but I would probably have voted to keep at an AfD.) --JBL (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case you wonder why all the pages in question here are now red, they were created by a banned sock puppet so have been (admin) deleted. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

invitation to comment: we ought to correct the “thermodynamic deception”

Snow closing as unsuitable. XOR'easter (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I submit this invitation to comment pursuant to this suggestion (=OxF= another) on the talk:thermodynamics page.

I suggest^[1] this alternative at this time:

govern --> still--> constrain, but we add (revamped with Callen) instead:

As “thermodynamics” is a famous misnomer (thermostatics),^[2] it is worth noting out front here that thermodynamics/thermostatics is a conceptual framework to which reality significantly conforms,^[3] though “quite different” ^[4] from relativity and quantum mechanics- “in the sense that thermodynamics does not predict specific numerical values for observable quantities. Instead, thermodynamics sets limits (inequalities) on permissible physical processes, and it establishes relationships among apparently unrelated properties.”^[5]

This is not at all controversial, so there should be no fatal objection. This is not at all controversial, so Wikipedia is in a superb position to disseminate the cure. This is not at all controversial, so we Could usher in a world-wide, first-order, phase-transition of Wisdom- in the =x= pr%c3$$ (see mutual-uncertainty mediated, co-thermostatic systemics).

Personally yours,

NedBoomerson (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) NedBoomerson (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edited your post to remove hidden external links. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(We are all worse for it* and) you are responsible

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&diff=prev&oldid=1268081945

Consolations for the notice though,

NedBoomerson (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ”The single all-encompassing problem of thermodynamics is the determination of the equilibrium state that eventually results after the removal of internal constraints in a closed, composite system” p.26, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition
^ ” As useful as the characterization of equilibrium states by thermostatic theory has proven to be, it must be conceded that our primary interest is frequently in processes rather than in states. In biology, particularly, it is the life process that captures our imagination, rather than the eventual equilibrium state to which each organism inevitably proceeds. Thermostatics does provide two methods that permit us to infer some limited information about processes, but each of these methods is indirect and each yields only the most meager return.” p.307, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition
^ “The choice is between these calculations and no calculations at all. Results for reversible processes in combination with appropriate efficiencies yield reasonable approximations of the work for actual processes.” p.40, “Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics,” J.M. Smith, H.C. VanNess, M.M. Abbott, 5th edition
^ “Thermodynamics is quite different.” p.2, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition
^ p.3, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition

Strong oppose. The above was never suggested on Talk:Thermodynamics, it is appearing in the above form here for the first time. This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH from an editor with unconventional views, the most recent being an attempt to redefine thermodynamics as fake and use Wikipedia as a bully pulpit for their unconventional science. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, this is what thermodynamics is; stop and smell the flowers (reversibly, ideally!)

NedBoomerson (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as WP:SYNTH. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Ignore This is just a troll. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How many timelines of the universe we need?

I just stumbled with the issue of the merges and moves of timeline of the universe article. If we include chronology of the universe, there are at least 3 articles on the timeline of the universe, see Timeline of the universe. I do not see why we need so many versions of it. Chronology of the universe is itself a compilation of sections, where each section is a timeline of the universe. I think this should be reduced to a single detailed timeline and a chronology of the universe article that has two sections, the first discussing an overview and the second section detailing the different epochs. Such a merge requires some coordinate editing which I am do not know if it is feasible. ReyHahn (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations:

Most of Chronology of the universe is a series of summaries of detailed articles on each era/epoch. This serves as a route to a detailed reading. The rest of the article is a hodge-podge, including a compact version and a tabular version of itself.
Timeline of the early universe is really Timeline of the Universe. Conceptually it could be a compact version of Chronology of the universe but in practice is incomplete, poorly sourced and chock-a-block with cruft.
Timeline of the Universe a disambiguation page.
Timeline of the universe a redirect to the disambiguation page.
Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe has two versions of a double log graph with two columns. One reference. I think this one should be deleted.
Graphical timeline of the Big Bang compact one page, log-scale timeline. One website source. The log scale is not helpful because it focuses attention on that part of the timeline that we know the least about. The single-page overview is helpful.
Graphical timeline of the Stelliferous Era no sources, also not what it claims to be. Delete.
Cosmic Calendar Timeline scaled onto a day. Poorly sourced but otherwise nice, an independent concept. Maybe to add a few entries to the Cosmology table.
The articles named "Graphical" use a markup feature called <timeline>, but not (of course!) the ones named "Timeline".
Detailed logarithmic timeline Wow. 236 references. Here is a quote: "Earliest known twisted rope." No source ;-)
Timeline of the far future Basically two sections called Lists which are actually tables.
Future of an expanding universe An article that wraps around a text-based timeline of the far future.
Template:Nature_timeline compact graphic used on many pages. Fairly effective.

My suggestion:

Delete a couple of the Graphical pages that are unsalvageable.
Cut down Timeline of the early universe to one or two pages, link into Chronology, and rename it Timeline of the universe].
Cleanup Chronology of the universe into a summary of the cosmogenesis articles. Maybe transclude "Timeline of the early universe"

Johnjbarton (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we should delete all three "graphical timeline" pages. Graphical timeline of the Big Bang is, at best, an image description page like you'd see on Wikimedia Commons. It's not an encyclopedia article. The image itself is not great, either (the very top line has two labels printed on top of each other, for example). Presenting all that information as text inside images is bad for accessibility and gets in the way of editors modifying it.

I tried to clean up Cosmic Calendar a bit. I pruned a lot on synthesis grounds (it's not our job to pick which events to list and do all the calculations ourselves). My first thought was to selectively merge it somewhere, but there's no uniquely good merge target, since one book and two TV series have equally good claims to it. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best use of editor time is, I think, cleaning up and reorganizing Chronology of the universe. It gets more pageviews than Timeline of the early universe by about a factor of 5. It's significantly under-cited. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the deletion of graphical timelines. --ReyHahn (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion now happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ”The single all-encompassing problem of thermodynamics is the determination of the equilibrium state that eventually results after the removal of internal constraints in a closed, composite system” p.26, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition

[2] ” As useful as the characterization of equilibrium states by thermostatic theory has proven to be, it must be conceded that our primary interest is frequently in processes rather than in states. In biology, particularly, it is the life process that captures our imagination, rather than the eventual equilibrium state to which each organism inevitably proceeds. Thermostatics does provide two methods that permit us to infer some limited information about processes, but each of these methods is indirect and each yields only the most meager return.” p.307, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition

[3] “The choice is between these calculations and no calculations at all. Results for reversible processes in combination with appropriate efficiencies yield reasonable approximations of the work for actual processes.” p.40, “Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics,” J.M. Smith, H.C. VanNess, M.M. Abbott, 5th edition

[4] “Thermodynamics is quite different.” p.2, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition

[5] .3, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]