Physics Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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

Archives

Big Bang – 2005 Antiquity – September 2005 October 2005 – October 2005 November 2005 – December 2005 2006 January 2006 – February 2006 February 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 September 2006 September 2006 (part 2) October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 2007 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 2008 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 2009 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 2010 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 2011 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 2012 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 2013 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 2014 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 2015 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 2016 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 2017 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 2018 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 2019 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 2020 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 2021 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 2022 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022 2023 January 2023 February 2023 March 2023 April 2023 May 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023

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

Ok I guess I should have discussed this first, but I just completed a massive demolition on International System of Units, cutting the content in half. I also reorganized the TOC.

Most of the removal was duplicate, repeating, not yet again stuff or historical material much better covered in the history of the metric system. Some was unreferenced examples that were probably correct. Some was material I believe amounted to guidebook content.

The content in the article now is mostly from the original, reworked to various extents. I hope other editors will step in and make improvements. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Please note that Newton (unit), 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, 22 January 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

I reworked the energy-time part of uncertainty principle as well as some overall reorg and clean up. Please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A rename discussion is talking place at Talk:Atomic theory#Rename?. ReyHahn (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated him for deletion here. It is a tricky case, as he has a significant national junior award, but a weak publication history. Comments welcome on that page, am I being too harsh? Ldm1954 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be interested in expert opinions. This page (and some others) were created by a PhD student who claims it/they are notable as he is an expert. I have reservations, but this is beyond my area of expertise. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could be prodded until there are more RS: only arXiv sources now. Nothing proves notability except for RSs. An arXiv preprint is not considered to be a RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Addendum, there is Quantum Task Force with a small number of young members who are focusing, it appears, on adding pages on new concepts, many of which are in arXiv. WP:TOOSOON ??? They are also looking at (the page indicates) other quantum pages such as the EPR paradox and similar which I believe several people such as JohnJBarton, ReyHahn and XOR'easter have spent a lot of time and thinking on. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The effort seems defunct. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a quick look at the article and its refs.

The quantum singular value transformation is described as an overarching approach for quantum algorithms. In the context of quantum computing this work is notable, with hundreds of citations of the two key papers, at least some are secondary. Yes this is new, but there are lots of citations.

However, the article should be merged into quantum algorithms. That is the context where the value of the approach would be clearer. The current article only contains two sentences that provide any information. Since quantum computing remains hypothetical, I don't think this tiny article needs to be standalone at this time. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your suggestions looks reasonable. Would anyone else like to comment/agree with this edit/redirect -- 1 redirect & 1 delete is not that definitive. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a discussion whether two old studies should be included in the article or not, more people having a look would be good: Page history, Discussion. --mfb (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a big issue but I'm unclear how to apply WP:NCCAPS. Is Norma Cluster a proper name? or is Norma the name of a cluster, so Norma cluster? Johnjbarton (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy are likely to be more knowledgeable about this convention, but looking at Category:Galaxy clusters, it seems the capitalized version is the norm. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harold E. Puthoff has worked in mainstream areas of physics and in unconventional or fringe areas. There is a debate here [1], and also his talk, about NPOV and balance in his BIO. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I would say he has worked in "mainstream" areas. Even the most mainstream article he wrote is essentially a riposte against quantum mechanics, albeit one that could have interesting pedagogical implications in the same way that, say, one could potentially show using strictly classical electrodynamics that electromagnetic waves can carry angular momentum. If anyone knows of sources which cite Puthoff's mainstream work and contextualizes it as mainstream, I'd be grateful. So far, all we've got are debunkings and weird journalistic jaunts that seem to suffer from classic wool-pulled-over-the-eyes more than anything. Arthur C. Clarke certainly didn't seem to understand what was going on, but was thrilled to use the SHARP drive in 3001. That may be the high water mark? jps (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a consensus that Harold E. Puthoff is notable? I don't want to spend hours reading sources and writing a section in the article only to discover that it will be deleted. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my opinion here.[2] I encourage uninvolved editors to edit the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Dear physicists:

I think the virtual photon article should be deleted or merged into the virtual particle article. It cites only two sources, and only about a dozen of articles link to it. What do you think? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think nothing is lost if that becomes a redirect. --mfb (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also agree here.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we need Spin magnetic moment, "Magnetic moment derived from particle spin"

We have Spin (physics), Magnetic moment, Electron magnetic moment, Nuclear magnetic moment and Nucleon magnetic moment.

The Spin magnetic moment article is comparable in content to the subsection Spin_(physics)#Magnetic_moments. The history is lame because it's just a paraphrase of the spin history. The chemistry section is just wrong (it's about spin, not spin magnetic moment).

I think we should merge Spin magnetic moment into Spin (physics) Johnjbarton (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support the merge. Spin magnetic moment is barely a term.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've created a stub for altermagnetism, which seems to be very much in the news at the moment. I'd greatly appreciate any help for editors who know more about this subject. In particular: for adding it to the template ((magnetic states)), is altermagnetism remanent or not? I also imagine the article magnetic structure probably needs to be revised in light of this. — The Anome (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up and especially for researching the key references!

In my opinion altermagnetism is not notable at this time. There are no scientific secondary sources and the experimental reports too new. I see claims for new states of matter phenomena all the time with a couple of news articles and a couple of papers. Of course this case could be different, but we don't know now.

Our readers and especially our editors would be much better served by improvements to Magnetism and Magnetic structure to include this topic as a paragraph. One could be selected as a target of a redirect from altermagnetism. If the topic grows and the paragraph expands, a new article could be split out. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The subject has not yet become notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

While I agree with John that there are currently not that many published papers, I would still suggest holding off any merging/deletion actions. My impression is that the idea has caught on in the research community, and as an indication of that there are currently 100 preprints in arXiv that mention altermagnetism. In most of them it is a central topic (not just a passing mention). It does not take a crystal ball to see that many of those preprints will get published, and the sheer number of those works will be enough to establish notability. I don't see that this material would be very useful for Magnetism or Magnetic structure, because the new classification is quite technical. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to start such an article but found it was not notable enough yet. WP:TOOSOON.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I agree with Jähmefyysikko about holding off. The number of cites of the original papers is already quite large and there are a couple of secondary sources. I find the topic interesting, and I think it is sound and not fluff -- I was not aware of it. It is at the edge of my area of (in)competence. The band structure results are very solid, I see no reason to question them, this is not cold fusion. The experiments also look solid, and include people I know are careful and trust. Maybe tag (on the talk page?) to revisit it in six months. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created a new page called action principles as an overview of many pages related to least action. Please check it. If it looks like this page will be acceptable, I will follow up with a formal request to merge Stationary-action principle into it. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I WP:BOLDly merged Plekton merged into Braid statistics. Next I propose to merge Braid statistics into Anyon.

I stumbled upon these from Parastatistics which AFAICT is not physics but math. From the physics point of view it would be WP:FRINGE: there are no para-thingys. The concept comes about by reasoning "what if nature were different?". Like "what if we had faster than light travel" but not nearly as fun ;-). Johnjbarton (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated this for deletion as it seems to be too soon to me. Please comment on the deletion page. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems inconsistent with the discussion above for Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Altermagnetism.

Altermagnetism was proposed in 2022; Rydberg computers appeared in a lengthy Rev. of Mod. Physics article in 2010. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]