Get Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Physics essential facts below. View Videos or join the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Physics discussion. Add Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Physics to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
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.Physicspopflock.com Resource: WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
That was interesting. Thank you. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, it came to my attention through edits of A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity that wave mechanics is actually a DAB page that says that wave mechanics can refer to "the mechanics of waves" or the "wave equation in quantum physics, see Schrödinger equation". User Narky Blert fixed the link to the DAB page by linking to quantum mechanics, while user IAmNitpicking believes that is the wrong target. Currently none of these pages have a section dedicated to wave mechanics, which is rarely even mentioned in prose. So my question is, why is there no complement to our article on matrix mechanics and Path integral formulation and where should a link to wave mechanics actually point? I assume it is because wave mechanics is generally just called QM, like the last paragraph of that article, which reads: "The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical systems and make predictions. The other formulations of quantum mechanics include matrix mechanics, introduced by Werner Heisenberg, and the path integral formulation, developed chiefly by Richard Feynman...". With this, I am inclined to agree that QM is the correct target for wave mechanics, but it should be mentioned somewhere. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I did not realize that people were using "wave mechanics" to mean Schroedinger wave equation stuff. When I was a physics major back in the Dark Ages (the 1970s), I never heard that, and "wave mechanics" was about cyclical phenomena in general, e. g. water waves, harmonic oscillators. I think I might have been incorrect in my reversion. IAmNitpicking (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely a term people have used for Schrödinger-wave-equation stuff, though my impression is that it's older and less common now. XOR'easter (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. Wave mechanics was used in the article only to juxtapose matrix mechanics and I don't really know of a better way to word it. I don't really remember using either of the terms often when learning the material, it was all just QM, but I've definitely heard it around. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Back in the even Darker Ages (1967-68), WM was more-or-less synonymous with QM; perhaps slightly broader, but still at the subatomic level (IIRC - J. W. Linnett was a terrible lecturer, and as an organic chemist I was only interested at the qualitative MO level). QM isn't an exact fit for what WM may have meant in 1951, but it seems to be the closest we've got. Narky Blert (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, I don't recall the physics of transverse or longitudinal waves being called wave mechanics, which was very much a C20 thing. Narky Blert (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all! I have made changes to the article to fix the dab since everyone seems to agree. I also have never heard of "the mechanics of waves" being referred to as "wave mechanics" in a classical sense, I thought the DAB was strange, but I think that about a lot of our DAB pages and there is no real target. I don't know if it's possible, given how long the article is and the sheer amount of content that has been written about it, but I would like to try to improve it to FA status or as close as possible, so any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again! Footlessmouse (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I think everyone is right. My impression is that phrase "wave mechanics" was a popular from 1920'2-1960's and then faded into dis-use; during that period, it refers to the Schrodinger-related subset of QM. It might have lasted longer in the classroom, because intro-to-QM classes always talk about ripple tanks to demonstrate interference. Now that the phrase is effectively abandoned, I wouldn't be surprised if oceanographers have adopted it for their own use. I wouldn't be surprised, but have no idea if that's the case. Unfortunately terminology comes and goes, and I'm not clear on how WP plans to account for the changing fashions in what we call things. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with previous commenter. Also I remembered this. I have searched in INTERNET "Wave Mechanics" asking only for the images, getting wave mechanics in the title of books written by De Broglie (... interpretation of WM), Pauli (WM) and Schroedinger (Collected Papers in WM)Suppongoche (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Taking a guess, I accepted this to keep it from being deleted at 6 months. It would seem related to Jefimenko's equations, but I'm not at all an expert. I cannot tell if a merge is appropriate, or whatever, I leave it to the physics people here. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
User:DGG these two articles are about almost the same things so they can be in one longer article or they can be separate. Both are fine.
The main difference is that the Heaviside-Feynman formula is only for a point charge but the Jefimenko equations can apply to a point or a more general charge distribution. The textbook Classical Electrodynamics (book) talks about both and derives Heaviside-Feynman formula from Jefimenko's equations. They describe the same phenomenon and sometimes the naming is confusing. For example, "The electromagnetic waves in retarded regime for time dependent current distributions are entirely described by the generalized Jefimenko equations (also called Heaviside-Feynman formula)." in . < Atom (Anomalies) 22:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
so the H-F is essentially a special case, which is what I thought. If they can be easily confused, they'll do better as one article with a redirect----perhaps you can merge them. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
For the past week, an paper has been circulating about a theory that fragments of Energy are the fundamental building blocks of the universe. At what point does a new idea merit a popflock.com resource page? I don't have a horse in the race, but I found the theory interesting so I started one that collected the basic information proposed in the theory. Clearly someone with more knowledge on particle physics than myself should probably be involved in drafting the article. Anyone interested in looking it over, giving constructive criticism, contributing?frey (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding harsh, revolutionary new ideas about physics are a dime a dozen. Moreover, it's easy for them to generate spurious media coverage, thanks to websites churning press releases for clicks. The sources in the draft are all either that or by the inventors themselves. So far, this is a long way from meeting our noteworthiness standards even for marginal science. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I took at look at the article. Don't waste your time, it's complete nonsense. Tercer (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Piling on. When I saw the headline, I scratched my head - isn't that what Planck's blackbody and Einsteins photoelectric effect showed? That its all "fragments of energy"? I once studied how GPS works, and found myself reading a published article, in some engineering journal, that disproved special relativity. How, you may wonder? Why, its easy! GPS provides a universal time coordinate, everywhere! It took 8 pages to say that; the argumentation was quite clever and craftily constructed. Anyway, I know that this comment is off-topic and inappropriate for WP discussion, but I just thought I'd provide some light entertainment for the readers of this page. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I have been wondering about this too --see User talk:Carchasm#Careful-- but I didn't feel like trying to stop a runaway train... - DVdm (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I also saw that. I did notice that the page of the category itself asks for it to be depopulated, so I guess it's fine. Ultimately I don't really care one way or the other. Tercer (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The request is to re-categorise to sub-topics "where applicable" and certainly not to remove completely. Some of the sub-topic categorisation has been inappropriate and some has been undone already. Feel free to pile in if you see one that doesn't make sense. Lithopsian (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorting articles more specifically seems a useful thing to do, overall. I did revert a couple . XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The category had gotten turned into a dumping ground for all matter of pages (fields of research, equations, quantities, introductions, history articles - basically anything that wasn't a person or organization). I think it's probably a good long-term goal to completely empty it if we can find/create better categories as per WP:OCMISC, but I had started moving things to (admittedly, subjectively) "better" categories for the time being. For example, coherence can certainly be a quantity if we're talking about measuring the amount of coherence between two waves, but it does seem like it should both be in Category:Physical quantities and some other category that maybe doesn't exist yet, as well as any optics specific categories (properties of light, maybe?). If people feel strongly that a certain page should remain in for now though I'm not going to push back on that... Though in the interest of openness I'm also the one who added the Category diffusion template and the one who moved the Quantities, Equations, and Phenomena Categories to be subcategories of Category:Concepts in physics rather than Category:Physics so if that's not the direction people think we should go I'm open to discussing that. - car chasm (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I always thought the category was for concepts used in physics: Like Internal energy or mass-energy equivalence - they might relate to physical quantities, but they are also concepts you learn about while studying physics. Though I note it is hard to define any criteria for inclusion for that, so maybe it is better to find more selective categories. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
"Concepts" categories tend to become a dumping ground for things people haven't bothered to properly categorize. They do need to be cleaned up every now and then, moving articles to more appropriate categories.--Srleffler (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Astrophysics Data System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmBacon 05:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I was working on Draft:Leonid Adamovich Sosnovskiy.; the ed. contributing it has also contributed Mechanothermodynamics, claimed to be a "new branch of physics". and tribo-fatigue, an article making similar but less extensive claims. Ssee alsoDraft:Leonid Adamovich Sosnovskiy. I am in doubt whether either if them is a generally accepted theory or branch of physics, and I saw there were rather few references in Google Scholar to any of Sosnovsky's work. I am not sure where on the line from pseudoscience to not yet accepted but plausible theories this work may lie.
I can deal with the ordinary necessary removal of promotionalism and puffery in the bio, and normalizing the Russian references, but I think those with greater knowledge than I should look at the physical science aspects of that bio , and revise (or truncate) and explain the current NPOV for the two subject articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Conceptually there seems to be little new and not much support on Google Scholar. It seems to be a special interest topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC).
This article feels like an acid trip. It's a rather unique combination of pseudo-science, pseudo-mathematics, and pseudo-philosophy. Most fascinatingly, the subject matter is not grandiose stuff like cosmology or particle physics or foundations of quantum mechanics, but engineering. I guess the Soviet Union produced very different sorts of crackpots than the West. In any case, how did this get past AfC? I couldn't find anyone other than Sosnovskiy and Sherbakov writing about this in Google Scholar, and they write about it in the predatory journal "Entropy". Tercer (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The article says, in order to sell the topic, Attempts to combine mechanics and thermodynamics were unsuccessful for a long time. What a bizarre assertion! Suffice to say that Sadi Carnot was a mechanical engineer, and that thermodynamics all along has been about the interchange of heat and work, work being a mechanical concept. XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I think that the article mechanothermodynamics shouldn't have been accepted and that it should be deleted. I have not yet had the time to evaluate tribo-fatigue, but I am not optimistic. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
It is true that Sadi Carnot was the first to point out the connection between heat and mechanical work in a heat engine. But this is an incorrect interpretation of Mechanothermodynamics in the spirit of Carnot. You implies that attempt is reducible to thermodynamics since it is all about the interchange of heat and work. I would like to remind that almost two centuries have passed since times of Carnot and Clausius. Since then major advances were made in physics in general and in mechanics and thermodynamics (consider for instance dissipative structures) in particular. For example, mechanothermodynamics takes into account irreversible component of the energy, which is spent on the production of damage, and not just the separation of energy into reversible and irreversible. Therefore, your statement is superficial and does not comply with factuality. Barejsha02 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
You did not have time to evaluate Tribo-Fatigue, but you are not optimistic. Do I understand correctly that you evaluate it negatively in advance, without reading Tribo-Fatigue?Barejsha02 (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I took a look again at these articles, as their style is quite suspect: the equations are embedded images, the text is journal style, and some of the figures are quite complex. I then checked the two open access references , and bingo: it's a massive copyvio. Figure 3 of Mechanothermodynamics is copied from Fig. 1 in the first article, Figure 4 is copied from Fig. 1 in the second article, the equations in the section "?-interactions" are copied from Figures 2 and 3 in the first article. These equations are also used in tribo-fatigue. I suspect we'll find that all of the figures are copyvios if we get access to the non-open access sources.
PS: Another paper by Sosnovskiy, which is a source for more copyvios . Tercer (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear editors! Bareisha02 is me, a former apprentice of Professor Sosnovskiy. For over 20 years I have been working in this new field of knowledge, at one of the largest factories in Belarus. The suspicion that Bareisha02 is Sosnovskiy himself is thus simply groundless. But I am pleased that they assess me as a good specialist in this area, as Professor Sosnovskiy himself. Thank you.
In production, the beneficial results of science are especially tangible. This is one of the reasons why I took up the promotion of articles on Tribo-Fatigue and Mechanothermodynamics on Wikipedia. Another is understanding their implications for the future Barejsha02 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to open up a discussion here on the "Langtons Ant Wave Equation", a derivation using the Telegraphers equation along with a circuit diagram and Octave script could be a starting point for our discussion, it would be great to have popflock.com resource responsible for increasing the IQ level of planet Earth. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakoder (talk o contribs) 11:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
This article contains
>>>>For fermions, the reduced Compton wavelength sets the cross-section of interactions.<<<< For example, the cross-section for Thomson scattering of a photon from an electron is equal to[clarification needed] .....
I feel it wrong (but I have not a regular training in physics). May anyone safely state if is simply right or simply wrong or right under suitable constraint?
It is correct. It is simply referring to the scale (like order of magnitude). The fine structure constant is a constant and so the scale is determined by the reduced Compton wavelength. Simply searching Google for the cross section of Thomson scattering will yield sources for the math formula (the there is probably unnecessary), and the statement preceding it is really a summary of the math formula. Many sources just write out the whole cross-section, but usually as (SI): where and so that . Some sources (CGS, like Jackson, p.695) will not include the bit. I hope this helps. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear @Footlessmouse:, as usual (also in my native italian) I am unable to make clear what I mean. First of all, thanks for the prompt answer and for the patience needed in talking with me.
The point is not the correctness of the Thompson formula, but of the phrase >>>For ... interaction<<<<. Who (not I) has added "clarification needed" has added it in the wrong place: it had to be added after "interaction" (i.e where I wrote <<<<), not at the end. This has contributed to attract your attention to a different problem.
What puzzled me was:
* why ONLY for fermions (immediately after >>>>)? Perhaps because the non-gauge bosons are treated as combinations of fermions?
* for which interaction (immediately before <<<)?. The example is for the electromagnetic one, but the phrase immediately below for the gauge bosons suggests all four.
It is still correct. For your first question, bosons just aren't as pushy as fermions, as they don't behave any form of the Pauli exclusion principle. As for your second question, it is referring to electromagnetic interactions, but what else is there? Strong, weak, and gravity are the other "fundamental forces" and we don't typically study scattering interactions in those realms (except HEP, who do lots of simulations of strong force interactions, but it is a bit different). Think about it like this: as Ruslik pointed out, is the classical electron radius while the classical cross section is given by . There is a difference of a constant between this classical answer and the actual cross section, but it captures its dependencies. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: I didn't read all of that the first time. What's important, in EM interactions, is that the "radius" at which the electron "orbits" is proportional to the Compton wavelength and it sets the scale of interaction. Two neutral bosons will not interact with each other and only the W and Z bosons have charge and their half-lives are extraordinarily short, so I'm not sure whether or not it is even viable. The effect apparently also exists for Yukawa interactions (strong force), but I do not know any details on that. This is not really my field of expertise, I just chimed in because no one else answered and I am confident it is correct. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. You have helped me in understanding the real problem: I have attempted to extend the statement beyond its scope (I wondered why it seemed to exclude the bosons -- e.g. deuterons and alpha particles -- from Thompson scattering). Suppongoche (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
RfC regarding nuclear powered devices on top of mountains in India
Anybody with good graphics skills that wishes to at least do a plot of the edge of the Norton's dome (either 2D or 3D)? Equation in the article. --ReyHahn (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Lol, no, the equation is not in the article. It gives h as a function of the arc length, what we need for plotting is h as a function of x. I hope I'm not too old for this, I solved it and got
No wonder Norton preferred to use the arc length as a parameter! With this equation anybody can make the figures for you using plotting software. Note that the dome is finite, contrary to what I thought when reading the article: both x and h go from 0 to , and r goes from 0 to . Tercer (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh no you are right it is not y(x) but y(r) which makes it more complicated. I think there is something wrong there though, you have some powers that can simplify.. --ReyHahn (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, my computer was not displaying it well, I get the same equation as you. You can invert it for x, here is a WolframAlpha plot for g=?: --ReyHahn (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Nice, good to know. Any particular reason for using g= I would set instead , so that instead of
And here  is the dome. Tercer (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
It was done just to identify where g went, but 2g^2/3=1 is a good idea. Again, we just need somebody willing to plot it and upload it.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be revolved around y axis instead of x?--ReyHahn (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, the axis of revolution should be vertical. I don't really know how to use Wolfram Alpha. In any case, I added the plot there. I did the 2D version, not just out of laziness, but also because you don't really see the singularity at the summit in the 3D version, and the singularity is all that matters. Tercer (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Isthere any reason this draft should not be accepted? DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I can find only two publications where this phenomenon is actually called "Gurzadyan-Savvidy relaxation". It does not seem to be notable. Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
should it be called something else? DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Reject. Insufficient evidence yet of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC).
While working on quantum mechanics, I got a bit shocked that the article was in such a bad state, even though it is extremely visible: it gets roughly 120k views per month! With the help of XOR'easter, I investigated a bit, and saw that the problem is rather widespread: of the 40 most visible articles in physics, only 4 have GOOD/FEATURED status. The reason is probably very simple: editors write about what they find interesting, and these are very often niche/obscure topics. At least that's what I do.
To remedy this, I suggest we do a contest, much like other WikiProjects often do. Make a list of articles that are important, very visible, and in a bad state, and offer prizes for editors that improve them. Usually these prizes are just peer-recognization in the form of a fancy barnstar, but to give an extra incentive for editors to work in not-necessarily-sexy topics, I'd be willing to put some of my money on it (e.g. offering 20EUR per article that makes it into GA/FA status, up to a limit of 120EUR in total).
What do you think? Can it work, or is it a terrible idea for some reason that I haven't thought of? Note that the Core Contest offered monetary rewards several times, so it's not against the rules. Also, anybody volunteers to help? I'd like help with judging the work, creating the list of articles to improve, and designing the fancy barnstar (my idea would be something like a barnstar of fennel on fire, alluding to Prometheus).
I do have a preliminary list of articles, together with the monthly page views:
I can help judge. My graphic design skills probably aren't up to the task of making an evocative barnstar, though. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I really like this idea, many of our core topics are not in very good shape and it could potentially be very helpful have an organized effort to improve them. Editing highly visible articles is sometimes not very fun, requiring extensive discussion for minor changes, it quickly leads to burnout. Some sort of competition or reward system may just help encourage editors who otherwise would not want to deal with it all. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll write it up more formally tomorrow. I think it would be good to start the contest very soon, since so many countries are in lockdown and people don't have much to do. Can we do it as a contest from the WikiProject Physics itself? I don't want to brand it as my personal idiosyncrasy. Also, does anybody know how can we advertise the existence of the contest? Here, presumably. Maybe also in the talk pages of the selected articles? Tercer (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. Maybe the announcement should refer to popflock.com Resource: The Core Contest? Following the example of... Would it help to include in the announcement a few things we'd look for in an improvement, or would linking to the Good article criteria be enough of a hint? Maybe we should be more direct and say something like, "Claims should be sourced to well-regarded textbooks and review articles, rather than press releases and random websites." XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Good point, I linked to the Core Contest, and also to WP:GA and WP:FA. I don't see the point of repeating the good article criteria there, we're not asking for anything different. Tercer (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, found this while trawling through stubby orphans. Anyone have any idea whether it should remain standalone, or can it be merged somewhere (or even deleted?). I'm not good at evaluating physics-related topics so I'd appreciate any help I can get. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)