Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

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

Shortcuts

Good article reassessment for Edward Condon

[edit]

Edward Condon 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) 13:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other day I went through and fixed what actually looked broken to me. Maybe other people have additional opinions. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

[edit]

Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is $500 of prizes going into improving STEM and business-related articles and we want to see a lot of science-related articles destubbed and older stale articles improved. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for science, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing to license a bundle of busybody drive-by shooters?Chjoaygame (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bit much, yeah? My internal go-to image of locust clouds is even worse materially, though. Remsense ‥ 论 23:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The contest is to expand articles about countries. Not directly related to physics or science. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

[edit]

Hello,
Please note that Remote sensing, 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, 2 June 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Avogadro constant#COI editor

[edit]

For anyone interested in the adding of one's own published ideas in Wikipedia. —Quondum 15:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Wu experiment

[edit]

Wu 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) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-referencing discussions on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard

[edit]

See the threads on Speculative spaceflight biographies and United States gravity control propulsion research. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merged short articles regarding statistical physics

[edit]

See Talk:Universality class#Merged material from Ising critical exponents. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Near-extremal black hole

[edit]
Notice

The article Near-extremal black hole has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. Tagged for Notability concerns for 7 weeks. No mathematical formulas for this concept. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. WP:OR or at best WP:SYNTH.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected to Extremal black hole. We can start there if someone wants to build out this topic area. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Bearian (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Non-Archimedean time

[edit]
Notice

The article Non-Archimedean time has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced for almost 20 years, this is a thing, but this page is synthesis of several ideas.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! Can we even dignify it by calling it "a thing"? There are also so many utterly different ways to be non-archimedean, making it a hopeless name. Delete delete delete. —Quondum 14:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to deletion from me. I don't think the page text actually combines unrelated ideas, and this is legitimately one thing that a person could mean by "non-Archimedean time" (that the labels on the time axis don't satisfy the Archimedean property). But only a couple extremely marginal sources seem to have used the words in this way. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re Ocean heat content

[edit]

The article Ocean heat content (OHC) -- in the version before I edited it -- suggested, that heat is stored in the oceans. However, no thermodynamics system stores heat or work. Heat and work are modes of energy transfer. Heat is associated to processes only, not to states. Systems store energy (or mass, or charge, etc.).

Extended content

An edit war seems to start there, because some editors with little to no knowledge in thermodynamics want to keep their unfounded agenda, that "oceans store heat."

In the OHC article, I edited the lead section and clarified the historic but now-obsolete notion "heat content" (which was a predecessor for enthalpy). I provided references, I added a section about thermodynamic preliminaries and linked many thermodynamic articles.

I bring this to your attention in the hope for support from the physics community.

I'll cite my lead section of the OHC-article in my first reply to myself here. Thank you. --EinMathematikerInAustria (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the lead section of Ocean heat content in the version I edited it. Seemingly, other editors (maybe activists?) cannot accept that "work and heat are not stored in a system" and delete that repeatedly.
In fact, OHC is an enthalpy (per area, per volume, or total), as explained in conservative temperature, TEOS-10 and in section 3.3 of the official manual for the constitutive model TEOS-10, https://www.teos-10.org/pubs/TEOS-10_Manual.pdf .
============================================ (START)
Map of the ocean heat anomaly in the upper 700 meters for year 2020 versus the 1993–2020 average.[1] Some regions accumulated more energy than others due to transport drivers such as winds and currents.
Ocean heat content (OHC) or ocean heat uptake (OHU) is the enthalpy absorbed by oceans, and is thus an important indicator of global warming.[2] Ocean heat content is calculated by measuring ocean temperature at many different locations and depths, and integrating the areal density of a change in enthalpic energy over an ocean basin or entire ocean.[3] Despite being called heat content, “work and heat are not stored in a system. Each is a mode of transfer of energy from one system to another,”[4]. Historically, in the 19th century, the now obsolete notion “heat content” was used in thermodynamics for enthalpy and denoted by , see the section about history and etymology of enthalpy, and see also the section Critics and possible misunderstandings.
This wikipedia article
============================================ (END)
--EinMathematikerInAustria (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jessica Blunden (25 August 2021). "Reporting on the State of the Climate in 2020". Climate.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  2. ^ Cheng, Lijing; Foster, Grant; Hausfather, Zeke; Trenberth, Kevin E.; Abraham, John (2022). "Improved Quantification of the Rate of Ocean Warming". Journal of Climate. 35 (14): 4827–4840. Bibcode:2022JCli...35.4827C. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0895.1.
  3. ^ Dijkstra, Henk A. (2008). Dynamical oceanography ([Corr. 2nd print.] ed.). Berlin: Springer Verlag. p. 276. ISBN 9783540763758.
  4. ^ Beretta, G.P.; E.P. Gyftopoulos (2015). "What is heat?" (PDF). Journal of Energy Resources Technology. ASME. 137 (2). doi:10.1115/1.4026382.

EinMathematikerInAustria (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Ocean heat content. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Melvin Vopson

[edit]

See recent edits at Entropic gravity and State of matter, as well as the Talk page for the latter. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed some that you missed in the former. —Quondum 20:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-empirical method, real or OR?

[edit]

I ran across the page Quasi-empirical method which claims to be about science in general, not just mathematics. It has one source which does not seem that definitive or notable (cited 3 times). Of course empirical method and ab-initio are standard,[a] but I have never heard of this, it looks like 23 years old WP:OR. Unless I hear some defence of it as "real" I will redirect or PROD it.

Notes

  1. ^ We need a decent general science ab-initio page, the only one I see currently is QM chemistry

Ldm1954 (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A simple WP:BEFORE type of search shows that yes, quasi-empirical methods are a real topic, discussed by Lakatos and others e.g., [1]. However, I've only seen them discussed in depth in the context of mathematics. Given that, redirecting to Quasi-empiricism in mathematics would be a reasonable alternative to deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 02:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quasi-empiricism in mathematics Johnjbarton (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, this is what I intended to do if nobody objected. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the right move. Thanks. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Quasi-empirical" is probably a term that is used somewhat colloquially, i.e., without a single definite meaning established in a particular place. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DOI Wikipedia reference generator is dead

[edit]

I loved DOI Wikipedia reference generator in the past, but it no longer exists. I want to format some references to be used in a new section at a math/physics article, but it's extremely boring to do that manual formatting with templates. Is there any other automatic tool? P.S. I want to format these references: User:MathKeduor7/sandbox#References. MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I use WP:ProveIt. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfect. Thank you. MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend either citer.toolforge.org or zbib.org. fgnievinski (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!!! MathKeduor7 (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&oldid=1297173604"