Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

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

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.

Second opinions on Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics

I would like some second (third, fourth) opinions on Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics. My feeling is that the current page implies that this approach is a viable alternative to standard electrodynamics. (It has other issues such as being a textbook and long sections without sources which are thus OR.) It looks like it was accepted on AfC in good faith by an editor who is not a physics expert, so might not have been aware of the issues.

In the interim I have added a few tags to it. Maybe some clear edits to indicate that it is not fully adequate, or something harsher. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Google Scholar search for "Weber–Maxwell Electrodynamics" only returns a few articles from a single author with a small number of citations—mostly self cites—so the subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on a recent negative episode I experienced, I strongly encourage everyone to move this discussion to Talk: Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics. Our discussions should include editors focused on that article who may not attend this page. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, I copied everything with the exception of John's suggestion. There should be a way to link as is done with GA and other nominations, if someone knows how to please let me know. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Casimir pressure

Does this really merit a separate article? Is it something that is conceptually distinct from the Casimir effect? Utopes seems to think so. —Quondum 12:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The main figure of Casimir effect has in the caption "Casimir force", which does question a difference. In addition a strange reference has been added of what might be an interesting paper on dark matter, but is too soon. Since you did a delete/redirect in March 2023 I suggest going to a RfD or similar. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy merge: Casimir force is by definition a pressure calculation, you get a force per unit area unless you multiply by the surface of the plates. I do not think it deserves a separate article. Casimir pressure has a single reference to a not cited paper that is on hypothetical dark matter particles, not notable.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that @Quondum did a merge that was reverted, so it has (I believe) to go to discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: I added that citation yesterday because the article (previously) existed as an unreferenced page since 2009-2023, and was WP:BLAR'd because Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT. I agree. But the article shouldn't be BLAR'd into a page where the topic isn't discussed either, so alternative means should have been used when dealing with this page, and I was reverting the BLAR. In order to not have it pop up on the unreferenced-pages again though, I added a citation to a journal where Casimir pressure was discussed, as it seemed. I don't feel strongly about the reference, but figured it was better than no reference at all. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Utopes: Thanks for clarifying. I think that you are right, I will proceed to merge Casimir pressure content into Casimir force and redirect it. Would that be ok?--ReyHahn (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That would be fine. The best thing to do (from my POV) would be to have the redirect point to an anchor at the target page, so that people who type in Casimir pressure are taken to the section in Casimir effect where "Casimir pressure" would be discussed. Thank you for the help! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I just did the merge, adding in the lead two well cited papers that use the term interchangeable with effect. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Noting the term in the lead is definitely suitable, so targeting to the full page works here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I encourage editors to post on Talk:Casimir pressure to avoid excluding editors interested in that topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLAR'ing the article into a title that doesn't mention "Casimir pressure" in the slightest (with the only mention of "pressure" being a reference to "producing 1 atm of pressure") is an inappropriate way of redirecting/removing content, Quondum. I don't have a strong opinion whether or not the page should exist, just that it should not be redirected to Casimir effect in the latter article's current state, where reader's questions about a "Casimir pressure" are not answered or addressed. Take to AfD if you must, or merge content to substantiate a redirect if desired. @Ldm1954:, there was no merge. No edits to Casimir effect by Quondum since 2022, and the BLAR occurred in 2023. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all – this seems to have led to a good result. On my side, I should have just pointed to the talk page here and started the discussion there. It always helps to have people who a comfortable with the subject matter involved. —Quondum 23:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Sharpness (cutting)

Can you believe that 20 years in, we have had no article on the concept of an object being sharp, in the sense of being able to initiate cuts through other surfaces?

I have started Sharpness (cutting), but it currently has more geology and biology than physics, and it could probably benefit from the does of the latter. I understand that there exist formulae for defining sharpness as inversely proportional to an edge radius, but this is not my field, so I defer to the experts to write further on that aspect. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox interpretation of quantum mechanics

A newly created {{Infobox interpretation of quantum mechanics}} has been added. I am opposed to adding it to articles. Please comment here: Template_talk:Infobox_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics#Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics_cannot_be_summarized_in_yes_no_questions. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Help on Physical object

I'm working on improving the Physical object article, however, I'm not familiar with best practices. I've added a discussion topic in the Talk page over there, but so far no comments.

If you can, can you help improve the article? Or, can anyone offer general advice for some direction: topics, sources, etc.? Farkle Griffen (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not certain this article needs to exist at all. Do others have thoughts on this? PianoDan (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That was my thought as well. The term "physical object" is so familiar that we lose sight of the fact that it is a term that has an intuitive meaning in everyday use but resists definition. Humans have an impulse to categorize, but the article as is tries to stretch the idea way beyond everyday use. In WP, equivalents such a thing, entity, object, etc. seem to be equally absent, diffuse or pointless. Without good sources, it seems pretty contrary to the principles of WP. —Quondum 16:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I also doubt that this article needs to be written. The concept is so vague. Is an elementary particle a physical object? Is a field one? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC).

The book

• Castellani, Elena, ed. (1998). Interpreting bodies: classical and quantum objects in modern physics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01725-9.

contains articles by physicists includining Max Born, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Giancarlo Ghirardi, Diederik Aerts as well as philosophers of science including Tim Maudlin and Paul Teller.

It seems to me that the simplest common name for "classical and quantum objects in modern physics" would be "physical object". Surely this amounts to a notable source. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a great source to bridge physics and philosophy. 👍 Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

"Physical object" is an important topic in philosophy, in the contexts of ontology and metaphysics. See for instance the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for Object and the book The Concept of a Physical Object. Psychologists also consider the topic, e.g. Divisions of the physical world: Concepts of objects and substances. I haven't seen much written on the topic from the point of view of physics, however. As with everything WP, I would stick with summarizing expositions about the topic in reliable sources to develop the article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That page looks like a heap of OR waffling: various editors over the years spouting off their own thoughts based on however much physics they know (or think they know), rather than starting with sources. I am not convinced that the article needs to exist. If we are to have it, the right way to go about it would be to start with physics textbooks, see how/if they define what they mean by "object", survey the philosophy of physics literature for the same, etc., and then write an organized summary of the references found. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ad XOR'easter, and Mark viking. I think that the notion of a 'physical object' is of great philosophical importance. I think that physics textbooks are not the right way to start. Physics textbooks are written from a point of view that their whole Universe of Discourse is entirely exhausted by physical objects (except for some highly esteemed nuts who shall be nameless who make out that quantum mechanics requires a proper living person to be its "observer"). Physics textbooks hardly question the notion of 'physical object'.

For myself, I prefer the term 'enduring physical object', but that is neither here nor there. The notion of a physical object is close to synonymity with Descartes' 'res extensa'. Perhaps that should call for a link or redirection rather than a separate article. I don't intend to try to work on this topic.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In philosophy, there will be a spectrum of definitions. Chjoaygame's comments here do not motivate the existence of the article to cover the general concept, beyond the article Subject and object (philosophy) that already exists. —Quondum 13:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the potentially covering article as Res extensa more than as Subject and object (philosophy).Chjoaygame (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That could be (which might suggest retargeting the redirect Object (philosophy) or even a philosophy-specific article Physical object (philosophy), suitably sourced) – but this is not my area. The point remains that an article that tries to define it from the perspective of every discipline as this one does is not appropriate, and an absence of a physics-specific article seems to make sense. —Quondum 16:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion we don't need to artifically limit the scope of the article. WP:BALANCE considerations and the lack of sources which would provide in-depth physics discussion should naturally focus the article on philosophy if all the synthesis and original research is removed. If I am wrong, and there actually are reasonable source about physics, then there is no problem since the discussion can be based on those. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There are countless physics sources talking about physical objects, just not commonly about their existence / an all-encompassing definition. As far as I know, physicists don't usually doubt their understanding of what an object is, however, they have quite a lot to say about their properties and classifications. Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your main point that there are sources. On:

• "physicists don't usually doubt their understanding of what an object is"

A large part of physics is devoted to this subject so maybe a better way to express what I guess you are saying is "physicists often use simple models containing abstraction of physical objects". Some doubts are due complexity (water?, fire?, air?, earth?) and some are fundamental (photons). We just need to be careful to find sources that discuss "objects" rather than sources which are only about things we think of as objects. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want to write a 95% philosophy article with 5% on physical sciences and life science definitions that is fine -- it is always good to cross-pollinate. However, I strongly disagree with your proposal in Talk:Physical object#Basic outline which includes "types of properties, emphasizing measurability and interaction", some aspects of which appears to be spilling over here. Those topics are covered in a vast number of articles, see both Physical property and WP:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics#Physics basics: General. I still feel that what is needed is to add a few sources to the Physical object#In physics section. (I will add that a brief section beyond physics is needed, e.g. life sciences.)

N.B., I don't understand why the page Physical object is listed as a Level 5 vital article. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's because Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics currently contains 1170 articles out of quota of 1200, and anyone can still freely add anything they consider "vital" (I added phonon a while back). Only when the quota is full, is there any need for discussion. So this is one editor's opinion of what is vital. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus to remove an unsourced image.

I have removed an unsourced and incorrect image twice but these changes have been reverted. Please comment on Talk:Double-slit_experiment#Photon_animation_is_not_correct. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Template:Composition

Does anyone want to defend this stub of a template (which I noticed is used in Physical object. Unless I hear a willingness to make this useful, as against a 1-line template, I will do an AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Not I (it appears to be squeezing fuzzy reality into overly-tightly defined hierarchical classifications that apply in a narrow range of conditions). For info, it is used in:

• Atom, Elementary particle, Molecule, Quark, Subatomic particle, Physical object, Clone (cell biology), Matter.

—Quondum 19:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No, also how subatomic particle is less than physical objects? Are particle not physical objects? Is matter not a physical object? Why is cell here?--ReyHahn (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Composition

Template:Composition has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Glass

Your input is requested @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Template:WikiProject Glass regarding the relationship between {{WikiProject Glass}} & {{WikiProject Physics}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge Effective theory and Effective field theory?

I am not sure this merge was totally obvious so I proposed a merge dicussion at Talk:Effective theory#Merge discussion to merge effective field theory into effective theory (currently a stub). ReyHahn (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Page rating

I have noticed that at least two enthusiastic editors (with not that many edits to date) are going alphabetically through unrated articles. Almost all science (including physics) they look at end with a "Low-importance" rating. I can't fault this, since if this project does not rate one of its articles then by default it is not an important one. Alternatively some of us might want to review the project ratings...

Just a thought. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Field electron emission

The article field electron emission is too long per WP:SIZE. I propose a split discussion at Talk:Field electron emission#Splitting proposal ReyHahn (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)