Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive March 2018

Haidinger fringe

Hi!

I was reading the article Haidinger fringe and its talk page and agree with the comments made. On v:Physics/Fringes I have a definition from the online Random House Dictionary which may be suitable properly wikified for Wikipedia. There's also a diagram interpreted from its text to describe these fringes. Writing articles for Wikipedia is difficult for me to do. If someone more experienced is willing to help we can put something together on the article's talk page. Anyone interested? --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Doubly special relativity?

Please see Doubly special relativity. Is this for real? Or is it a hoax or some fringe idea? JRSpriggs (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe too many first sources? It relies vastly on this researcher Amelino-Camelia articles. Nevertheless, doing a first superficial look at the references and the citations it seems ok. --MaoGo (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The talk page is also very informative. --MaoGo (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

While it may stay, I don't know about the author wikipage Giovanni Amelino-Camelia. --MaoGo (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a real subject, but the referencing might need working on. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia has over 13,000 citations on GS and an h-index of 54, so he passes WP:PROF#C1 even by the standards of physics. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Aharonov–Bohm effect

There is a debate here Talk:Aharonov–Bohm effect#Latest information on the A-B effect about criteria for including new papers on the topic in the article. The issue affects a much wider area than physics. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC).

Invariance mechanics?

The article invariance mechanics has existed essentially unchanged for years, but as best as I can tell, it's a few garbled restatements of textbook material heaped on top of a "theory" that is sourced to a single arXiv paper which was withdrawn by the author. Warning signs include "The history of invariance mechanics is difficult to pinpoint since many people have been working on it without realizing that they were working on invariance mechanics." Another warning sign: No links to the page occur "organically" in article text—only in "see also" lists and in a template created by a user blocked for disrupting physics articles. Yet another: Google Scholar gives only 19 hits for the phrase, almost all of which are false positives. XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I share your skepticism about this topic. While symmetries, conservation laws, and invariance and covariance are important concepts in physics, I could find no evidence of a theory called "invariance mechanics" in published reliable sources. The article itself is a masala of unsourced synthesis and original research and should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

PROD'ed. XOR'easter (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've AFD'ed this. Porphyro (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Fermi energy to Fermi gas

In the next few days, I'm going to proceed with the merge (discuss here). I will leave Fermi energy article alive with the introduction and I will proceed to move the rest to Fermi gas. Feel free to give more feedback. --MaoGo (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

DONE

I performed the merge. I added more details to the Fermi gas article and I left Fermi energy article as a summary of the Fermi gas one. Any commentary is welcomed. MaoGo (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Nicely done! The article reads well and I agree with moving some of the more mathematical material lower in the article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Degenerate matter and Fermi gas

I don't know enough about Degenerate matter as a term. Does it mean the same thing as a Fermi gas? If so I can try to merge both. If it isn't DM is misleading claiming is a free gas of non interacting fermions "also called Fermi gas". --MaoGo (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Degenerate matter article has a strange point of view, in my experience. Degenerate matter is matter in which the Pauli exclusion principle pushes up energy levels to the point that it is an important or dominant part of the pressure. It's that pressure that allows matter to resist collapse from gravitational pressure in white dwarfs or neutron or quark stars. But there is nothing in that about the system being non-interacting. It could be useful to mention or summarize in the Fermi gas article that degenerate matter can be treated as an approximate Fermi gas in some regimes, but the usual non-relativistic condensed matter and relativistic degenerate matter plasma are different beasts with different equations of state and should have different articles. --Mark viking (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I researched the term. Fermi gas is a good name for both nonrelativistic and relativistic non interacting fermion gases. I would add a section in Fermi gas about relativistic Fermi gas. Degenerate matter is usually related to astronomical objects. The ideal Fermi gas would be a mathematical model that describes very well degenerate matter. Nevertheless, degenerate matter does not seem to follow the same premises as Fermi gas and should be stated clearly in both articles. MaoGo (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I just made an attempt to correct degenerate matter intro. --MaoGo (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Newton -> Lagrange: new physics or just new methods?

104.179.121.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps insisting (in the lead of Lagrangian mechanics) that Lagrangian mechanics was a change in physical concepts (from classical to relativistic and quantum) compared to Newtonian mechanics (forces, masses, acceleration, etc.). While the lead previously said that there was "no new physics" involved, he is contradicting or reversing that. My contention is that the change is just one of mathematical methods rather than physics concepts. What do you think? JRSpriggs (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

JRSpriggs is right. Joseph-Louis Lagrange died in 1813 and Albert Einstein, the discoverer of relativity, was born in 1879. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose there's a gray area where "new mathematical methods" and "new physics concepts" might overlap, but classifying Lagrangian mechanics as the former rather than the latter is the much better way to go. XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with JRSpriggs. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC).

Just wondering

Two questions, is there a way to create a link that sends to a random page in the wikiproject physics? I would really like to browse only those. Second question, is there a smart way to find articles that have written formulas in quote template and not in <math>? --MaoGo (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There used to be more powerful tools for this, but the only subject-specific working random page service I know of now is Template:Random_page_in_category. For the second question, I'm not sure what you are speaking of. Template:quote isn't about math. Are you referring to Template:math? If so, you can take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Math. --Mark viking (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Related: This box has lots of nice tools for browsing physics articles --> Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics#Current_status_of_physics_articles. Really that whole project page (WP:PHYS) is full of good stuff, I should use it more often than I do. --Steve (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank for both of your responses, I will take a look. For the second question I'm referring to articles that do this:

E=mc²,

instead of

$E=mc^{2}$.

I've found a couple of articles that did this. --MaoGo (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiral galaxy dynamics

Potentially of interest to participants here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiral galaxy dynamics. XOR'easter (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The AfD has now become an entertaining situation where the author of the article wants to keep it because the research it describes was entirely routine, and also there is a conspiracy of silence against it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The article was imported to Wikiversity was it also deleted there? [1] --MaoGo (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Another shady article

Take a look at Quantum materials article (look at it before my edit [2]). I just indexed it to the project but it seems to exist just to promote conferences. --MaoGo (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I cut it down pretty heavily. XOR'easter (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge between Laplace and Young-Laplace

The article Laplace formula is nominated to be merged with Young-Laplace equation (discussed here). The former should be just a redirect.--MaoGo (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A couple of problems

Ion vibration current links to the DAB page effective mass. The article talks about fluids, so I'm not convinced that a link to effective mass (solid-state physics) would be appropriate.

The article also links to friction coefficient, an article and section about the macroscopic property. I'm not convinced that that's terribly helpful at the ionic level.

Can any expert help solve these problems? Thanks in advance. Narky Blert (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done ... I wrote a new description of the phenomenon. I didn't link to either of those articles (I didn't think they were all that relevant), instead I just described the relevant concepts directly. Thanks for posting! --Steve (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

TY. Good solution. I'm an organic chemist, so that article is still over my head, of course - but it now makes a lot more sense. Narky Blert (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(I've also added IVI to DAB page IVI.) Narky Blert (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC))

Thermal energy proposed for deletion

Proposed for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thermal_energy . Please comment. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)