Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

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

GR Amaldi edit-a-thon 13 July 2025

To coincide with the 24th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation (GR24) and the 16th Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves (Amaldi16), there will be a Wikipedia edit-a-thon on 13 July. This will concentrate on pages connected to topics of the conference, primarily in gravitational physics, and biographies of researchers in the area. There should be some translation of pages, depending on the availability of international conference participants. Please expect a edits from several new accounts with IPs corresponding to the University of Glasgow. Expert Wikipedians will give some training at the start of the day. We hope the event will encourage some longer-term involvement in editing Wikipedia from participants. CPLBerry (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Edward Condon

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)

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)

It looks like Quondum went through and cleaned up various citation-style inconsistencies, which was a nice step. Does anything else about this actually look problematic to anyone? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Quasi-empirical method, real or OR?

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, 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

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

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)

Redirect to Quasi-empiricism in mathematics Johnjbarton (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Done, this is what I intended to do if nobody objected. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like the right move. Thanks. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

"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)

DOI Wikipedia reference generator is dead

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)

I use WP:ProveIt. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It is perfect. Thank you. MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd recommend either citer.toolforge.org or zbib.org. fgnievinski (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! MathKeduor7 (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Cylindrical mirror

I think Wikipedia's readers could benefit from an article about cylindrical mirrors. I've started a draft. Everyone is welcome to help. Best wishes! MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I would encourage you to adopt one of the two citation styles used in most physics articles. I don't know the name of the most common style but Redshift is an example. It is described in Help:Footnotes along with uncommon variants. The other style is called Help:Shortened footnotes and it has several common variants. An example is Wu experiment. Neither style solves all problems but any new one just makes more work for editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I'll make changes there tomorrow. MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on Template:Regeneron Science Talent Search

I have posted a discussion on the merits of Template:Regeneron Science Talent Search at the TfD page here. It looks like interested editors add "Replies" at that discussion page. About 20% of the prior winners now have Wikipedia pages. I am posting both to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science as they are in various disciplines, and here as a decent number became physics academics. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Microscopy article titles

FYI - I've started a discussion over at Village Pump on Wikipedia's highly inconsistent set of article titles for different types of microscopy: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#What_to_title_microscope--microscopy_articles?

Feedback would definitely be welcome! Peter G Werner (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Augustin-Jean Fresnel

Augustin-Jean Fresnel 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) 00:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Deep Impact (spacecraft)

Deep Impact (spacecraft) 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) 15:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:William Rankine#Requested move 5 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:William Rankine#Requested move 5 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Check a HEP page please

Can someone knowledgeable in HEP please check Higgs pair production: e.g. for LLM, accuracy etc. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

While I don't meet your qualifications I boldly edited that page. The main problem is dated overly detailed content, much of which I removed. I added a key recent review of the Compact Muon Solenoid project. The main need is some basic theoretical and experimental context with links. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Physics AfD category

I added (with a little help) a "Physics" category to those available when creating an AfD. Any AfD's which are created using it now also appear at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Nikola Tesla

Nikola Tesla 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) 21:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

request AfD or redirect: Quantum engineering

Currently the article Quantum technology (QT for short below) is redirected to Quantum engineering (QE for short below). It seems QE is the name of a master programme at ETZH but not much else. The QE article mainly refers to material about QT and it uses very little supporting material for QE (if any). The are plenty of university courses related to quantum technolgy, but very few of them are actually called QT. But probably are some master programmes, tracks or profiles with the term quantum technology in their names or syllabi.

The other language versions about QT link to the QT article.

I suggest to remedy this by:

1. deleting the QE article and reinstating the QT article, or

2. omitting anything QT from the QE article and reinstating the QT article, or

3. reinstating the QT article and redirecting to that from the QE article (milder version of 1.), or

4. If there actually is sufficient reason to maintain an article on QE, do so but revoke the redirect from QT to QE (variant of 2.).

I today posted a draft version for an QT article in my sandbox. Alternatively use previous non-redirected versions of QT article, then we can update it. Benkeboy (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem. I'm unconvinced by your proposal. Quantum technology redirects to Quantum engineering, so the options your options don't make sense. I assume you mean you want to restore the older version here. That article has a large number of problems which may have lead to the redirect. Most of the content overlaps with quantum computing: why do we need both? The strategy section is not clearly encyclopedic. "Pillars" is just marketing speak.

I do think that "quantum technology" and "quantum engineering" are notable topics. I think we could have "quantum technology" as as Wikipedia:Broad-concept article with summaries of quantum computing and quantum engineering, quantum sensor, and quantum communications. To me that makes more sense the the old version.

These topics are both engineering rather than physics so I wonder if this is best venue to discuss them. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is the case for "quantum technology" as a notable topic:

• Dowling, J. P., & Milburn, G. J. (2003). Quantum technology: the second quantum revolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 361(1809), 1655-1674. (1400 citations, top journal, review of article topic)
• This trend in quantum technology is curiously reminiscent of the history of semiconductors: here, too, sensors—for instance light meters based on selenium photocells —have found commercial applications decades before computers. From the introduction of Degen, C. L., Reinhard, F., & Cappellaro, P. (2017). Quantum sensing. Reviews of modern physics, 89(3), 035002. (4300 citations, top journal)
• Quantum Technologies in a nutshell, outline of EU funding for quantum technologies. The outline of web page matches my proposal for adopting Wikipedia:Broad-concept article plan for an article on "quantum technology".

Based on this I proposed to replace the current redirect with a new article focused on short summaries of existing quantum technology wikipedia articles. The existing quantum engineering would focus on educational and standardization content.

@Benkeboy Would you agree to this counter proposal? Other inputs? Johnjbarton (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: SynchronoGeometry draft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi everyone! I’ve submitted a draft article titled SynchronoGeometry that proposes a geometric framework where each point in space carries an intrinsic temporal rhythm. It builds on ideas from Riemannian geometry, geometric flows, and quantum spacetime oscillations.

I’d be grateful for any feedback on its scientific relevance, clarity, or potential connections to existing physical theories. 🔗 User:SynchronoGeometry/sandbox

Thanks for your time and insights! SynchronoGeometry (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Not a single source mentions "SynchronoGeometry". Looks like this is something you invented yourself. That's not what Wikipedia is for, see WP:INVENTED. Tercer (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Response to Wikipedia Editors:

Hello and thank you all for your feedback.

SynchronoGeometry is an emerging conceptual framework currently undergoing academic review. I've sent the draft—including its mathematical foundations and proposed applications—to faculty at reputable institutions for evaluation. My goal at this stage is not to publish an article on Wikipedia, but rather to gather informal perspectives from experienced editors on its structure, clarity, and theoretical soundness.

The sandbox was created solely to facilitate that exchange before any formal publication or citation takes place. I fully respect Wikipedia’s guidelines regarding original research and will not pursue article creation until reliable secondary sources become available.

With appreciation, SynchronoGeometry (talk) SynchronoGeometry (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.