Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Add discussion
Active discussions
WikiProject Physics
Main / Talk
Members Quality Control

WikiProject Physics (Rated Project-class)
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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

LTA/former LTA?Edit

Reddit thread made December 2019 admits to changing around numbers in Dimensionless numbers in fluid mechanics and various others. Old, but might be worth knowing in the future. wizzito | say hello! 05:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

In that article the only formula change between March 2016 and the reddit thread happened to the Reynolds number and that's okay. Impossible to check all physics articles because of that old thread now. --mfb (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

New state of matter discoveredEdit

Letting editors with the WikiProject of Physics know that the new state of matter, electron quadruplets has a stub article now. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON?--Srleffler (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree. What we need are peer-reviewed secondary sources that cover the history of the idea. With those in hand, we could say whether this topic needs a paragraph in a larger article, or whether it deserves to be a stand-alone page. I'm a bit dubious on the latter, though; for comparison, strange metal is only a section in Fermi liquid theory. XOR'easter (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
If I never see another citation to, it'll be too soon. But apart from that, time-reversal symmetry breaking in exotic superconductors is a pretty big topic of research (see here for a review that looks decent, and here for an observation that dates back to 1998). Maybe that's the broader setting in which this could be discussed. XOR'easter (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wind powerEdit

Wind power has been nominated for an individual 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Havana SyndromeEdit

Havana syndrome makes numerous claims about the effects of microwaves on the human body. I have opened an RfC concerning the comments of a Professor of Radiology about the Frey effect. Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC: Is "Science Vs" a Reliable Source and does it support the addition of my proposed text?DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Stree-optic coefficient redirectsEdit

I have created these eight pages, all redirects to Photoelasticity.

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: With the way the WP search function works recently, it seems to be unnecessary to add variations of capitalization and punctuation. Creating only one of these would have resulted in any one being typed in still prompting with and redirecting to the closest spelling, suggesting that we should create only "correct" variants. This does not seem to be mentioned at WP:REDIR yet, though. (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Does that affect wikilinks as well as search? If not, the variant redirects are still needed, so that a link to Stress optic coefficient won't turn up red if the only redirect is from Stress-optic coefficient.--Srleffler (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
How many "wrong" ways of writing something do we want to encourage? If the official term is "stress-optic coefficient", then with/without the hyphen is acceptable, but every combination of caps isn't. Plurals should be nuked because [[stress-optic coefficient]]s works perfectly fine. This brings us down to stress-optic coefficient and stress optic coefficient as really the only two that are necessary.
At the very least, though, I think the Optic redirects should go. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
"How many" is not the right question. Redirects are cheap. We should have however many make sense. An editor should be able to slap square brackets around any possible name for an article and get a blue link if a suitable article exists. We definitely need the links with and without hyphens, since not everyone knows how to hyphenate a phrase like that. Normally I would say we don't need the plural options since WP:NAME generally requires article titles to be singular, but groups of mathematical entities are a common exception, eg Einstein coefficients and Stokes parameters. I agree that we don't need the capitalized options. Wikipedia editors should know better than to put links in title case.--Srleffler (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Poynting's theoremEdit

I had a go at cleaning this one up. It still needs some work, but I clarified some text, replaced the tortured derivation with a slightly less tortured one following Jackson, and got rid of an overly technical section at the bottom which didn't seem necessary or sufficiently sourced. I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes, since I haven't actually used this stuff directly in a long time. PianoDan (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@PianoDan: The definition and derivation are certainly clear, but will need inline citations. Poynting's theorem#Alternative forms should have a second copy of Ref. 6; I'll correct this now. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Are inline citations required for things like vector identities that are found elsewhere on Wikipedia? This is the first derivation I've put up, so I'm not sure where you need external references, and where you can just point to the entry for, say, Faraday's Law. Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)