Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive July 2020

Drude model addition

A user added a history and assumptions section to Drude model [1], which is welcome for that article, yet the text is very "meh" and badly formatted. I would try to reshape it but any help is welcome.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The way the text is written and formatted makes me think it might come originally from somewhere else...--ReyHahn (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

New Article

Isn't there a new particle containing 4 charm quarks discovered (I saw this on the news) - should it have it's own article, or be added to the list of particles? PNSMurthy (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Not relevant enough for a separate article I think. Most hadrons don't have their own article. It is listed in tetraquark, which is in the navigation box as well. Is it missing in some list? --mfb (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I was just making sure it was there somewhere. That's fine.PNSMurthy (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

A discussion has begun at Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe which may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A specific RfC on the topic is here: Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe#Request for comment: on the notability of the CTMU in 2020 with sources published after 2006 and "unredirect" of this page to Christopher Langan - Scarpy (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Galilean Covariance

• Galilean Covariance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This new article looks to be about something much more specific than its title (and for that general topic we already have Galilean invariance and Galilean transformation). I'm a bit concerned about its wiki-notability as well. XOR'easter (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have just looked at this. It looks like a strong candidate for merging into the last sections of Galilean transformation. What it contains is largely about a representation, with a similar (but distinct) representation already is in Galilean transformation. Both also refer to Bargmann structures/algebra. I do not follow enough of the detail to attempt a merge, though, but a copy-paste with minimal editing for later fixing by someone more knowledgeable might be an interim hack. It does not seem to merit a distinct article. —Quondum 01:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

OTOH, it strikes me that the converse is also sensible: having detailed representations of the group in the main article Galilean transformation threatens to swamp the article, threatening to discourage the average reader from reading past the lead, so the existing transformations could be moved across to Galilei-covariant tensor formulation (or a renaming thereof). —Quondum 12:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:NACADEMIC

Would being an APS fellow (like those listed, e.g. on List of American Physical Society Fellows (1998–2010)) qualify someone as notable under WP:NACADEMIC criterion 3? This is regarding Draft:Valerii Vinokour. Thanks for your help, Sam-2727 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Being an ISI Highly Cited researcher is also a good case for WP:PROF#C1, as is a Scopus h-index of 62 [2]. The draft does need a thorough copy-editing and a check for excessively close reproduction of material written elsewhere, but the notability argument is solid. XOR'easter (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

XOR'easter, thank you for the clarification. I'll accept the draft as the copyediting concerns can be addressed in the main space. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Interest in the Defunct Optics Project / Expanding Glass Taskforce to Optics

Hello all, I've loved all of the various physics pages with descriptions, examples, and relevant links which have been so helpful as I've gone through undergraduate and now graduate classes. Now that I'm more focused into Optical Physics / Optical Engineering, I notice that it isn't as coherently collected on Wikipedia (especially in comparison to the Quantum Mechanics series). I notice on the list of Wiki Projects that there is a defunct Optics project, and while there is a Glass taskforce, it seems focused mainly on the chemistry of glass with only a few pages in the area of optical physics. There are a lot of topics that could be organized into a series of optics pages ranging from theory to application that don't feel appropriate for the Glass taskforce. For example adding pages involved with multi-photon laser scanning microscopy covers a lot of physics but isn't just about glass. There are pages I am interested in adding/editing but I wanted to ask if I should ask to help expand the glass taskforce or try to revive the Optics project (with the blessing of the Physics project community of course). I'm a long time reader of Wiki and I've written one article but would love to get more involved. -- Dscarbro21 (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome! I agree with you that the Glass taskforce is more about the physics and chemistry of glassy materials than optics. The Optics project is a possibility, but I imagine it is going to be pretty quiet if you are looking for editor collaboration. This wikiproject is more active and you might get more feedback here. I am pinging Srleffler, who has been active and doing good work on optics articles to see if there is a preferred venue these days for discussing optics content. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a discussion venue for optics that is active, but I generally don't pay much attention to project space (this page being an exception). I do think, though, that if there is interest in a discussion area for optics it would make more sense for it to be its own thing, rather than part of the Glass project. Optics isn't really about glass.--Srleffler (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! If it looks like it might just be me for the near future, would it be acceptable to revive the topic on the projects page to at least use it for organization and hopefully attract any who might be interested? Dscarbro21 (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"Optics isn't really about glass." Indeed, if it were, how could one handle birefringent crystals? JRSpriggs (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)