Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Physics: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:52, 20 June 2005 editMarSch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,553 edits →[] - general/basic/introductory concepts← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:45, 22 January 2025 edit undoAsukite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,653 edits Notifying of requested move using Move+ 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Tabs}}
== ] - general/basic/introductory concepts ==
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive %(monthname)s %(year)d
|algo = old(25d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 3
|minthreadsleft=5
}}
{{shortcut|WT:PHY|WT:PHYS|WT:PHYSICS}}
{{tmbox | text = '''This WikiProject ] on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011''' }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Physics}}
}}
{{archive box|
{{hidden|header=Big Bang – 2005 |content= <br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2006 &mdash; 2019|content=<br>
{{hidden|header=2006|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]


# ]
''This is a problem that has been discussed elsewhere and was the main incentive for creating ] (besides the fact that it didn't exist yet). Now this is probably the best place to continue the discussion. A short summary of the pending discussion follows:''
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2007|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2008|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2009|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2010|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2011|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2012|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2013|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2014|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2015|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2016|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2017|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2018|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2019|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
}}
{{hidden|header=2020|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2021|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2022|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2023|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2024|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
|search=yes
}}
__TOC__


== Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"? ==
There have been discussions in several places on the structure of some subcategories in ]. Specifically, we are concerned with basic, general, and introductory phsysics articles. There is already a quite populated ], which probably gives a good overview of the most rudimental physics topics to the layman; so there is probably no point in changing it. During the big cleanup in May ] was created and populated by articles that were in the top level ] and didn't fit too well anywhere else. This category was then largely unpopulated and recently emptied and seems to have lost its purpose. Now there is the question whether we are actually in need of a new, similar category, which might be named ] and would group together basic (fundamental) articles, such as ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and so forth, which are now somewhat disperssed among various physics categories (please notice the difference between ''general'' and ''basic''). If there is more positive feedback for this idea, we can either rename the existing ] or delete it and create a new one. The is also an idea about making something like ], which would encompass the mathematical concepts used in physics. ] 11:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) <small>Note: This is a summary of the posts found in ], ], and ].</small>


I recently joined Misplaced Pages and my first suggested edit was to ]. My guess is that this article would belong better as a subsection of the article on ]. The help article ] suggested that I draw some attention to it, since the article is a bit obscure.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:55, March 30, 2024 (UTC)</small>
:I think things like tensors should be in mathematics categories, but it would be great if they would contain some physics examples. Otherwise we're going to have to make 2 articles about every applied mathematical thingy. Also because one of the things that is seriously lacking from mathematics articles is good motivation and intuition-stimulation I think we should cooperate more.--] 14:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== String of new pages onPlatonists and similar ==

There is a stack of pages created directly in mainspace by the new user ], all of which seem to take a particular, unconventional view and are poorly sourced.
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
I have tagged a couple for notability because at the very least the sourcing is weak and does not convince me that ] is satisfied; I always prefer to give editors a chance to improve versions. Before doing anything else (e.g. draftify, PROD, AfD) I would be interested to get feedback. Perhaps even someone(s) would help improve those pages if they are reputable topics. (Or this philosophy has been seen on Misplaced Pages before...) ] (]) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:Can you elaborate on how explaining a well established Philisophy of Mathematics is not in alignment with Misplaced Pages policy? You attack the view as “unconvential” which suggest personal bias rather than any objective metric. Additonally the sources are fine and each member of the list already has established Notability. Your argument seems to boil down to “I neither like nor understand Platonism therefore it shouldnt be included on the site” ] (]) 12:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::The issue is not that ] isn't notable, it's that your article ] doesn't say anything about it, it just copies material from their articles. It's a synthetic intersection of otherwise notable topics to make a list article about, as there aren't sufficient sources discussing the Platonism of those figures in specific being cited. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah I see makes sense thank you, but arent list pages also valid Misplaced Pages pages? I see a lot of them ] (]) 12:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, list articles are valid, and like other Misplaced Pages pages there are rules and guidelines for when and how to create them. You can read more about list articles at ]. The notability requirement for list articles is at ]. If I'm reading it right, it says that to create a list of Platonist mathematicians, you need to provide a ] that discusses Platonist mathematicians, to establish that the concept of the list is notable. --] (]) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I see thank you for this guidance ] (]) 17:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The article "List of Platonist Mathematicians" is not notable because there are no sources use such a list, see ]. The article is not correctly formatted as a list. It looks like a normal article. It should be renamed eg "Platonism in Mathematics". (Most of its content will be deleted unless it has better sourcing) ] (]) 17:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::An article might be more interesting and useful than a list of Platonist mathematicians, anyway. ] might be a better title, but we would need help moving the article there over the redirect.--] (]) 17:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Would a category be more appropriate? I find it is hard to discover mathematcicians with verified views on this topic ] (]) 17:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::These look like a decent start:
:::::::* {{cite SEP|url-id=philosophy-mathematics |title=Philosophy of Mathematics |date=2022-01-25 |first=Leon |last=Horsten}}
:::::::* {{cite SEP|url-id=platonism-mathematics |title=Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics |date=2023-03-28 |first=Øystein |last=Linnebo}}
:::::::* {{cite web|first=Julian C. |last=Cole |title=Mathematical Platonism |url=https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/ |website=]}}
:::::::] (]) 04:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::We could definitely use an article on mathematical Platonism. It is a notable subtopic of the ], and one we don't already have an article on. Tagging individual mathematicians as Platonists, whether in a list or in a category, is not a helpful way of achieving that goal, and would require a clear public statement of mathematical philosophy from each mathematician listed. We are unlikely to find such a statement for most mathematicians, in large part because most mathematicians are not philosophers of mathematics. —] (]) 20:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think there is consensus here to change the name of "List of Platonist mathematicians" -> "Mathematical Platonism" (capital because Plato?) and encourage @] to use the refs added by XOR'easter to alter the content to match that topic. ] (]) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::There is a redirect at ] so we are out of luck on the move. ] (]) 01:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:An article on Wolfram's "ruliad" was ]. We don't need another one. The sourcing on the new one is unacceptable: writings by Wolfram himself are ], which we shouldn't use; postings on the ] are almost always unusable per ], and a book from 2014 can't contribute to the notability of a topic invented years after that. A literature search finds nothing better. (Unsurprisingly.) I have accordingly proposed ] for deletion. ] (]) 04:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::@], since your PROD of ] was contested (i.e. deleted without explanation) I am going to shift to ] where I have placed a request for a {{Tlx|TempUndelete}} of the deleted earlier version so I and others can better judge how to proceed. (Of course you can just go straight to an AfD.) ] (]) 12:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::]. ] (]) 19:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:] and ] must be deleted at least per ]. Indeed for having such lists one needs either mathematicians or physicists that qualify themselves as Platonists, or a neutral authority that provides such a qualification. Here, we do not know who qualified these people as Platonists. So, one must consider that this qualification is a ] of a unknown philosopher or the editor who wrote this article. This goes against the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Based upon the input here (thanks to everyone), i just put PRODs on both list pages. If these are contested then I will do AfDs.
:For reference, ] now has an AfD, the appropriateness of ] is being debated (independent of this discussion) while ] has been reviewed as appropriate for Misplaced Pages. This topic is probably "done". ] (]) 21:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Both PRODs were contested with a statement that "concensus was not reached" so both lists now have AfDs. ] (]) 22:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::I am not convinced that ] meets the notability standards for ] or ]. One book generally isn't enough. ] (]) 23:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't do biographies much but I would have figured there's an argument for Bessis for ]#C1 -- his papers ''The dual braid monoid'' and ''Finite complex reflection arrangements are <math>K(\pi, 1)</math>'' have both been very influential. (Obviously now this is moot, but I would probably have voted to keep at an AfD.) --] (]) 22:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:In case you wonder why all the pages in question here are now red, they were created by a banned sock puppet so have been (admin) deleted. ] (]) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

== invitation to comment: we ought to correct the “thermodynamic deception” ==
{{atop|reason=] as unsuitable. ] (]) 04:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I submit this invitation to comment pursuant to suggestion (=OxF= another) on the talk:thermodynamics page.

I suggest<ref>”The single all-encompassing problem of thermodynamics is the determination of the equilibrium state that eventually results after the removal of internal constraints in a closed, composite system” p.26, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition</ref> this alternative at this time:

govern --> still--> constrain, but we add (revamped with Callen) instead:

As “thermodynamics” is a famous misnomer (thermostatics),<ref>” As useful as the characterization of equilibrium states by thermostatic theory has proven to be, it must be conceded that our primary interest is frequently in processes rather than in states. In biology, particularly, it is the life process that captures our imagination, rather than the eventual equilibrium state to which each organism inevitably proceeds. Thermostatics does provide two methods that permit us to infer some limited information about processes, but each of these methods is indirect and each yields only the most meager return.” p.307, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition</ref> it is worth noting out front here that thermodynamics/thermostatics is a ''conceptual framework'' to which reality significantly conforms,<ref>“The choice is between these calculations and no calculations at all. Results for reversible processes in combination with appropriate efficiencies yield reasonable approximations of the work for actual processes.” p.40, “Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics,” J.M. Smith, H.C. VanNess, M.M. Abbott, 5th edition </ref> though “quite different” <ref>“Thermodynamics is quite different.” p.2, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition</ref> from relativity and quantum mechanics- “in the sense that thermodynamics does not predict specific numerical values for observable quantities. Instead, thermodynamics sets limits (inequalities) on permissible physical processes, and it establishes relationships among apparently unrelated properties.”<ref>p.3, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition</ref>

This is not at all controversial, so there should be no fatal objection. This is not at all controversial, so Misplaced Pages is in a superb position to disseminate the cure. This is not at all controversial, so we Could usher in a world-wide, first-order, phase-transition of Wisdom- in the =x= pr%c3$$ (see ]).

Personally yours,

] (]) 02:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 02:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:I edited your post to remove hidden external links. ] (]) 02:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::(We are all worse for it* and) you are responsible
::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&diff=prev&oldid=1268081945
::Consolations for the notice though,
::] (]) 02:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

{{reflisttalk}}
'''Strong oppose'''. The above was never suggested on ], it is appearing in the above form here for the first time. This is ] and ] from an editor with unconventional views, the most recent being an attempt to redefine thermodynamics as fake and use Misplaced Pages as a ] for their unconventional science. ] (]) 02:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:Bro, this is what thermodynamics is; stop and smell the flowers (reversibly, ideally!)
:] (]) 02:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' as ]. ] (]) 03:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC).

'''Ignore''' This is just a troll. ] (]) 04:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== How many timelines of the universe we need? ==

I just stumbled with the issue of the merges and moves of timeline of the universe article. If we include ], there are at least 3 articles on the timeline of the universe, see ]. I do not see why we need so many versions of it. ] is itself a compilation of sections, where each section is a timeline of the universe. I think this should be reduced to a single detailed timeline and a chronology of the universe article that has two sections, the first discussing an overview and the second section detailing the different epochs. Such a merge requires some coordinate editing which I am do not know if it is feasible. ] (]) 11:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:Some observations:
:* Most of ] is a series of summaries of detailed articles on each era/epoch. This serves as a route to a detailed reading. The rest of the article is a hodge-podge, including a compact version and a tabular version of itself.
:* ] is really ]. Conceptually it could be a compact version of ] but in practice is incomplete, poorly sourced and chock-a-block with cruft.
:* ] a disambiguation page.
:* ] a redirect to the disambiguation page.
:* ] has two versions of a double log graph with two columns. One reference. I think this one should be deleted.
:* ] compact one page, log-scale timeline. One website source. The log scale is not helpful because it focuses attention on that part of the timeline that we know the least about. The single-page overview is helpful.
:* ] no sources, also not what it claims to be. Delete.
:* ] Timeline scaled onto a day. Poorly sourced but otherwise nice, an independent concept. Maybe to add a few entries to the Cosmology table.
:* The articles named "Graphical" use a markup feature called <code><nowiki><timeline></nowiki></code>, but not (of course!) the ones named "Timeline".
:* ] Wow. 236 references. Here is a quote: "Earliest known twisted rope." No source ;-)
:* ] Basically two sections called Lists which are actually tables.
:* ] An article that wraps around a text-based timeline of the far future.
:* ] compact graphic used on many pages. Fairly effective.
:My suggestion:
:* Delete a couple of the Graphical pages that are unsalvageable.
:* Cut down ] to one or two pages, link into Chronology, and rename it ]].
:* Cleanup ] into a summary of the cosmogenesis articles. Maybe transclude "Timeline of the early universe"
:] (]) 17:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'd say we should delete all three "graphical timeline" pages. ] is, at best, an image description page like you'd see on Wikimedia Commons. It's not an encyclopedia article. The image itself is not great, either (the very top line has two labels printed on top of each other, for example). Presenting all that information as text ''inside images'' is bad for accessibility and gets in the way of editors modifying it. {{pb}} I tried to clean up ] a bit. I pruned a lot on ] grounds (it's not our job to pick which events to list and do all the calculations ourselves). My first thought was to selectively merge it somewhere, but there's no uniquely good merge target, since one book and two TV series have equally good claims to it. ] (]) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::The best use of editor time is, I think, cleaning up and reorganizing ]. It gets more pageviews than ] by about a factor of 5. It's significantly under-cited. ] (]) 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::I also agree with the deletion of graphical timelines. --] (]) 08:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::I would also propose deleting the logarithmic timeline. It sabotages itself by aiming for an overwhelming scope (and declares that itself somewhat bombastically: ''This timeline shows the whole history of the universe, the Earth, and mankind in one table.''), it is redundant against other timeline articles, and there doesn't seem to be much of a practical reason to include a log timeline other than novelty. Modern/contemporary sections list massive, poorly-organized blocks of world events that arguably go against ]. ]] (it/its) 22:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Discussion now happening at ]. ] (]) 22:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::The three "graphical timeline" pages have been deleted. ] still needs work. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The rename of ] is still pending, please ]. The Timeline page seems to attract (non-notable IMO) factoids like Galaxy XX is YY billions of years old. We may need to come up with a consensus on what makes the cut. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

== FAR for ] ==

I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. 🍕]🍕 (]) 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:Can we close ] for ] first? ] (]) 04:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree: what is the status of White dwarf? ] (]) 16:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::I suggest voting at ] as Keep/Delist etc. ] (]) 16:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

== Project 8 (physics experiment) -- too soon? ==

As part of ] the page ] has been hanging around for a while, so I am pondering reviewing it. The page describes a new experiment on neutrino mass, but I think it is ] particularly as I see no external coverage or results as yet. I am inclined to draftify, but I would like input here first as HEP in not my area. ] (]) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:Based solely on the page, the current article could be condensed into a paragraph in ] and split out once they have results. At this point the project itself is barely news. A project on neutrinos that does not rate mention in that page is not notable. ] (]) 16:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

== Second opinions on ] ==

There is a new page ] which, to me, makes some very bold claims that deserve checking. For instance it has the statement in the lead:
''The Darboux transformation was rediscovered by physicists as creation and annihilation operators and ladder operators, and is of fundamental importance in supersymmetric quantum mechanics.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Cooper | first1=Fred | last2=Khare | first2=Avinash | last3=Sukhatme | first3=Uday | title=Supersymmetry in Quantum Mechanics | publisher=WORLD SCIENTIFIC | date=2001 | isbn=978-981-02-4605-1 | doi=10.1142/4687| bibcode=2001sqm..book.....C }}</ref>''

Maybe this is OK, maybe not. (The page got accepted at AfD by a non-physicist and almost immediately reviewed by another non-physicist.)
{{reflist_talk}} ] (]) 14:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:The sentence you emphasized here is not supported by the Cooper source. That source says almost nothing about Daraboux transformation, but rather uses it a few times as if it were well known to the reader. That much suggests that the topic should be notable in the field of supersymmetric quantum mechanics or the Cooper text is terrible, I don't know which.
:As this is mathematical topic in differential equations I suggest asking on ]. ] (]) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:As I understand it, what mathematicians call the "Darboux transformation", physicists think of as exchanging the order of the factors in a factorized Hamiltonian, i.e., writing <math>H = A^\dagger A</math> and constructing <math>H_2 = A A^\dagger</math>. See . ] (]) 19:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:In mathematical physics, this method goes back to some papers by Schrödinger, according to Schmincke, U.-W.: On Schrödinger’s factorization method for Sturm–Liouville operators. Proc. R. Soc.
Edinburgh Sect. A 80(1–2), 67–84 (1978). ] (]) 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:There is some history in the introduction section of . Apparently, Schrödinger introduced the method into physics (or at least into quantum mechanics), and it was then generalized by ; according to , it has predecessors going back to Cauchy. ] (]) 20:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::There are some statements in
::https://zxzhoumfd.github.io/paper/DTBooke12.pdf which indicate that the original work was in 1883 for a form that was equivalent to the (later) Schrödinger equation. That book has 682 cites, so with other papers on it and the comments above, the topic looks notable enough. Mathematical rigor/tone etc... I will leave to others. ] (]) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== Good article reassessment for ] ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 00:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

== Help with article about Newton's Sailboat question ==

You may already know about Newton's sailboat question; it's a boat with a fan attached to it and the question is in which direction does it move (or if it stays still).
I think an article about it on[REDACTED] would be a great resource for the debate, as we can see is still a thing for even a NASA engineer said it wouldn't move at all even though it's proven that it would, depending on some factors.
I started a draft on the topic, but I need help improving it, if anyone would be interested on helping this poor gal!
] (]) 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Oops I forgot to add the link to the ] (]) 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Based on the sources in the draft, ] suggest that this topic would not merit its own article, sorry.
:Based on the Physics Teacher source, the concept is not useful for learning about Newton's laws because the results depend on many difficult to control aspects of the sails and fan. I suggest you ask for advice on ] as they have many articles on the physics of sails. A paragraph on one of those articles highlighting the complexity of sail analysis may make a nice contribution. A ] could lead readers who search for the topic "Newton's sailboat" to that article. ] (]) 02:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think "Newton's sailboat" is the established name for this. Usually, when the question is brought up, it doesn't get a name at all. Here are ''Physics Teacher'' items about it, for example, that don't call it the sailboat of Newton or anyone else. The same goes for the textbooks by and . Maybe we should have an article about it, but it looks like that article shouldn't be called "Newton's sailboat". ] (]) 06:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::So, it meets the GNG but the question is what are the guidelines for naming articles on Misplaced Pages. I did provide a source that calls it that way, but it's the only one. Maybe Sailboat and fan problem? Thank you. ] (]) 09:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Does it have to be a boat? I have seen this discussion just being called ]. Maybe it could be called ] and it would explain the sail vs non sail version as well as the boat version.--] (]) 11:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::That's a great idea, but I'll need help to make such an article as well, since I don't have much time to write unfortunately. If one of you could change the name of the draft to fan cart demonstration, as I don't have permission to do so yet, please. ] (]) 15:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I moved the page to ]. ] (]) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Tysm!! <3 ] (]) 17:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:45, 22 January 2025

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

Shortcuts
This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPhysics
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Archiving icon
Archives
Big Bang – 2005


  1. Antiquity – September 2005
  2. October 2005 – October 2005
  3. November 2005 – December 2005
2006 — 2019


2006


  1. January 2006 – February 2006
  2. February 2006 – April 2006
  3. April 2006 – May 2006
  4. May 2006 – July 2006
  1. September 2006
  2. September 2006 (part 2)
  3. October 2006
  4. November 2006
  5. December 2006
2007


  1. January 2007
  2. February 2007
  3. March 2007
  4. April 2007
  5. May 2007
  6. June 2007
  7. July 2007
  8. August 2007
  9. September 2007
  10. October 2007
  11. November 2007
  12. December 2007
2008


  1. January 2008
  2. February 2008
  3. March 2008
  4. April 2008
  5. May 2008
  6. June 2008
  7. July 2008
  8. August 2008
  9. September 2008
  10. October 2008
  11. November 2008
  12. December 2008
2009


  1. January 2009
  2. February 2009
  3. March 2009
  4. April 2009
  5. May 2009
  6. June 2009
  7. July 2009
  8. August 2009
  9. September 2009
  10. October 2009
  11. November 2009
  12. December 2009
2010


  1. January 2010
  2. February 2010
  3. March 2010
  4. April 2010
  5. May 2010
  6. June 2010
  7. July 2010
  8. August 2010
  9. September 2010
  10. October 2010
  11. November 2010
  12. December 2010
2011


  1. January 2011
  2. February 2011
  3. March 2011
  4. April 2011
  5. May 2011
  6. June 2011
  7. July 2011
  8. August 2011
  9. September 2011
  10. October 2011
  11. November 2011
  12. December 2011
2012


  1. January 2012
  2. February 2012
  3. March 2012
  4. April 2012
  5. May 2012
  6. June 2012
  7. July 2012
  8. August 2012
  9. September 2012
  10. October 2012
  11. November 2012
  12. December 2012
2013


  1. January 2013
  2. February 2013
  3. March 2013
  4. April 2013
  5. May 2013
  6. June 2013
  7. July 2013
  8. August 2013
  9. September 2013
  10. October 2013
  11. November 2013
  12. December 2013
2014


  1. January 2014
  2. February 2014
  3. March 2014
  4. April 2014
  5. May 2014
  6. June 2014
  7. July 2014
  8. August 2014
  9. September 2014
  10. October 2014
  11. November 2014
  12. December 2014
2015


  1. January 2015
  2. February 2015
  3. March 2015
  4. April 2015
  5. May 2015
  6. June 2015
  7. July 2015
  8. August 2015
  9. September 2015
  10. October 2015
  11. November 2015
  12. December 2015
2016


  1. January 2016
  2. February 2016
  3. March 2016
  4. April 2016
  5. May 2016
  6. June 2016
  7. July 2016
  8. August 2016
  9. September 2016
  10. October 2016
  11. November 2016
  12. December 2016
2017


  1. January 2017
  2. February 2017
  3. March 2017
  4. April 2017
  5. May 2017
  6. June 2017
  7. July 2017
  8. August 2017
  9. September 2017
  10. October 2017
  11. November 2017
  12. December 2017
2018


  1. January 2018
  2. February 2018
  3. March 2018
  4. April 2018
  5. May 2018
  6. June 2018
  7. July 2018
  8. August 2018
  9. September 2018
  10. October 2018
  11. November 2018
  12. December 2018
2019


  1. January 2019
  2. February 2019
  3. March 2019
  4. April 2019
  5. May 2019
  6. June 2019
  7. July 2019
  8. August 2019
  9. September 2019
  10. October 2019
  11. November 2019
  12. December 2019
2020


  1. January 2020
  2. February 2020
  3. March 2020
  4. April 2020
  5. May 2020
  6. June 2020
  7. July 2020
  8. August 2020
  9. September 2020
  10. October 2020
  11. November 2020
  12. December 2020
2021


  1. January 2021
  2. February 2021
  3. March 2021
  4. April 2021
  5. May 2021
  6. June 2021
  7. July 2021
  8. August 2021
  9. September 2021
  10. October 2021
  11. November 2021
  12. December 2021
2022


  1. January 2022
  2. February 2022
  3. March 2022
  4. April 2022
  5. May 2022
  6. June 2022
  7. July 2022
  8. August 2022
  9. September 2022
  10. October 2022
  11. November 2022
  12. December 2022
2023


  1. January 2023
  2. February 2023
  3. March 2023
  4. April 2023
  5. May 2023
  6. June 2023
  7. July 2023
  8. August 2023
  9. September 2023
  10. October 2023
  11. November 2023
  12. December 2023
2024


  1. January 2024
  2. February 2024
  3. March 2024
  4. April 2024
  5. May 2024
  6. June 2024
  7. July 2024
  8. August 2024
  9. September 2024
  10. October 2024
  11. November 2024
  12. December 2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"?

I recently joined Misplaced Pages 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielittlewood (talk • contribs) 07:55, March 30, 2024 (UTC)

String of new pages onPlatonists and similar

There is a stack of pages created directly in mainspace by the new user Transhumanistnerd0, all of which seem to take a particular, unconventional view and are poorly sourced.

  1. List of Platonist Mathematicians
  2. List of Platonist Physicists
  3. Ruliad Theory of the Universe
  4. David Bessis
  5. Wenitte Apiou

I have tagged a couple for notability because at the very least the sourcing is weak and does not convince me that WP:BURDEN is satisfied; I always prefer to give editors a chance to improve versions. Before doing anything else (e.g. draftify, PROD, AfD) I would be interested to get feedback. Perhaps even someone(s) would help improve those pages if they are reputable topics. (Or this philosophy has been seen on Misplaced Pages before...) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how explaining a well established Philisophy of Mathematics is not in alignment with Misplaced Pages policy? You attack the view as “unconvential” which suggest personal bias rather than any objective metric. Additonally the sources are fine and each member of the list already has established Notability. Your argument seems to boil down to “I neither like nor understand Platonism therefore it shouldnt be included on the site” Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The issue is not that Platonism isn't notable, it's that your article List of Platonist Mathematicians doesn't say anything about it, it just copies material from their articles. It's a synthetic intersection of otherwise notable topics to make a list article about, as there aren't sufficient sources discussing the Platonism of those figures in specific being cited. Remsense ‥ 论 12:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah I see makes sense thank you, but arent list pages also valid Misplaced Pages pages? I see a lot of them Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, list articles are valid, and like other Misplaced Pages pages there are rules and guidelines for when and how to create them. You can read more about list articles at Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists. The notability requirement for list articles is at WP:NLIST. If I'm reading it right, it says that to create a list of Platonist mathematicians, you need to provide a reliable source that discusses Platonist mathematicians, to establish that the concept of the list is notable. --Srleffler (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I see thank you for this guidance Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The article "List of Platonist Mathematicians" is not notable because there are no sources use such a list, see Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists. The article is not correctly formatted as a list. It looks like a normal article. It should be renamed eg "Platonism in Mathematics". (Most of its content will be deleted unless it has better sourcing) Johnjbarton (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
An article might be more interesting and useful than a list of Platonist mathematicians, anyway. Mathematical Platonism might be a better title, but we would need help moving the article there over the redirect.--Srleffler (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Would a category be more appropriate? I find it is hard to discover mathematcicians with verified views on this topic Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
These look like a decent start:
XOR'easter (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
We could definitely use an article on mathematical Platonism. It is a notable subtopic of the philosophy of mathematics, and one we don't already have an article on. Tagging individual mathematicians as Platonists, whether in a list or in a category, is not a helpful way of achieving that goal, and would require a clear public statement of mathematical philosophy from each mathematician listed. We are unlikely to find such a statement for most mathematicians, in large part because most mathematicians are not philosophers of mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I think there is consensus here to change the name of "List of Platonist mathematicians" -> "Mathematical Platonism" (capital because Plato?) and encourage @Transhumanistnerd0 to use the refs added by XOR'easter to alter the content to match that topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a redirect at Mathematical Platonism so we are out of luck on the move. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
An article on Wolfram's "ruliad" was deleted back in April. We don't need another one. The sourcing on the new one is unacceptable: writings by Wolfram himself are primary sources, which we shouldn't use; postings on the arXiv are almost always unusable per WP:SPS, and a book from 2014 can't contribute to the notability of a topic invented years after that. A literature search finds nothing better. (Unsurprisingly.) I have accordingly proposed Ruliad Theory of the Universe for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
@XOR'easter, since your PROD of Ruliad Theory of the Universe was contested (i.e. deleted without explanation) I am going to shift to Talk:Ruliad Theory of the Universe where I have placed a request for a {{TempUndelete}} of the deleted earlier version so I and others can better judge how to proceed. (Of course you can just go straight to an AfD.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Done. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
List of Platonist mathematicians and List of Platonist physicists must be deleted at least per WP:NPOV. Indeed for having such lists one needs either mathematicians or physicists that qualify themselves as Platonists, or a neutral authority that provides such a qualification. Here, we do not know who qualified these people as Platonists. So, one must consider that this qualification is a WP:POV of a unknown philosopher or the editor who wrote this article. This goes against the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages. D.Lazard (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Based upon the input here (thanks to everyone), i just put PRODs on both list pages. If these are contested then I will do AfDs.
For reference, Ruliad Theory of the Universe now has an AfD, the appropriateness of Wenitte Apiou is being debated (independent of this discussion) while David Bessis has been reviewed as appropriate for Misplaced Pages. This topic is probably "done". Ldm1954 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Both PRODs were contested with a statement that "concensus was not reached" so both lists now have AfDs. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I am not convinced that David Bessis meets the notability standards for academics or authors. One book generally isn't enough. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't do biographies much but I would have figured there's an argument for Bessis for WP:NPROF#C1 -- his papers The dual braid monoid and Finite complex reflection arrangements are K ( π , 1 ) {\displaystyle K(\pi ,1)} have both been very influential. (Obviously now this is moot, but I would probably have voted to keep at an AfD.) --JBL (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
In case you wonder why all the pages in question here are now red, they were created by a banned sock puppet so have been (admin) deleted. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

invitation to comment: we ought to correct the “thermodynamic deception”

Snow closing as unsuitable. XOR'easter (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

I submit this invitation to comment pursuant to this suggestion (=OxF= another) on the talk:thermodynamics page.

I suggest this alternative at this time:

govern --> still--> constrain, but we add (revamped with Callen) instead:

As “thermodynamics” is a famous misnomer (thermostatics), it is worth noting out front here that thermodynamics/thermostatics is a conceptual framework to which reality significantly conforms, though “quite different” from relativity and quantum mechanics- “in the sense that thermodynamics does not predict specific numerical values for observable quantities. Instead, thermodynamics sets limits (inequalities) on permissible physical processes, and it establishes relationships among apparently unrelated properties.”

This is not at all controversial, so there should be no fatal objection. This is not at all controversial, so Misplaced Pages is in a superb position to disseminate the cure. This is not at all controversial, so we Could usher in a world-wide, first-order, phase-transition of Wisdom- in the =x= pr%c3$$ (see mutual-uncertainty mediated, co-thermostatic systemics).

Personally yours,

NedBoomerson (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) NedBoomerson (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I edited your post to remove hidden external links. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
(We are all worse for it* and) you are responsible
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&diff=prev&oldid=1268081945
Consolations for the notice though,
NedBoomerson (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ”The single all-encompassing problem of thermodynamics is the determination of the equilibrium state that eventually results after the removal of internal constraints in a closed, composite system” p.26, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition
  2. ” As useful as the characterization of equilibrium states by thermostatic theory has proven to be, it must be conceded that our primary interest is frequently in processes rather than in states. In biology, particularly, it is the life process that captures our imagination, rather than the eventual equilibrium state to which each organism inevitably proceeds. Thermostatics does provide two methods that permit us to infer some limited information about processes, but each of these methods is indirect and each yields only the most meager return.” p.307, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition
  3. “The choice is between these calculations and no calculations at all. Results for reversible processes in combination with appropriate efficiencies yield reasonable approximations of the work for actual processes.” p.40, “Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics,” J.M. Smith, H.C. VanNess, M.M. Abbott, 5th edition
  4. “Thermodynamics is quite different.” p.2, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition
  5. p.3, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” Herbert B. Callen, 2nd edition

Strong oppose. The above was never suggested on Talk:Thermodynamics, it is appearing in the above form here for the first time. This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH from an editor with unconventional views, the most recent being an attempt to redefine thermodynamics as fake and use Misplaced Pages as a bully pulpit for their unconventional science. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Bro, this is what thermodynamics is; stop and smell the flowers (reversibly, ideally!)
NedBoomerson (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as WP:SYNTH. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC).

Ignore This is just a troll. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:14, 8 January 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.

How many timelines of the universe we need?

I just stumbled with the issue of the merges and moves of timeline of the universe article. If we include chronology of the universe, there are at least 3 articles on the timeline of the universe, see Timeline of the universe. I do not see why we need so many versions of it. Chronology of the universe is itself a compilation of sections, where each section is a timeline of the universe. I think this should be reduced to a single detailed timeline and a chronology of the universe article that has two sections, the first discussing an overview and the second section detailing the different epochs. Such a merge requires some coordinate editing which I am do not know if it is feasible. ReyHahn (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Some observations:
My suggestion:
Johnjbarton (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd say we should delete all three "graphical timeline" pages. Graphical timeline of the Big Bang is, at best, an image description page like you'd see on Wikimedia Commons. It's not an encyclopedia article. The image itself is not great, either (the very top line has two labels printed on top of each other, for example). Presenting all that information as text inside images is bad for accessibility and gets in the way of editors modifying it. I tried to clean up Cosmic Calendar a bit. I pruned a lot on synthesis grounds (it's not our job to pick which events to list and do all the calculations ourselves). My first thought was to selectively merge it somewhere, but there's no uniquely good merge target, since one book and two TV series have equally good claims to it. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The best use of editor time is, I think, cleaning up and reorganizing Chronology of the universe. It gets more pageviews than Timeline of the early universe by about a factor of 5. It's significantly under-cited. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I also agree with the deletion of graphical timelines. --ReyHahn (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I would also propose deleting the logarithmic timeline. It sabotages itself by aiming for an overwhelming scope (and declares that itself somewhat bombastically: This timeline shows the whole history of the universe, the Earth, and mankind in one table.), it is redundant against other timeline articles, and there doesn't seem to be much of a practical reason to include a log timeline other than novelty. Modern/contemporary sections list massive, poorly-organized blocks of world events that arguably go against WP:NOTDB. ArkHyena (it/its) 22:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion now happening at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The three "graphical timeline" pages have been deleted. Chronology of the universe still needs work. XOR'easter (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The rename of Timeline of the early universe is still pending, please weigh in. The Timeline page seems to attract (non-notable IMO) factoids like Galaxy XX is YY billions of years old. We may need to come up with a consensus on what makes the cut. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

FAR for Hydrogen

I have nominated Hydrogen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we close the FAR for White dwarf first? XOR'easter (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree: what is the status of White dwarf? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I suggest voting at WP:Featured_article_review/White_dwarf/archive1 as Keep/Delist etc. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Project 8 (physics experiment) -- too soon?

As part of WP:NPP the page Project 8 (physics experiment) has been hanging around for a while, so I am pondering reviewing it. The page describes a new experiment on neutrino mass, but I think it is WP:TOOSOON particularly as I see no external coverage or results as yet. I am inclined to draftify, but I would like input here first as HEP in not my area. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Based solely on the page, the current article could be condensed into a paragraph in neutrino and split out once they have results. At this point the project itself is barely news. A project on neutrinos that does not rate mention in that page is not notable. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Second opinions on Darboux transformation

There is a new page Darboux transformation which, to me, makes some very bold claims that deserve checking. For instance it has the statement in the lead: The Darboux transformation was rediscovered by physicists as creation and annihilation operators and ladder operators, and is of fundamental importance in supersymmetric quantum mechanics.

Maybe this is OK, maybe not. (The page got accepted at AfD by a non-physicist and almost immediately reviewed by another non-physicist.)

References

  1. Cooper, Fred; Khare, Avinash; Sukhatme, Uday (2001). Supersymmetry in Quantum Mechanics. WORLD SCIENTIFIC. Bibcode:2001sqm..book.....C. doi:10.1142/4687. ISBN 978-981-02-4605-1.

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The sentence you emphasized here is not supported by the Cooper source. That source says almost nothing about Daraboux transformation, but rather uses it a few times as if it were well known to the reader. That much suggests that the topic should be notable in the field of supersymmetric quantum mechanics or the Cooper text is terrible, I don't know which.
As this is mathematical topic in differential equations I suggest asking on WT:Wikiproject Mathematics. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
As I understand it, what mathematicians call the "Darboux transformation", physicists think of as exchanging the order of the factors in a factorized Hamiltonian, i.e., writing H = A † A {\displaystyle H=A^{\dagger }A} and constructing H 2 = A A † {\displaystyle H_{2}=AA^{\dagger }} . See Gomez-Ullate et al. (2004). XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
In mathematical physics, this method goes back to some papers by Schrödinger, according to Schmincke, U.-W.: On Schrödinger’s factorization method for Sturm–Liouville operators. Proc. R. Soc.

Edinburgh Sect. A 80(1–2), 67–84 (1978). Tito Omburo (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There is some history in the introduction section of Cooper et al. (1995). Apparently, Schrödinger introduced the method into physics (or at least into quantum mechanics), and it was then generalized by Infeld and Hull (1951); according to Stahlhofen and Bleuler (1989), it has predecessors going back to Cauchy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
There are some statements in
https://zxzhoumfd.github.io/paper/DTBooke12.pdf which indicate that the original work was in 1883 for a form that was equivalent to the (later) Schrödinger equation. That book has 682 cites, so with other papers on it and the comments above, the topic looks notable enough. Mathematical rigor/tone etc... I will leave to others. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of the metric system

History of the metric system 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) 00:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Help with article about Newton's Sailboat question

You may already know about Newton's sailboat question; it's a boat with a fan attached to it and the question is in which direction does it move (or if it stays still). I think an article about it on[REDACTED] would be a great resource for the debate, as we can see is still a thing for even a NASA engineer said it wouldn't move at all even though it's proven that it would, depending on some factors. I started a draft on the topic, but I need help improving it, if anyone would be interested on helping this poor gal! I AM NEFERTITI (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops I forgot to add the link to the Draft: Newton's Sailboat I AM NEFERTITI (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Based on the sources in the draft, general notability guidelines suggest that this topic would not merit its own article, sorry.
Based on the Physics Teacher source, the concept is not useful for learning about Newton's laws because the results depend on many difficult to control aspects of the sails and fan. I suggest you ask for advice on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sailing as they have many articles on the physics of sails. A paragraph on one of those articles highlighting the complexity of sail analysis may make a nice contribution. A wp:redirect could lead readers who search for the topic "Newton's sailboat" to that article. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think "Newton's sailboat" is the established name for this. Usually, when the question is brought up, it doesn't get a name at all. Here are two other Physics Teacher items about it, for example, that don't call it the sailboat of Newton or anyone else. The same goes for the textbooks by Olenick et al. and Tipler and Mosca. Maybe we should have an article about it, but it looks like that article shouldn't be called "Newton's sailboat". XOR'easter (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
So, it meets the GNG but the question is what are the guidelines for naming articles on Misplaced Pages. I did provide a source that calls it that way, but it's the only one. Maybe Sailboat and fan problem? Thank you. I AM NEFERTITI (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Does it have to be a boat? I have seen this discussion just being called fan cart. Maybe it could be called fan cart demonstration and it would explain the sail vs non sail version as well as the boat version.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
That's a great idea, but I'll need help to make such an article as well, since I don't have much time to write unfortunately. If one of you could change the name of the draft to fan cart demonstration, as I don't have permission to do so yet, please. I AM NEFERTITI (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I moved the page to Draft:Fan and sail example. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Tysm!! <3 I AM NEFERTITI (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Timeline of the early universe#Requested move 7 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Timeline of the early universe#Requested move 7 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics: Difference between revisions Add topic