Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive August 2016

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that History of the constellations, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

The article Constellation is already covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject History, Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. I think that having it under this wikiproject is over-kill. The constellations are just a historical accident, not really a question of physics. It should be removed from the scope of this project. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll remove it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Help at Leonid Keldysh and Keldysh formalism

Hey physics heads,

I just pulled a PROD off of Leonid Keldysh because it strikes me (a complete physics layman) to be a notable subject. The guy is on staff at the Russian Academy of Sciences, won a prize that's associated with some major universities (the Rusanoprize) and has his name attached to the Keldysh formalism, a framework for understanding quantum systems. This all strikes me as legit at first blush but it would be great if someone who knows more about contemporary physics research could cast an eye over these two articles. I'd be happy to do the legwork and take them to WP:AFD myself if they are indeed not notable, so please let me know if I've made the wrong call here.

Thanks! A Train^talk 09:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• It seems to me that he is sufficiently notable - please read this [1]. He is mentioned in this article [2] for "nanotechnology discoveries and innovations that have been applied to production." At the absolute very end of this short "newspaper" article is verification that he was President of the Soviet Union Science Academy by 1972; it is entitled "Winn to meet with Russians" [3].

• Unrelated to this, is an article next to that entitled "UFO Reported" - keep in mind this is 1972.

Ah-h-h-h-h - how quaint the good old days were - UFO sightings were mentioned in the mainstream press (sigh). I suppose we've become too sophisticated nowadays for such things :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Category move for discussion

There is a proposal being discussed for moving (or renaming) Category:Science organizations by topic to Category:Organizations by academic discipline. The discussion is here [4] (at CfD). ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Medical physics articles such as Proton therapy

I was wondering whether people think that medical physics related articles such as Proton therapy should be added to the project, and what the typical protocol for adding new articles is? (Should you just go ahead and do it, or ask for comment somewhere more appropriate?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealmorris (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. There is enough physics content (discussion of physical mechanism and proton sources) in the article that I added it to the project. In general, you are welcome to add the banner if you think it warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Expert needed at False Vacuum

Expert needed at False Vacuum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.66.193 (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Mathematical model of flow processes

A new article titled Mathematical model of flow processes is incredibly messy. Whoever feels like cleaning up a mess should consider this one. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Should the proton radius puzzle have its own article?

For the past six years, there has been significant media and academic coverage of an experiment from 2010 that discovered that when replacing the electron in a hydrogen atom with a muon, the radius of the proton in the nucleus was measured to have changed. This exposes potentially a huge flaw in the fundamentals of the Standard Model. The original study was able to surpass 5 sigma of confirmation, following up not long after with a further experiment that pushed the confirmation past 7 sigma.

Now, the same researchers have just published another study in Science where they did the same experiment, but with a deuterium atom this time, coming up with the same changed proton radius result. This has resulted in another large burst of official and news attention and the phenomenon has been dubbed the proton radius puzzle. Currently, that link just redirects to a subsection in the Muon article.

Do you think there's enough coverage over the past six years and multiple experiments that it deserves its own article at this point? I just wanted to get some other opinions on this. Silverseren^C 06:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Which article is it currently covered in? Or is it in multiple articles? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It is currently a single paragraph in a subsection of the muon article. It could also be in other articles, i'm not sure. Silverseren^C 19:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It's also briefly covered in charge radius, and in proton#Charge_radius. It's mentioned in List of unsolved problems in physics#High-energy_physics.2Fparticle_physics. It made the cover of Nature in 2010 and has extensive coverage over the last six years, it passes WP:NOTABILITY without a doubt. I created the article in French (fr:Problème de la taille du proton) and was tempted to do it in English too, but I'm reluctant to write an article in a language I'm not a native speaker of, especially on such a complex subject. El pitareio (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

El pitareio, make a sandbox/draft article for it (doing your best to translate) and I'll proof it when you're done. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am happy to proofread as well. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it deserves its own article. -Dilaton (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would note that this research has been published in Science and covered by several independent reliable secondary sources (including Ars Technica, Quanta magazine, phys.org), so per WP:NOTABILITY there is no obstacle to having a dedicated article on it. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Need some help editing EMDrive article

Hello! I have recently noticed that the EMDrive article appears to present a pseudoscientific fringe theory as a legitimate research area. However my field of expertise is not applied physics and thus I would appreciate some help separating pseudoscience from actual physics. The article in question is here. Regards, 139.222.202.221 (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. RF resonant cavity thruster is a very long way from being accepted as valid technology. Article needs severe trimming. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC).