Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive March 2024

Good article reassessment for Wright brothers

Wright brothers 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Vote to request wikipedia library seek access to APS archive

Many historic and important primary sources are in "Physical Review". These sources are all behind a paywall. I found that UC Santa Barbara Library removed most of the old physical copies as well. Sources for physics article would be much easier to assemble if we could access them online via the Wikipedia library.

On the page for wikipedia library suggestion you can search for "aps" and click one button to increase the chance of addition. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

What is this about?--ReyHahn (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@ReyHahn sorry I was cryptic. I rewrote my post. Hope this helps. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Btw, the upvote button is not visible unless you're logged in to Wikipedia library. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

MKS units (again)

It is being advocated by Dondervogel 2 in edits that independent of the renaming discussion, "system of units" needs to be used for grammatical reasons in MKS units. I am listing here as I remember this being a heated discussion involving many from here. Please comment at Talk:MKS units. (My personal opinion is that it is just "MKS units", and "system of" is irrelevant: meters, kilograms and seconds are units.) Ldm1954 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Correspondence principle

I was going to let this go but it seems that the correspondence principle is labeled of high importance. While revising the literature I found that what is presented in the wiki article is a very naive version and it does not address Bohr's version or the problem/definition issues of the modern take on the principle. If somebody wants to help, see Talk:Correspondence principle and Standford Encyclopedia. ReyHahn (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Citations needed at Galaxy

Would anyone like to try their hand at providing the requested little blue numbers at Galaxy? I started but might not be able to finish. (Already asked at WT:ASTRONOMY, but I figured cross-posting couldn't hurt.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I finished (in part by deleting some text to be sure). I found several cases of unverifiable references and primary refs where secondary should have been used. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thermodynamics of nanostructures

This article: Thermodynamics of nanostructures seems weird to me. It is a composition of many different subjects in order to create a global article under that name. It is true that there are many things to study about the thermal properties of nano-sized objects, but it is the title notable? Wouldn't it be better if each topic was in their specific article? Also concerns of with the writing style have been raised at Talk:Thermodynamics of nanostructures. Also importance "mid"? ReyHahn (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears that someone thought that Thermodynamics was short for Thermal dynamics. I have added that the name should be changed to Thermal transport in nanostructures -- wait a week first for comments? I have also added some other tags as it needs massive changes in everything IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, any volunteers to rewrite this article. Thermal transport at the nanoscale is a big topic, and all the current refs are 19 or more years old. While I know a little about the area, I don't know enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:N = 2 superconformal algebra#Requested move 7 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:N = 2 superconformal algebra#Requested move 7 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Killarnee (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Specialist in General relativity

Good day! Is there some editor specialist in the (mathematics) of general relativity willing to donate some time to help me improve the recently created article about Tom Ilmanen? I've placed a tag on my own edit there, because I'm a layman and can't write it with confidence. (I wrote the article because of a Quanta Magazine story which seemed cool!). Thanks! Gererhyme (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

750 GeV diphoton excess and 95 GeV diphoton excess

In 2016 an article for the 750 GeV diphoton excess was created. This excess vanished in August 2016 data. In 2023 publications about a 95 GeV excess were accepted by Physics Letters (1) and Physical Review (2), with many more articles in arXiv. I wonder if this is enough basis for an article 95 GeV diphoton excess. What do you think: is an article justified? Kallichore (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest moving 750 GeV diphoton excess -> Diphoton excess and adding a section for 95 GeV. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Great idea!.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a short section to the article. I would like to wait with radical changes to the article. It is an open question if the 95 GeV is more than a statistical fluctuation. There is also a lack of press coverage right now. What I find interesting: this article in Scientific American does not mention this excess, but the translation in German does ("rätselhafte Ausschläge bei der Messung von Photonenpaaren"). --Kallichore (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The change has been reverted now. @Mfb: What is you opinion on the question in the beginning (enough basis?)? By the way: Physics Letters accepted several articles, this one was accepted in June 2022. --Kallichore (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a tiny excess in CMS and essentially nothing in ATLAS. With the large number of measurements published we see things like this several times per year. That's why it gets no attention apart from a few theorist papers. If that gets more attention in the future then we can make a separate article about it. Putting it into the 750 GeV article makes no sense either way, it would be a completely different thing. As I mentioned on its talk page, the Higgs produces an excess in the two photon channel (over models without Higgs), too. --mfb (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Rajendra P. Gupta

Hi, Do you think that Rajendra P. Gupta (Q124980643) is notable enough for an article? He recently published very unusual proposals in cosmology, i.e. File:JWST early Universe observations and ΛCDM cosmology.pdf and File:Testing CCC+TL Cosmology with Observed Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Features - Gupta 2024 ApJ 964 55.pdf , which are commented in several places, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Google hits, list of his publications. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Very, very unlikely. In general Wikipedia only covers established ideas, not new ones which rules against his recent papers. He would need to have multiple papers (e.g. > 30) by others already published or submitted based upon his ideas. With an h-factor of 14 and no major awards I doubt that he would make the academic notability bar WP:NPROF on his other work. (I only found Fellow of RAS which I don't think is major enough. If there is more....) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for answering. Yann (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Megasonic cleaning § Merge with "ultrasonic cleaning"?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Megasonic cleaning § Merge with "ultrasonic cleaning"?. Danielittlewood (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)