Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"?
I recently joined Wikipedia 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.

Articles for deletion/Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The discussion has been closed with a consensus to merge to Dynamical mean-field theory. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have done a very selective merge. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Uuno Öpik
Does anyone here have an opinion on whether Uuno Öpik meets our notability criteria? It looks a little questionable to me, at least based on the sources cited in the biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think WP:NPROF is not satisfied. His h-index is 13, and he had two highly cited articles about Jahn-Teller effect (~1000 citations each) with co-authors that have higher h-indices (between 33 and 55). The next highest cited papers have 91 and 66 citations. He worked in UK, so he did not have any significant local effect on physics in Estonia either.
 * Perhaps also fails WP:GNG, although he is apparently mentioned in
 * Estonian scientists in exile. Tln., 2009. P. 75-76.
 * Estonian researchers abroad. Stockholm, 1984. Pp. 148.
 * Estonian Voice (London, England), 2005, June 3, no. 2230, p. 4. Obituaries.
 * I have access to none of these sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Naturalness (physics) – article or essay?
I came across this, and I'm having difficulty imagining how this would ever become an encyclopaedic article or even how to define it clearly – does it merit its own article? Currently the content reads like some musings. Wouldn't any content not rather belong under more specific articles, such as Hierarchy problem? —Quondum 02:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Since the two sections Naturalness (physics) and Hierarchy problem appear to be identical, I have to wonder whether the two need to be merged as the topics of both seem similar. Both have been around for a long time, so perhaps they are different enough -- need an expert opinion for that.
 * I also will throw out the question of whether a little should be added in a broader sense. It is pretty standard in many areas of theory to rescale to dimensionless parameters to collapse data. This can be as simple as using atomic units in QM to effective medium models in many (many) areas etc. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. On the grounds that this was little better than an attempt at an essay about a potential subcategory of Category:Unsolved problems in physics and that it basically duplicated material from specific articles about the individual scale enigmas ("problems"), I have boldly merged this.  At best, it could be a list-class article, but I've left it as a redirect.  —Quondum 15:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What is a nonmetal (in physics)?
I’d've thought that in physics a nonmetal would be a semiconductor or an insulator.

However use of the term "nonmetal" in physics doesn't appear to be well established.

Here's an extract from Fundamentals of Physics (Halliday, Resnick & Walker 2005, 7th ed., p. 563):


 * We can classify materials generally according to the ability of charge to move through them. Conductors are materials through which charge can move rather freely; examples include metals (such as copper in common lamp wire), the human body, and tap water. Nonconductors—also called insulators—are materials through which charge cannot move freely; examples include rubber (such as the insulation on common lamp wire), plastic, glass, and chemically pure water. Semiconductors are materials that are intermediate between conductors and insulators.

Nowhere in this 1,248-page source are any of the terms nonmetal/s; non-metal/s; nonmetallic; or non-metallic used.

To my surprise, the Oxford Dictionary of Physics, 8th ed. (2019) defines "nonmetal" in the same way as set out in the Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 8th ed. (2020):


 * An element that is not a metal. Nonmetals can either be insulators or semiconductors. At low temperatures nonmetals are poor conductors of both electricity and heat as few free electrons move through the material. If the conduction band is near to the valence band (see energy bands) it is possible for nonmetals to conduct electricity at high temperatures but, in contrast to metals, the conductivity increases with increasing temperature. Nonmetals are electronegative elements, such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulphur, and the halogens. They form compounds that contain negative ions or covalent bonds. Their oxides are either neutral or acidic.

Do physicists seemingly have no independent conception of what a nonmetal is? --- Sandbh (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of the information you gave is that Oxford Dictionary is confused. Their "definition" clearly a mashup of "nonmetal material" and "nonmetal element". Most insulators and semiconductors are not elements. It is exactly this confusion that lead me to argue that our article on "nonmetal" should be renamed to "nonmetal element".
 * Halliday and Resnick is fine, but not much of a source on materials science. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First define metal. A non-metal is not that.
 * For example, in astronomy, metals are any elements above Lithium. Non-metals are therefore Hydrogen and Helium.
 * But in solid state physics, metals are elements (and alloys) where the Fermi level lies inside the valence/conduction band. Non-metals are elements where the Fermi levels lie outside of it (semiconductors and insulators). Chemists will define metals a bit differently, but is mostly equivalent to the solid state physicist's definition.
 * Some other fields will define metals differently. Non-metals will, again, be the things that don't fit the definition of a metal. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Britannica has an artice on nonmetals: https://www.britannica.com/science/nonmetal. Not sure if it helps.
 * A "nonmetal element " would be one of the 100+ elements that naturally form structures that are not metallic (?), where metallic means "a blacksmith would know what to do with them" or "they feel metallic to touch" or "they form beautiful salts with some acids". When it comes to el. conductivity, things get more complicated as there's, for example, carbon, which can be a good insulator (diamond), a semimetal (graphene), a semiconductor (some graphene nanoribbons), xxxx (graphite is a non-metal but has many properties of metals). Pretty much all elements become metallic under pressure. So I guess every definition has to be a bit vague as things are not always black and white. Ponor (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The Britannica article says that a nonmetal, in physics, is a substance having a finite band gap for electron conduction. This seems odd, as I understand that only solids and liquids have band gaps. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Carbon is interesting since, as you say, it's generally regarded as a nonmetal, whether as graphite, its most stable form in ambient conditions, or e.g. as diamond. That said, graphite has the electronic structure of a semimetal in a direction parallel to its planes. It thus has a Fermi surface and, as I understand it, is ostensibly a metal from this perspective. Since, as you note, pretty much all elements metallize under pressure, definitions are generally taken be those that apply in ambient to near ambient conditions, unless otherwise noted. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The "physics" definition of a metal is also used in metallurgy and materials science, at Northwestern University it is part of a undergraduate class that all engineers have to take. All the solid-state chemistry, physical chemistry and chemical physics faculty I have coauthored papers with use the Fermi level definition. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All metals have their Fermi level crossing a band. Not all materials with a band that's crossing their Fermi level are metals. They may be metallic in some sense, but are not metals. Graphite is a conductor, but is not malleable and is not considered a metal. Ponor (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful. Graphite is a semimetal, which I at least call a subclass of metals. Malleability is something very different, and has to do with the Pierls barrier for dislocation motion as well as the number of slip planes, which in turn are a function of the crystal structure. This is why, for instance Mg & Zn are normally cast rather than cold worked.
 * Malleability is a consequence which also depends on microstructure -- nano materials and deformed ones are different. To me it is not a defining characteridtic. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * An important consideration is that there does not seem to be a generally used concept of "nonmetal" in either metallurgy or materials science. Anything other than a metal, is presumably not a metal or a "not metal", but this is not necessarily the same as the concept of a "nonmetal" as it is primarily used in the literature. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Re: "Graphite is a semimetal, which I at least call a subclass of metals." From a physics perspective, I agree. From a primary use perspective, I disagree; graphite in this context is regarded as a nonmetal. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sandbh, from what you have said on Talk:Nonmetal and Talk:Nonmetallic materials only chemistry matters, which multiple editors have disagreed with. You have asked here what people think is a nonmetal, and they have answered. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, what matters in a Wikipedia context is the primary use of the term “nonmetal” and its associated meaning, which is as an element that mostly lacks distinctive metallic properties. This situation has arisen due to the iconic status of the periodic table in science. Even so, it’s pertinent to seek to establish meanings, and clarify same, in other fields, as I’ve done, and am attempting to do here.
 * That a few other editors disagree on the basis of personal perspectives is neither here nor there in the context of attempting to build an encyclopedia by the light of Wikipedia policy. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As I understand it, in solid state physics, substances with Fermi levels are metals. Such substances are not confined to elements. Substances not having Fermi levels, are not metals. In physics, "nonmetal" is not typically used as a general term; instead, insulators and semiconductors, where solid or liquid, are defined based on their band structure and the position of the Fermi level within those bands. For gases, the concepts of band structure and Fermi levels don't apply; gases are instead understood through their discrete energy levels and their overall poor electrical conductivity. Gases are insulators because they lack free electrons and have discrete rather than continuous energy levels. I'd expect all this to be understood by physicsts, which is fine, but as a non-physicist is my understanding of the situation reasonable? --- Sandbh (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for @Headbomb to respond, but to clarify one thing: everything has a Fermi level, you have not understood, sorry. This statement is correct for gold, oxygen, the sun, a black hole, chocolate cookies. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * NP. I may be wrong. As I understand it, solids and liquids have Fermi levels. If the Fermi level lies in a band overlap, the substance is a metal. If the FL lies in a band gap, the substance is a semiconductor or an insulator. Gases, due to their nature, don't have a band structure or a Fermi level. Instead, they have discrete energy levels. Glad I asked and sought clarification. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, as already stated by many, you are wrong. One more error is the use of the word "band overlap". Another is to think that there is a difference between a semiconductor or an insulator. There is none, it all depends upon how the project is being spun to a funder.
 * For reference, you can find the definition in many texts and also on Wikipedia. The Fermi level is the energy where the probability of finding an electron would be 0.5, independent of whether there exists a state at that energy. It is also sometimes called the chemical potential of the electrons, please note the use of the term that Gibbs introduced.
 * For the O2 molecule this is half way between the HOMO & LUMO where there are no states
 * For undoped Si it is approximately in the middle of the band gap where there are no states
 * For highly doped n-type Ge is it in the conduction band, which is why with impure Ge people once thought it was metallic
 * For a Field effect transistor the FL depends upon the applied voltage
 * For TiN, Au, graphite etc there are states at the Fermi level
 * For fun, with ground coffee the Fermi level depends upon whether water vapor is present, see here although this is much more complex.
 * Ldm1954 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Tx Ldm1954. I always stand ready to be corrected or be provided with further clarification.
 * 1. Re: "One more error is the use of the word 'band overlap'." What error are you referring to? In solid-state physics, as I understand it, the concept of band overlap is crucial for determining whether a substance is a metal. When discussing metals, the valence band and the conduction band overlap or touch each other. This overlap means that there is no energy gap between these bands, allowing electrons to move freely.
 * 2. Re: "Another is to think that there is a difference between a semiconductor or an insulator. There is none, it all depends upon how the project is being spun to a funder."
 * First, the literature routinely distinguishes between semiconductors, such B, Si, P and Se; and insulators, such as S. Second, a distinction can be made based on band gap width:
 * "A semiconductor...being taken as an element having a band gap less than or equal to the visible spectrum cutoff of 1.8 eV.48 A semiconductor with such a relatively narrow band gap49 has a metallic or black appearance,50,51 and metalloids have traditionally been regarded as looking like metals52 (semiconductors with wider band gaps, and insulators, appear colored, white, or transparent).53,54 See:, p. 1705.
 * — Sandbh (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Dictionary of Physics (2019, 8th ed.) definition of a nonmetal as an element that is not a metal, such as C, N, O, P, S, and the halogens, has not changed since the 3rd edition of 1996. If the Oxford Dictionary "is confused" as you put it, then I expect that after 23 years and another 5 editions such confusion would've been corrected. The fact that it hasn't calls into question your interpretation. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note, The Oxford Dictionary of Physics is a tertiary source and as such should be avoided or used with great care, see this essay (with thanks to @HansVonStuttgart for pointing out the information.) Ldm1954 (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That essay is neither Wikipedia policy nor guidance. For WP policy, there is WP:PSTS, which states that: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Example: IUPAC Gold Book mentions a metal-nonmetal transition as an alternative term to to metal-insulator transition. Here nonmetal apparently means 'insulator'. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sandbh You're the one who said it was a copy of the Chemistry entry. Not a mark of careful work is it? The entry mixes physical properties like conduction with chemical ones like electronegativity.
 * Physics talks of "metals", "insulators", and "semiconductors", and not of "notmetals", "noninsulators", and "nonsemiconductors". "Nonmetal" in physics is literally "not a metal". And it is definitely not "one of a list of certain elements", which is why I object to the name of the article Nonmetal. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Tx. I presume the Oxford Physics Dictionary entry is the same as the Oxford Chemistry Dictionary entry given physics generally appears to have declined to say anything meaningful about nonmetals, per the example of Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick & Walker 2005, 7th ed. i.e. 138 mentions of the words metal/metals/metallic, compared to 0 of the terms nonmetal/s; non-metal/s; nonmetallic; or non-metallic.^ As you say, physics instead talks of "metals", "insulators", and "semiconductors", which is quite straighforward.
 * ^ Clarification: in Appendix A-15 they include a periodic table showing metals, metalloids, and nonmetals.
 * Re, "Nonmetal" in physics is literally "not a metal", that would be a good assertion if the physics literature actually clarified that this the case, but it doesn't, as I understand it. That is to say, there is no general conception in physics that nonmetal = insulators and semiconductors, that I've been able to find evidence of.
 * As you know, the title of the Nonmetal article reflects the primary use of the term "Nonmetal" employed in the literature. That is how articles are titled, rather than being based on personal expectations. Nature abhors a vaccum—which, in the case of the relationship between the term "nonmetal" and physics, appears to have essentially been filled in by the notion of a chemical element that mostly lacks distinctive metallic properties. As an encyclopedia it is then incumbent on such to reflect this situation. — Sandbh (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding your claim about the physics literature:
 * Yonezawa, F. (2017). Physics of Metal-Nonmetal Transitions. Amsterdam: IOS Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-1-61499-786-3. “Sir Nevill Mott (1905–1996) wrote a letter to a fellow physicist, Prof. Peter P. Edwards, in which he notes... I've thought a lot about 'What is a metal?' and I think one can only answer the question at T = 0 (the absolute zero of temperature). There a metal conducts and a nonmetal doesn't."
 * Johnjbarton (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mott's letter of 1996 is a pertinent consideration, as a relatively uncommon example of a physcist making a distinction between metals and nonmetals, and actually using the term "nonmetal". The phrasing of Mott's letter is interesting. If he had to think a lot about 'what is a metal?' it cannot have been a topic he, as a physicist, ever gave much thought to in the preceding, say, 70 years. --- Sandbh (talk) Sandbh (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sandbh claims:
 * If he had to think a lot about 'what is a metal?' it cannot have been a topic he, as a physicist, ever gave much thought to in the preceding, say, 70 years.
 * Nevill Francis Mott worked on metals from the early 1930s and was awarded the Nobel prize for that work. For more on his letter to Peter Edwards see
 * Edwards, P. P., et al. "… a metal conducts and a non-metal doesn't." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 368.1914 (2010): 941-965.
 * Johnjbarton (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mott worked on metals from the 1930s, and it took until the tenth decade of his life to write that, "I've thought a lot about 'What is a metal?' and I think one can only answer the question at T = 0 (the absolute zero of temperature). There a metal conducts and a nonmetal doesn't." --- Sandbh (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sandbh "given physics generally appears to have declined to say anything meaningful about nonmetals, per the example of Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick & Walker" - I would just like to note that an introductory level omnibus textbook not mentioning a topic really tells you nothing about whether physics has said something meaningful about it. I can think of dozens of topics Halliday, Resnick, and Walker do not mention because they're unnecessary to mention in a freshman physics text that nevertheless have been discussed extensively in physics. I have not looked carefully, and frankly don't particularly have the time to trawl through all of this discussion, but Kittel's solid state textbook (a classic in the field), for instance, does mention nonmetals. (Also, as an aside, the statement "If [Mott] had to think a lot about 'what is a metal?' it cannot have been a topic he, as a physicist, ever gave much thought to" is inherently self-contradictory, so I'm not really sure what you mean by this.) Anyway, if you walk into a group of solid state physicists and say 'physics has nothing meaningful to say about nonmetals' I can't imagine it'd go over well! Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming in. I looked in Kittel's solid state textbook (8th ed., 2005). There are two mentions of "nonmetals" in its 680 pages, neither of any relevance. If the topic of nonmetals has "nevertheless have been discussed extensively in physics" where are these discussions? If Mott worked on metals from the 1930s, why did he wait until the tenth decade of his life to write "I think one can only answer the question at T = 0 (the absolute zero of temperature). There a metal conducts and a nonmetal doesn't."? — Sandbh (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Nature
Nature 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) 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

FA Archimedes
Some discussion in the article FA Archimedes about its low standard criteria FA. Opinions from a third point of view are voluntarily welcomed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC on states at Fermi level is equivalent to metallic conduction (and vica versa)
Are states at Fermi level equivalent to metallic conduction (and vica versa)?

Sandbh is claiming that they are not equivalent, and that similarly the opposite of having no states at the Fermi level is not equivalent to a non-metal (i.e. insulator/semiconductor etc) which does not conduct electricity, creating an edit war. This is in both Nonmetallic materials and Metals. The sources quoted are Ashcroft and Mermin and Kittel, the relevant chapters as (obviously) the Fermi-Dirac statistics and conduction is more complex than one sentence. It seems that Sandbh considers anything that is a paraphrasing as WP:OR, only direct quotes can be used. Unfortunately Sandbh appears to never have had any training in solid state physics. I am posting the RfC here as it covers more than one page and this is the most obvious place for it, particularly in light of his previous question here. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Addendum, for simplicity you may want to just vote Equivalent or Not Equivalent with a little justification, similar to WP:AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not claiming they are not equivalent.
 * Rather, I'm saying that neither Ashcroft, nor Mermin and Kittel, write what Ldm1954 is including in Nonmetallic materials and Metal. Here are the extracts from the the two articles:
 * Metal: "These properties are all associated with having electrons available at the Fermi level, as against nonmetallic materials which do not."
 * Nonmetallic materials and Metals: "A nonmetal has a gap in the energy levels of the electrons at the Fermi level."
 * Neither Ashcroft, nor Mermin and Kittel, refer to nonmetallic materials, or nonmetals in these terms. I've asked Ldm1954 for specific page numbers but he has has not provided any. Both sources do however refer to metals in the terms mentioned in the article, and that is fine. My concern here is not about metals, but rather about nonmetals.
 * No, I don't consider anything that is a paraphrasing as WP:OR. Paraphrasing occurs widely throughout WP as legitmate form of expression.
 * What is WP:OR is adding content to articles, whether in quotes or in paraphrased form, that is not explicitly mentioned in those sources. That is what going on here.
 * As WP:OR states (emphasis added):
 * "The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below.
 * Yes, I've never have had any training in solid state physics. So I ask lots of questions and do a lot of research.
 * --- Sandbh (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "states at Fermi level", but if the Fermi level is within a band, you have a metal. If it's outside of a band, you have either a semiconductor or an insulator, i.e. a non-metal. See diagram on the right. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You phrased it slightly differently, but what you say is equivalent to states at E_f and the diagram. I will take this as an Equivalent vote Ldm1954 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Equivalent, I suppose. I agree with Headbomb that "states at a Fermi level" is...curious phrasing, but certainly if the Fermi level is within an energy band, then it's a metal, and outside of a band, depending on the band gap/position of the Fermi level relative to bands/etc you have a semiconductor or insulator. I believe Simon's Oxford Solid State Physics has a perhaps more succinct and readable section that may be easier to cite to someone who has less background in the field? I will note that the idea of the Fermi level shows up in more areas than just solid state physics so maybe this is part of the origin of the confusion? (Other references that may be useful are Blundell & Blundell, Schroeder's Thermal Physics, etc.) --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * All (what we call) metals have a nonvanishing density of states at the FL and exhibit so-called metallic conduction. Some materials that are semiconductors in the bulk do have a nonvanishing density of states at their surface and do conduct at 0 K. Some materials with a low density of states near the FL can be brought into a metallic conduction-regime by gating or chemical doping, but the fact does not make them metals in everyday sense. Some materials are gapped at the FL for the "supermobile" fraction of their charges, but the fact does not make them semiconductors at 0 K. All-in-all: it's equivalent, with some caveats for those who want to know more. Ponor (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Extended states are needed for conduction. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC).

Pleased help me: talk page harassment
Please help me get to stop harassing me on my talk page, who is persists despite repeated warnings to stay away, and direct statements that I regard this as harassment. I am so incensed by this behaviour that I do not even know how to find an admin to help me. —Quondum 00:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This belongs at WP:ANI, not here. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 00:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Making comments on other editors talk pages to politely ask them to stop making edits which violate Wikipedia policy and which are disruptive to the encyclopedia project is an ordinary norm in this community and is not "harassment". Indeed, calling this "harassment" is way out of line. Also cf. WP:SOMTP.
 * You are of course free to remove sections from your own talk page, per WP:OWNTALK. –jacobolus (t) 00:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jacobolus Your comments about edits belong on the pages that the edited pages. There you can build consensus for your point of view. I suspect you don't realize that your direct style of expressing yourself may come across as aggressive even when it sounds polite to you.
 * I'm not sure that which you concerned about is all that important to be honest. So many articles have so many problems. Maybe this one is just below the bar. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of building consensus for a point of view. This is a straight-forward violation of Wikipedia policy which can be reverted without prior discussion.
 * I try to always tell editors to knock it off at the soonest moment I notice them start systematically/mechanistically making edits which arbitrarily swap between equally valid and accepted style variations based on personal preference, because these edits are in my opinion some of the most counterproductive for the encyclopedia project. (Though to be sure not as counterproductive as systematic edits which actively break citations or the like, which I of course also tell people to stop.)
 * It's relatively common to run across people making edits across many pages like changing all of the BCEs/CEs to BCs/ADs or vice versa, changing one abbreviation of a template name in the source markup for another, swapping between UK and American English, switching spaced en dashes for unspaced em dashes or vice versa, switching citation templates to cite X templates or vice versa, twiddling all of the non-rendering whitespace in the source markup, and so on. Confronting editors about this occasionally leads me to butt heads, especially with folks running bots or doing script-assisted changes, but I still think it's worth doing, to clue editors in about Wikipedia policies and prevailing cultural norms.
 * This kind of grammar nitpick is a particular pet peeve because I've several times run into copyeditors (off wiki) who change authors' style (my own or friends' or family members') to match dated prescriptivist style guides or their personal preference instead of deferring to authors' own voices and then insist that their preference is inherently better even after it is pointed out that the alternatives are equally common and equally correct. (For authors this kind of thing is very annoying: to all of the professional copyeditors out there, please take it easy.) There's a reason these changes are explicitly called out in : "Some style guides advise against grammatical constructions, such as passive voice, split infinitives, restrictive which, beginning a sentence with a conjunction, and ending clauses in a preposition. These are common in high-quality publications and should not be "fixed" without considering the consequences. For example, changing even one passive sentence to make it active can easily alter the meaning of an entire paragraph. Attempts to improve any passage must be based on tone, clarity, and consistency, rather than blind adherence to a rule." –jacobolus (t) 03:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with Jacobolus regarding Users imposing their personal preference when there is nothing substantial to be achieved. At MOS:VAR, Wikipedia’s guidelines state: The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". Dolphin ( t ) 03:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Policies are fine, but I think adopting an attitude of "always tell editors to knock it off at the soonest moment" is very likely to harden opinions, piss people off, and generate a lot of unnecessary yak.
 * Everyone agrees these differences are trivial. I don't see any evidence that @Quondum is systematically making such changes or using a bot to do so as implied by @Jacobolus. There is no mountain here that I see.
 * I appreciate the work @Quondum has been doing. If it costs an occasion pointless that/which is not a big deal. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, I think it's better to tell people to stop violating Wikipedia policy right away before they keep making hundreds or thousands more policy-violating edits. –jacobolus (t) 17:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. What I mean is I think it's better to cut some slack for minor issues between long time editors who are not in fact making "thousands" of such edits. This is a community endeavor by humans. Lighten up! Move on to something substantial. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * By "thousands" I am speaking in general: I've made the same kind of objection to several editors who were doing larger-scale script-assisted editing with dozens or hundreds of repetitive edits every day, which makes reverting them inordinately difficult. In this particular case we're likely talking about dozens to low hundreds of future edits of the same type. But they should still be asked to stop.
 * If any wikipedian is reading any article and a sentence stands out as awkward or confusing, by all means rewrite the sentence. If it seems like an improvement, this may even just mean converting a specific instance of "which" to "that"; there are certainly sentences where the word "which" seems a bit awkward. I have no problem at all with deliberately rewriting particular sentences for clarity. What I object to is using the browser's "find" tool (or even efficient visual skimming) to look for the word "which" throughout an article and then changing it to "that" any time the clause is non-defining, and then going to do the same across many articles. (Or likewise with other kinds of prescriptivist choices between equally grammatical and idiomatic constructions, or other formulaic stylistic changes)
 * I'm not trying to be rude, mean, or personal. I just think these types of edits are harmful to the project. It's precisely because I agree that it's a community endeavor by humans that I think we should respect human authors' style and voice in cases where it was fine and correct, instead of trying to enforce any particular editors' arbitrary personal preferences. –jacobolus (t) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

What is this new interpretation of classical physics?
The article Philosophical interpretation of classical physics discusses the philosophy of classical physics as seen from the perspective of modern physics. However such an article is kind of redundant because it wants to delve into the interpretations of quantum mechanics in order to discuss how the classical physics emerges. It would be preferable to discuss the OLD philosophical interpretation of classical physics but again we already have classical physics and philosophy of physics for that. Delete? ReyHahn (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I am adding a courtesy ping of @Patrick0Moran and @David R. Ingham since it seems from the history that they collaborated on this page 2005-2006. Many things on Wikipedia have changed, and since I think they are both still active their comments would be useful ahead of your suggested AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like an essay more than anything else. I'd sent for deletion personally. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no evidence in the article of such a topic in the literature of philosophy. Could be a redirect to classical limit. Discussions of Feynman's path integral formulation of QM and similar variational methods sometimes venture into "why does the world seem classical". Johnjbarton (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that the only real reference is Messiah's book on quantum mechanics, I think there's no evidence that the topic exists, and therefore it should go straight to AfD. Note that there was an attempt back in 2005. Tercer (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like a typical example of Wikipedia from two decades ago &mdash; enthusiasts writing an essay using the thoughts off the top of their heads rather than dredging the philosophy literature for what it says about classical physics. I went ahead and redirected the page to Philosophy of physics because, while I think it might as well be deleted, I also don't believe we need to spend a whole week debating it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that was the best move.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nature is quantum.  Classical physics is an approximation, but usually an unconscious one, one without which we can't get out of bed in the morning.  Schrödinger said in his cat paper that classical physics "cannot do justice to nature", so what is it and why do we need it? Shouldn't we try to explain things in terms of the real physical world, rather than trying to explain a theory in terms of one of its approximations?  David R. Ingham (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Pro forma cross post on Nonmetal topic
Sandbh has made a suggestion about multiple articles renaming at Nonmetal proposal which connects to previous discussions here. I (Ldm1954) think it has some merit as a start to break an impass about names and content. As a first step I have suggested combining three of the articles proposed by Sandbh on materials, metallurgy and physics into one as they are the same. If interested, please vote either Accept Merge or Reject Merge at Nonmetal proposal. One small step to break the impass. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete the new article Quantum science
New article Quantum science which appears to me to be simple WP:SYNTH with no independent merit. However, I don't know all the Quantum pages, so I am checking first before an AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Built on the concept of quarks and on advanced mathematical modeling" yeah no, this isn't a thing. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If "quantum science" has any established meaning, it refers to quantum mechanics in a broad sense. Compare with quantum physics. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article seems to have puffed up an attempt by a couple of groups to define a new field for applications of QM, building on the success of quantum computing. The article has a couple of references that clearly use "quantum science", an uncited book from 2022 and a Caltech site. Several previously established (quantum biology, quantum chemistry) or wannabe (quantum nanotechnology) fields are folded in as examples. (This is, AFAIK, the process by which new fields get defined in general).
 * Alternatively you could view "quantum science" as the union of all sciences devoted to quantum mechanics, eg quantum biology, quantum chemistry, quantum physics, and so on. The fundamental flaw in this view is of course that, except for biology, these fields are dominated by QM.
 * If I could bring out my all-powerful magic wand I would merge quantum science in to quantum engineering, because the latter term seems much clearer and more sensible to me. "Quantum science" will be forever ambiguous with "quantum mechanics"; "quantum engineering" seems to evoke a fresh adventure.
 * But if we go by references, the quantum science is a legitimate topic even if it is unfamiliar to us as such. The only grounds I see to delete quantum science would be something like WP:TOOSOON. I think a fair representation would include the origin story for the concept but we may not have refs for that.
 * I will delete some of the egregious and unsourced material in the article so any AfD can focus on the sourced content. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that page is a whole lot of nothin'. It attempts to synthesize a dictionary entry, but we don't make articles by gathering together a few uses of a term. On top of that, even after a cleanup attempt it reads like nonsense posted to LinkedIn about quantum computing. Junk it &mdash; take it to AfD or just redirect it to quantum mechanics, whatever. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC).
 * Redirected. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to me the same logic applies to Quantum technology and Quantum engineering. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, they are all Quantum synthesis/coatracks. There is also Quantum nanoscience. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Quantum tech makes sense to me. I'm also not really offended by Quantum engineering, though that's kinda redundant with quantum tech. Quantum nanoscience is fully redundant with nanoscience. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest redirecting quantum nanoscience to nanotechnology and merging quantum technology with quantum engineering. The fewer abandoned articles full of LinkedIn/PowerPoint dumps, the better. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Done the redirect. The merge is more complex so I'll leave that to others. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I picked quantum engineering as the merge target and went ahead with a (selective) merge. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The redirect was reverted without explanation. I don't have the time or energy to deal with this right now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted. No explanation was given for the unmerge. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which one was reverted? Whoever did it is allowed to revert, although an explanation would be good. It is probably best to go to AfD or similar if it is contested. I found it. I think it was just an overenthusiastic revert by a newish user who was trying to help fight vandalism; we all make mistakes. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Mixing (mathematics) and Mixing (physics) merge proposal
See Talk:Mixing_(mathematics). Please leave comments on that talk page and not here. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Rutherford scattering experiments into Rutherford scattering
Please weigh in on this proposal: Talk:Rutherford_scattering

ping: Johnjbarton (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The unopposed merge is complete. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Major upgrades to Rutherford scattering experiments and Plum pudding model
@Kurzon and I recently revamped these two articles pretty much top to bottom. Please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Metal update suggestions please
I have been slowly doing some updates to Metal so it is a bit broader in context. It is a bit of a mush of everything, many parts not well sourced. I would appreciate suggestions at Talk:Metal, or just be bold and edit. Almost certainly some fluff can go.

N.B., if anyone is a card carrying metallurgist, the alloy section may need some tweaking. Similarly conductive polymers/ceramics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

RetractionBot
I posted this story from the Signpost last month. Things have evolved a bit and now Retraction bot handles Erratum, Expression of concern, and Retracted. These populate the following categories:


 * Category:Articles citing retracted publications
 * 1) Ball-pen probe
 * 2) High-temperature superconductivity
 * 3) Majorana fermion
 * 4) Superconductivity
 * Category:Articles citing publications with expressions of concern
 * 1) No physics-related articles
 * Category:Articles citing publications with errata
 * 1) No physics-related articles

If the citation is no longer reliable, then the article needs to be updated, which could be as minor as the removal/replacement of the citation with a reliable one, to rewriting an entire section that was based on flawed premises. If the citation to a retracted paper was intentional, like in the context of a controversy noting that a paper was later retracted, you can replace with / with / with.

I put the list of articles within the scope of WP:PHYS in sub-bullets. Feel free to remove/strike through those you've dealt with. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)