Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive December 2016

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

AfD
There is a BLP of a physicist at AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC).

Draft:International Fall Workshops on Geometry and Physics
Please assist the draft author to get this draft into acceptable shape. It seems to be a notable topic but the main problem is the apparent lack of independent sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no need for an article on every workshop, particularly one lacking sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
 * I find it a bit hard to believe that a series of workshops spanning 25 years has no usable sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Classification of matter
Hi, I have a small problem in Wikidata about classification of matter. Currently Antimatter is a subdivision of matter. Is it correct ? If yes, is there a name for the subdivision of matter which is not antimatter ? From my understanding antimatter and matter should be at the same level and we need a concept which integrates both matter and antimatter in a whole. Then what's about exotic matter ? Can we say that exotic matter is part of the subdivision of matter which is not antimatter ? Or exotic matter is at the same level as matter and antimatter and is part of a concept without name (something like the big whole) ? Thank you for your comment. And I don't say anything about dark matter. Please, can someone create a relation system between this concept using only "subclass of" relation ? Snipre (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe that one says "ordinary matter" when one wants to emphasis that one is talking about matter made of protons, neutrons and electrons while excluding anti-protons, anti-neutrons, positrons and various other things such as dark matter or exotic matter. "Anti-matter" is more of a relative concept meaning the result of applying charge conjugation to whatever you mean by "matter". JRSpriggs (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Baryonic matter is probably what you want – nowadays the term encompasses all matter made up of quarks, so both matter and anti-matter, and sometimes the term even gets dropped as shorthand for "everything in the universe whose mass-energy can in principal be measured in some way -- and specifically not dark matter or dark energy", but technically this is a definite no-no as that includes things like leptons, neutrinos, and bosons. But for any less-formal purposes "Baryonic matter" is a fine term to use in a cosmological sense – anyone knowing some undergrad-level physics will get what you're trying to separate out. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

GA nomination
I have nominated Representation theory of the Lorentz group for good article rating. Partly because I think it might be good enough, but mostly to see whether a technical article actually can achieve GA status. YohanN7 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)