Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive December 2023

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a content dispute at the article Fuzzball (string theory) which is allegedly disruptive. The thread is Content_dispute_at_Fuzzball_(string_theory). Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 00:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

X-ray crystallography
I have started to clean/reorganize this page. Over the years it has become a mess, with people adding material often out of order and context, and also often without sourcing. This project rates the topic highest, although much is outside physics, hence I am asking for thoughts/suggestions here.

Some are obvious, for instance move, correct or rewrite much of the "theory" to a modified dynamical diffraction page (which is only for x-rays). (A proper dynamical electron diffraction page is another project.) I welcome other thoughts. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have somewhat finished edits, and also some on Crystallography which had (too) many overlaps. I recognize that these may not be areas where many of you have experience, but any comments and (in particular) added references would be very useful. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts there. I had made the same observations, but never had the time to attempt returning the crystallography article to form. Will look to the better article now, as time permits (and as the other matter, this page, is cleared). Cheers. 73.8.193.28 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Amaterasu particle
I recently created Amaterasu particle. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks!
 * I think this page would be much more interesting for readers and editors if it were a section in Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray (as well as merging in Oh-My-God particle). These two one-off events are not that interesting until they are put into context with other observations and related physics. Repeating this context over and over again is extra work for readers and editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I concur (quite strongly) with Johnjbarton: this makes sense as a section of Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray, not as a standalone article. —Quondum 19:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Roger Penrose reversion
I recently reviewed parts of the Roger Penrose article, and saw the following citation. I viewed it as unsatisfactory in all respects—as a poor biographical source, as a very marginally related source otherwise, as a self-serving mention of a notable physicist in an essentially unrelated work, etc. I hid the source—to leave it available to follow-on editors so that its content could be reviewed, and the source replaced with a third-party, independent source supportive of a primary Penrose source appearing—and wrote a substantial edit summary.

Challenged citation:

Note, no page number is mentioned, but the link takes the reader to page 118 of the Why Buddha Never Had Alzheimer's book, where it uses a reference to Penrose to support Sen's argument regarding the inadequacy of the laws of physics to explain consciousness.

This simple, conservative, constructive, scholarly edit—a call for a better, more suitable source—was reverted, and the source was returned. Rather than risk an edit war with an editor likely brought to the site using a digital tool that flagged an IP edit, I bring this before this wider audience, for review and decision. As a former major university faculty member and scholar, I judge this citation as poor (i.e., stand by the original edit). I also note, this status quo supportive reversion is time-wasting (even if in good faith and Twinkle-driven), and contributes to why many of us contribute sparingly, here. Cheers, in your corner. 73.8.193.28 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * First, and most importantly, in my observation Wikipedia tends to work on experience, e.g. how many edits etc you have done. This means that by just using an IP you have zero reputation. I will strongly urge you to create an account, you can remain anonymous if you want. (Email me directly if you want to discuss this further.)
 * Beyond that, maybe someone here is an expert in this area and has the relevant sources, I don't. Without them it is hard to judge. I have seen places in Wikipedia where one sentence in a book/article is used to support a statement, even though the source is really not relevant. Wikipedia is not an academic journal, the approach by many is very different. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What you've seen regarding a single sentence in an otherwise irrelevant source being used to support a statement in an article is I agree all too common in WP. And it's wrong wrong wrong even on WP. It needs to be spelled out in WP:RS, but it meets resistance in practice, because every time it is used it is because someone wants such a source to push some non-mainstream or non-reliable view. (This is especially problematic in current events and politics, but otherwise reliable editors here will do this all the time when citing journal articles as well. I was certainly guilty of this in my first few years editing.)
 * And while I agree that we should encourage any IP making constructive edits to make an account, I also don't think it should be necessary for editors to review all sourced IP edits attentively. (OP should be able to constructively edit just as they did, attentively with thorough edit summaries, without an account, and be treated with the respect of any other editor -- simply because their edits are attentive with thorough summaries.) There's nothing more discouraging than having an objectively correct edit, with a detailed reasoned summary, reverted with zero summary. To call out, that is a kind of behavior that we should be more attentive against: see WP:REVERT and WP:FIES for when (always) and how (thoroughly) to write an edit summary. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 on creating an named account. IP addresses are supposed to be "ok", but I think most editors assume they are not.
 * I removed both refs. The Sen ref would not help anyone verify the sentence, which was about the content of Penrose's book (we can read it!). The Harisi ref was a unreviewed one page email which roughly said "I agree with Penrose".
 * Generally this kind of comment should go on the Talk:Roger Penrose page first and only mentioned here is there is no response. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, fellow traveller. You are indeed correct and I did make a mistake. In AntiVandal, the tool I use to patrol recent edits, it is hard to visually identify comments. I saw the ALLCAPS text that I (wrongly) interpreted as vandalism complaining about a claim and the source used because I did not realize the text was in a comment, and so I rollbacked as vandalism. I will be more attentive to avoid this kind of mistake in the future. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they)   ( talk ) 22:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

2D space
Note two-dimensional space / 2-dimensional space / 2-space have appeared at WP:RFD redirects for discussion/deletion -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Liquid crystal
Liquid crystal 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) 20:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Definition of "EM spectrum"
Please weigh in: Talk:Electromagnetic_spectrum. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Einstein aether theory?
The article Einstein aether theory looks to me like T Jacobson picked a famous name to  attach their work to for reasons of visibility an unfortunate name. Einstein has no "aether theory". Do their publications referring to this name make it a de facto appropriate name for the article nevertheless? Johnjbarton (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Isaacson's biography (around p.320) mentions that Einstein's thinking about the ether became more subtle in later years. Here's a 1920 speech, where he argued in favour of the ether (it is not exactly the same concept as the old ether): . But I don't know whether Jacobson's theory has any connection to that. In general, such article title would be fine if the introduction told us who named it so, and what's the connection to Einstein's theories. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would describe Einstein's 1920 Leiden lecture as a (nicely worded) complete rejection of luminiferous ether theories. Most of the lecture traces the history of ether theories, showing how, by the time Lorentz arrived with with electron theory, ether had a single mechanical property: "immobility". This "preferred frame" is exactly what drove Einstein's relativity work and this was then eliminated by the special relativity. The end of Einstein's lecture makes the argument that ether is the thing distorted by mass.
 * What really annoys me is the unnecessary application of Einstein's name to a theory based on a preferred frame. Of course physicists don't care, but Einstein and Aether theory trolls do. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

What is it called in the sources?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Before 2004 these theories did not have a catchy name. The articles had names like "preferred frames in relativistic gravity". In 2004 Jacobson and co-workers starting calling it "Einstein aether theory". By now the WP:CRITERIA require that name. However, notice how German Democratic Republic redirects to East Germany: the naming of articles is not always quite as cut and dried as the title guidelines imply.
 * Anyway fighting the title is a waste of time. The article itself is horrible and that much is easier to fix. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I did move the page to Einstein-aether theory per the original mention of the term, reviews, and every paper I found on the topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to the heaviest elements
Do we need this introductory article: Introduction to the heaviest elements? Seems like and odd one compared to the others introductory articles for topics like: electromagnetism, QM, SR, GR and M-theory. ReyHahn (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems like the wrong title for the content. The article reads like the appropriate title would be "Nuclear synthesis". The content is unusually well referenced (assuming they are correct). The footnotes should be in the article.
 * The content itself seems valuable. Merge? The closest I found was Nuclear transmutation and Synthesis of precious metals. Nucleosynthesis is about Big Bang. But of course we also have Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Related is Synthetic radioisotope. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is there as a boilerplate text section to the articles on superheavy elements. Not sure what exactly the policy on that is. Fermiboson (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I gather that what is meant here is for example Hassium has :
 * Introduction to the heaviest elements[edit]
 * This section is transcluded from Introduction to the heaviest elements. (edit | history) Johnjbarton (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can it just be merged back into hassium? Actually is transcluded inside many heavy elements like bohrium, dubnium, nobelium and so on.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONSECTION and WP:PARTRANS are the closest guidance I know of - I've not seen an article transcluded like this one before though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It has started as Template:Superheavy element introduction, then was moved to Superheavy element/Short introduction and finally to the current title. That's because templates should not store article text and subpages are not allowed in article space. However, this page is not meant to stand alone as an instance of introductory articles, rather it's only meant to be transcluded as background material in other articles about individual elements. Therefore, this article cannot remain as it is. I propose to merge it into section Superheavy elements, then transclude that section instead (preferably via template:excerpt). fgnievinski (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , that sounds like a sensible plan to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will try to carry this. I just need to be sure that all information is in both articles.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

✅--ReyHahn (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Rankine–Hugoniot conditions
Hi all. Can someone weigh in here?: Talk:Rankine–Hugoniot conditions. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Draft:Ocaya-Yakuphanoglu method
During new page review I moved a page back to draft at Draft:Ocaya-Yakuphanoglu method. The page was created directly by @Ocayaro without going through the AfC review process. I have pointed out that the article needs work, and probably will not pass a review as it needs more to meet notability. User Ocayaro feels that this is inappropriate, and wants to have additional expert opinions. I thought it would be simpler to post here for comments to be made to his talk page. Please remember to be polite and remember that new users do not always know how Wikipedia works Ldm1954 (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, appreciated. Ocayaro (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)