Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics Main / Talk	Members	Quality Control (talk)	Welcome

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.

Template:Infobox interpretation of quantum mechanics

A newly created {{Infobox interpretation of quantum mechanics}} has been added. I am opposed to adding it to articles. Please comment here: Template_talk:Infobox_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics#Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics_cannot_be_summarized_in_yes_no_questions. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Help on Physical object

I'm working on improving the Physical object article, however, I'm not familiar with best practices. I've added a discussion topic in the Talk page over there, but so far no comments.

If you can, can you help improve the article? Or, can anyone offer general advice for some direction: topics, sources, etc.? Farkle Griffen (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not certain this article needs to exist at all. Do others have thoughts on this? PianoDan (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That was my thought as well. The term "physical object" is so familiar that we lose sight of the fact that it is a term that has an intuitive meaning in everyday use but resists definition. Humans have an impulse to categorize, but the article as is tries to stretch the idea way beyond everyday use. In WP, equivalents such a thing, entity, object, etc. seem to be equally absent, diffuse or pointless. Without good sources, it seems pretty contrary to the principles of WP. —Quondum 16:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I also doubt that this article needs to be written. The concept is so vague. Is an elementary particle a physical object? Is a field one? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC).

The book

• Castellani, Elena, ed. (1998). Interpreting bodies: classical and quantum objects in modern physics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01725-9.

contains articles by physicists includining Max Born, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Giancarlo Ghirardi, Diederik Aerts as well as philosophers of science including Tim Maudlin and Paul Teller.

It seems to me that the simplest common name for "classical and quantum objects in modern physics" would be "physical object". Surely this amounts to a notable source. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a great source to bridge physics and philosophy. 👍 Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

"Physical object" is an important topic in philosophy, in the contexts of ontology and metaphysics. See for instance the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for Object and the book The Concept of a Physical Object. Psychologists also consider the topic, e.g. Divisions of the physical world: Concepts of objects and substances. I haven't seen much written on the topic from the point of view of physics, however. As with everything WP, I would stick with summarizing expositions about the topic in reliable sources to develop the article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That page looks like a heap of OR waffling: various editors over the years spouting off their own thoughts based on however much physics they know (or think they know), rather than starting with sources. I am not convinced that the article needs to exist. If we are to have it, the right way to go about it would be to start with physics textbooks, see how/if they define what they mean by "object", survey the philosophy of physics literature for the same, etc., and then write an organized summary of the references found. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ad XOR'easter, and Mark viking. I think that the notion of a 'physical object' is of great philosophical importance. I think that physics textbooks are not the right way to start. Physics textbooks are written from a point of view that their whole Universe of Discourse is entirely exhausted by physical objects (except for some highly esteemed nuts who shall be nameless who make out that quantum mechanics requires a proper living person to be its "observer"). Physics textbooks hardly question the notion of 'physical object'.

For myself, I prefer the term 'enduring physical object', but that is neither here nor there. The notion of a physical object is close to synonymity with Descartes' 'res extensa'. Perhaps that should call for a link or redirection rather than a separate article. I don't intend to try to work on this topic.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In philosophy, there will be a spectrum of definitions. Chjoaygame's comments here do not motivate the existence of the article to cover the general concept, beyond the article Subject and object (philosophy) that already exists. —Quondum 13:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I see the potentially covering article as Res extensa more than as Subject and object (philosophy).Chjoaygame (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That could be (which might suggest retargeting the redirect Object (philosophy) or even a philosophy-specific article Physical object (philosophy), suitably sourced) – but this is not my area. The point remains that an article that tries to define it from the perspective of every discipline as this one does is not appropriate, and an absence of a physics-specific article seems to make sense. —Quondum 16:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion we don't need to artifically limit the scope of the article. WP:BALANCE considerations and the lack of sources which would provide in-depth physics discussion should naturally focus the article on philosophy if all the synthesis and original research is removed. If I am wrong, and there actually are reasonable source about physics, then there is no problem since the discussion can be based on those. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There are countless physics sources talking about physical objects, just not commonly about their existence / an all-encompassing definition. As far as I know, physicists don't usually doubt their understanding of what an object is, however, they have quite a lot to say about their properties and classifications. Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your main point that there are sources. On:

• "physicists don't usually doubt their understanding of what an object is"

A large part of physics is devoted to this subject so maybe a better way to express what I guess you are saying is "physicists often use simple models containing abstraction of physical objects". Some doubts are due complexity (water?, fire?, air?, earth?) and some are fundamental (photons). We just need to be careful to find sources that discuss "objects" rather than sources which are only about things we think of as objects. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want to write a 95% philosophy article with 5% on physical sciences and life science definitions that is fine -- it is always good to cross-pollinate. However, I strongly disagree with your proposal in Talk:Physical object#Basic outline which includes "types of properties, emphasizing measurability and interaction", some aspects of which appears to be spilling over here. Those topics are covered in a vast number of articles, see both Physical property and WP:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics#Physics basics: General. I still feel that what is needed is to add a few sources to the Physical object#In physics section. (I will add that a brief section beyond physics is needed, e.g. life sciences.)

N.B., I don't understand why the page Physical object is listed as a Level 5 vital article. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's because Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics currently contains 1170 articles out of quota of 1200, and anyone can still freely add anything they consider "vital" (I added phonon a while back). Only when the quota is full, is there any need for discussion. So this is one editor's opinion of what is vital. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus to remove an unsourced image.

I have removed an unsourced and incorrect image twice but these changes have been reverted. Please comment on Talk:Double-slit_experiment#Photon_animation_is_not_correct. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Template:Composition

Does anyone want to defend this stub of a template (which I noticed is used in Physical object. Unless I hear a willingness to make this useful, as against a 1-line template, I will do an AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Not I (it appears to be squeezing fuzzy reality into overly-tightly defined hierarchical classifications that apply in a narrow range of conditions). For info, it is used in:

• Atom, Elementary particle, Molecule, Quark, Subatomic particle, Physical object, Clone (cell biology), Matter.

—Quondum 19:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No, also how subatomic particle is less than physical objects? Are particle not physical objects? Is matter not a physical object? Why is cell here?--ReyHahn (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Composition

Template:Composition has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Glass

Your input is requested @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Template:WikiProject Glass regarding the relationship between {{WikiProject Glass}} & {{WikiProject Physics}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge Effective theory and Effective field theory?

I am not sure this merge was totally obvious so I proposed a merge dicussion at Talk:Effective theory#Merge discussion to merge effective field theory into effective theory (currently a stub). ReyHahn (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Page rating

I have noticed that at least two enthusiastic editors (with not that many edits to date) are going alphabetically through unrated articles. Almost all science (including physics) they look at end with a "Low-importance" rating. I can't fault this, since if this project does not rate one of its articles then by default it is not an important one. Alternatively some of us might want to review the project ratings...

Just a thought. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Field electron emission

The article field electron emission is too long per WP:SIZE. I propose a split discussion at Talk:Field electron emission#Splitting proposal ReyHahn (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Mioara Mugur-Schächter

On this biography of a living person, a lengthy summary of an unreviewed manuscript has been posted. In my opinion the content is consequently original research. I've removed it a couple of times, but IP user(s) keeps reposting it. Before taking additional action I want to be sure that my opinion on the content is agreed. Please take a look at Talk:Mioara_Mugur-Schächter#Deleted_summary_of_unpublished_book. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Computational chemistry

Dejasj and I are having a discussion (polite disagreement) on the external links on Computational chemistry, specifically under the section Specialized journals on computational chemistry and the link to WebMO at the top, are allowed under WP:EL. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to ban me from editing

Tercer has posted a request to ban me. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_TBAN_for_CIR_editor. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for consensus to replace the first part of Quantum entanglement

Quantum entanglement is poorly sourced and out-dated. My attempts to improve the article have been repeatedly reverted by @Tercer. In each case I opened a talk page topic to see if there were points of view I missed. We're now up to 7 reverts. To resolve these disputes I have prepared a draft with the content as I think reflects reliable mainstream sources. I am asking for consensus to put this draft in place of the corresponding current sections. Please weigh in at Talk:Quantum_entanglement#Request_for_consensus_to_replace_first_sections_of_article_with_draft. In my opinion there is no technical issue in the disagreement, just sourced content vs one editor's opinion. This is an interesting and timely topic; the disputed sections don't contain a bunch of math. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)