Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

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

Nomination of GRSI model for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GRSI model is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRSI model until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

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)

Spatial Proximity

This looks like synthesis. I am unsure what to do about it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the article as it is written has synthesis, as admitted by the author on the talk page. For the topic itself, it is a broad concept that is talked about in many different fields. For instance, this ScienceDirect overview, which admittedly is probably AI generated, talks about information visualization, data analysis, human interface design, perceptual organization, and globalization. This would probably be best presented as a disambiguation page or perhaps a broad concept article. Closeness, a synonym, is a DAB, as is Proximity. Near sets is an article, but also with a lot of synthesis. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I prodded, with the following reason:

Original research and synthesis. Yes, "spatial proximity" is central to geography and economics. Yes, special proximity is modulated by architects when they design buildings, and by urban planners when they alter cities. Yes, spatial proximity is important to user interface design and industrial design, and, yes, many books have been written on these topics. Yes, spatial proximity is studied by neuroscience (the so-called grid cells). Yes, in psychology and psychopathology, there is a concept of personal space. Not sure what gestalt has to do with it. This article is just a synthesis of these ideas; it only fails to mention that spatial proximity is important for quantum systems, and for the placement of satellites in orbit, to avoid e.g. the Kessler effect from excess spatial proximity. I do not see a path for converting this article into anything meaningful, beyond a dictionary definition.

If it gets unproded, it should move to AfD with the same reason. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC).

• 'Yes, "spatial proximity" is central to geography and economics.'

Sounds like a argument for splitting in to spatial proximity (geography) and spatial proximity (economics). Johnjbarton (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The gestalt concept is discussed at Principles of grouping#Proximity. That article might benefit from the sources here. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been de-proded, with the rationale improve don't delete flawed articles on notable topics. But there isn't a notable topic here, as far as I can tell, because it's not actually a unified topic, just an agglomeration. I don't see much merit in trying to unweave the existing text into multiple stubs. I suggest taking it to AfD unless someone has a better idea. XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is another idea: change it to a disambiguation page, including the gestalt section. I'll leave it to you to judge if it is a better idea ;-) Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I've redirected it to Proximity. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 1 April 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)

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)

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.

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)

Help at: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

Some edit war discussion has been started at Talk:Surely_You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!#Merge from cargo cult science. I am a little bit busy. Can anybody check what is going on? ReyHahn (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Quantum speed limit and Quantum speed limit theorems

We have two articles on the same topic. Much of Quantum speed limit theorems is a big slab of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK violations — long chains of equations without any indication that the individual steps are conceptually or historically significant. I suggest a selective merge of the latter into the former. XOR'easter (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, merge. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.--ReyHahn (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, please do. Tercer (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, merged. XOR'easter (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you merge the content? I think there are some things missing from the QSL theorems article.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I did a selective merge, trying to get everything that wasn't just a string of equations. There might be a little more to dig out, i.e., I could have set my threshold too high. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Dark Energy is Flawed or Nonexistent?

Seems recent studies suggest that Dark Energy thinking is seriously "Flawed" - or that Dark Energy doesn't even exist at all - if interested, my related pubished NYT comments may be relevant - in any case - Worth adding to the main "Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument" article - or Not? - Comments Welcome - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Drbogdan (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument; I think the DESI result could be briefly discussed there but not the Gupta paper. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The DESI paper is year-1 preliminary results of a 5 year galaxy survey; very much a primary source. Same with the Gupta paper. WP requires secondary sources (WP:PSTS). --Chetvorno^TALK 23:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is anyone paying attention to press releases distributed through ScienceAlert? They are never good for a damn thing. XOR'easter (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me throw in a punch, too. The New York Times is in the process of self-immolation, rapidly morphing into a disreputable source of anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-Western-culture propaganda. I can no longer trust anything they print, and would suggest that they are not appropriate as a source for Wikipedia citations. Foo. Its a shame. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Definitely too soon. There are lots of theories that do away with dark matter or dark energy. There've been many of them in the media (example [5], which honestly is likely undue at this point). None of them have gained widespread acceptance (yet). There's no indication so far that this theory will be any different. Banedon (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Scientific_results

I assume based on our recent discussions concerning Talk:Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument that most or all of the content of James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Scientific_results should be deleted? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd cull everything that is only sourced to pop science or unreviewed preprints (the "Subsequent noteworthy observations and interpretations" subsection looks like a big pile of "so what?"). XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)