Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2024

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)

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)

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)

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)

Split x-ray diffraction and crystallography|

I propose splitting X-ray diffraction out of X-ray crystallography, discussion started at Talk:X-ray crystallography#Split x-ray diffraction and crystallography. The two are not the same, and there are many areas of XRD where the focus is not on detailed determination of atomic positions. Examples are powder diffraction where comparison is made to known samples, SAXS and many more. There are many areas/pages where it is relevant to say "use XRD" but wrong to say use "X-ray crystallography This would also help to improve the current rambling X-ray crystallography page. Comments to the X-ray crystallography talk page please. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

A property for physics on Wikidata

Hi, there is a property proposal that fails to retain a lot of votes, but I think it's a relevant and actually important one so I try my luck to find interested contributors here.

The goal is to be able to link models and theories to the object (physical or not) they describes. For example to link "spacetime" to "Einstein's relativity theory" or things like that. Please see d:WD:Property proposal/model for (2)

I post here because this is the third proposal, the first two (not by me) were unlucky for various reason, the first unnoticed and the second aborted by the creator although there was support, I don't want the third to be another frustrating failure, so I try other maybe interested connex projects … TomT0m (talk) 16:52, 15 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)

The responisble scientific literature seems the best source for such subjects of course - nonetheless - Thank You for your opinion re NYT (and related news sources) - yes - somewhat agree - seems a lot of the news reported in the public square these days may be overly influenced by the bottom line - a loss of common integrity - as well as, in the name of good journalism, a false equivalency - hope I'm wrong about these concerns of course - OTOH - the NYT has won numerous awards for journalism ( see => List of awards won by The New York Times ) - more than any other news source in the world afaik - other worthy news sources include The Washington Post (WaPo), Associated Press (AP), Los Angeles Times (LAT) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) - ( please see related awards => https://www.statista.com/statistics/945236/most-awarded-media-usa/ ) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:46, 16 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 [1], 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)

Quantum cognition and quantum mind

We recently decided to merge quantum economics into econophysics. Turns out there is a small universe of "quantum *" articles some of which appear to be borderline in various ways.

I assumed that "quantum cognition" and "quantum mind" and pretty much any mix of quantum and social science would be pseudoscience. Turns out that "quantum cognition" does not mean what I assumed. Seems like a legit application of alternative probability theory to psychology. However the article quantum cognition mixes this up with quantum mind stuff.

I am proposing to change this: Talk:Quantum_cognition#Proposal_to_focus_on_"quantum_cognition"_based_on_Pothos_and_Busemeyer_review Johnjbarton (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This somewhat gives me Quantum toothache. However, there are many cases where a model developed in one area can be used in some very different, one I know is the motion of (elastic) solitons behaving comparable to the special theory of relativity. If a name has traction in reputable journals and the formulation/model yields useful results (as against quantum political spin) then it is fine so long as it is not a reinvention of the wheel. Let sleeping quanta lie and worry more about the masses of quite bad articles first? Ldm1954 (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Input from Cosmology expert(s) on Alexei Starobinsky

I am doing a GA review for an article on a biography of Alexei Starobinsky, mainly constructed by Sgubaldo who has done the GA nomination. I am not an expert in this area, and would appreciate input (even adding to the GA review if you want). I know there has been discussion about the validity of Hawking Radiation and related cosmology. I do not know enough to judge if the bio, to reach GA stature, should cover at least a bit more on Alexei's contribution and the discussion of it. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

lennard-jones potential

may someone read my comment? thanks. 151.29.78.113 (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be referring to Talk:Lennard-Jones potential#Pauli repulsion.--Srleffler (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)