Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:51, 13 July 2007 editDuae Quartunciae (talk \| contribs)2,482 edits Request for help from expert in physics and Misplaced Pages dispute conventions← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:31, 30 December 2024 edit undoJayBeeEll (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers28,152 edits →String of new pages onPlatonists and similar: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Tabs}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|algo = old(21d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive %(monthname)s %(year)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive %(monthname)s %(year)d
			\|algo = old(25d)
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 3
			\|minthreadsleft=5
			}}
			{{shortcut\|WT:PHY\|WT:PHYS\|WT:PHYSICS}}
			{{tmbox \| text = '''This WikiProject ] on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011''' }}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
			{{WikiProject Physics}}
	}}		}}

	{{Physics\|class=NA\|importance=NA}}
	{{archive box\|		{{archive box\|
			{{hidden\|header=Big Bang – 2005 \|content= <br>
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2006 — 2019\|content=<br>
			{{hidden\|header=2006\|content=<br>
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]

	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
Line 18:		Line 29:
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2007\|content=<br>
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
Line 23:		Line 36:
	# ]		# ]
	# ]		# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2008\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2009\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2010\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2011\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2012\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2013\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2014\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2015\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2016\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2017\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2018\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2019\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2020\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2021\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2022\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2023\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			{{hidden\|header=2024\|content=<br>
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			}}
			\|search=yes
	}}		}}
	__TOC__		__TOC__

			== Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"? ==
	== Merging Rotational Motion ==

	Both ] and ] are on near enough the same topic, and much of the content is shared word for word between both articles. I don't think there is really any dispute over whether they need merging, but what title should they be merged under? I think that 'Rotational motion' is the better option as it keeps things open. Also the article 'Rotation around a moving axis' does not exist, so 'Rotational motion' seems sufficient.

	Once merged the article definitely needs some attention. The introduction in particular seems very comparative rather than directly informative. ] 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

	:The simpler title is definitely preferable in my opinion. — ] ] 23:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

	:The articles should clearly be merged. Both of them are about what I would call ''Rotation about a single axis'', which would be my preferred title. This is the level at which first year physics textbooks talk about rotation. However, rigid objects can make more complicated rotations than just rotating around one axis at a time. This requires a much more sophisticated mathematical treatment than these articles attempt, which is useful for understanding tumbling projectiles and gyroscopes, among other things. In principle, ''Rotational motion'' could be about the general treatment of rotation, but I'm not offering to write it. ] 07:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

	== New information on ] to ] ==

	Appearently, the streeks or tendrils are incorrect. Using a fast past cameral, they found out that they are balls of lightning that shoot down then up at 0.1 the speed of light. Followed the talk page to here. So, not sure who takes care of lightning.
	*
	*
	*
	Thanks, ] 6/12/07.
	** I updated the Sprite information, please check my writing if you get a chance. Thanks, ], 6/13/07.

	== Proposal for New Page ==

	I would like to propose that someone who has enough knowledge on the subject creates a page called "Status of String Theory" which details the general consensus of the scientific community regarding the acceptance, falsification, and verifiability of String Theory.

	I say this because as a layman, I do not have access to information on the latest tests with CERN or Fermilab colliders, and would like to know more about whether the theory ever is directly confirmed or not.

	== Heat ==

	I have performed a complex edit on these articles, please see the discussion at ]. ] 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

	To complete this change, I would need to have the disambiguation page moved to ], but I will not propose that unless I gain consensus for this change. ] 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

	Heat is not the same thing as thermal energy. Confusing the two of them is extremely poor form. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy and is analogous to work being the transfer of mechanical energy. --] 21:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

	:I would like to see ]'s comments. Therefore, I would like to ask ] to refrain from deleting his comments. ] 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
	:To be clear, ScienceApologist added exactly the same response at ], and I think TWTTATL wanted to confine discussion all in one place. (There was probably a better way to suggest this than deletion, though!)--] 07:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Yes, and he posted it two other places, too. Anyway, I'd like to see some comments (at either place) about my proposal. ] 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

	Please help combat ]'s inappropriate introduction of misconceptions into the pages related to heat. Thanks all. Also, if there are any administrators here, could they move ] back to ]? That was a move that was highly inappropriate. --] 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

	:I fully understand the distiction in thermodynamics, as I indicated on ] and you willfully ignored in your reply which you inappropriately posted at four different places. I am not introducing any misconceptions. ] 21:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

	::Show me one modern reference that uses heat to refer to thermal energy or stop this advocacy. --] 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

	:Moved back, with pleasure. -- ] 11:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

	===Aftermath===

	In case people are interested, ] was blocked for edit warring regarding this topic, and ] has written a declaration that he has become completely disgusted with Misplaced Pages and is quitting. ] 10:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

	:Losing ScienceApologist would be a great shame. I hope that he will reconsider now that his opponent has been blocked. ] 10:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Can someone please point to the exact action of ] that seemed to be upsetting him so much? I'm honestly a bit confused as to what the fuss was about, and from what I've seen, it seemed to be more a misunderstanding than an actual argument. --] 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

	In the future, if anyone has a disagreement with ], I suggest seeking immediate administrator intervention. The editor has a history of edit warring. ] 20:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

	== Which special relativity? ==

	It appears to me that there is not just one version of special relativity, but a range of versions which vary all the way from
	* "Low" special relativity — Newtonian physics plus correction terms involving 1/''c''^2. For example, ''m'' is replaced in most places by ''m''+''E''<sub>k</sub>/''c''^2 to get the relativistic mass.

	to
	* "High" special relativity — general relativity with the ] fixed to be zero and thus the ] must also be set to zero.

	Where in this wide range should we fix what we call "]"? ] 10:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

	: Should this kind of 'decision' not be based on what definition is used by most physicists? Or am I mis-interpreting your words "we" in your question, and you are asking what that definition actually is? ] 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

	::To be more specific, we wikipedians sometimes use classical-like vector algebra with dot-products and cross-products (a 3+1 dimensional perspective), and sometimes use tensor algebra (a 4 dimensional perspective). In each case, we are describing the same physical content, but the way of thinking about it is different. Do we want to continue doing things in this haphazard way or do we want to settle on one method or the other? Or both, for that matter? ] 07:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

	:::Let's see, I do not have my physics text books handy, but I think what is mostly done is this: For the introduction of ''special relativity'', tensor math is "overkill", since all you need conceptually is the 4 dimensional time+space vector and the ]. Then you insist on the necessary constraints (e.g. the invariance of physical variables in the equations) and you get to the mathematically correct formulation of special relativity. This seems ] and historically sensible to me. Once, you need to expand this framework to address ] you would "complicate" the math by the more complex metric tensor ''g''. How does that sound? ] 08:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

	::::Where, exactly, do you see "high special relativity" discussed? A quick skim of the WP article ] shows no such usage, which is in keeping with standard classroom presentation. The standard textbook presentation includes a hand-waving "just ignore gravity for now", and "you'd need to learn GR to understand gravity". Leave it at that. -- right? There are also concepts in cosmology about flat universes and what not, but these are inappropriate for an SR article. So I guess I'm saying that I don't understand what the issue is, or why there's an issue. ] 23:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

	::::If you refer only to tensor math, then using both 3+1 and 4 is correct: the 3+1 approach is suitable for introductory discussion, while the 4D notation is for use after the concept is well-understood. Please note that even in GR, for calculations such as the precession of the perhilion of mercury, even then you eventually have to go back to 3+1 so that the astronmers can figure out where to aim the danged telescope. ] 23:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

	:::::I agree with Linas that the issue here confuses me. Is the issue that in elementary treatments one writes equations with time and space explicit and separate quantities, while in more advanced treatments one uses 4-vectors and the accompanying tensor notation? ] 07:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

	::::Tensor math does have a place in special relativity, even disregarding gravity altogether. The electromagnetic field is an antisymmetric tensor of order two, and the stress-energy tensor (also order two) does have uses in SR applications. ] 05:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

	This occurred to me when I was thinking about the fact that I had written the section ] in the 3+1D notation rather than the 4D notation, and I was wondering whether that was the right thing to do. Other than that, I did not really have any specific problem in mind. I just wanted to know whether you-all feel that we should have a policy about how we present special relativity. For example, the energy of a free particle could be written in several different ways:
	:<math>E_k = \frac{p^2 + \frac{E_k^2}{c^2}}{2 (m + \frac{E_k}{c^2})} </math> where <math>\vec{p} = (m + \frac{E_k}{c^2}) \vec{v}</math> see ]
	:<math>E_k = \frac{m c^2}{\sqrt {1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} - m c^2</math>
	:<math>E = m c^2 \frac{dt}{d \tau} = \frac{m c^2}{\sqrt {1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} </math>
	:<math>E = - m g_{0 \beta} \frac{d x^{\beta}}{d \tau}</math>.

	Ultimately, these are equivalent, but they look quite different. ] 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

	:The first eqn looks kind of weird and is pretty non-standard and confusing, suggest avoiding it entirely. The second and third are standard extbook presentation. The fourth is "landau-lifschitz"-y and is a part of a set of gymnastics routines for learning the 4D notation. In itself. its not very edifying; but as a part of a group of other related formulas having the metric tensor in them, it can help the reader get oriented. I remember dozens of expressions all having <math>\sqrt{-g_{00}}</math> in the numerator or denominator. I call it "landau-lifschitz"-y because this material is suitable only for your brightest, most promising students ... ] 17:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

	=== Fundamentals ===

	In my opinion (and that doesn't say much), I think the most important thing to keep in mind on a topic like this is fundamentals. Think about it, if you set up your own equipment, it makes no sense not to continue and take it a step further! What do you lot think? {{unsigned\|Deimtchek}}

	:Eh? What? What topic are you talking about? Which article? To what or whom are you responding? How about providing a little context! ] 05:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

	I think he was talking about SR--]<sup>]</sup> 08:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

	:If so, I still do not know what he is asking. ] 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

	== Magnetic field ==

	Could we get some more eyes over at ]. I just stumbled onto it a few days ago, and it appears that an anon (81.***) seems rather insistent on passing of high school physics analogies as the real deal. I changed the intro, which had some oversimplification errors in it, using the intro in ] as a model, which created IMO an accurate yet simple description. However, he/she reverted most of it this morning, I essentially reverted her/him, and I really don't want to be drawn into a revert war - hence my request to the project to bring in more outside eyes before going to a RFC. The anon seems obsessed with Faraday's lines of force, constantly saying the the Lorentz force law cannot explain all magnetic field interactions (like the attraction b/n two bar magnets) and even appears like he/she sees her/himself as a crusader against a conspiracy perpetuated by a physics "the Man" establishment (admittedly, some other knowledgeable editors may have been a bit gruff/short with the anon). Thanks in advance for any help. --] 15:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
	:A while ago I thought I'd take a stab at improving the page, but quickly realized it would take more effort than I was willing to put forth alone. One point: the introduction from a few months ago was mostly ok; you might want to dig back and look at it. --] 10:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

	== ], ] and ] ==

	I've just read the above articles. As far as I can see:
	* ] should be called ], and I propose to move it.
	* Furthermore, much of the material there duplicates and expands upon what's at ].Theerfore, I propose to excise much of it and move it to Spin Ice

	As far as I can see, a Spin Ice is not geometrically frustrated. It has a certain residual entropy, yes, but this is not as a result of any kind of frustration, but as a result of a large number of degrees of freedom. If this is correct (and I'm writing here in the hope that somebody will help!), then I think we should:

	* Remove the example of ice from ]
	* Merge ] and the newly created ]

	Comments please! ] 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

	: The new article, to which the old one was moved, is ]; the title is singular, not plural. The plural would offend Misplaced Pages conventions unless some special reason for its use is cited. ] 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

	== ] needs simplification and wikification ==

	It would be greatly helpful if an expert could help simplify and explain ]. Anybody game?

	-- ] 07:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

	== No merge of ], ], and ] ==

	There seems to have been some kind of edit war brewing over the last weeks at the heat and thermal energy articles between several editors, primarily ], that caused ] to quit Misplaced Pages. In any event, the situation still continues; please review ] and ] and give your opinion or vote: ''']''' . --] 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

	:Looks like this is resolved (no merges). ] 16:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

	== ]: ]? ==

	After a long period of stability, a number of edits were recently made to the ] article in an apparent attempt to advance his unproven theories. This included replacing a longstanding statement that his device designs ''"do not adhere to the first or second laws of thermodynamics, which relate to conservation of energy"'' with what seems to be an agenda-advancing statement that the devices ''"(do) adhere to the laws of ]"''.

	I've reverted nearly all of the additions to restore the article to its relatively neutral and terse state. I did leave in a mention of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, though; it now says the devices ''"demonstrate principles of 'non-equilibrium thermodynamics' — that is, they do not adhere to the first or second laws of thermodynamics, which relate to conservation of energy."''

	However, I'm not sure the implied contradiction between the field of non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the laws of thermodynamics is correct; I'm just railing against what seems to be an attempt by proponents of his theories to dishonestly associate them with what is characterized in Misplaced Pages as a legitimate branch of physics.

	So, is ] legit, or is it ]? Should I characterize it differently? Is it even applicable? How can we continue to improve the ] article? I'd appreciate some more eyes looking at it because I don't have time to police the article on my own. Thanks! —] 10:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

	: I looked over ] and ] articles. I've certainly know there is a field called "non-equilibrium thermodynamics"(although I think one would usually say "non-equilibrium statistical mechanics") but I'm not really qualified to judge an article about it. I would say that what I know about it loosely resembles what is in the article, but there could be major mistakes or misinterpretations. For instance, I know that ] as it's usually thought of is an equilibrium concept and there is a bunch of research in progress about generalizing it to non-equilibrium settings. Also, the stuff about non-conservation of energy seems a bit dubious but could still be right. The energy of an open system has no reason to be constant(even in equilibrium thermo, if you have a system at fixed temperature one expects that the energy will have fluctuations about some mean value).
	: The ] article seems fine as is. I think most(including myself) would say his ideas are pseudoscience but the article points out a lot of criticism leveled against him. The main issue there is whether or not he is notable enough for an article. If so, the existing article seems even-handed enough. ] 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

	::After a very very quick skim of ], it looked perfectly legit. Was there something specific in there that seemed wrong? Joshua is right, this is a field generating active interest in physics. For example, recently, there was a new and quite legit experiment that demonstrated a momentary violation of the second law by building an actual ] that somehow worked for a little while, using some trick I can't remember. Oh, why look, actually the article on ] reviews this new work! Bravo. ] 02:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::The ] article says the Leigh experiment (Nature 2007) doesn't violate the 2nd law because of its external power source. ] 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::As to Bedini, is quite entertaining, a true melodramatic read, with dirt-floored basements and accusations of neglect. But Bedini is just a minor sub-plot to the real melodrama at ]. Wow! ] 02:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::(''Light bulb goes off in Linas' head'') I think I finally understand the appeal of pseudoscience: Its got all the thrills of reading fiction, be it whodunits or Harry Potter, with the added pleasure-twist that ''it might be true'', and further, that you don't have to wait for the sequel, you can just dig more dirt yourself. Wow! ] 02:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::Exactly, and people who are into it always feel they're being censored and unfairly dismissed when they fail to achieve recognition for their untested but "clearly revolutionary (if it works)" theories. The author of the "1974 Crane, Rife, Bearden, Dr. Robert Strecker" section you're referring to and which I deleted is trying (and failing) to make a case for it to be restored on the grounds that Bedini and Rife's work needs more publicity, and on the grounds that if ]'s article and its forks can have controversial details explained at length, so should these guys' articles. I didn't point out the obvious bit that Einstein has been and continues to be written about at length, but I did mention that these arguments are typical of people who want to misuse Misplaced Pages and that WP policies were devised largely to prevent this sort of thing.
	::::I acknowledged that he might have a case for retaining a mention (with careful wording) that in 1974 Bedini and others sought to validate certain claims of Rife and that the group drew certain conclusions and that a video exists which purports to demonstrate some of Rife's claims. However, all the drama and details of the experiments in the rambling prose that I deleted is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. Why do pseudoscientists and their followers always ramble incoherently?
	::::Anyway, I'm afraid the Rife and Bedini enthusiasts are going to continue to flout the spirit of the policies and guidelines while attempting to adhere to the letter, which could lead to more questionable references to perhaps legit but immature and possibly irrelevant fields like ] and citations of books related to it. —] 08:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Specifically, it is the ''personal'' drama that makes pseudoscience interesting. Real science tends to stick to cold, impersonal facts. The history of science can record the drama, but by the time the history is written, the science tends to be done, and the drama is over. By contrast, the history of pseudoscientists is rarely written and documented, and so one is very much in ''terra ingocnita'', one is actively unravelling a mystery. Better yet, the mystery does not require a PhD and a research budget to unravel; almost anyone can participate. The drama is far from over; it remains a living thing that can continue to be mined. The very act of suppression is what makes it a gnostic pursuit. ] 04:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

			I recently joined Misplaced Pages and my first suggested edit was to ]. My guess is that this article would belong better as a subsection of the article on ]. The help article ] suggested that I draw some attention to it, since the article is a bit obscure.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:55, March 30, 2024 (UTC)</small>
	== Strange syntax ==

			== Lead of ] ==
	As a mathematician I'm accustomed to such usages as this:

			The IP at ] seemed to bring up a good point, should the lead paragraph of ] read {{xt\|] and energy may also be converted to one another}} instead of {{xt\|] and energy may also be converted to one another}}? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 23:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
	: It follows that
	:
	:: <math> a^2 + b^2 = c^2, \, </math>
	:
	: where ''a'' and ''b'' are ....

			:Having found the ], I've decided to cross my fingers and be bold pending broader approval. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 23:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
	etc. Lately I've come across a number of Misplaced Pages articles that say things like this:

			:: That statement started out bad, and that in no way improved it. It perpetuates the layman's misconception that anything is "converted" into or from energy: energy simply changes form (it is strictly conserved), and mass is just a manifestation of energy. I'll take a look at rewording it. —] 00:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	: It follows that
			:::Thank you. My goal was to avoid making it more annoying to fix! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	:
			:::I just had a look, and to my surprise in the whole article there is only one mention of ], with zero useful information, none of ] or ] and there are 11 of ]. That seems a bit unbalanced to me. ] (]) 02:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: <math> a^2 + b^2 = c^2. \, </math>
			:::: Good observation. This would need a subject matter expert (presumably with a chemistry background) to improve. —] 16:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	:
	: Where ''a'' and ''b'' are ....

			== Is X17 real enough? ==
	A period is put at the end of the equation and the initial ''W'' in ''Where'' is capitalized as if it's the beginning of a new sentence. Or sometimes the period is omitted; it seems physicists (at least here on Misplaced Pages) often omit the period after an equation even when it's at the end of a sentence. The first time I saw this I thought it's obviously a gross gramatical goof by someone who wasn't paying attention to what he was writing. After a couple of dozen times, I'm thinking maybe this usage is actually standard among physicists. Can anyone confirm or deny anything? (Sometimes in certain moods I start to wonder if physicists consider it their sacred duty to be offended by any attempt to be precise in the use of language.) ] 12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

			There is a stub page ] which is currently justified based upon the discovery of the ]; created by a relatively new user on Dec 2nd and I tagged it as part of ]. I am skeptical about the Attila page, particularly as the editor (@]) added today a misrepresentation of a CNN article (which I corrected). I don't know enough about HEP to know if the simple route of redirecting the Attila page to the X17 page is the right course, I think there are others here who have forgotten more about HEP than I know. (The X17 page itself may also be an issue.) ] (]) 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
	:The second version looks like it uses incorrect grammar to me. Feel free to fix it. (I wish that the journals in my subject has some style guidelines regarding the integration of equations into sentences.) ] 12:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

			:I happen to have visited Atomki. They still believe in the X17 particle. Nobody else does, though. ] (]) 15:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Most physics journals officially use the Chicago Manual of Style, a document which most physicists (including me) have never read. Physicists are not offended by precise use of language but most don't consider it to be part of their job description. We tend leave journal copy-editors to fix errors like the one you mention (on WP, guess that means you!). On lax usage in general, it's telling that interational standards and conventions on fundamental physical quantities are usually agreed by engineering organisations (e.g. IEEE), not organisations of physicists. ] 16:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
			::People want to believe anything these days. The fact that we have a B-class ] article shows how scientists and non-scientists are desperate to believe in something revolutionary independently of the data. Aside from ranting: I do not know what to draw from this, but Misplaced Pages golden rule is: if notable sources cover it, it is worth it.--] (]) 15:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Right, whether it's "real" or not is not the test. We have articles on all sorts of things that don't actually exist. --] (]) 01:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::: We may have an ]-] editor who does not seem to be interested in interaction, including ] (including on biographical articles). Would this be a case of ]? Their talk page seems to be a testament to this. —] 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Let's not jump that quickly. Everyone has to learn, the account was created in Aug 2024 so some errors is not unusual. I reverted the latest and sent a specific level 1 warning. Hopefully they will respond appropriately. If not then a level 2 warning then protection if needed. Be gentle to the newbie! ] (]) 16:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: I'm glad that there are people around who are wiser and more patient than I am :) —] 18:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Wiser....nah. ] (]) 18:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Nobel laureates in physics by nationality? ==
	The first version is correct. The second is a result of sloppiness or (forgivable) ignorance. ] 18:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

			A section called "Nobel laureates in physics by nationality" was added to ]. Is this section notable? See ] ] (]) 00:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	I would agree that the first version is correct(the second seems very bad from a grammatical point of view). Out of laziness punctuation is often omitted after equations, but I wouldn't call it a "physicist style". It's true that we physicists get a little ornery when criticized on the precision of our language; kind of a quirk of the field, I guess. ] 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

			== ] content issue ==
	== Tesla Coil ==

			@] and I have agreed on a change. @] has reverted us both. Please help us resolve this on
	It's been suggested to me that I mention the status of ]. I don't know how to put this delicately, but someone making extensive "contributions" is a free energy enthusiast and does not seem to know much about electricity. I haven't gotten through my electromagnetism book yet (blush), but I've designed and built a MOSFET Tesla coil, and done EE professionally for many years. Somebody put a banner on the page saying that it was within the realm of Misplaced Pages Project Physics, but they don't seem to have stuck around. Anybody who knows the subject is welcome to weigh in; very welcome; that's all I'm saying.
			] ] (]) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	] 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	== ] ==
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			=="{{noredirect\|failed star}}"==
	I'm wondering about the legitimacy of the sources in this article. In particular, some of the self-published stuff by Bjerknes raises some eyebrows, particularly since it's hosted on a website called jewishracism.com.-] 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
			FYI {{la\|failed star}} has been nominated for deletion -- ] (]) 21:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Notices of the American Mathematical Society article on Misplaced Pages editing. ==
	:As it is generally taught in college courses, there was some dispute about the chronology of Einstein's discoveries and whether others had discovered some of the key ideas before him. This is especially true with regards to the differential geometry of G.R. which was a particularly amazing acheivement for Einstein seeing as he was not trained as a mathematician unlike Riemann and others working on the problem. Nevertheless, the consensus of historians of science has been that Einstein is rightly credited with the discovery, though the great man theory of history probably has something to do with why he is remembered more than his predecessors. Einstein disparaging is a popular anti-Semetic passtime and so we need to be careful that we do not give a springboard for that kind of advocacy. --] 13:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

			This was posted on ] but it mostly also related to physics:
	::The article's coverage of Bjerknes is interesting. He published a book "Einstein: the Incorrigible Plaigarist." An author of an earlier Science article on the subject reviewed the book very critically in Physics World, calling Bjerknes "monomaniacal." Bjerknes' reply to Physics World was declined publication. As Wafulz seems to be pointing out, that section of the article appears to take pains to describe Bjerknes favorably. Some sections of the article probably have ] issues. ] 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

			* {{citation\|title=''Princ-wiki-a mathematica'': Misplaced Pages editing and mathematics\|first1=D.\|last1=Eppstein\|first2=J. B.\|last2=Lewis\|first3=Russ\|last3=Woodroofe\|author4=XOR'easter\|journal=Notices of the AMS\|volume=72\|issue=1\|pages=65–73\|year=2025\|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202501/rnoti-p65.pdf}}. —] (]) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Egads, why is the article so long? Huge chunks of it are block quotes, too. — ] ] 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
			] (]) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	== ] ==
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	There is a merge proposal, standing intact for months, to merge ] and ] articles into ], just like ] have common article. So it would be really good itea to merge those two, because X and Y bosons are related in same way as W and Z bosons.
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ''']''' 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.
	It also looks like there is extremely low edit activity on those articles. --] 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

			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.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> This one was missed by Article Alerts, likely because it doesn't have a talk page. –] (]]) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Galileo ==

			== String of new pages onPlatonists and similar ==
	] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ].

			There is a stack of pages created directly in mainspace by the new user ], all of which seem to take a particular, unconventional view and are poorly sourced.
	== Fritz Zwicky and Tired Light ==
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			I have tagged a couple for notability because at the very least the sourcing is weak and does not convince me that ] is satisfied; I always prefer to give editors a chance to improve versions. Before doing anything else (e.g. draftify, PROD, AfD) I would be interested to get feedback. Perhaps even someone(s) would help improve those pages if they are reputable topics. (Or this philosophy has been seen on Misplaced Pages before...) ] (]) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Can you elaborate on how explaining a well established Philisophy of Mathematics is not in alignment with Misplaced Pages policy? You attack the view as “unconvential” which suggest personal bias rather than any objective metric. Additonally the sources are fine and each member of the list already has established Notability. Your argument seems to boil down to “I neither like nor understand Platonism therefore it shouldnt be included on the site” ] (]) 12:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	I have recently been cleaning up the biography of ]. It had originally included an enormous amount of material relating to ], IMO far out of proportion to its importance in a biography. But much worse, all the material related to modern ] ideas by Lyndon Ashmore in particular. Similar problems have existed, and been resolved, in the past in the ] page. My changes have just recently been reverted or partially reverted by an anonymous editor, and the modern tired light stuff is back, justified by appeal to the authority of ''Feynman and Ashmore''. I am new to Misplaced Pages and don't know the best way to handle this. I requested 3rd party assistance; a 3rd party Misplaced Pages expert duly showed up and declared the dispute a bit too technical. I have flagged the contentious section as being under dispute and indicated a drastic edit I wish to apply in the discussion page; which is essentially another revert to what I did a few days ago. Input from people with good understanding of the relevant physics and of Misplaced Pages conventions would be very much appreciated! -- (] 10:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
			::The issue is not that ] isn't notable, it's that your article ] doesn't say anything about it, it just copies material from their articles. It's a synthetic intersection of otherwise notable topics to make a list article about, as there aren't sufficient sources discussing the Platonism of those figures in specific being cited. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Ah I see makes sense thank you, but arent list pages also valid Misplaced Pages pages? I see a lot of them ] (]) 12:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Yes, list articles are valid, and like other Misplaced Pages pages there are rules and guidelines for when and how to create them. You can read more about list articles at ]. The notability requirement for list articles is at ]. If I'm reading it right, it says that to create a list of Platonist mathematicians, you need to provide a ] that discusses Platonist mathematicians, to establish that the concept of the list is notable. --] (]) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I see thank you for this guidance ] (]) 17:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The article "List of Platonist Mathematicians" is not notable because there are no sources use such a list, see ]. The article is not correctly formatted as a list. It looks like a normal article. It should be renamed eg "Platonism in Mathematics". (Most of its content will be deleted unless it has better sourcing) ] (]) 17:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::An article might be more interesting and useful than a list of Platonist mathematicians, anyway. ] might be a better title, but we would need help moving the article there over the redirect.--] (]) 17:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Would a category be more appropriate? I find it is hard to discover mathematcicians with verified views on this topic ] (]) 17:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::These look like a decent start:
			:::::::* {{cite SEP\|url-id=philosophy-mathematics \|title=Philosophy of Mathematics \|date=2022-01-25 \|first=Leon \|last=Horsten}}
			:::::::* {{cite SEP\|url-id=platonism-mathematics \|title=Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics \|date=2023-03-28 \|first=Øystein \|last=Linnebo}}
			:::::::* {{cite web\|first=Julian C. \|last=Cole \|title=Mathematical Platonism \|url=https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/ \|website=]}}
			:::::::] (]) 04:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::We could definitely use an article on mathematical Platonism. It is a notable subtopic of the ], and one we don't already have an article on. Tagging individual mathematicians as Platonists, whether in a list or in a category, is not a helpful way of achieving that goal, and would require a clear public statement of mathematical philosophy from each mathematician listed. We are unlikely to find such a statement for most mathematicians, in large part because most mathematicians are not philosophers of mathematics. —] (]) 20:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I think there is consensus here to change the name of "List of Platonist mathematicians" -> "Mathematical Platonism" (capital because Plato?) and encourage @] to use the refs added by XOR'easter to alter the content to match that topic. ] (]) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::There is a redirect at ] so we are out of luck on the move. ] (]) 01:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:An article on Wolfram's "ruliad" was ]. We don't need another one. The sourcing on the new one is unacceptable: writings by Wolfram himself are ], which we shouldn't use; postings on the ] are almost always unusable per ], and a book from 2014 can't contribute to the notability of a topic invented years after that. A literature search finds nothing better. (Unsurprisingly.) I have accordingly proposed ] for deletion. ] (]) 04:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::@], since your PROD of ] was contested (i.e. deleted without explanation) I am going to shift to ] where I have placed a request for a {{Tlx\|TempUndelete}} of the deleted earlier version so I and others can better judge how to proceed. (Of course you can just go straight to an AfD.) ] (]) 12:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::]. ] (]) 19:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:] and ] must be deleted at least per ]. Indeed for having such lists one needs either mathematicians or physicists that qualify themselves as Platonists, or a neutral authority that provides such a qualification. Here, we do not know who qualified these people as Platonists. So, one must consider that this qualification is a ] of a unknown philosopher or the editor who wrote this article. This goes against the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Based upon the input here (thanks to everyone), i just put PRODs on both list pages. If these are contested then I will do AfDs.
			:For reference, ] now has an AfD, the appropriateness of ] is being debated (independent of this discussion) while ] has been reviewed as appropriate for Misplaced Pages. This topic is probably "done". ] (]) 21:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Both PRODs were contested with a statement that "concensus was not reached" so both lists now have AfDs. ] (]) 22:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I am not convinced that ] meets the notability standards for ] or ]. One book generally isn't enough. ] (]) 23:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I don't do biographies much but I would have figured there's an argument for Bessis for ]#C1 -- his papers ''The dual braid monoid'' and ''Finite complex reflection arrangements are <math>K(\pi, 1)</math>'' have both been very influential. (Obviously now this is moot, but I would probably have voted to keep at an AfD.) --] (]) 22:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:In case you wonder why all the pages in question here are now red, they were created by a banned sock puppet so have been (admin) deleted. ] (]) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:31, 30 December 2024

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

Shortcuts

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics

Archives

Big Bang – 2005

2006 — 2019

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"?

I recently joined Misplaced Pages 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielittlewood (talk • contribs) 07:55, March 30, 2024 (UTC)

Lead of Energy

The IP at WP:RFED seemed to bring up a good point, should the lead paragraph of Energy read mass and energy may also be converted to one another instead of matter and energy may also be converted to one another? Remsense ‥ 论 23:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Having found the original diff, I've decided to cross my fingers and be bold pending broader approval. Remsense ‥ 论 23:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That statement started out bad, and that in no way improved it. It perpetuates the layman's misconception that anything is "converted" into or from energy: energy simply changes form (it is strictly conserved), and mass is just a manifestation of energy. I'll take a look at rewording it. —Quondum 00:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. My goal was to avoid making it more annoying to fix! Remsense ‥ 论 00:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I just had a look, and to my surprise in the whole article there is only one mention of free energy, with zero useful information, none of enthalpy or Gibbs free energy and there are 11 of entropy. That seems a bit unbalanced to me. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Good observation. This would need a subject matter expert (presumably with a chemistry background) to improve. —Quondum 16:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Is X17 real enough?

There is a stub page Attila Krasznahorkay which is currently justified based upon the discovery of the X17 particle; created by a relatively new user on Dec 2nd and I tagged it as part of WP:NPP. I am skeptical about the Attila page, particularly as the editor (@Vazulvonal of Stockholm) added today a misrepresentation of a CNN article (which I corrected). I don't know enough about HEP to know if the simple route of redirecting the Attila page to the X17 page is the right course, I think there are others here who have forgotten more about HEP than I know. (The X17 page itself may also be an issue.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I happen to have visited Atomki. They still believe in the X17 particle. Nobody else does, though. Tercer (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

People want to believe anything these days. The fact that we have a B-class LK-99 article shows how scientists and non-scientists are desperate to believe in something revolutionary independently of the data. Aside from ranting: I do not know what to draw from this, but Misplaced Pages golden rule is: if notable sources cover it, it is worth it.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, whether it's "real" or not is not the test. We have articles on all sorts of things that don't actually exist. --Trovatore (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

We may have an edit-warring editor who does not seem to be interested in interaction, including omitted or improper edit comments (including on biographical articles). Would this be a case of inadequate interactive competence? Their talk page seems to be a testament to this. —Quondum 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's not jump that quickly. Everyone has to learn, the account was created in Aug 2024 so some errors is not unusual. I reverted the latest and sent a specific level 1 warning. Hopefully they will respond appropriately. If not then a level 2 warning then protection if needed. Be gentle to the newbie! Ldm1954 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad that there are people around who are wiser and more patient than I am :) —Quondum 18:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Wiser....nah. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobel laureates in physics by nationality?

A section called "Nobel laureates in physics by nationality" was added to Nobel Prize in Physics. Is this section notable? See Talk:Nobel_Prize_in_Physics#Nobel_laureates_in_physics_by_nationality Johnjbarton (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Principle of locality content issue

@ReyHahn and I have agreed on a change. @Tercer has reverted us both. Please help us resolve this on Talk:Principle_of_locality#Fixing_an_issue_in_the_QM_section. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Noctilucent cloud

Noctilucent cloud 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. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"failed star"

Notices of the American Mathematical Society article on Misplaced Pages editing.

This was posted on WT:MATH but it mostly also related to physics:

Eppstein, D.; Lewis, J. B.; Woodroofe, Russ; XOR'easter (2025), "Princ-wiki-a mathematica: Misplaced Pages editing and mathematics" (PDF), Notices of the AMS, 72 (1): 65–73. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Johnjbarton (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Fizeau experiment

Fizeau experiment 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Gravitomagnetic for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gravitomagnetic 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.

This one was missed by Article Alerts, likely because it doesn't have a talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

String of new pages onPlatonists and similar

There is a stack of pages created directly in mainspace by the new user Transhumanistnerd0, all of which seem to take a particular, unconventional view and are poorly sourced.

I have tagged a couple for notability because at the very least the sourcing is weak and does not convince me that WP:BURDEN is satisfied; I always prefer to give editors a chance to improve versions. Before doing anything else (e.g. draftify, PROD, AfD) I would be interested to get feedback. Perhaps even someone(s) would help improve those pages if they are reputable topics. (Or this philosophy has been seen on Misplaced Pages before...) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how explaining a well established Philisophy of Mathematics is not in alignment with Misplaced Pages policy? You attack the view as “unconvential” which suggest personal bias rather than any objective metric. Additonally the sources are fine and each member of the list already has established Notability. Your argument seems to boil down to “I neither like nor understand Platonism therefore it shouldnt be included on the site” Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not that Platonism isn't notable, it's that your article List of Platonist Mathematicians doesn't say anything about it, it just copies material from their articles. It's a synthetic intersection of otherwise notable topics to make a list article about, as there aren't sufficient sources discussing the Platonism of those figures in specific being cited. Remsense ‥ 论 12:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see makes sense thank you, but arent list pages also valid Misplaced Pages pages? I see a lot of them Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, list articles are valid, and like other Misplaced Pages pages there are rules and guidelines for when and how to create them. You can read more about list articles at Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists. The notability requirement for list articles is at WP:NLIST. If I'm reading it right, it says that to create a list of Platonist mathematicians, you need to provide a reliable source that discusses Platonist mathematicians, to establish that the concept of the list is notable. --Srleffler (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I see thank you for this guidance Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The article "List of Platonist Mathematicians" is not notable because there are no sources use such a list, see Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists. The article is not correctly formatted as a list. It looks like a normal article. It should be renamed eg "Platonism in Mathematics". (Most of its content will be deleted unless it has better sourcing) Johnjbarton (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

An article might be more interesting and useful than a list of Platonist mathematicians, anyway. Mathematical Platonism might be a better title, but we would need help moving the article there over the redirect.--Srleffler (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Would a category be more appropriate? I find it is hard to discover mathematcicians with verified views on this topic Transhumanistnerd0 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

These look like a decent start:

Horsten, Leon (2022-01-25). "Philosophy of Mathematics". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Linnebo, Øystein (2023-03-28). "Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Cole, Julian C. "Mathematical Platonism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

XOR'easter (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We could definitely use an article on mathematical Platonism. It is a notable subtopic of the philosophy of mathematics, and one we don't already have an article on. Tagging individual mathematicians as Platonists, whether in a list or in a category, is not a helpful way of achieving that goal, and would require a clear public statement of mathematical philosophy from each mathematician listed. We are unlikely to find such a statement for most mathematicians, in large part because most mathematicians are not philosophers of mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there is consensus here to change the name of "List of Platonist mathematicians" -> "Mathematical Platonism" (capital because Plato?) and encourage @Transhumanistnerd0 to use the refs added by XOR'easter to alter the content to match that topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a redirect at Mathematical Platonism so we are out of luck on the move. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

An article on Wolfram's "ruliad" was deleted back in April. We don't need another one. The sourcing on the new one is unacceptable: writings by Wolfram himself are primary sources, which we shouldn't use; postings on the arXiv are almost always unusable per WP:SPS, and a book from 2014 can't contribute to the notability of a topic invented years after that. A literature search finds nothing better. (Unsurprisingly.) I have accordingly proposed Ruliad Theory of the Universe for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@XOR'easter, since your PROD of Ruliad Theory of the Universe was contested (i.e. deleted without explanation) I am going to shift to Talk:Ruliad Theory of the Universe where I have placed a request for a {{TempUndelete}} of the deleted earlier version so I and others can better judge how to proceed. (Of course you can just go straight to an AfD.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

List of Platonist mathematicians and List of Platonist physicists must be deleted at least per WP:NPOV. Indeed for having such lists one needs either mathematicians or physicists that qualify themselves as Platonists, or a neutral authority that provides such a qualification. Here, we do not know who qualified these people as Platonists. So, one must consider that this qualification is a WP:POV of a unknown philosopher or the editor who wrote this article. This goes against the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages. D.Lazard (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Based upon the input here (thanks to everyone), i just put PRODs on both list pages. If these are contested then I will do AfDs.

For reference, Ruliad Theory of the Universe now has an AfD, the appropriateness of Wenitte Apiou is being debated (independent of this discussion) while David Bessis has been reviewed as appropriate for Misplaced Pages. This topic is probably "done". Ldm1954 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Both PRODs were contested with a statement that "concensus was not reached" so both lists now have AfDs. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not convinced that David Bessis meets the notability standards for academics or authors. One book generally isn't enough. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't do biographies much but I would have figured there's an argument for Bessis for WP:NPROF#C1 -- his papers The dual braid monoid and Finite complex reflection arrangements are $K(\pi ,1)$ have both been very influential. (Obviously now this is moot, but I would probably have voted to keep at an AfD.) --JBL (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In case you wonder why all the pages in question here are now red, they were created by a banned sock puppet so have been (admin) deleted. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: