Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

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

Shortcuts

Compton telescope

[edit]

I raised an issue on Talk:Compton_telescope that the article lacks discussion of how the device works. However, that article appears only infrequently edited, so I am flagging the issue here also, as I lack expertise to make any meaningful contribution. Dbsseven (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this specific device, but there seems to be some decent citations, I will go through and see if I can come up with something. Ajheindel (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfD Quantum radio frequency

[edit]

I someone will weigh in on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_6#Quantum_radio_frequency. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a user-conduct issue that involves highly technical physics topics, including GW190425 and the Yang–Baxter equation. The discussion is about the topic User:Laqy-peenu. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03, I assume you mean Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Laqy-peenu? Ldm1954 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The pages Tearing mode and Sheath instability are both pages on plasma instabilities. They were created by a user (now) blocked for WP:NOTHERE behavior including the creation of many bad articles. The majority have now been either repaired by others or CSD/PROD/AfD, these two could do with expert eyes. Ta. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw this draft is still in the AfC pending list (not that any reviewer would accept it anyways). Ajheindel (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Wetting

[edit]

Wetting 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) 16:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of Electricity Article

[edit]

Hello,

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Speed_of_electricity regarding how the energy flow is distributed in "electricity" and how relevant the spatial distribution of the energy flow is to explaining the speed in the introductory sections.

While I have taken a couple of semesters of graduate level E&M, it was a very long time ago so I would appreciate it if those who are more recently or closely connected to the subject would weigh in with their opinion(s) on both the accuracy of the material and the presentation.

Thanks.

(If this is not the right place to solicit editorial help for that page, please point me to the right place. Thanks again.) Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article could probably be improved, it should not be deleted. The facts it states are counter-intuitive, but that is all the more reason that it should be kept. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are confused, confusing, somewhat erroneous and definitely misleading. Redirect to Drift velocity or AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of that article is to clarify the signal speed is not the same as the drift velocity. fgnievinski (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a number of misconceptions here, starting with the choice of title. There is no such thing. So what is it about? Reading it, it sounds like musings trying to puzzle things out, which is not what WP is for. Until the topic (and title) can be narrowed down to some specific concept, I would lean strongly in the direction of "delete". Also, to suggest that an article has a (pedagogical) purpose is to misunderstand WP. Though it might contain some interesting WP:OR that suggests that EM waves travel inside conductors at speeds from a snail's pace to in the excess of the speed of light, depending on frequency. The one citation (Hayt) says nothing about this on the cited page. I'm with Ldm1954 on this. —Quondum 17:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are three citations about the velocity of waves in good conductors. Hayt, on the cited page, near the bottom gives the computed velocity of v=3.22 m/s. Are you looking at the fifth edition? Constant314 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm looking at the 9th edition. Anyhow, this whole exercise is too bizarre for me, so best I step away from it. —Quondum 21:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
p 392 on the 9th edition. Constant314 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see it. My goodness. You call phase velocity "the speed with which electromagnetic waves penetrate into the conductor"? That is a gross misinterpretation. —Quondum 22:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The entire "Electromagnetic waves" section refers to phase velocity. Constant314 (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]