Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Hi all, I've been cutting through the weeds over at Renormalization group for quite a while now, as there was a host of MOS, NPOV, and clarity issues. I think it's getting into relatively good shape, but I'm a little too involved probably at this point to see all the ways things could be improved (I've cut about 20% of the article size byte-wise since I started, and there is still more to do). I'm aiming to get this to at least B-class if not GA, which might require some extra hands. Happy to repay the favor if desired. RaisedArizona (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I am planning to try and clean up the Lithium-ion battery article (currently around 10k words). Please feel to provide feedback here. Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Field propulsion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Join the conversation about what to do about this article at the talkpage of that article and at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Field_propulsion.

I think it may be attempting to describe an "umbrella term" which is not in common use and, most problematically, has no basis in the way field (physics) actually is used.

jps (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field propulsion (2nd nomination) jps (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• See related Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_June_22#Category:Field_propulsion. jps (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Space Propulsion Investigation Committee. jps (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Link - Talk:Pyrex#Peer review DiamondIIIXX (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Several articles mention the "Quantum Liar", but there doesn't seem to be an explanation of this term anywhere on en Wikipedia.

E.g.

• Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)#Objections
• Copenhagen_interpretation (in a cite)
• Problem_of_time#Proposed_solutions_to_the_problem_of_time
• Bell's_theorem (in a cite)

Can an explanation of this be added somewhere?

Thanks - Oblonng (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It's explained in the very reference that comes after it, what else do you want? Tercer (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with Oblonng. I looked at all four of the listed articles and I could not find an explanation in them or their references. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Kastner, R. E. (2010). The quantum liar experiment in Cramer's transactional interpretation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 41(2), 86-92.

Johnjbarton (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It's section 7 of the given reference Tercer (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I've now spent about ten minutes looking for a simple explanation of Quantum Liar and still don't have a good grasp of it. We should add a brief section about it somewhere. Apparently, it was described in 2002, long after the my last class in quantum mechanics which is presumably why it's a new term for me. I'd assume it's a new term for most readers too.

We can do better than just replying RTFM. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just delete the two sentences that use this unexplained and unhelpful term. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree mentions should be deleted unless there is something important to say (though maybe I might write a Wiki article about it if I have the time and find enough sources). The quantum liar term is a play on the liar paradox in logic ("I am lying"), it is an extension of the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester with two atoms one on each branch, a single photon seems to have gone through none and both of the branches as the photon is detected and the atoms are entangled.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think there's nothing wrong with mentioning a concept that's explained in a reference. I also think it's not relevant enough to be mentioned in-wiki, Elitzur-Dolev's interpretation is decidedly fringe and has been soundly ignored by the physics community. Tercer (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Without stating any opinion on other concerns, I don't see the issue with the "in a cite" examples. The words "quantum liar" happen to appear in the title of a journal article. Said journal article is not being used to support any claim about the "quantum liar paradox". Instead, those footnotes are just present to support the claim that the transactional interpretation is nonlocal. This doesn't seem like a problem. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anyone having an issue with the phrase appearing in a cite, it's the two mentions in the readable text that's the problem. My take is if the idea is important enough to mention, it's important enough to provide some explanation. Conversely, if it's not worth explaining, it's not worth mentioning. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I do find problematic that we are citing a series of obscure papers by Elitzur and Dolev as though they are serious objections to eternalism. Apparently they are the only ones that think so. Tercer (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Should the contributions and statements made by Aristotle, Archimedes, Brahmagupta, and Al-Biruni regarding gravity be considered a part of philosophy or physics? Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

This Wikiproject is to discuss editorial choice and WP:NOFORUM, is this question about a specific article?--ReyHahn (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

its about Brahmagupta article which I placed brahmagupta concept of gravity in physics section but I am confused whether his ideas is closely related to physics or philosophy as his ideas matches similar to aristotle concept of gravity. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Upper-atmospheric lightning#Requested move 20 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)