Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive November 2019

Linhard theory some comments

An anonymous IP raised some valid concerns [1] on Lindhard theory. The article seems to have been copied from some book and much is left unexplained. If somebody has enough knowledge, please give it a take. --MaoGo (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Flounce (physics)?

Is flounce really a physics term? I can't substantiate it (all that the usual literature searches turn up are misprints for fluence). XOR'easter (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Zototten01 made a bunch of edits relating to this and other terms for derivatives of position, including editing File:MotionIntegralsDerivativesAbsementActergy.svg to add it. At Pop (physics), he attributes the image to "Janzen et al. 2014", but there is no such reference in the article. --Srleffler (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Janzen seems to be a colleague of Steve Mann, who was responsible for the deleted Derivatives of position.--Srleffler (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Here it is: it seems to refer to Janzen, Ryan; Mann, Steve; et al. (2014). "Actergy as a Reflex Performance Metric: Integral-Kinematics Applications". Proceedings of the IEEE GEM 2014: 311–2. doi:10.1109/GEM.2014.7048123..--Srleffler (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. This might be OR (or the kind of self-promotion that is OR on all but the merest technicality). It could also be overenthusiastic promotion of terminology that somebody saw and happened to fall in love with. I'm finding it hard to make a notability case for Absement, as well. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

As a derivative of position, I see no evidence. But as an alternative spelling of fluence, a term for radiant exposure, it seems used occasionally in peer-reviewed articles, e.g., [2][3]. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really an alternative spelling, rather than a misprint or an incorrection introduced by bad spell-checking software. It appears far less frequently than fluence, and sometimes they occur together in the same paper. For example, this paper has a section titled "Estimation of Photon Fluence" whose first sentence begins, "To estimate photon flounce..." XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That is fair enough, I could not say if the use of flounce was intentional in any given paper. The occurrence in multiple independent papers then suggests either an alternative spelling or a common spelling auto-correction error. Flounce is intentionally mentioned in the The Physics and Relativity FAQ, but that is not a reliable source. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the following articles and links need to be considered as a set, and treatment of them made consistent. Right now,

• Jounce (snap) is an article. It cites a published paper and a Usenet FAQ, and the paper uses the term snap, but mentions jounce as an alternative
• Crackle (physics) (flounce) was at one point an article, but went through AfD and got redirected, currently pointing to Snap, Crackle and Pop#Physics
• Pop (physics) (pounce) is an article with a few weak references.

There is also Template:Kinematics, which should be considered.--Srleffler (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not think that any of the derivatives beyond jerk have any physical significance. So I would say that we could just delete "jounce", "crackle", "pop", "lock", "drop", etc.. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

None of Jounce, Crackle (physics), or Pop (physics) should exist. The names for derivatives after "jerk" should be removed from Template:Kinematics. A single sentence (like what is currently written in Snap, Crackle and Pop#Physics) is entirely adequate. XOR'easter (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)