This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Physics was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the History section, shouldn't there be a separate section about 21st-century physics? Because the 20th century section ends with the discovery of the Higgs boson, an option would be to rename "20th century" into "20th and 21st century".
Hi Johnjbarton, I am reasonably familiar with the guidance on short descriptions, and do not see how "Scientific field of study" is a better navigational aid than "Study of matter, energy, forces and motion", particularly when Physics is listed along with assorted other scientific fields of study, as can and does happen (and is why I was motivated to change it to a less ambiguous version). Perhaps you could explain your reasoning. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk):
In the section on Islamic science, our article claims
The most notable work was The Book of Optics (also known as Kitāb al-Manāẓir), written by Ibn al-Haytham, in which he presented the alternative to the ancient Greek idea about vision. His discussed his experiments with camera obscura, showing that light moved in a straight line; he encouraged readers to reproduce his experiments making him one of the originators of the scientific method.
He even urges others to repeat his experiments to verify his conclusions. Many historians of science consider Ibn al-Haytham to be the first true proponent of the modern scientific method.
The Nature book review is by physicist and author of a history of Arabic science with 183 citations. The importance of Ibn al-Haytham is backed up by
Howard, Ian P., and Rogers, Brian J.. Binocular Vision and Stereopsis. United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 1995.
Hi . Sorry for late reply. The problem is Al-Khalili is not historian of science and neither is Howard and Rogers, who moreover do no say that al-Haytham is one of originator of scientific methodology.Also Al-Khalili does not mention actual historians of optics who said it. Mark Smith is not only professional historian of science but spent over a decade studying translating and editing Ibn Al-Haytham Book of optics. His book from sight to light is basically modern classic for optical history.You can listen to his interview here discussing common misconception regarding al-Haytham and scientific methodology [1] , starts at 26 minutes.
Also let me quote him from the book : "The same holds for Alhacen's methodology. It may look modern because of its strong empirical bias and reliance on controlled experiments, but Ptolemy's approach was no less empirical, and it, too, was based on controlled experiments. In addition, Alhacen's two most modern-looking experiments are based on physically unobtainable precision in equipment design and observation, so we are left to doubt that he actually carried them out as described— except, of course, in his mind. And these experiments were not new in conception. They were clearly based on equivalent ones in Ptolemy's Optics, although Alhacen had to reformulate them in significant and creative ways to accommodate the testing of light rays rather than visual rays." I think we can rewrite it as "Ibn al-Haytham used controlled experiments in his work on optics, although to what extent it differed from Ptolemy is debated" as it is in history of physics DMKR2005 (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am naturally concerned when three reasonable authors are discounted in favor of one. However I don't think any of these sources, Smith included, are definitive accounts of the origins of the scientific method. This would be a reasonable basis to challenge the "one of the originators of the scientific method" claim.
When comparing Alhacen to Ptolemy I find Smith's claim to be bizarre:
"They were clearly based on equivalent ones in Ptolemy's Optics, although Alhacen had to reformulate them in significant and creative ways to accommodate the testing of light rays rather than visual rays."
The hypothesis of light rays vs visual rays is the central issue and the conceptual breakthrough. The sentence is a weird distortion. Alhacen is reinterpreting existing experiments in light of a new (and more correct) hypothesis. This is how science progresses. Thus I do not agree with your proposed rewrite. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have to disagree, the voice of professional historian of science count a lot more then amateurs, especially a professional historian specializing in history of optics. Al-Khalili is the only one of this authors making this claim. As for Smith , he did not claim that Alhacen didn't achieved breakthrough, he was talking about his scientific methodology and it's comparison with Ptolemy. I can also give you opinion of Olivier Darrigol's "A History of Optics" page 20. To quote "Despite the replacing of visual rays with rays of light and the unprecedented thoroughness of analysis, Alhazen’s approach to the latter phenomena similar to Ptolemy’s in scope and methods. One reason for this similarity is that both theories share the same angular perspective (and lack the modern concept of image). Another is that Alhazen inherits Ptolemy’s taste for controlled experiments: he verifies for light rays the laws of reflection and refraction that Ptolemy had already verified for visual visual ray."
Ok excellent. Not only is Olivier Darrigol a second opinion but also one with a scientific education. So our current content is
The most notable work was The Book of Optics (also known as Kitāb al-Manāẓir), written by Ibn al-Haytham, in which he presented the alternative to the ancient Greek idea about vision. He discussed his experiments with camera obscura, showing that light moved in a straight line; he encouraged readers to reproduce his experiments making him one of the originators of the scientific method.
We agree to remove "... making him one of the originators of the scientific method." But I think the text is too vague about Ibn al-Haytham. Here is a proposal:
In his Book of Optics (also known as Kitāb al-Manāẓir) Ibn al-Haytham presented the idea of light rays as an alternative to the ancient Greek idea about visual rays. Like Ptolemy, Ibn al-Haytham applied controlled experiments, verifying the laws of refraction and reflection with the new concept of light rays, but still lacking the concept of image formation.
Hi Everyone, as a new member of the editing community of Wiki, i couldn't help but notice that the page of Lorenz Attractor was merged with this page. These, although are quite similar are by no means the same; Where the Lorenz system sets a equations that describe the behavior OF the Lorenz attractor. The Lorenz attractor is a specific solution of the Lorenz system, it is known by its butterfly shape. the system is deterministic, where the attractor is a subset of phase space where systems to the system converge. although they go hand in hand i believe firmly that there is so much more content that is not covered here in Lorenz system that could be.
if anyone has any reasons for this not going ahead please let me know (i might not reply for a day or two),
The lead image of this Wikipedia article is a diagram representing the evolution of the universe after the big bang occurred. I am of the point of view that this is a poor choice of an image for conveying the essence, purpose and nature of physics for these following reasons:
The diagram is misleading and inaccurate for how it illustrates the universe as having 2 spatial dimensions (despite the well-established scientific fact that the universe is spatially tridimensional, with the exception of some theoretical models such as string theory). Physics, or really all topics on Wikipedia, should be described with as much clarity and precision as possible.
It exemplifies only one field of physics (i.e. cosmology), despite the fact that physics encompasses a broad variety of topics rich with information. Still, it wouldn't be accurate to use cosmology as a primary example because cosmology practically doesn't involve any experiments and has hardly any real-life applications (both of which are fundamentally-valuable elements of physics).
It isn't a sufficiently-solid scientific law, theory or phenomenon, rather it is a speculative description that, while widely accepted, remains subject to debate and unresolved issues (and as a result, has faced criticism [even from some of its own pioneers] for problems such as [but not limited to] magnetic monopoles, possible observational contradictions from the JWST as well as its fantasy-sounding and logically-incomplete nature).
So, what would I propose to fix this? Well, I think the Wikipedians who developed the article for Biology have pretty much nailed the problem of lead image(s) for broad topics (i.e. the main scientific disciplines). Instead of having a single image that somehow accurately conveys all of physics (which is unlikely), I'd recommend having a collage showcasing images of various processes and phenomena from the main branches of the field. This could be done using the multiple images format, and these are some image ideas I think would be worthy of adding:
This is a list I've come up with, attempting to use insightful examples from as many of the main disciplines as I could (limiting the number of images to 8, anything beyond that would likely be too much). Any suggested alternatives would be much appreciated.
I know my initial criticisms of the universe's chronology and the big bang may have sounded strongly worded, but I was just trying to emphasise my point about it's effectiveness as an example of physics's nature. Any feedback from my insights and proposal would be much appreciated, I really do think this article would benefit from using the biology article's lead image(s) format.
Yes, the main purpose of this topic was just to propose the alternative {{multiimage}} format.
Perhaps I went overboard with criticising standard cosmology to the point where it became degrading, and, if so, I apologise (to anyone who got offended) for being overly-direct.
Now, on to the collage, here's the actual lead image(s) alternative I'd propose:
This collage of 8 images with descriptions is my draft, not identical as my first proposal (as I added some small additions to the descriptions) but I think it's the way to go. The source code is below, of course certain parameters (in terms of size or maybe arrangement) should be changed so that it'd fit in the introduction of the article.
{{multiple image| perrow = 4 | total_width = 880 | image1 = Newtons Cradle.jpg |caption1 = A [[newton's cradle]] in motion, the collisions demonstrate the [[Conservation law|conservation laws]] of momentum and energy in [[Classical mechanics|(classical) mechanics]]. | image2 = 2023.06.13 Astravets Nuclear Power Plant Belarus.jpg | caption2 = A [[nuclear power plant]] using the [[rankine cycle]], a [[Thermodynamics|thermodynamic]] process important to [[nuclear physics]]. | image3 = Aurora borealis over Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.jpg |caption3 = The [[Aurora|aurora borealis]] over Bear Lake, a [[Geophysics|geophysical]] phenomenon in which charged particles [[Electromagnetism|electromagnetically]] interact with the Earth's [[magnetosphere]].| image4 = Magnetické chování ferrokapalin.jpg| caption4 = A [[ferrofluid]] interacting with a magnet, a [[Non-Newtonian fluid|non-Newtonian]] example of [[fluid dynamics]]. |image5 = Spike-waves.png | caption5 = An [[Electroencephalography|electroencephalogram]] of brain waves, this is an example of [[Oscillation|oscillations]] in [[biophysics]].| image6 = Gravitational lens found in the DESI Legacy Surveys data (noirlab2104c).jpg|caption6 = An [[Astrophotography|astronomical photograph]] distorted by [[Gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]], illustrating an [[Optics|optical]]-like effect arising from [[general relativity]] in [[astrophysics]].| image7 = CERN LHC CMS 08.jpg| caption7 = The interior of the [[Large Hadron Collider]] (LHC), currently the leading experimental apparatus for [[elementary particle physics]].| image8 = MRI-Philips.JPG| caption8 = An [[Magnetic resonance imaging|MRI machine]], this [[Radiology|radiological]] technology in [[medical physics]] manipulates the [[quantum]][[Spin (physics)|spin]] of nuclei.}}
To experiment with this, I tried edit mode for this article and replaced the current lead image with my collage. I found that changing the total width parameter to anything around 700 was perfect, the text wasn't cramped and the pictures were an excellent pedagogical addition (probably the only disadvantage was the navigation box being pushed down a lot, but it still managed to just barely occupy the introduction section).My proposed collage shown in the article on edit mode
Looking forwards to feedback, thoughts and, most of all, cooperation.
The biology example uses 2x3 layout with 300 width rather than 4x2 at 700. I don't think this was an accident. On my Pixel phone and ipad their 2x3 renders well but I suspect the larger collage will have issues. Note that the actual image used to introduce the topic on mobile is just the top half of the first panel in the biology case.
To assess this the only convincing way is to put the collage in the article. As far as I know the current image has no special standing. I suggest you put your collage in with an edit summary mentioning the Talk page and asking editors to respond here over then next week. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also had some concerns about how the images might appear on small-screen devices, so I’ll go ahead and implement the collage (with an explanatory edit summary) and experiment with how it renders on phones and tablets.
Just edited the article to have the collage (at width of 650). I checked how it looked on my iPhone and iPad. For the most part, the results were honestly not that bad.
Let's start off with my iPhone. When in portrait mode, my iPhone displayed the article's collage as a 2 x 4 array of the images, which had some aspects of being slightly cluttered but it was okay overall. When I rotated to landscape mode, the images got messily arranged (however, this is simply how MinervaNeue works and it is completely inevitable anyway). By the way, the reason why the navbox does not appear on mobile is also due to how MinervaNeue operates (it's a standard default, nothing of concern really).
On to iPad, the results were almost-completely satisfactory for me. When in portrait mode, the collage occupies space above the text, perhaps the relative widths of text and the collage were a bit off but it's fine (easy to fix). When in landscape mode, the article exhibits the same format in a possibly more comfortable manner (subjective). In both cases, the navbox is preserved :D
All in all, I’m personally quite happy with how the collage renders on my smaller-screen devices. Of course, there’s surely room for refinement, and as you’ve said, we’ll wait to hear what other editors and Wikipedians suggest once they’ve had a chance to review it themselves.
Apologies for not polishing those screenshots up, I know they're not formatted and set out the nicest they could be.
Hi. To give some feedback, this shows more narrowly on my desktop screen than on yours, the line breaks are:
Physics is the scientific study of matter, its fundamental constituents, its motion and behavior through space and time, and the
If I turn on both sidebars it gets even narrower and stops after "its", running whitespace until after the image block, because "fundamental" is too wide a word to fit in the space available.
The gallery looks okay on mobile, although as your screenshots show above the image widths don't line up, I assume because it's calculating widths for a four-width view and then breaking them into pairs.
A narrower collage with shorter captions grouped into a single caption below, as at biology, seems like a better approach to take. At 300px the biology gallery hits the "at most" (250*1.2) recommendation for lead images on MOS:IMAGESIZE, and it's also much smaller on mobile (only half a screen high) for those who are scrolling past it to read the second paragraph. Belbury (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that after a week, another Wikipedian has commented on the matter (and your remarks and recommendations are quite insightful).
After reflecting on the collage throughout the week, I agree that it could be improved and I've already come up with a better version. This new version uses the single caption and would (in a way, but, as I'll explain later, not perfectly) reduce the amount of space it occupies, in addition some examples have been changed for the sake of being more standard (i.e. less niche, but also less abstract) and less overly-associated with magnetism and medical/biological physics. My alternative collage would be as follows:
To test the idea out, I implemented it into the article in edit mode. A screenshot, as well as the source code, of it is attached below. I think the examples were generally better, however the downwards repositioning of the navbox is a concern and I had to minimise the text size because otherwise the collage's footer would be even more overwhelming in terms of the amount of space it occupies.
{{multiple image| perrow = 4 | total_width = 300
| footer =<divstyle="font-size:80%; line-height:1.25; margin-top:0.2em;">This is a collage presenting images related to the various domains of physics, counterclockwise from the upper left:
*'''[[Mechanics]]''': A [[Newton's cradle]] in motion, demonstrating the [[Conservation law|conservation laws]] of momentum and energy in [[Classical mechanics|(classical) mechanics]].
*'''[[Thermodynamics]]''': a diagram of a [[distillation]] apparatus, which separates liquid mixtures by [[phase transition|phase changes]] and demonstrating the [[first law of thermodynamics]].
*'''[[Waves]]''', '''[[Oscillations]]''' & '''[[Acoustics]]''': perturbations propagating through a [[Chladni plate]], forming [[standing wave]] patterns where [[resonance]] causes sand to arrange in geometric figures.
*'''[[Electromagnetism]]''' & '''[[Geophysics]]''': the [[aurora borealis]], a natural phenomenon involving [[Charged particle|charged particles']] behaviour in the Earth's [[magnetosphere]].
*'''[[Particle physics]]''' & '''[[Nuclear physics]]''': a [[Feynman diagram]] visually describing [[beta decay]].
*'''[[Astronomy]]'''/'''[[Astrophysics]]''', '''[[Relativity]]''' & '''[[Optics]]''': an [[Astrophotography|astrophotograph]][[Image distortion|distorted]] by [[gravitational lensing]].
*'''[[Fluid mechanics]]''' & '''[[Biophysics]]''': a water strider using water's [[surface tension]] to float across a pond.
* '''[[Quantum mechanics]]''': a graphical representation of [[atomic orbital|electron orbitals]] in a [[hydrogen-like atom]], visualizing the [[wave function|probabilistic description]] of particle behaviour in quantum physics.
</div>| image1 = Newtons Cradle.jpg
| image2 = Simple distillation apparatus.svg
| image3 = Round Chladni plate with 3 circular and 4 linear nodes.jpg
| image4 = Aurora borealis over Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.jpg
| image5 = Feynman Diagram - Negative Beta Decay.png
| image6 = Gravitational lens found in the DESI Legacy Surveys data (noirlab2104c).jpg
| image7 = Water strider in a pond.jpg
| image8 = Atomic-orbital-clouds spdf m0.png
}}
Screenshot of new collage in the article
Because I'm unsure of whether this new collage would definitely be an improvement, I decided not to publish the edit. Hopefully someone experimenting with the source code may come up with a better idea of how to go about it all. Though doubtful, some ideas I'm considering are:
A different usage of the footer (e.g. some alternative method that'd display the information better than bullet points).
A repositioning of the collage (e.g. making it a wide, centred set of images below the last paragraph and above the history section).
A subtle trick that could be used in the article's source code.
Perhaps using captions instead of a footer (which, as we know from previous attempts, has its own issues).
Labelling the examples (most likely by means of captions) according to their related domains of physics rather than providing descriptions for each.
Simply implementing the collage and ignoring the other two issues (which is probably the easiest but not the optimal approach, as it would be rather out-of-place to have the navbox shifted all the way down to the ancient astronomy subsection).
I made a similar change as I think the multiple images was far too wide (especially with all appearance settings set to standard). I also changed the images to be in rows of three. I think we're possibly trying to squash too many images and too much information in at the moment. Happy to be reverted if others disagree. Shapeyness (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to have another Wikipedian join the collage project for this article :)
I think the different collage format may be indeed better, but if we're going with that then I think it should use stronger examples.
I have edited the article to have my collage (with a bit of refinement). And... it seems to work pretty well! When viewed from my M1, the footer text is small but still readable, the navbox isn't repositioned so much to the point where it's below the history section and the collage (set at total_width =350) doesn't overwhelm the text like before :D
Collage v2 implemented in article
But this is just from my own laptop (screenshot shown, I zoomed out a bit to capture it all), we'll have to let the other Wikipedians comment on the collage based on how it's displayed on their differently-sized screens.
Yeah I see you're concern, and agree that the last image looks a little cramped with all those orbitals in such a small space.
But I've come up with an alternative idea that I think might be better. The idea is to use a diagram showing the delocalised electron cloud present in a benzenemolecule, where the overlapping of pi orbitals illustrates the Schrödinger wavefunction obeying the superposition principle.
This example is contextually valid, but, as we'd all be aware, there are two new points of concern:
Over association with chemistry-related stuff (i.e. the collage having both this and the distillation apparatus).
No immediately-noticeable visual indication of quantum mechanical nature or association.
Electron delocalisation in a benzene molecule
Nonetheless, this would probably be a better candidate than the current one, so I'll replace it with this (probably for the time being).
I've raised the font size a little per MOS:SMALL: images captions are already at 88.4% of the text body size, so another 80% of that takes it well below the recommended 85% minimum.
I think the caption would work as just a short list of links, per the biology article:
Readability is important, but I think it was fine as it was before.
The original text (at 80%) was readable, reconfiguring it to 97% made it larger than necessary (causing the navbox to drop below the history section).
MOS:SMALL is a handy guideline (text at least ~85%) to follow, but a 5% difference is hardly anything and it was perfectly fine in this specific situation anyways.
The shortened caption idea may be tempting, but I would advise against it as a lack of context could be misleading and would be under-descriptive of the examples and the physics behind them.
I'll revert the edited text size (no hard feelings), but if it works just as well (i.e. navbox isn't repositioned downwards too much), perhaps we could set it to 85% as a middle ground that satisfies both preferences.
I temporarily set it at 85%, and honestly it could've been worse. I thought the repositioning of the navbox was just about acceptable, though personally I preferred it at 80% (i.e. when the top of the navbox isn't at the same or below the vertical position of the title of the history section).
Personally, I'd recommend sticking with 80% as it currently is, but if a strong preference for abiding by the MOS:SMALL remains then I suppose it could be okay having it at 85% (in which case, possibly changing the total_width parameter may satisfyingly improve the positioning of the navbox).
Text size percentages stack: the default font size for all captions is 88.4% of article text size, and your additional 80% setting means 80% of that caption size, which multiplies out as 70% of the regular font size in the article. Making it 97% of 88.4% would be around the recommended limit of MOS:SMALL. Belbury (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you very much for informing me of how exactly it works.
Admittedly, I was wrong in the "5% difference" remark. Sorry about that.
However, I still believe that, despite not really meeting MOS:SMALL guidelines, the 80% was pretty much perfect visually.
Do you still insist on following this convention? I agree it's good practice to follow a general rule of thumb (especially if it's official or very standard), but making this article an exception would help a lot in terms of layout and visuals.
I think it's something we should be bearing in mind. The question isn't whether a particular font size looks good to us as individuals, it's whether it's worth deliberately going below what the MOS considers to be the lowest accessible font size, in order to gain other layout benefits.
In the context of a lead image that we'd expect most readers to look at, on an extremely broad topic like "physics", I think a shorter caption that everyone can read comfortably would be better than a longer one that some people can't. Belbury (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a new dilemma has arisen, a compromise between informativeness and guideline compatibility.
Your point of view is valid in a number of respects, though my stance still differs.
To build consensus and involve a broader range of perspectives, I think it would be helpful to hear what other Wikipedians have to say about the matter.
Since the issue seems be conflicts over size, here is a suggestion. Take another look at the Biology example: one phrase per image allows the images to be slightly larger. Rather than struggle to jam content and images into the collage, consider having the caption refer to later subsections in the article for more information. Something like
Then in Physics § Branches and fields replace the Branches of physics excerpt with a {{main}} link and 3x8 table, branch-anchor/image/longer caption repeating the images but including the additional information about each one.
Another idea would be to use the link option in multiple image to point to a footnote for each image giving the detailed caption well at the license info required. Then the short caption would mention the footnotes. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry for replying so late.
After thinking about the matter, I've reconsidered my position on the descriptions (as, ideally, Wikipedia articles should be as informative as possible, however, this is in the introduction section where general info is brought up rather than specifics).
I'm keen on the footnote idea, as it helps in reducing the size of the collage while not eradicating further information.
Here's how I'd go about it:
Keep the footer, as individual captions for all the images would make things cramped, messy and not very aesthetic.
The footer would contain the following (or something similar):
Link it to the footnote containing the full descriptions.
The biology article has done a much better job at describing the essence of each part of the field than the physics article has, and it is for this reason that I have doubts about the first proposal (though there's the branches of physics article, I'd still opt for the latter personally).
I will experiment with it, and if I come across a satisfying result I'll bring it up to the talk page.
This would obviously relate to nuclear physics considering it involves gamma radiation and atomic nuclei, but it is definitely a quantum process as, among a number of other reasons, gamma rays are emitted from discrete nuclear energy levels. We may also relate it to solid state physics as the effect occurs only in lattice-structured solids. Also, just saying, there's already another Feynman diagram.
Though this QM/NP candidate is rich conceptually and would even bridge a third branch, it is admittedly a bit abstract as the effect is not visually observable. Another concern I have is that the diagram may require clicking to appreciate fully, which is less immediate than other collage images.
I found this image which seems to depict the quantum nature of it, good idea?
(If a more experimental visual is preferred, a Mössbauer spectroscopy setup could be considered.)
Yeah, I was concerned about it as well and agree that it might be a bit much for the collage.
I’ve been struggling to think of some other QM & NP examples, but my three main thoughts so far have been:
A cosmic rayshower: interesting proposal, however, I'm worried that its associations with particle physics (and, also, atmospheric geophysics) may outshine the nuclear and quantum aspects.
Quantum tunnelling of alpha radiation: definitely quantum and nuclear enough in nature, however the only image I found was a diagram-graph rather than any depiction or demonstration.
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance: also nuclear and quantum enough, however, like the Mössbauer to a lesser extent, kinda complicated (with simpler images representing the bare minimum).
At this point, I’m at a bit of a loss for mostly satisfactory options, if nothing else pops up then I reckon we should either:
Leave the collage examples as they are, and just edit the format as previously decided.
Or
Change the usage of examples a bit, some alternatives I've been considering (to varying extents) are Cherenkov radiation (optics and nuclear physics), thermal demagnetisation (thermodynamics and electromagnetism), bioluminescence (biophysics and optics), double slit experiment using laser (quantum mechanics and optics), plasma vortex (electromagnetism and plasma physics), etc.
If you or anyone else have recommendations or other ideas, bringing them up would be much appreciated.
I have implemented the footnote idea and, after a few attempts, have gotten it set up properly.
collage v3
Footnote for collage v3
The results seem promising on my end. Of course, as previously discussed, the collage isn't perfect but, personally, I think it does it's job in sufficiently well.
I think this format is much better! Re: some of the comments about image choices above, I think the Feynman diagram absolutely should stay for nuclear & particle physics. However, I'm not sure a distillation apparatus is best for thermodynamics, maybe a heat pump instead? For QM, the double slit experiment could be used, or maybe a Millikan's Oil Drop Experiment apparatus. I also don't mind that quantum tunnelling image. Another idea: we could use an image of a magnet floating over a superconductor for EM & condensed matter physics – I do quite like the aurora borealis image though, so not sure about that one. Do we know what topics we definitely want covered (e.g. do we need a condensed matter image)? Interested to hear what others here think. Shapeyness (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback — much appreciated!
Though I think repetition of image choice isn't the best practice (especially if the subject is not central to the article), I'd revert my stance regarding the Feynman diagram. That example marries particle physics and nuclear physics in a manner that albeit is largely conceptual but honestly quite elegant and simply more effective than most of the alternatives. And, anyways, Feynman diagrams are so central to particle physics (one of the most — if not the most — prominent fields of current-day physics research) that it wouldn't be that big of a deal to have two of them in the article.
On to the distillation apparatus, I understand it isn't so standard of an example that it's association with thermodynamics is immediately-recognisable (like it would be with, say, the overused thermodynamics example of the Carnot engine). However, if one takes it from a technical perspective instead of a contextual one, it is actually a very sound example because it demonstrates various thermodynamics concepts (e.g. heat transfer by conduction, phase transitions, latent heat, boiling points, the first law of thermodynamics and, arguably, the second law as well).
Your idea of using a heat pump as an example for thermodynamics seems solid, but I struggled finding any images that I was entirely satisfied with (same story with a previous idea I had of using a thermos flask diagram to show how it insulates the fluids it contains), but if you found any then please bring them up here. Also, one of the things I personally like about the distillation apparatus is that it doesn't require an extensive understanding of thermodynamics, as the regular reader would be able to relate to how regulating temperature results in changes of state (hence a pedagogically-effective example for the introduction) whereas entropy and the second law of thermodynamics are tremendously-valuable to thermodynamics but understanding them requires previous experience in the topic. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be against exploring this alternative.
I've also thought about and tossed back and forth with the double-slit experiment as a QM candidate, and after finding this image of the double-slit experiment (involving particles that are likely electrons, given the interference pattern) I think it'd be worth replacing the benzene molecule example with it. At this point, I've made up my mind and agree (with you and @Johnjbarton) that the current image is too chemistry-heavy for this article and that something completely quantum, like this double-slit experiment image demonstrating wave-particle duality, would be a more appropriate choice.
Your suggestion of using the Meissner effect, which I've also considered, is brilliant! However, I think that, as you also have stated yourself, the current Geophysics & Electromagnetism example of the aurora borealis is fine as it is. Plus, just saying, the magnet levitating over a superconductor has already been used in this article. Speaking about the northern lights image, I have found another image of it (taken from Estonia) that I reckon would be better for the collage as the current one kinda occupies too much of the top column.
And, lastly, to answer your inquiry: Yes, I'm pretty sure it's been established that the domains currently showcased (i.e. classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, electromagnetism, relativity, astrophysics/astronomy, waves & oscillations, acoustics, optics, nuclear physics, particle physics, biophysics and geophysics) are the ones we'll work with, as the range is reasonably-expansive and the choices are many of physics' major pillars.
I have published the latest version of the collage onto the article, and I believe this is the strongest iteration so far.
After implementing the new aurora image and the double‑slit CGI, the overall balance improved. However, one issue persisted: the Chladni plate photo and the Newton’s cradle photo were occupying too much space and consequently compressed the distillation apparatus diagram.
To solve this, I searched Wikimedia Commons for alternatives. The new Newton’s cradle image is a full shot (rather than partial, like the previous). Although it is static, it seems a clearer choice. I also found a suitable Chladni plate image, cropped it, republished it (with proper attribution), and implemented it into the collage.
The resultant collage is a more pedagogically-effective version: the images no longer over‑occupy the space, and the navbox remains visible in the introduction.
Aside from the height difference between the upper and lower rows, I consider this version pretty solid.
Comments, thoughts, and recommendations from other editors would be very welcome.
If no one has any refinements they'd like to suggest, I suppose all that is left is to hear other Wikipedians comment on the way it renders on their devices.
Just another suggestion for thermodynamics: Opening a bottle of german sparkling wine ("Sekt") (Plopp 6/19) - high-speed photography I personally think the goal of these images is to spark curiosity about the linked article topics rather than pedagogy, so I suggest something intriguing. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the images should be both to spark curiosity and to be pedagogical, in a balanced manner.
To be fair, the distillation apparatus isn't the most intriguing thermodynamics example but it makes use of core thermodynamics and that makes it a very valid example. Plus, I think the northern lights and Chladni plate do the job of inticing readers into their respective topics.
About the image you are proposing, I actually came across this a while back and considered it as a thermodynamics candidate. As anyone would agree, it's quite an eye-dragging option. However, two concerns I have regarding it are that it's even more slender than the distillation apparatus image (which would contribute to both squishing of the image in the collage and vertical stretching of the top row) and it's lack of clarity (as an inexperienced reader may assume it as being, say, related to kinetic gas theory rather than the first law of thermodynamics).
I think that for now we should leave the collage as it is. I have a more interesting idea for thermodynamics but I'll put it off till I get confirmation (copyrighted images involved).
I have been granted permission to use certain image(s) for my idea by their original photographer, however, I won't reveal the photos yet as official licensing confirmation is pending as well as for respecting his rights to privacy and material ownership.
What I can do is pitch my idea:
A comparison image of a snowflake before and after melting, to demonstrate changes in entropy.
When one thinks about it more, it'll become clear that this is a brilliant and unusually-direct example of what entropy is! Let me explain:
Entropy is, by definition, a measure of the number of microstates that a macroscopic system can exhibit (i.e. S = k ln W). Thus, a system's structural specificity is inversely indicative of its entropy. As the more specific the structure is, then more restraints there are on the microstate conditions and therefore the less possible microstates there are. Applying this logic onto the snowflake example:
In its initial state,
It possesses a stunningly-intricate, detailed structure with much specificity.
- Preserving a six-fold symmetry of the water crystal, suppressing much variation in geometric distribution.
Thus, the snowflake in its frozen state doesn't exhibit too many possible microstates and would, by definition, have low entropy. However, after melting:
It becomes a small body of liquid water.
Liquid water enables it's microscopic constituents to:
- Freely move in translational and rotational motion, unlike the restrained molecules in the crystal.
- Break hydrogen bonds, as such intermolecular forces don't need to be preserved for water to be in its liquid phase.
- Exhibit any geometric distribution consistent with the liquid water's properties.
Hence, the molten form would exhibit a more expansive range of possible microstates and therefore a higher degree of entropy (no pun intended).
What makes this example particularly effective in conveying the notoriously-misinterpreted concept of entropy is that it shows a system (i.e. the snowflake) at different entropies and the corresponding differences in structural acuity are visible. This is, almost, a scenario in which entropy can be seen, showing it visually in a manner that is not vague nor easily-misunderstandable (like the diffusion of gas in a box or milk in a coffee) but instead stunningly accurate...
I have already used the photographs to make the image, the left has half of the original snowflake (full of complexity and distinct intricacy) and the right has the snowflake melted (mostly a body of water, with slight structural remnants remaining). The idea just popped into my head yesterday, initially I was unsure of a connection but after realising how exceptional it is in understanding entropy, I think it's probably the best thermodynamics candidate I have encountered (for it fulfills my desire for pedagogy yet it also succeeds at achieving an essence of curiousity advocated by @Johnjbarton).
If anyone would like to comment, they may feel free to do so. For now, I think we should wait 'till licensing declaration has been completed.
The image(s) have been uploaded to wikicommons and are now usable!
Below is the comparison image (Snowflake – Before and After Melting (Composite).png) I articulated before, the way it conveys entropy has been explained in my previous comment.
snowflake image in the collage
I think this image is an excellent thermodynamics candidate, for reasons I've described before. I initially thought one of the perks would be it occupying less space (both vertical and horizontal) due to the square-ish shape of the image, but attempting to implement it when in edit mode showed otherwise. In the screenshot is the arrangement of images I found to be most satisfying visually, the distribution of them is quite nice however the flow (from elementary, classical fields to higher-level, abstract ones) has kinda been disrupted. Nonetheless, I remain with the point of view that the snowflake example is much better than the distillation apparatus because the "issue" can be probably be easily solved by:
Finding some other clever arrangement of images
Finding alternative images of the same subjects but different dimensions.
Editing the pre-existing images to make their dimensions more desirable for the collage.
Etc
I won't publish the fifth version yet as it isn't fully polished, but also because I think some consensus would be beneficial.
Screenshot of article with fifth version of collage
After a lot of experimentation with layout and images, I’ve now published version 5 of the collage. The new version contains the snowflake image edited to be square-shaped and the collage now has the images rearranged in quite a clever manner. Key improvements:
The snowflake no longer overwhelms other elements and integrates beautifully.
The flow from classical to emergent disciplines remains coherent.
The navbox stays comfortably positioned.
Row heights are now balanced, avoiding previous layout issues.
Overall, the collage feels quite solid visually and conceptually, arguably (and very much in my point of view) the strongest version yet.
Consensus is always welcome, but given how well this version performs across layout and clarity, I’ve gone ahead and published it. If anyone wants to review or reuse the layout, the source code for version 5 is available here:
{{multiple image| perrow = 4 | total_width = 350
| footer = This collage presents phenomena and processes of [[branches of physics|physics' various domains]], clockwise from the upper left
{{efn|
Information regarding the images in the footer was trimmed, the full descriptions are below:
*'''[[Mechanics|Mechanics]]''': a photo of a [[Newton's cradle]], which, when in motion, demonstrates the [[Conservation law|conservation laws]] of [[momentum]] and [[energy]] in classical mechanics.
*'''[[Thermodynamics]]''': two photographs comparing a [[snowflake]] before and after [[melting]], illustrating the increase in [[entropy]] through the visible loss of structural [[order and disorder|order]] and morphological specificity, thereby widening the range of possible microstates (i.e. [[Boltzmann's entropy formula|S = k ln W]]).
*'''[[Wave|Waves]]''', '''[[Oscillation|Oscillations]]''' & '''[[Acoustics]]''': perturbations propagating through a [[Chladni plate]], forming [[standing wave]] patterns where [[resonance]] causes the sand on the plate to arrange in geometric figures.
*'''[[Astronomy]]'''/'''[[Astrophysics]]''', '''[[theory of relativity|Relativity]]''' & '''[[Optics]]''': an [[Astrophotography|astrophotograph]] distorted by [[Gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]], a relativistic effect in which immense gravitational environments (typically caused by massive [[celestial objects]], such as [[Black hole|black holes]]) influence the motion of [[Photon|photons]].
*'''[[Electromagnetism]]''' & '''[[Geophysics]]''': the [[aurora borealis]], a natural phenomenon involving [[Charged particle|charged particles]]' behaviour in the Earth's [[magnetosphere]].
*'''[[Quantum mechanics]]''': a diagrammatic representation of the [[Double-slit experiment|double‑slit experiment]], illustrating [[Wave–particle duality|wave‑particle duality]]. Particles passing through two slits and impinging on a surface produce a pattern resembling [[diffraction|wave diffraction]] and [[wave interference]].
*'''[[Fluid mechanics]]''' & '''[[Biophysics]]''': a water strider using water's [[surface tension]] to float across a pond.
*'''[[Particle physics]]''' & '''[[Nuclear physics]]''': a [[Feynman diagram]] representing [[beta decay]].
These are just some of the many branches of physics. Others include (but are not limited to): '''[[continuum mechanics]]''', '''[[Solid-state physics|solid state physics]]''', '''[[kinetic theory of gases|kinetic gas theory]]''', '''[[condensed matter physics]]''', '''[[Plasma (physics)|plasma physics]]''', '''[[medical physics]]''', '''[[cosmology]]''', '''[[string theory]]''', etc.}}: a [[Newton's cradle]] ('''[[Classical mechanics|classical mechanics]]'''), [[Entropy|entropic]] changes in a [[snowflake]] ('''[[thermodynamics]]'''), a [[Ernst Chladni|Chladni plate]] ('''[[wave|waves]]''', '''[[Oscillation|oscillations]]''' & '''[[acoustics]]'''), [[gravitational lensing]] ('''[[astrophysics]]''', '''[[optics]]''' & '''[[theory of relativity|relativity]]'''), the [[Aurora borealis|aurora borealis]] ('''[[geophysics]]''' & '''[[electromagnetism]]'''),the [[double-slit experiment]] ('''[[quantum mechanics]]'''), an insect floating across a pond ('''[[fluid mechanics]]''' and '''[[biophysics]]''') and, lastly, a [[Feynman diagram]] of [[beta decay]] ('''[[nuclear physics]]''' and '''[[particle physics]]''').
| image1 = Newton's Cradle.jpg
| image2 = Snowflake – Before and After Melting (Composite, but with square reshaping).jpg
| image3 = Quadratic Chladni plate cropped version.jpg
| image4 = Gravitational lens found in the DESI Legacy Surveys data (noirlab2104c).jpg
| image5 = Virmalised 18.03.15 (4).jpg
| image6 = Doubleslitexperiment.svg
| image7 = Water strider in a pond.jpg
| image8 = Feynman Diagram - Negative Beta Decay.png
}}
level-2 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
..jpg)
..jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
