Talk:Physics/Archive 2

message: Hello, there is a content dispute at Methodological naturalism that I've filed an article RFC for 
The original question is whether or not the scientific method is a natural method or a supernatural method of scientific investigation. One editor (Markus Schmaus) refuses to allow the scientific method be listed as a natural method unless a link can be provided to support the claim. I assume he is a proponent of Intelligent Design which pushes the view that ID is "scientific" even though it investigates supernatural causes such as how God must have creaeted life on earth. I assume it is this POV that is getting pushed, and Schmaus will not allow the scientific method be listed as an example of MN because then ID would not fit in the scientific method.
In an attempt to resolve the dispute until some sort of consensus was reached, I removed the mention of the Scientific Method as an example of methodological naturalism and instead inserted "astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics" are examples of methodological naturalism. Schmaus is now disputing that these are examples of MN and insists on a URL to prove that they are natural methods rather than supernatural methods of scientific investigation.
Since methodological naturalism is a minor article with only a few editors, the dispute has remained unresolved for lack of any sort of consensus. Please weigh in with your comments at the following links: 
Scientific method is natural or supernatural
astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics are natural or supernatural methods
If you have links to support whether it is supernatural or natural, that would be greatly appreciated. FuelWagon 18:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  supernatural? 

message: From the article as it stands now, one has the impression that physics is the same thing as llamas. Left uncorrected, this misrepresentation will undermine the foundation of our civilization, leading to the destruction of the world economy and the suffering of countless furry quadrupeds. I demand action! -- CYD
:OK, now I get your point :) Karol 07:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  to add: distinction between physics and llamas 

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: Not sure if this is important or not, but many NASA "concept drawings" are not done by NASA but by outside contractors who know little or nothing about science.  The concept drawing of a black hole at the top is an excellent example, as it does not take into account Gravitational redshift and bending of light due to General Relativity.  Maybe someone can find a physically accurate image to represent physics? - JustinWick 23:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just dropped by here to make the same point - I don't think some wacky, unsubstantiated 'concept' drawing is the best thing to have at the top of the page representing a science who's very foundation is steeped in the scientific method.  If an impression of "cool" or "wow" is what is desired by the top image then I am sure that a picture of some real physics in action could be found, not some concept draft, which although beautiful, is steeped in artistic licence.  I will have a browse about for a suitable picture over the next wee while and replace it if there is no protest in discussion. SFC9394 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally support you both. Karol 11:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it to a cropped version of the :Image:Meissner_effect.jpg picture.  The only other one which looked suitable was :Image:PrismAndLight.jpg.  If anyone has major problems with the change then they are welcome to raise any them here.SFC9394 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that people will understand PrismAndLight more than Meissner_effect. Brian Jason Drake 06:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point - I mainly went for the SC one for the 'cool' effect.  I have put the alternative version in my user space so both can be compared side by side.  I will leave things as they are for a few days and see if any discussion is generated.SFC9394 23:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been more than a few days. The PrismAndLight picture looks like its of low quality. I don't think we should use it, but I still think people will understand it better. Brian Jason Drake 11:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you are saying, and will keep an eye out for something more suitable (or if I get the time create something myself along the prism lines).  SFC9394 14:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before reading the discussion above, I am delighted with a Meissner effect picture to head the article.  As I remember, that was my very favorite of the wonderful demonstrations at Cal Tech 's Student's Day.  Much later, it helped me to understand why the matrix becomes singular, at low frequencies, in a electric field integral equation, boundary element method, electromagnetic field calculations of perfect electric conductors.  (without separating the loops and stars in the discretization or including the loss in the conductor)  David R. Ingham 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: After reading, even as as a top of the class 12th grader, I don't think I understood very much of the meissner effect right away.  I did already know that changing electric and magnetic fields are linked, because I did simple induced current, like a Sonicare tooth brush, to get extra points by entering the science fair.  I think the light and prism demonstration worked even better than the magnets and soft iron rivets for my daughter's kindergarten class.  So maybe it depends on the level of reader.  One thinks harder seeing something than seeing a picture.  David R. Ingham 05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having finished high school in Western Australia and started uni, I don't understand any of David's first comment - are we a bit behind? We don't learn about vortex tubes either, but I think they do in the US. Brian Jason Drake 06:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I those cold war/Sputnik days, high-school physics was taken by less students, generally only those considering a career in science, engineering and so forth.  The very serious chemistry course, as well at the most advanced mathematics available were considered prerequisites.  However the fact that I had enough of a clue to keep the Meissner effect in my mind (as an image, not by name) until I could understand eddie currents was more likely related to the physics I had learned at home, that also made high-school physics such a party for me.  Splitting sunlight with a prism is so colorful, that I would expect even small children to remember it, whenever they started to learn about light.  I have just been thinking, while reading about standardizing physics education, that I hope it won't become too standard, because when two or more people (scientists or not) try to understand a problem they pool their knowledge.  So education should be uniform enough to allow people to understand each-other but not so standard that everyone knows the same things.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were a physicist who doesn't know about a prism separating light, tough he could figure it out in a few minutes of thinking.  In Surely You Are Joking Mr. Feynman he says that he was so bored in one class that the teacher let him read a calculus book, and that gave him mathematical techniques that others didn't know.  David R. Ingham 20:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The previous consensus we had established above was wiped away by an anon who simply edited in a load of space pictures to the top of the article - that one was about the best of them (as it at least contains some fundamental relevancy to physics - the H orbitals being about the only ones that can be modelled properly using QM theory without needing a supercomputer).  A generic picture of the earth tells us nothing about physics, and would seem to me to be completely useless as the main picture for the article.  The HUDF pic (as it is now) is also near useless - it is just a black murky pic.  If a crop of a section of it was taken at its native resolution (the full res. pic being available from here) then it would at least show something interesting to the viewer.  I am currently searching about for some suitable spectrum pics.  Ultimately I would always point out that the header picture has to both be aesthetically pleasing and relevant to the fundamental subject of physics - I can never support a random picture of the earth from space as filling both of those criterions. SFC9394 11:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, the anon has explained here what he had in mind, and maybe he has a point: instead of one picture, which cannot summarize all of physics, he put in three pictures covering the gamut of scale of subjects covered by physics: the cosmos, the earth, and the subatomic realm. That's not a bad idea.--Srleffler 12:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While that may sit philosophically well I would still contest it is not the best pictorial representation of physics that can be produced.  We want something that encapsulates what physics is, not just what the scale of it is. SFC9394 12:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top picture 

message: The images of Hydrogen atom and that related to superconductivity seems to be not suitable for the main page of Physics.  Physics is the science of entire nature.  These pictures can find there on domains such as atomic physics and solid state physics etc.  It will be better to put more suitable pictures in the main page.  The images now present are too big and distroys the beauty of the home page of physics : Naveen Sankar 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures on the main page 

message: I said something to the effect that "The difference between physics and mathematics is that physics is ultimately concerned with descriptions of the material world, whereas mathematics is concerned with abstract patterns that need not have any bearing on it."  to a woman who was in charge of the math lab curriculum for a school district.  She said "I didn't realize I was an oxymoron."  David R. Ingham 02:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: "Some of the phenomena studied in physics, such as the conservation of energy, are common to all material systems. These are often referred to as laws of physics."
Which physical phenomena are not common to all material systems? Brian Jason Drake 08:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many physical phenomena that aren't physical laws, such as Superconductivity or Bose-Einstein condensation. These phenomena stem from physical laws but not all materials exhibit them and therefore they are not laws themselves. 163.1.146.202 00:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article still states that some physical phenomena are not laws of physics, which if not read carefully, sounds like "some things in physics are not part of physics". Those sound like good examples. Brian Jason Drake 11:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical phenomena common to all material systems 

message: thumb|Classification of physics fields by types of effects needing to be accounted for
I am thinking of adding this diagram to the "Major fields of physics" section.  David R. Ingham 07:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  diagram for "fields of physics" 

message: Shouldn't we define physics independently of any one representation of it's form? The definition as it stands is rather narrow; i.e., rather than saying:
"Physics...is the science of the natural world dealing with the fundamental constituents of the universe, the forces they exert on one another, and the results produced by these forces.",
I think we should say:
"Physics...is the study of the natural world in order to try and formulate laws that govern it's behaviour. One common way of doing this is through the concept of forces. Other, more abstract methods by which this is achieved is through energy considerations or Lagrangian functions."
It's not perfect, but I think it's a start. I, at some point (or somebody else) should try to explain how these classical ideas translate to the quantum domain (i.e., state vectors and operators, Wigner functions et.c.) for (relative) completeness, perhaps?
Krea 01:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General definition of physics 

message: "ordinary mater" In the fist paragraph seems superfluous.  David R. Ingham 03:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ordinary" 

message: Accelerator physics is not part of high energy physics, because it is mostly non-quantum.  It is only related because it is used for thigh energy experiments.  It is usually referred to as applied physics.  Unlike nuclear instrumentation, it has grown to be a separate field.  David R. Ingham 04:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  classification of Accelerator physics 

message: Wouldn't it have occurred to those workers that understanding atoms would lead to understanding chemistry?  Wouldn't it have been their central goal?  Modern science largely started when the alchemists discovered chemistry, and chemistry must have still been central to science, which could still be said.  It would seem better to say that nuclear and condensed matter physics were byproducts.
Do we suppose that they were working so hard on optical spectroscopy just to invent fluorescent lights?  David R. Ingham 06:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a consistent picture of the chemical behavior of matter, a complete theory of the electronic structure of the atom, as a ''byproduct'' of the quantum theory" 

message: I've linked my site to this article. www.conversionstation.com. My intent is to add value to the wiki, not to spam. Some of the areas are still under construction, but if you visit any part of the converter and would like me to add some units, please let me know by posting to mytalk. Thanks.
The only other ".com" link I see there is to an on-line encyclopedia of physics and I suppose that "wolfram" must be the familiar software supplier and publisher.  David R. Ingham 21:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics Unit Converter link 

message: === engineering ===
I just read that the reason that more high-school students are taking physics has to do with technology, so maybe "engineering" should be mentioned sooner.  It is probably the place where the most physics is used.
How about:  "Whether worked out by physicists or by engineers, the main natural science basis of engineering is usually referred to as physics."
Electrical engineers I have worked with and read, usually use the word "physics" to refer to the explanation of how devices work, in terms of fields and waves.  Much of engineering consists of bringing together requirements, experience and physics, sometimes with the help of mathematics that may not be identified as "physics".  Computer engineering may not use the word physics much, nor do I recall its use to describe the internal workings of digital signal processing.  These seem so abstracted from the laws of nature that they interface directly with mathematics, instead, but they can still be described as scientific.  (An engineering professor told me that he attributed the fact that the cost of large computers is dominated by their bus structure to the fact that computer engineers do not study electromagnetic propagation any more.)  David R. Ingham 23:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  engineering, applied mathematics 

message: I just read that the reason that more high-school students are taking physics has to do with technology, so maybe "engineering" should be mentioned sooner.  It is probably the place where the most physics is used.
How about:  "Whether worked out by physicists or by engineers, the main natural science basis of engineering is usually referred to as physics."
Electrical engineers I have worked with and read, usually use the word "physics" to refer to the explanation of how devices work, in terms of fields and waves.  Much of engineering consists of bringing together requirements, experience and physics, sometimes with the help of mathematics that may not be identified as "physics".  Computer engineering may not use the word physics much, nor do I recall its use to describe the internal workings of digital signal processing.  These seem so abstracted from the laws of nature that they interface directly with mathematics, instead, but they can still be described as scientific.  (An engineering professor told me that he attributed the fact that the cost of large computers is dominated by their bus structure to the fact that computer engineers do not study electromagnetic propagation any more.)  David R. Ingham 23:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  engineering 

message: Should "relevant parts of applied mathematics" be included with "mathematical physics" after "large area of research intermediate between physics and mathematics, known as ", in the introduction?  David R. Ingham 21:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  applied mathematics 

message: Any physicists here use the unit thomson (Th)?? Do you consider it to be an accepted unit?? Is it commonly used in physics?
:I have been unable to find any other reference to such a unit. I therefore guess the answer to all three questions is "no". Brian Jason Drake 11:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit thomson 

message: It seems that Bernard Haisch added links to two articles concerning highly controversial topics in which he is a direct participant, and which unfortunately he has also edited himself as  and apparently also as the pltn13.pacbell.net anon.  See also
*Stochastic electrodynamics
*Zero-point energy
*Vacuum energy
*Polarizable vacuum
It seems that Haisch has added citations of his recent book to many articles, such as Religion. ---CH 10:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal links added by Haisch

message: This template provides easy access to all branches of Physics.  Since Physics is a very very wide subject, such a template is very necessary.  The comments that put on the template causes its deletion from many pages by new editors.  There is no need of much debate on this issue. If anything wrong can be found in this template, it can be corrected.  In my opinion, the classification provided in this template is easy and very useful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.88.236.202 (talk • contribs) .
:Discussion of the deletion is going on at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Physics Series. That is the appropriate place to discuss this.--Srleffler 11:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template Deletion: Physics Series

message: In the modern physics section of the sidebar, it list relativistic mechanics, which links to the special relativity article. General relativity is not represented in the modern physics section of the sidebar. Perhaps a link to general relativity should be added.Alex Klotz 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of many problems with the way that sidebar categorizes subjects within physics. The sidebar as a whole is being considered for deletion for other reasons. If the decision is to keep it, it may end up moving to the bottom of the article and will certainly end up being edited and reorganized to better describe the subjects within the field of physics.--Srleffler 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativity in Sidebar 

message: I noticed the picture of Atistotle to Hawiking in the history section of physics.  But where is our Archimedes..?  Editors must  include this also.    61.1.232.233 08:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of Archimedes in History of Physics