Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 3

message: I just went to what I would describe as "a lot" of effort to get some decent pictures to illustrate A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS.  My question is: how close is the article, currently, to being worthy to put up for featured article status? -- SCZenz 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks nice! I think that it contains most of the relevant information about the detector. You should now concentrate on making it readable to everyone :). Perhaps you could explain a bit about particle accelerators etc. in the introduction so that people who know nothing about physics can understand a bit better what this is all about. Count Iblis 00:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, although it does raise the question: how much should an article duplicate material from other articles in order to be a comprehensive whole?  I guess I'll assume the answer is "as little as possible while still giving non-physicists a clue as to what's going on". -- SCZenz 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this isn't very easy. It's actually not that different when you write up results for a scientific paper. You need to write something in the introduction even though people could look most of it up in the refs. B.t.w. DAMA/NaI which I started some time ago, suffers from the same problem.Count Iblis 00:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added some background information, and put it up for peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS/archive1. -- SCZenz 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My latest silly idea (featured article) 

message: I was thinking that Particle beam weapon might need to be tied into our project in the process of wikification, until I started to read it.  IANAP, but it looks largely like hooey to me, either of the pseudoscience or conspiracy theory flavors, perhaps a bit of both, spurred by old SDI stories and the B.E.A.R report cited in Talk.  Any of the more knowledgable denizens care to have a look, and perhaps a laugh? --Kgf0 21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I slapped it with a request for the sources to be cited.  If they don't get cited soon, and a quick google search doesn't turn up anything reputable, we'd be justified in pruning the article to just the facts and/or putting it in "fictional weapons" or some such category.  There's another article, Directed-energy weapon, that might be related and provide a guide for how to handle this one.  -- SCZenz 22:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Particle beam weapon? 

message: The Nobel Prize for Physics was recently awarded to John L. Hall and Theodor W. Hänsch "for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique."  Anyone knowledgable enough to start the missing article?  I could probably work on the bios once I have time, but I can't begin to guess what OFCT is or does, or whether it even merits an article of its own. --Kgf0 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not exactly what I do, but since Hall's in my department it'd probably be easy to find out enough to get a start.  Might take a bit though since I've got laser time now on top of lab visitors.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 22:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: A good start would be rewriting coherence (physics), and adding a section on coherence in quantum optics.  At the moment it doesn't describe any of the things Roy Glauber figured out.  I don't have time to do it at the moment, but it would make a good undergrad project. Thisrod 23:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's only half the award so it wouldn't cover Hall and Hänsch's work on using frequency combs to make high accuracy measurements.  So it's a good start on half.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Someone on Talk:John L. Hall has proposed we need an article on JILA since two out of CU's three physics Nobel laureates had appointments there.  It is however a smaller institution than it might sound in press releases (more like a second physics department and of about the same size, the only difference being that it's jointly run).  I would be happy to expand such an article, but feel divided about whether it's really necessary so I'm not going to give into my departmental pride and start it.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel 

message: I feel this stub is redundant, being superseded by Hubble expansion.  However, User:Worldtraveller feels there is a distinction between these two terms, and he claims that 'Hubble flow' is a standard term in cosmology with a meaning distinct from 'Hubble expansion' (at least, if I understand his comments correctly).  I have requested a citation to a standard cosmology textbook.  Can anyone here shed any light? ---CH  (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This survived the AfD, but I still think the whole thing should be merged with Hubble expansion.  Worldtraveller insists that "Hubble flow" is the standard term in cosmology rather than "Hubble expansion", but of two standard textbooks I consulted, neither Peebles, Principles of Physcial Cosmology, nor Peacock, Cosmological Physics even list  "Hubble flow" in their index!  This whole thing is very strange.---CH  (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hubble Flow]]

message: Can a few people take a look at StuRat's recent edits to Wave-particle duality. They look distinctly dodgy and naive to me, but rather than just remove them I thought I'd be tactful and sensitive for once. William M. Connolley 14:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's wrong, but it's kind of written like a textbook rather than an article, which may not be good.  Other thoughts? -- SCZenz 21:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted. Actually, it seems that StuRat was trying to clean up someone-elses contribution. However, the additino was as clear as mud and did not seem to add anything, so I deleted. linas 22:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, after looking further.  There's now some kind of "vote" on Talk:Wave-particle duality about the section that we should keep an eye on.  William was absolutely right to have a big issue with the original editor's assumption that wave phenomena require a medium in all cases.  I'm also rather concerned about the notion that phonons (!) should be the first example of wave-particle duality--they're not even mentioned in the introductory QM courses I'm aware of.  -- SCZenz 17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wave-particle duality]] 

message: Looking at the particle physics categories, it occurs to me we might benefit from having a :Category:Experimental particle physics.  It would be in :Category:Experimental physics and :Category:Particle physics, and contain the accelerator, detector, telescope, and "experimental concepts" categories currently at the top of particle physics.  A possible variation would be to get rid of :Category:Experimental particle physics concepts and put those articles directly in it.  Any thoughts? -- SCZenz 16:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Smells like the object model - I like it.  Could we effect this simply by moving :Category:Experimental particle physics concepts to :Category:Experimental particle physics, and then RfDing the redirect once we clean up the article categories?  (Yeah, I suppose that's me volunteering to do the edits - Mongo like grunt work.) --Kgf0 17:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could save yourself a lot of edits by requesting the move at WP:CFD.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan, if nobody disagrees.  I guess :Category:Experimental particle physics concepts doesn't really need to be separate from :Category:Experimental particle physics--I originally created it because there was nowhere to put basic ideas about how one actually does experiments, but it's fine with me either way. -- SCZenz 21:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New experimental particle physics category? 

message: Up for deletion.  Maybe worth a look. -- SCZenz 01:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum Mechanics - simplified]] 

message: We've got someone creating sketchy articles on this theory and its creators.  I first marked a few of the bios , but put this one up for AfD.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's nominated one of the bios at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Vincent.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated the other one since Googling failed to suggest this person exists.---CH  (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitational Oscillating Plane Theory]] 

message: I seem to be involved in an edit war with a new user, KED, which may be the result of some genuine misunderstanding since the term light cone is used loosely in the literature.  But what really puzzles me is that KDE cites, not the research literature on warp drives (which I am familiar with) but the sci.physics FAQ entry, which does not even mention local versus global or warp drives, and which I believe is clearly inapplicable to the way that warp drive spacetimes achieve effective superluminal travel.  (See my comments in the talk page.)  Any feedback/assistance/clarification would be welcome! ---CH  (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi CH, I read through the debate, and it is an interesting one. Here's the problem as I see it: KED is echoing a viewpoint that is commonly taught in introductory GR courses: that superluminal travel implies time travel. Thus, there is an obvious, appearant paradox that the Albacurrie drive somehow avoids. I don't quite know how it avoids this, but simply stating that "the worldline of the observer has no loops" while appearantly true, doesn't help most readers resolve the paradox. Take me, for example: I know enough GR to both mostly understand the article and to be familiar with the basis of KED's complaints. I do not know enough to be able to guess the correct resolution for the paradox (yes, the "no loops" is a good clue).  Thus, I fully expect other educated readers to also stumble over this, and protest in a fashion not unlike KED.  It would be best if the article tried to deal with this issue in as direct a way as possible, and (among other things) acknowledge that there is a real paradox.  linas 00:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alcubierre metric]] 

message: If you enjoy dispute resolution, and are also very knowledgable in quantum mechanics, particularly quantum measurement, then please note the dispute above, and help out. If you are not good at quantum, or like to shoot off snide remarks, then please do NOT "help out"; we don't need the waters to be stirred any further. Its already a rather long battle. P.S. yes, its another Carl Hewitt intervention. linas 00:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Quantum indeterminacy]]

message: First off, I set up Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Physics as a redirect because I felt it was a bit inconvenient to have to remember the capital p. Also, I've noticed that computational chemistry is a subcategory of computational physics, which doesn't feel right to me. Anyone else share this opinion? --Dataphiliac 00:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It set up those categories. You're right, it should have been only in :Category:Computational science. Fixed. Karol 06:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects and computational chemistry 

message: Hello physics people,
I've just asked for a peer review of manifold. Perhaps some of you would like to take a look.--MarSch 11:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer review of manifold 

message: See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/A_Toroidal_LHC_ApparatuS.  I didn't get much feedback in the peer review, so hopefully people won't be too hard on me there.  And yes, I freely admit to being obsessed with writing a good article about my own experiment.. ;) -- SCZenz 22:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy for ATLAS 

message: I need help to avoid running afoul of the 3RR. There's an anon repeatedly adding psuedoscientific material to electron.  I have now asked him to review WP:NOR, and to discuss it on the talk page if he disagreed with my evaluation of the material as original research; I also warned him that further edits without discussion would be considered vandalism.  So, if he edits it again, please treat them as exactly that.  -- SCZenz 21:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added electron to my watchlist, so I'll be looking out for it. Karol 23:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electron vandalism 

message: Can someone fix the center of mass/center of inertia/center of gravity articles?  Two of these terms mean the same thing, but the articles disagree about which.  I don't know the answer and see conflicting uses online.  — Omegatron 19:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Center of mass 

message: Thought you fellow physics geeks would be among the few to get the humor of Governmentium (created as a user page for easy future deletion). --Kgf0 23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: funny :) --MarSch 10:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New element 

message: Is anyone maintaining Portal:Physics...?  It hasn't been updated in a long time.  Should we? -- SCZenz 07:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! We need to coordinate something for that. I'll start digging for easy stuff (featured picture, news, etc), but I think we should be in concurrance on whatever we do. --Dataphiliac 02:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has lacked attention. I guess it's one of the things we should include in this wikiproject. Karol 08:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if not us then who?  I'm happy to help, and I think we should definitely add it here. -- SCZenz 08:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added it to the scope and goals stuff on the project page. Someone elaborate please, I need to go to work now! :D Karol 08:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Should we start up a portal page specifically for discussion regarding the portal? --Dataphiliac 01:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't there a talk page for the portal itself? -- SCZenz 01:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... Yes. I have no idea what I was thinking. Let's get to it then? --Dataphiliac 04:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, this wikiproject can serve as a "catalizer" and place for supporting discussions, though. Karol 12:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics portal 

message: I notice that alot of the same articles are in :Category:Thermodynamics and :Category:Statistical mechanics. Is there a distinction between the two cats here on Wikipedia, or should they be merged or one put inside another? Karol 08:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: being a new user I can't tell if something had been scheduled regarding this merge. All I can say is that I see pros and cons for such merging. On the one hand, the two theories are certainly linked (see thermodynamic limit), but on the other hand it is perfectly possible that someone would come searching for info about thermodynamics without caring the least about statistical mechanics (for example a chemist, or a 1st year university student).ThorinMuglindir 09:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I would leave both, but it would be nice to have one as a subcat inside another, to relate them somehow, or both of them in each other, but that would make a loop. Karol 13:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermodynamics & Stat. Mechanics 

message: Anyone knows where the subject is mentioned? I just found something about linear elasticity. It is important for me as I will soon start editing about the (entropy-driven) force between the tips of an ideal chain, which will lead me right to introducing non-linear elasticity of polymeric materials (ideal chain is AFAIK the simplest model that has non-linear 
elasticity as an emergent property)ThorinMuglindir 09:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just go ahead and create the page on non-linear elasticity. Karol 13:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: in fact I am confused: I redid the calculation, and finally the elasticity associated to the ideal chain seems to be... linear. I'll have to take a look into a couple of books tonight and see the truth on this subject, and check my formulas... Maybe non-linear elasticity arises only in models that have interactions between monomers, or maybe my formula is wrong. I'll keep you informed.(ThorinMuglindir 15:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-linear elasticity?

message: FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical interpretation of classical physics is nominated as original research. linas 14:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We could use some knowledgeable opinions on this article - as I mention in the discussion on the [[AfD page - I think the underlying idea - to discuss the impact of classical Newtonian physics has had on other discpiplines and the impact that QM should (but in many cases has not fully) had on those same disciplines is an interesting one - but need help in determining if existing article should be the starting point for such a discussion (or if this topic is covered elsewhere). Thx in adv -Trödel|talk 10:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD:[[Philosophical interpretation of classical physics]]

message: I'm just starting to get to know our own Physics Portal, and I noticed there is a new portal, started somewhere in May, a Scientific Method Portal. There is also the Science Portal, of course. So many portals... Karol 12:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The science portal should contain links to all these other portals :) Count Iblis 14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Users will get confused with that many portals: we need a portals portal.ThorinMuglindir 15:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Say, a kind of metaportal. :D Karol 17:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific method portal, so many portals... 

message: They took intensive from us! We are condemned to using intensive quantity instead.
Intensive is important in statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, and they won't give it back! At least I assume they won't, because at some point I didn't know of the existence of intensive quantity, so I wrote a bit about intensive in physics in the linguistics article, and some linguist said there was no need for what I wrote, as it was already covered in intensive quantity (which btw was wrong, what I wrote had a different meaning from what you can find in intensive quantity). So, not only they won't give it back, but they won't even share it!
But it won't be as easy as they thought 'cause I have a strategy which hopefully will let us regain what is ours... I just need to design the specifics, which should require a small amount of documentation on linguistics (maybe you can help me):
The idea would be to find a key concept of linguistics that they have yet to cover, start an article named after this concept, and give it a physics or pseudo-physics definition, categorizing all that in physics of course. Then, we keep the article in hostage until they give us back intensive!ThorinMuglindir 15:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I never liked adjectives as article titles anyways.  — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That was me who removed the physics content, and I'm not a linguist :) Karol 17:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah OK. I guess taking liguistic concepts in hostage wouldn't be too efficient then... Anyway, it's not that I care about the content, which was largely redundant with thermodynamic equilibrium, but it did set a precedent for us reconquering intensive. Although if the majority prefers intensive quantity, then ther's no point...ThorinMuglindir 19:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those damned wiki linguists! 

message: Herald88 has started strange discussion here. Karol 06:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro to [[physics]] 

message: That's my idea for the title of an article that would strive to make it to featured article standard. Since I'm not able to do it all by myself, I just thought I'd come here to share the idea.
The question struck me as one that anyone can feel concerned about, whatever his sex, age, religion, cultural background etc.
Answering it can be done with very few formulas, and offers the opportunity to discuss a few concepts of physics:
* light wavelengths, their relation to color, and their superposition in white light, the visible light spectrum of the sun
* Light diffusion, which is diffraction by a set of randomly distributed coherent light sources (as a remark I don't think this phenemenon is the same as the one described under photon diffusion, though I'm not sure), direct light (sun) vs diffuse light (sky), quantitative differences in how different wavelengths are diffused.
* topics related to some corollary questions (see below about these): colloids (milk), colloids and electrostatics in solution (Bragg crystal), incidence angle of light on a surface etc.
And, the question brings many corrolary questions, which can be answered by using the same concepts of physics, and by introducing some other:
* Why is the day sun yellow, and the sunset red?
* Why is the sea blue (or blue-green)?
* Why is the sky bluer near the poles than in temperate regions and bluer in temperate regions than near the equator (in full daylight)?
* Why do white clouds appear white during daytime, and white or red during sunset?
* Why is milk milky? (with the fun experiment of a light source appearing red when you use a thin layer of milk as a filter)
* Why are so many gels and creams milky in color?
* Why does a Bragg crystal become milky in appearance if you add salt into it?
=== Existing articles ===
I did a short research myself, so that we have 3 relevant physics articles so far, and a general article. The physics ones look quite good actually, and relatively simple as far as concepts are concerned, but I think their jargon is technical enough to repel non-physicists. They are of course far from featured article standard. Feel free to add links to articles you feel relevant.
* sky
* diffuse sky radiation
* scattering
* Bragg diffraction
A Bragg crystal is made up of charged colloids and diffracts in the visible range (rather than X-ray for molecular crystals). The crystalline structure is maintained by electrostatic repulsion, but, if you add some salt into the solution, the repulsion between the colloids is screened and the crystalline structure is replaced by a solution of diffusing colloids. The diffraction fringes vanish, and the solution takes a milky appearance because of light diffusion.
==== Discussion of blue sky article project====
:Great idea! Perhaps we could even use the sky article for this. --MarSch 13:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno.  To me, that sounds more like it belongs in Wikibooks, perhaps with links there from the relevant related articles here.  Somehow "Why" and "How" just don't seem encyclopedic to me, unlike "Who," "What," "When" and "Where."  I do like the idea in general though - the article(s) sounds good, it's just a question of where it belongs.  --Kgf0 18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There is already an article on diffuse sky radiation. Karol 19:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments and for the links. I've added a link to diffuse sky radiation in the sky article. Note that for the moment however, such a title such as this one is not really prone to attract a neophyte. Regarding wikibooks, well, I was more thinking of making a very catch-all article, and try to make some (good) vulgarisation about occurences of light diffusion in daily life, then open on Bragg crystals. Something less technical than what I usually write, and with no formula, just explanations, and if possible a tone that sustains curiosity.ThorinMuglindir 20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the sky blue? 

message: I did a short research myself, so that we have 3 relevant physics articles so far, and a general article. The physics ones look quite good actually, and relatively simple as far as concepts are concerned, but I think their jargon is technical enough to repel non-physicists. They are of course far from featured article standard. Feel free to add links to articles you feel relevant.
* sky
* diffuse sky radiation
* scattering
* Bragg diffraction
A Bragg crystal is made up of charged colloids and diffracts in the visible range (rather than X-ray for molecular crystals). The crystalline structure is maintained by electrostatic repulsion, but, if you add some salt into the solution, the repulsion between the colloids is screened and the crystalline structure is replaced by a solution of diffusing colloids. The diffraction fringes vanish, and the solution takes a milky appearance because of light diffusion.
==== Discussion of blue sky article project====
:Great idea! Perhaps we could even use the sky article for this. --MarSch 13:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno.  To me, that sounds more like it belongs in Wikibooks, perhaps with links there from the relevant related articles here.  Somehow "Why" and "How" just don't seem encyclopedic to me, unlike "Who," "What," "When" and "Where."  I do like the idea in general though - the article(s) sounds good, it's just a question of where it belongs.  --Kgf0 18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There is already an article on diffuse sky radiation. Karol 19:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments and for the links. I've added a link to diffuse sky radiation in the sky article. Note that for the moment however, such a title such as this one is not really prone to attract a neophyte. Regarding wikibooks, well, I was more thinking of making a very catch-all article, and try to make some (good) vulgarisation about occurences of light diffusion in daily life, then open on Bragg crystals. Something less technical than what I usually write, and with no formula, just explanations, and if possible a tone that sustains curiosity.ThorinMuglindir 20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existing articles 

message: :Great idea! Perhaps we could even use the sky article for this. --MarSch 13:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno.  To me, that sounds more like it belongs in Wikibooks, perhaps with links there from the relevant related articles here.  Somehow "Why" and "How" just don't seem encyclopedic to me, unlike "Who," "What," "When" and "Where."  I do like the idea in general though - the article(s) sounds good, it's just a question of where it belongs.  --Kgf0 18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There is already an article on diffuse sky radiation. Karol 19:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments and for the links. I've added a link to diffuse sky radiation in the sky article. Note that for the moment however, such a title such as this one is not really prone to attract a neophyte. Regarding wikibooks, well, I was more thinking of making a very catch-all article, and try to make some (good) vulgarisation about occurences of light diffusion in daily life, then open on Bragg crystals. Something less technical than what I usually write, and with no formula, just explanations, and if possible a tone that sustains curiosity.ThorinMuglindir 20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of blue sky article project

message: This "anon" user has added a useless article A_5_minutes_explanation_of_Relativity citing his own cranky website.  (Note that the cited website 195.24.39.97 and the IP address of the anon user 212.21.138.161 both are registered in Sofia, Bulgaria.)
Current status: I have initiated an AfD ---16:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  E. Marinchev [[Special:Contributions&target=212.21.138.182|212.21.138.161]] [http://universality.hit.bg/ Universality]