Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 1

message: I suppose I finally have an appropriate place to ask people to look at World Year of Physics 2005.  I had originally thought it'd be a great idea to have it up to featured standard by the end of the year, but it hasn't really attracted any other editors recently and I feel like without feedback of other editors I may have taken it in a wrong direction (right now it mostly summarizes Annus Mirabilis Papers).  So take a look if you're interested.  --Laura Scudder | Talk 15:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Year of Physics 

message: I placed :Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience as a subproject here, if anyone on the physics project objects please say so Salsb 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
*I object. I doesn't make sense to place it here. --MarSch 09:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience subject 

message: Physical Chemistry used to include a discussion of thermodynamic potentials and the like (Gibbs and Helholtz free energy, fugacity, enthalpy, free enthalpy and so on.) There are (or were) good texts on it and topnotch physicists such as Arnold Sommerfeld and Michael Faraday built it and kept it alive. Unfortunately, some modern physics texts skip most of that stuff to do a lot of statistical mechanics, transport theory (usually idealized, for example so as to avoid dealing with excitation of different states of the colliding molecules, which are imagined to be elastic spheres).  Wikipedia would offer a good place to keep up interest in physical chemistry or chemical physics. Obviously, practising chemical, solid state, and plasma (and so on) engineers know about these topics and many more advanced ones.  Well, I see that some of the classical stuff is sketched under Physical Chemistry but it needs more development.  Abstract equations are provided on some of the links, but little or no idea of how to use the quantities mentioned, and practically none on where to look for tables, or any guideline as to when recourse to tables and measurements is needed (most cases of real gases, liquids and I suppose solids - I am out my area with solids.) Pdn 17:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Items should not be forgotten 

message: Astrophysics is currently nominated to be improved by on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you are interested, you can vote for it there.--Fenice 13:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: We've got a new stub at nonlinear magnetic field from an anon.  I would've marked it for speedy deletion, but didn't know if it quite qualified.  --Laura Scudder | Talk 23:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like it would qualify for deletion as original research, due to the "I have interpreted this question as being identical ...". But a redirection to magnetic field might work as well. Salsb 00:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the "I interpret" does imply that this is original research. Disagree with redirect to magnetic field (see Talk:nonlinear magnetic field).  I think this should be deleted, but I gave the author a chance to explain Ulam's remarks (on talk page also). -- SCZenz 00:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  nonsense at [[nonlinear magnetic field]] 

message: I have nominated it for deletion as it seems to be one author reinventing x-ray damage. Please comment on the deletion page if appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[X-ray nanochemistry]] nomination for deletion.