Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 15

message: . . . but could we get a third opinion on the recent changes made to Bogdanov Affair?  As I said on the talk page, I really don't like seeing verifiable citations vanish into the wiki-ether.  Anville 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update.  Samuel Blanning has addressed my concern by reverting Stern's changes and applying a .  One aspect of this troubles me:  looking at the contribution histories for  and , I see that both of them were inactive for considerable lengths of time before coming to the Bogdanov article (since 2 August 2006 and 3 July 2005, respectively).  Stern used a couple typographical mannerisms, like "Cqg" in this edit summary, which remind me of known sockpuppets.  Bester's change is also very reminiscent (many identical turns of phrase) to  last year's sockpuppet edits (example).  While I hate to jump to such a conclusion, it makes me wonder if we're seeing old accounts being hijacked to circumvent the ArbCom ruling.  Anville 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If dormant accounts are being hijacked, then how? Did they manage to guess some weak passwd's? If so, there would be a record of repeated failed logins from one IP address... linas 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could try requesting a CheckUser, but unless the puppet-masters come back, I doubt it will be granted.  Anville 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate to do this to everybody. . . 

message: Robert Oppenheimer has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 02:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually thinking the same thing looking over it today... --Falcorian (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Oppenheimer FAR

message: Hello!  This is to announce that several templates for automatic convertion between metric and imperial units and for displaying consistently formatted output have been created: , , , , , , , and .  Hopefully, they will be useful to the participants of this WikiProject.  The templates are all documented, provide parameters to fine-tune the output, and can be substituted if necessary.
Any suggestions, requests for improvement/features/additional templates, or bug reports are welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion templates

message: In editing the article radiation, I had some linguistic difficulties. I'm looking for native english speakers with a good knowledge of physics to give me some advice on this. Please see Talk:Radiation#Radiation_vs._wave:_The_linguistic_differences. --Tunheim 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be a disambiguation page, but not in the disambiguation category for some unknown reason. JRSpriggs 08:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help on ''Radiation'' 

message: I have been following Werdnabot carefully; and it just has too many bugs. For example, Tuesday, it left out the edit summaries for no apparent reason. So I removed the Werdnabot invocation. JRSpriggs 08:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to manual archiving

message: :Category:Dynamicists has been nominated for deletion.  Please go voice your opinion at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Dynamicists nominated for deletion 

message: I have nominated :Category:Telecommunication physicists for deletion.  At first, I thought it was a neologism.  A google search shows that the term has been used by people, but only rarely.  Hence, I think the category should be deleted.  Please go voice your opinion.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also :Category:Quantum Gravity physicists mostly because its too narrow/empty a category linas 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Telecommunication physicists 

message: Hey, check out the external links for Tippe top and their references. There's definitely potential for a great article there! Melchoir 02:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tippe top 

message: The  article seems to be receiving the enthusiastic attentions of one editor who is adding large amounts of poorly-verified information about the 1950s antigravity program in the USA, among other things (lots of citations, but not a whole lot that's peer-reviewed). I'm on sabbatical, so I can't deal with it. Enjoy. My last rewrite of it was in 2005 or so.--Christopher Thomas 06:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-gravity

message: There has been a proposal to rename :Category:Entropy in thermodynamics to Category:Thermodynamic entropy, here. Since this is a highly specific matter, I would appreciate it if some Wikipedians versed in Physics would comment on it. >Radiant< 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: A survey is being conducted over here on whether or not to move Vacuum impedance to Impedance of free space, displacing a disambiguation page. Please come particiapte if you are interested. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move survey notice 

message: I came across Quantum amplifier which looks suspect. Some one here might like to have a look. --Salix alba (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that article seems to use the right jargon and make some kinda sense. it could be better written. a lot of unclear statements. for example, apparently the amplifier U is "characterized" by the ratios of \langle \hat a \rangle, the expectation values of the annihilation operator when the states are the images of certain coherent state under U. what does "is characterized by" mean? does this specify an unique unitary operator? further down, it is stated that \hat a\hat a^\dagger -\hat a^\dagger \hat a=1. if  
\hat a still denotes the annihilation operator, as is apparently the case, and 1 the identity operator, that doesn't seem believable. Mct mht 11:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum amplifier 

message: I think that too many articles are being put into this category. JRSpriggs 06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia:Overcategorization, terms such as "fundamental" should be avoided in category names because the terms are subjective.  Categories like this one are a result of the interpretation problems with such names. Does anyone have a good suggestion on how to fix this category?  Dr. Submillimeter 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are wayyy too many articles in there. I recommend beefing up :Category:Introductory physics, which is  defined as physics topics commonly taught in elementary or high school, or possibly college freshman physics.  Note we have an analogous :Category:Elementary mathematics, with subcats for algebra, arithmetic, geometry for the analogous categorization in math. I recommend CfD'ing the whole ":Category:Fundamental physics concepts" because the critera for inclusion is vague: isn't *all* physics "fundamental"? What's an example of non-fundamental physics? linas 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I created the category in 2005, I put things like Lagrangian, phase space, and tensor in there. In short, concepts that are used all over physics, but are not introductory (subjective, of course) - so fundamental for "physics" itself, not necessarily fundamental for nature. Maybe general instead of fundamental would be a better choice. Anway, it is ambigious and now I would also vote for deletion. Note, however, that it has grown in a bit, and other language wikis also have this category. Karol 11:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you want something like "Mathematical methods in Physics"? But we already have :Category:Mathematical methods in general relativity for example. JRSpriggs 12:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd settle for :Category:General physics concepts, which would be defined as Concepts generally applied in all areas of physics.  Anyone care to file a "Category for renaming" for it? linas 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is not [[:Category:Fundamental physics concepts]] being over used? 

message: :Category:Quantum Chromodynamics' physicists has been nominated for deletion.  If kept, the bizarre apostrophe should be deleted.  Please go express your opinion at WP:CFD.  It looks like it's spring cleaning time for physics categories.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, someone should review :Category:Physicists and propose a group nomination that includes :Category:Weak Interaction physicists, :Category:Electroweak Theory physicists :Category:Electromagnetism physicists. Some of the cats I don't mind, but might work better under a better name, e.g. "quantum theorists" instead of "Quantum Theory Physicists", for those who took part in te early-mid 20th-century scene. linas 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Quantum Chromodynamics' physicists 

message: AfD due to OR: Gravitational attraction linas 19:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another AfD for OR -- [[Gravitational attraction]] 

message: Exact solutions in general relativity needs to be revised so that it is more easily understood by a general audience.  At the moment, it is written in language that only some people with advanced physics degrees will understand.  At the very least, it needs an introduction written in layman's terms.  (I also found a "help" message at Einstein field equation if anyone wants to work on that as well.)  Dr. Submillimeter 21:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's make some distinctions here. More accessible, maybe; more pedagogical, definitely not. WP is a reference work, not a teaching tool. If you want to write a textbook write it at Wikibooks. WP is an encyclopedia, and people use encyclopedias to teach themselves, but they don't and shouldn't expect the encyclopedia to be written like a lesson. --Trovatore 21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Dr. Submillimeter to a certain extent. I think pretty much any physicist should be able to read the first paragraph or two and come away with at least the basic idea that finding exact solutions to general relativity is hard and thus such solutions are relatively rare and become fairly well-studied and part of the subject cannon, even if they are not terribly "realistic". So one doesn't have to jump right into the language of manifolds and tensors in the first sentence. On the other hand, I don't think this article has to be written for a very broad audience. It would be better to include a statement early on that directs less specialized readers to the main GR page. I think it's ok for this article to be overall technical and specialized; readers without a specialized background probably won't care that much for this content anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshua Davis (talk • contribs) 21:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an orthogonal question. It can (and probably should) be made more accessible to a broader audience, at least in the lede, without devolving into a pedagogical style. --Trovatore 21:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant to emphasize was that the broader audience should basically be physicists, since the topic is already sort of specialized. The intro should be accessible enough for an undergraduate physics student to pick up a main point about why there is such an article and the importance of the subject matter. The content itself can then be pretty specialized. I don't think the intended audience is any broader than those already with some physics knowledge. Those who need it even more accessible should really probably be directed to the main GR page. Joshua Davis 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps "pedagogical" was the incorrect term to use.  Nonetheless, the page still needs to contain at least an introdcutory paragraph in non-technical terms (so that the average person from the general public will understand what physicisists do and why they should continue to receive government funding) and more information at a level that undergraduates would understand.  I also like the suggestion of referring the average reader to an introductory article on general relativity. Dr. Submillimeter 07:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Exact solutions in general relativity]] needs to be more pedagogical 

message: Many questions have been posted to Talk:Black hole, mostly to do with rotating black holes. Any of the GR-types who are active might want to take a stab at answering this, as it's out of my league. --Christopher Thomas 06:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions at [[Talk:Black hole]]

message: while reading Quantum mechanics I came across the following passage
:"In the mathematically rigorous formulation of quantum mechanics, developed by Paul Dirac and John von Neumann, the possible states of a quantum mechanical system are represented by unit vectors (called "state vectors") residing in a complex separable Hilbert space (variously called the "state space" or the "associated Hilbert space" of the system) well defined up to a complex number of norm 1 (the phase factor). In other words, the possible states are points in the projectivization of a Hilbert space. The exact nature of this Hilbert space is dependent on the system; for example, the state space for position and momentum states is the space of square-integrable functions, while the state space for the spin of a single proton is just the product of two complex planes. Each observable is represented by a densely defined Hermitian (or self-adjoint) linear operator acting on the state space. Each eigenstate of an observable corresponds to an eigenvector of the operator, and the associated eigenvalue corresponds to the value of the observable in that eigenstate. If the operator's spectrum is discrete, the observable can only attain those discrete eigenvalues."
Makes perfect sense, right? My compliments to the writer of this passage for coming up with such a compact description of the formalism of quantum mechanics. it is indeed nicely densely defined. My question is, can some one who does not already know this, possibly understand any of this? And if only some one who already knows this is can understand this, does this passage still contain any new information? 
Sure, WP is a reference work not a teaching tool, but where do we draw the line? is there even a line at this point, specific to science articles? --V. 21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the short discussion on exact solutions in general relativity up above.  This is a general problem for physics articles.  I would suggest that these articles contain at least some basic background information that the average reader understands.  (I myself attempt to write astronomy articles so that they can be understood by laypeople but so that they do not lose scientific information.  For example, see NGC 3031 or NGC 4594.)  Dr. Submillimeter 08:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  usefulness of physics articles 

message: I wikified the above article - somebody had to - but I really didn't know what I was doing. I would guess that it is quite an important topic and wondered if someone here could have a look. I have put this project as the one best suited for finding an expert to look at the article. Thanks. Itsmejudith 22:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Magnetospheric convection and magnetic storms]] 

message: In case anyone finds it useful for time travel or other articles, I've produced an animation showing how one would navigate a path that ends up in the past light-cone of the departure event, with diagrams and appropriate subtitles. Drawback: the animated .gif is huge (6.8 megabytes), even with all appropriate tricks applied (line art and very small palette).
Mostly this was a "because I don't want to go to bed yet" project, but it may still serve some useful purpose. --Christopher Thomas 06:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FTL/time travel animation

message: I've completed pass 1 of the edit of Black hole discussed in Talk:Black_hole#Possible_restructure? Please check it for errors, inconsistencies and serious omissions. For comparison, the previous version of the article is at Philcha. Talk:Black_hole#Please_review_the_recent_edits states the objectives of the edit. 10:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please review "Black hole" article

message: Could someone please do a quick check of the newly created Lissajous orbit article? Can anything be added about e.g. the source of the name, or how Lissajous orbits are related to Lissajous curves? Thanks! Sdsds 01:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick check of "Lissajous orbit" article? 

message: Physics folk may be interested in these:
* 25 March – Physical economics (discussion)
* 26 March – Tom Van Flandern (discussion)
* 27 March – SklogWiki (discussion)
Anville 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three new AfDs 

message: Does anyone know why the article named Planck's law of black body radiation?  Could we move it to Planck's law?  Nothing else is apparently referred to as Planck's law, which is just a redirect to Planck's law of black body radiation.  If no one objects, I will request a move on 31 Mar 2007.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be minded to Keep.  I like the long title which explains exactly what area of Physics the law relates to.  I think that's helpful for Newbies.  It doesn't prejudice Planck's law also being there as an alternative link, and being used from then on through the article.  Jheald 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the move is obvious. See WP:COMMONNAME. It would be a simple thing except for some history at Planck's law where someone had put the wrong content there. --Trovatore 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed my mind.  Fair enough. Jheald 09:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The abnormally long name for [[Planck's law of black body radiation]] 

message: Hi, I just added Equipartition theorem for scientific peer review.  I'd like to bring the article to FA status in the near future.  Please give me your thoughts and suggestions — thanks muchly! :) Willow 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any help you can give at the FAC review of the Encyclopædia Britannica would be most welcome as well; thanks! :) Willow 23:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific peer review for "Equipartition theorem"

message: I've just reverted a sneaky piece of vandalism in Quark model unnoticed for more than a year (introduced , reverted ).  In the meanwhile it has propagated to countless Wikipedia mirrors and clones.  So much for reliability of Wikipedia. 131.111.8.104 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted vandalism unnoticed for more than a year 

message: At the request of another user, I've tweaked the "current status" section in  to improve clarity (and remove flagged weaselling). If any of the cosmology-types lurking here are bored, it would be nice if someone could vet it for accuracy and fill in the "citation needed" points. I am not an expert on physical cosmology. --Christopher Thomas 04:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heat death of the universe]] 

message: The following AFDs are within the domain of WikiProject Physics:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorentzian Relativity
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Van Flandern
Please check the articles, and vote as you see fit. --Christopher Thomas 21:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More AFDs