Talk:Physics/wip/Archive,forDefinition2

message: The Definition - between 50 & 150/200 words long.  This is the first text read by the majority of people reaching the article page.  What should we be aiming to say? - what should we aim not to say? - from those two points we can work out what we are going to say. SFC9394 10:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with your reasons. MichaelMaggs has expressed that "let's just argue some more until this all clears up", as Krea suggests, is not a good solution. Two people had agreed with him. You've removed this. Noetica wrote quite a bit in response to my very short summary of our position, you've removed both. What exactly do you expect your "clean slate" to turn into? The "bitch-ometer" proposal is inane, and very open to abuse by upset participants. –MT 05:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I regret, once again, that tempers seem to be fraying a little, and that progress (by which I don't mean the number of words typed) remains stalled. Unfortunately, this /WIP page, although an excellent idea, has not been a great practical success in my view and I think we should now close it down. There appears to be no prospect of us all agreeing a lead section that could withstand even a few days in the open-market of the main Physics page. And, no, before anyone suggests it, I don't think that keeping talking will do it --MichaelMaggs 17:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. –MT 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Me too. This discussion is a disaster with very little of it in good faith. Joshua Davis 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What bugs the "energists" about the broad definition is that it's like defining "fish" as "an animal". If this were a classification, yeah, it'd be correct. But it's a definition, and defining it thus gives us no information, and confuses the "fish" concept with the "animal" concept. "A horse is a fish" - yeah, maybe horses evolved from fish, but they're absolutely different. And maybe the word "fish" might refer in the future to some descendant of current fishes - and this will invalidate our definition completely! We don't know what a fish might be, so let's define it as vaguely as possible! I have no idea how you've stood by your position for this long, it's exactly as ridiculous as this fish analogy. –MT 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good analogy Joshua Davis 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. §1 - Definition

message: Ok, this is what I have quickly come up with... Krea 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Krea's lead proposal, 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

message: Physics is the science concerned with describing nature at the fundamental level, the level of matter and energy. There appear to be stable and universal rules that determine the behaviour of these base constituents, and thereby the behaviour of all systems composed of them. Through observation and mathematical theorization, physicists develop models to characterize and predict this behaviour. Physics has presented many accurate and practical models and theories, but there are still unknown dephts to be explored.
With the advent of the scientific method, physics emerged from natural philosophy as one of the natural sciences. [Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Nulla aliquam tempor velit. Nulla arcu turpis, faucibus eu, accumsan non, tempus et, felis. Morbi imperdiet vehicula quam. Sed dolor ligula, pharetra lacinia, lacinia in, vestibulum quis, justo. Quisque lectus nunc, ullamcorper a, venenatis ut, pellentesque ac, turpis.]
Physics is traditionally divided into two major categories. Classical physics includes the fields of mechanics, optics, electricity, magnetism, acoustics and heat, as well as the more recent general and special relativity. Modern physics covers fields which rely on quantum theory, including quantum mechanics, atomic physics, nuclear physics, particle physics, and condensed matter physics. This distinction is fading, as quantum effects are now understood to be of importance even in fields previously considered purely classical.
----
200~ words. The first paragraph might stand on its own, but major historic points and a listing of major subfields (and hence coverage) are surely worth including. The thumb I'd like to use would be bubble chamber tracks. They're very precise, but also lively, almost artistic. The problem is finding a properly licensed image, since we can't claim fair use. Some points:
* "Unknown depths" is too metaphoric for my taste, but another way to say "we have no idea how much more work needs to be done" is lacking. It also implies that problems at the current depth are solved, which is false. Perhaps "but much is still unknown about..."
* The second paragraph should be properly expanded with major historic points.
* Perhaps "...including quantum mechanics, and atomic, nuclear, particle, and condensed matter physics." in the third paragraph, removing the repetition of "physics"?
–MT 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:M|M]]'s lead proposal

message: :While not added by Joshua Davis himself, Ancheta Wis has recognized the following proposal and it is re-copied here. Content and comment are seperated. –MT 09:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Joshua Davis|Joshua Davis]]' contribution 18:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC) 

message: Physics is a natural science of matter and its interactions, and of systems best explained in such fundamental terms. Physics is not so broad, in any sense, that it includes penguin mating habits or consciousness. It might have the capacity to explain these phenomenon, but it would be incorrect to call the work that deals with these "physics". Physics is not the foundation of the other sciences - they rely on their own principles and methods. However, physics is broadly applicable, and the systems that other sciences study are fundamentally composed of what physics studies.
----
: I invite all editors agreeing with this position to join me in forming and revising this argument. –MT 07:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a good idea to first decide on the overall tone and purpose of the article. Let me then say that I totally agree with the first two sentences just above, although they clearly are not how the article should start. But I do have to agree with others that the "matter and energy" definition is artificial; there is no real distinction between the two. Also, I think the definition of physics should not be strictly limited to the study of certain systems but rather should focus on the breadth of techniques and concepts which physicists use. Not surprisingly, I nominate my proposal from earlier as the first two sentences of the article; I think it captures the breadth of the field without going overboard or being too limiting. Anyone want to take it as a starting point? Joshua Davis 08:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your starting point is taken below. Ancheta Wis 04:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yep, this has nothing to do with the lead - I want constraned arguments. Let's settle this issue by having both sides give their argument, and then having a vote. Could you elaborate on "...is artificial/no real distinction"? –MT 11:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re: "...is artificial/no real distinction". Well, I just don't know what the distinction would be in modern physics. Matter=energy from special relativity. Do you see a disctinction besides the vague, inuitive one (matter is stuff and energy is light/heat)? Joshua Davis 17:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, yes, there's no distinction. I just don't know what to say in their place. I don't see it as artificial - redundant perhaps. –MT 20:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about something like "matter and its interactions"? The interactions/forces between matter are distinct from matter itself(unless supersymmetry is true, but that is theoretical for now). Joshua Davis 21:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as consciousness and penguins don't fall directly into that definition, I can only agree. I think that "matter and energy" is slightly more readily evocative/understood, but these are minor details. –MT 23:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've expanded the argument, putting the text over my limit. However, I don't really think that this much needs to be said - that middle section pretty much covers it. I'll wait for the opposing arguments. If anyone would like to expand or revise the above argument, do as you see fit. –MT 20:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Revised to focus on position; 94 words. –MT 02:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position A 

message: 1. Definition
Physics is a broad field of inquiry into the natural world, that provides a foundation  for the other natural sciences. Although practicing physicists traditionally study a limited (albeit rather broad) set of phenomena, the principles of physics are applicable throughout natural science; they are interconnected in  a  coherent set. The development of this set of principles has been on-going at least 2500 years. The  principles are mathematical in nature, which mirror or model their subjects. They can serve as a basis for the other sciences in a self-correcting process, collaboratively developed in the last 400 years, called scientific method.
----
99 words. This is meant as a follow-on version of a definition per the discussion between M and Joshua Davis, as I wish to preserve M's version. Amendments welcome, --Ancheta Wis 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that we are not voting on definitions - we've already tried that. What I'd like to address is the conflict between the two perceptions of how all-encompassing (or not) physics is. Most of the wheel-spinning here is a direct result of its non-resolution. Stating your position is important and may suffice, but be aware that you are also free to directly argue for it. –MT 02:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position B 

message: 1. Einstein's Definition
"Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of evolution, and whose basis cannot be obtained through distillation by any inductive method from the experiences lived through, but which can only be attained by free invention." [E]
39 words - [E] Albert Einstein (1936), Physics and Reality, summarized in his Essays in Physics (1950) New York, Philosophical Library p. 51
Confer with Noetica's and Krea's statements above. I do not have a copy of Einstein's Ideas and Opinions which actually dovetail with Position B above. --Ancheta Wis 01:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position E 

message: Speaking as someone with two bachelors, 2 masters and a PhD in physics, this article is kind of a mess. I could step in to try to weigh in, but who wants to get in the middle of a big fight?--ReasonIsBest 18:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all opinions are welcome (especially in a "big fight"!). I'm not sure how up-to-speed you are, though (reading the "vote regarding the definition of physics" section might be a start). Krea 13:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think everyone here is well-versed in the field, so that is not the problem. The difficulties we've had aren't stemming from expertise but rather from philosophical and stylistic disagreements. But as Krea said, your opinions are more than welcome. Joshua Davis 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia (I see that your account is somewhat new). Everyone here is sure to agree with you regarding how much of a mess it is, but we're (probably) chipping away at it. Things will, supposedly, improve. We'll be glad to hear from you. Don't let the size of the page nor our 'grand' argument discourage you. I've highlighted the summaries. –MT 19:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Below you will find one or more positions/arguments/statements (herein "positions"). If you agree with a position, add the following to the bottom of its list: 
:* Support. [An optional comment/reason in under 50 words.] ~~~~
You may not add objections, or anything else, just a "support. [...]". If you want to comment, create a new heading or add to an existing other one. You may cast a vote for only one position. You may change your vote as many times as you'd like by deleting it completely from under one position, and adding a new vote under another.
The results of this vote will direct us in the writing of the article. If we discover that a position is widely supported or rejected, we will write to support or reject it in the article.
The rest of this section probably won't interest you if you are new to this and would like to get on with voting. Skip down to the positions.
If you do not approve of any of the listed positions, you may add another one in this form:
: ----
: [All aspects of your position in under 200 words. 3 paragraphs maximum. You may quote whomever you like.] ~~~
: Support. ~~~~ [do not make a comment]
If someone casts (or moves) a vote for any position, or adds a position after you've added your position, it may no longer be altered. Make sure your position is polished before posting it. If a position ever loses all votes, it will be deleted. You can only write a single position once; you may not re-instate yours (or anyone else's), or write a new one, even if yours was thus deleted.
You may not modify text that is not your own. You may not post above other people. You may not post in this pre-position section lest we degrade into unstructured argument. You may not create a new subsection under this heading, or add a divider - and then proceed as you please.
If you (that is, a person who has been engaged in the discussion) violate any of these rules, even as far as not including the ---- separator at the top of your position, your edit will be reverted and treated as if it never ocurred. (As opposed to the reverter modifying your position in some way, or breaking the rules by suggesting the correction.) A reason will be given, and you may try again if appropriate. "Support" votes cannot be removed in this manner, but an offending vote's comment section can have its end clipped off if it goes over 50 words (leaving a "… [comment has been trimmed]"), or it can be collapsed into a single listitem/paragraph if it takes up several lines.
Some things considered (extremely) bad form, but not prohibited:
* When writing your position, to direct readers to other arguments (i.e. "see my argument in section X of the archive", "just read the argument made by Thisp Hysicist"). Remember, you can quote directly.
* Quoting others out of context.
* Adding another 200-word position that's similar to an existing position, and differences could have been handled within a 50-word comment.
* Not making obvious consequences of your position clear (e.g. not stating that your position implies that someone studying penguin mating habits is/is not doing physics.)
Try to act in good faith, and take as a (non-mandatory) example the tone/style/etc. of previous positions. –MT 18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try this yet again / vote now 

message: ----
Physics, biology, and psychology are different sciences. When one studies the universal fundamentals (that is, matter and energy), they are doing physics. When one studies living organisms, biology. Minds and behaviour, psychology. One important aspect of physics is its usefulness in many other sciences. Knowing physics will drastically help a chemist do chemistry. A different approach is to define physics from use: if you are using the principles of physics, you are "doing" physics. Thus, a schoolchild practicing/learning physics would be doing physics, as would a car designer, a sniper/artilleryman, and also a chemist? person who studies chemical reactions/molecules. But this is wrong - here, the word "doing" actually means "using". These people use physics. They don't "do" physics. They don't conduct a scientific study of... of what? Of the fundamental: matter and energy. That's what physics studies. The opposition argues that physics studies all of nature - but this means that any study is physics. This would essentially make "physics" synonymous with "science", and render categories like "natural sciences" nonsensical. This position too is incorrect. Physics isn't any study of nature - it's the study of the fundamental constituents, which we recognize to be matter and energy. –MT
* Support. –MT 18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Positions

message: It seems that some new people are coming in(or maybe returning after a long hiatus), but they may be discouraged from participating due to the ridiculous length of the talk page. I propose archiving everything up to, but not including, "Vote regarding definition of physics". That should leave enough of the background of the discussion around but should a lot of repetition. Also, to prevent comments from continuing to pile up in an unmanageable I way, I again implore people to please be concise in our discussions. Joshua Davis 21:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would wait until this vote is complete - that should then give a timetable for a new process (whatever it may be) and things can start from blank (and the archive dump will include this vote which is the final piece in this chapter of the story).  In the meantime the vote chapter should stay at the bottom of the page just to avoid it "drowning" in the high seas of words. SFC9394 22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. Is the vote done, anyway? There is only one other person I can think of offhand(Noetica) who bumps around here regularly and their vote won't swing it one way or the other. Or are we trying to get new people in on this vote(in which case I still think a preliminary archive dump may help)? Joshua Davis 22:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd have to agree with Joshua - I think the vote is about done really. I don't see the majority being overturned, so we should perhaps move on to the next stage. Krea 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will give it to Wednesday just to ensure it has had a bit of breathing time. SFC9394 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Second the motion. --Ancheta Wis 08:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for a cleanup?

message: 4 options that I offer to other editors:
1.  Three final versions are approved – only three can come out of this process, and a vote of the body of people here may be required if necessary to produce these three.  With these three final versions a wikipedia editorial community vote is taken – by notification of the vote on the community portal. (the rules I propose for this option are here). 
2.  A placeholder is put in the WIP page for this section, “Physics is….”, and we move on to productive improvement rather than the pointless back and forthing that has gone on for the last month.
3.  The WIP page is opened for editing to all and discussions continue on the lead section.
4.  This WIP project is wound up.
All that I require is whether you support 1, 2, 3 or 4.
----
* Proposal 1.  
*# --SFC9394 20:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Vote'''