Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 4

message: Is zero point field a used phrase (I don't know), or should this page just be deleted (right now it's gibberishy). If so, what should it merged with or redirected to (zero point energy, stochastic electrodynamics, or Dirac sea)? Karol 10:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would delete it. It's not a phrase that is used by physicists in the context of zero point energy in QFT. Redirecting it to such topics could make google to associate "zero point field" to this and that has to be prevented at all costs. Count Iblis 12:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it's an unused term, and the article itself is original research.  I'll AfD it later today, unless someone disagrees or beats me to it. -- SCZenz 17:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Dirac sea provides a justification for antiparticles. This is about virtual particles. --MarSch 10:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That article was wrong in so many ways that it was laughable. I redirected to zero-point energy. (Technically, the zero-point energy is the vacuum expectation value of the Hamiltonian; in other words, the vacuum is described by the zero-point fields.) linas 16:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero point field 

message: Thanks to everyone who voted in the previous AfD I brought to your attention.  Those hoaxes have now been deleted, fortunately.  Unfortunately, I already have another one for you guys :-/  See the article, then see my comments in the talk page for a chuckle, before voting in the AfD page.  TIA ---CH  (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Scalar Gravity]]

message: I posted a request for an article about charge decay in the electronics project, but it's more appropriate here.  Here's an external article about it:   — Omegatron 15:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charge decay 

message: Would anyone who has any knowledge of this please see if you can add anything to Proximity effect? I created the article and wrote most of it, and as I am a software developer and know next to nothing about the subject, I am certain there is more that should be included, and concerned that parts may be inaccurate. Thanks in advance - KillerChihuahua 19:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked a little bit on the proximity effect article.    Has anyone actually heard the term "proximity effect" used outside of superconductivity?    The portion of the article about microphones and acoustics sounds real to me, but I'm dubious about the electron-beam lithography portion.    In my experience the phenomenon that is discussed in that part of the article is called "pattern dependence" not "proximity effect."   Is the term "proximity effect" really used in atomic physics?    I don't find references in scitation.aip.org and a search for "proximity effect" "atomic physics" points you to Wikipedia. Perhaps if superconductivity and acoustics are the only fields where the term is used, proximity effect should be split into two articles and replaced with a disambiguation page? I have put similar comments on the Talk:Proximity_effect page.    I also removed some references at the bottom to some rather obscure research and replaced them with a link to an authoritative book by de Gennes. Alison Chaiken 20:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proximity effect

message: There's an AfD for Special relativity for beginners at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special relativity for beginners.  Thought everyone might be interested in another of these simplified/for beginners type discussions.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Special relativity for beginners]] 

message: We need some help with the heat capacity article. There is a disagreement on whether it should be confined to C and the development made without reference to particular quantities being held constant, or whether a description of Cp and Cv etc. should be included. The discussion is in the talk page under "Is Cx necessary". I know it's a lot to wade through, but the crux of the matter occurs between the bolded terms "Explanation 1" and "Explanation 2". Thanks for any help PAR 20:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Cx necessary? 

message: Can someone who knows something about relativity pl take a look at this article, the related AfDs, and the recent edit diputes? Is the article legit - is it POV, are attempts to change it POV, vandalism, or valid? Thanks. --Doc ask? 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is locked? Why? Its contents should be merged (perhaps the article itself should be deleted) to transverse Doppler effect. --ScienceApologist 23:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[False Doppler]] 

message: Another from the series: Astronomy for beginners. Karol 09:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's "hard-to-understand lingo" in astronomy, it's that it uses a fairly extensive English vocabulary, not that it's got scientific jargon.  Sheesh. -- SCZenz 10:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, do you think it should go to AfD? Karol 10:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure.  At minimum it needs a huge rewrite to avoid being a random collection of factoids. I think making astronomy slightly more accesible would work just as well; this is different than special relativity or quantum mechanics, where the main articles are inherently mathematical. -- SCZenz 16:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronomy for beginners 

message: I'm a bit of a categorization nut. Can someone help me convince two editors that these pages don't go in :Category:Physics?
#:Category:Plasma physics (see discussion)
# Optical tweezers (see discussion)
Karol 12:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categoriation problems 

message: There really shouldn't be separate :Category:Condensed matter physics and :Category: Solid state physics categories.   Some people continue to use "solid state physics" but the battle is essentially over and the "condensed matter" folks have won.   I would like to see "solid state physics" removed as a category, not because I really prefer that term, but because there really should be only one page.
Alison Chaiken 07:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand these remarks. At least on WP, "solid-state physics" deals primarily with the properties of semiconductors, and more broadly with properties of crystals (mostly at room temperature).  By contrast, on WP, "condensed matter physics" includes notions of superfluidity and non-room-temperature physics. (as well as solid-state as a sub-category). I find this to be a useful distinction. Of course, there are lots of grey areas, (and maybe all modern research is in the grey area) but that can be debated on a case-by-case basis.  linas 16:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As to "one category", I think the real goal is to have categories with less than several hundred articles in them; (less than one hundred, even). This will often require that any given article will need to be in several categories at once, but that is OK. linas 16:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response.    My proposal is essentially that the terms "condensed matter physics" and "solid state physics" be used on WP in the same way that they are used by the broader physics community.    I confess that I don't know how these names might be used outside the US, but the American Physical Society has a Division of Condensed Matter Physics that solid-state physicists have been merged into already.    The current usage on WP may put certain kinds of articles into SSP and other kinds into CMP but to the extent that these categories don't reflect typical usage, the division will be confusing to readers.   Why is Hall effect in :Category:Solid state physics and quantum Hall effect in :Category:Condensed matter physics for example?    These articles should be listed in the same place. Alison Chaiken 18:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Your point about an individual category getting uselessly large is well-taken.   I agree that a potentially enormous category like CMP should have useful sub-categories, but SSP is an obsolete synonym to CMP, not a sub-category.    A better choice would be for the organization of the physics WP to follow a widely accepted standard like the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme.   Perhaps IUPAP has something similar. Alison Chaiken 18:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep in mind that the organization at APS reflects the current research and publication interests of its members, and not the categorization of subjects. Its even less applicable to subjects of pedagogical/educational interest, where there is no active research, or of historical interest, e.g. photoelectric effect, which, by history, should be considered to be a part of :Category:Atomic physics, but if viewed in modern light, is surely some branch of materials science.  That said, there are many articles in WP that are mis-categorized or poorly categorized, and clearly, the various Hall effect articles are examples thereof. These should be fixed on a case-by-case basis.  Also, it is quite alright to have one article bleong to many different categories.  Also, there is no requirement that categories be strictly heirarchical; a category itself can be a subcat of multiple categories.  linas 03:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Consider :Category:Aether theories as an extreme example. linas 03:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics has a similar problem, where the subject classification scheme presented by the American Mathematical Society has proven to  be a mediocre match for WP math articles, for essentially the same reasons (its focused on categorizing current research, not on categorizing reference material). linas 03:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another category problem 

message: In the article E%3Dmc², some dispute has arisen in its talk page about the issue of relativistic mass versus rest mass, and their relative prevalence and importance in physics.  I probably made some overly harsh criticisms of another user, and he asked if it wouldn't be a good idea to get a third party to settle the issue.  I agree with this, so I won't make any of the edits that I threatened to.  Could any interested parties take a look?  Thanks -lethe talk 00:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I left my comment at the bottom of that talk page, but some reinforcement/clarification is a good idea, if someone else can take a look too. Those guys are at each others' throats over nothing..! -- SCZenz 00:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a good call to agree on a standard usage of the word mass on wikipedia - to avoid confusion. Other mass related quantaties should not be called simply "mass". I think the same thing might apply for energy (in relation to "rest energy" vs "relativistic energy") Fresheneesz 03:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be called "mass" when it's clear from context, as it almost always is.  When it's not, it should be made clear.  My view of the E=mc2 dispute is on that article's talk page. -- SCZenz 05:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  relativistic mass versus rest mass 

message: Hi guys.  I've nominated myself for adminship.  I think the folks here know best if I'd be good; if you think I would be, vote here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SCZenz. -- SCZenz 21:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin nomination 

message: FYI, nominated  Pasen series and Katz series as hoax articles. linas 19:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD: [[Pasen series]] and [[Katz series]] 

message: I don't see a discussion here or in the archives about the desirable technical level of the physics articles.    Clearly writers should aim articles like gravity or string theory at a different technical level than articles about Hilbert space or Fermi's Golden Rule as the former topics are more likely to attract general readers than the latter.    I think articles on topics of general interest should at least start with a widely accessible paragraph.    So far I've been writing on topics that appear on the Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Mathematical_and_Natural_Sciences list and all of them have been fairly specialized, like exchange bias and spin wave.    I have assumed that these topics are of interest only to specialists and thus have written them for an audience of working physicists who are in another field.    Is this a mistake?    Should every article have a paragraph accessible to a high school student?    If not, which articles should have such an introduction?
-- Alison Chaiken 04:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some guidelines for popular articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Science.  Take a look at their proposed intro topics: addressing those on even the most obscure subject won't actually explain any of the physics, but is probably most of what someone in another field would find useful.  If following those intro guidelines works for the popular articles, I think it should definitely be broad enough for the more obscure ones.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 07:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical level of and audience for physics articles 

message: See Wikipedia:Requests for publication. Karol 09:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishing physics articles 

message: See also the principles of energetics. Karol 08:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. what ugliness. Seems that :Category:Emergy is filled with this stuff. Googling shows that there seems to be some legit academic interest in this stuff, but wow! writing articles with the same insane tone of voice that pseudoscience authors use is a great dis-service. linas 23:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You might also want to add Transformity to that list. These "things" are published and well cited, so they have a right to stay - which doesn't say anything about their value, though. Karol 06:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[principles of energetics]]

message: I've moved the participants list over to its own subpage, and used the same layout as on WikiProject mathematics, which includes areas to list a few interests and make some comments. All are invited to come re-introduce themselves at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Participants. Please -- add a few words about yourself; it gives everyone a quick way of seeing what you are interested in.  linas 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paritcipants list 

message: Can we have some physicists here look over the modern geocentrism article and check for physics errors? --ScienceApologist 08:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern geocentrism

message: Perhaps it's my own shallowness, but I tend to evaluate wikipedia articles as being more "complete" when they have an accompanying image or two.  Many concepts or entities in physics can be visually represented, and I believe that many physics articles would be much better with interesting/informative companion images.  I've been working at this for a few articles on my own recently, and want to invite any other WikiProject Physics members to help contribute/link to more helpful imagry in relevant physics articles.  I've found the US government laboratories to be a gold mine of public domain images about physics. (watch out for contractors, like JPL, however!)  Who's with me? - JustinWick 21:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am 100% with you, although I have limited time for WP rifht now. Karol 07:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What is a short list of needed images? PAR 08:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Most DOE labs have copyright policies that exclude such usage.  See Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE.  I think they can do this because they're usually run by somebody other than the government. -- SCZenz 08:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, most are run by contractors for the DOE, and have their own copyright arrangements. Kind of a sham in my opinion, but such is how it works. --Fastfission 03:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project - More Images! 

message: I've created a request for Wikipedia:Peer review for Wikipedia:Peer review/Wave-particle duality/archive1. History, physics, and style comments solicited. linas 14:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request peer review for [[Wave-particle duality]] 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology now lists:
*Piper (temperature) This looks like a page documenting a joke shared by a small group of people i.e. an 'in-joke'. 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for comment page now lists: [[Piper (temperature)]] 

message: I turn your attention to this article by Nature and Wikipedia's response. Karol 06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External peer review by ''Nature'' 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_15#Thermodynamic_evolution. Karol 06:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A section of [[thermodynamics]] on AfD 

message: Can anybody give an informed comment whether RW Ziolkowskis papers on Localized Wave Transmission have any connection with the pseudoscientific Scalar field theory? He is called as witness there, and I suppose unjustly. --Pjacobi 20:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RW Ziolkowski and Localized Wave Transmission 

message: This new article sounds like pseudoscience to me, but my last physics class was in high school. I put  on it, but perhaps someone from this group can come clean it up or AfD it or whatever is required. Thanks. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He is the archetypical crackpot. See point 25 in John Baez' Crackpot index. --Pjacobi 07:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was one of the clues that made me think this was nonsense. I didn't recall a massive marketing campaign by Schrödinger for his Wave Equation™. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lordy, Lordy, Lordy. ---CH 22:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: P.S. Tom Bearden (see Scalar field theory above) and Myron Evans are both lionized by many free-energy websites, of which there are quite a few.  Freelunchers appear to be quite active at WP, so these situations will continue arise. ---CH 23:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Myron Evans]]

message: I have nominated the redshift article for FA. Please leave comments on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Redshift page.
Thanks, --ScienceApologist 19:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redshift FA nomination

message: Help please!  We have a section in Faraday paradox that even the author can't explain.  Can someone who understands electrodynamics please have a look at the Faraday paradox#Configuration without a return path section and tell us whether it's true or not?  Thanks a lot. --Heron 18:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking about it PAR 01:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Faraday paradox - problem

message: A post at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) brought the article Flutoride to my attention, which starts "Flutoride is a placeholder particle constructed primarily as a vehicle for representing in concrete fashion the notion of particulate timeliness." This sounds even stranger than the usual string theory / cosmology to me, but I thought the same about modified Newtonian dynamics which is apparently not totally nonsense. Does anyone know about this or should it go to AfD? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy delete request added. It looks like nonsense to me.--Srleffler 23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's see what happens. It doesn't look like Wikipedia:Patent nonsense to me, but I won't mind seeing it deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, it worked. Good, saves one trip to AfD. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flutoride 

message: A notice: two new physics-related stub types,  and , have been created. Conscious 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub types 

message: This article seems to be largely based upon a (possibly cranky) paper in a Springer journal which I cannot convenientyl access.  I have seen the abstract, but this didn't tell me enough to make even a tentative guess about whether or not the paper is cranky.  However, on the basis of general background knowledge and reading the abstract, I guess that User:Intangir may be misunderstanding negative mass part of the Kerr metric.  The paper is by Gabriel Chardin and appears in a Springer journal called Hyperfine Interactions, which is described by Springer as devoted to "border areas", which may or may not be suggestive.  Can anyone contribute any useful information?  ---CH 13:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell you that the article has been cited only 4 times in peer-reviewed journals since 1997. If you want to read it, I can send you a PDF copy. In my opinion, it's really still OR and doesn't belong here. Karol 14:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I haven't enabled the email option because I have a low maintanance low level mailfilter (post the usual spamassassin) which dumps everything not originating from a small whitelist.  Jitse Niesen has been very kind in forwarding email addies to me so I can put them in my whitelist, but I don't know how long he'll be willing to do that.  If you know EMS, he can also forward your email addie to me.  (Why do I use this whitelist?  That's a long and ultimately unedifying story!)  I wouldn't mind being put in email contact with WikiProject Physics members, but if this roundabout procedure seems like too much trouble in connection with this particular matter, it probably is!  It seems to me that the burden is upon User:Intangir to either provide reliable verification that the article in question is not cranky, or else to delete the article.---CH 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine mess you got there ;) I'll make it easier - download from here during the next 24h. Karol 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: After looking through it, I also think the article's fine, but don't you think the whole topic is still really OR? That's how I see it, but then again I'm not a gravitationologist. Karol 15:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article is definitely not based on the (potentially cranky) Hyperfine Interactions reference. More like the last two sentences! Most of the article is based around Nieto and Goldman's very highly cited 1991 paper, "The arguments against 'Antigravity'...". I cited the Hyperfine Interactions just to have a discussion involving GR in the article, its not even necessary. I don't think this qualifies as Original Research, as I have merely compiled a couple (mostly) peer-reviewed results together. Also, I would be happy to email any articles to anyone without electronic access. -- Intangir 17:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Karol, and a couple of quick comments addressed to Intangir: First, I definitely think you should avoid non peer reviewed papers unless you are sure you know what you are talking about, which you agree you do not entirely.  Second, having glanced at the paper in question, I think you did misinterpret "negative mass region".  I suspect this refers to part of the "deep interior" of the usual maximally extended Kerr vacuum (see any good textbook with a Penrose diagram and look near one of the timelike singularities).  It would be tedious to explain why this region is sometimes held to be associated with "negative mass".  Unfortunately, Chardin fails to clarify (at least to me) whether he also has in mind some quite different notions often called "repulsive gravity".  This is a whole nother can o worms and has to do with an alleged "reversal of direction of centrifugal force".  In my view, people who talk this way are misinterpeting their mathematics.  It would be even more tedious to try to explain why mass parameters are so tricky in gtr and why various exact solutions are so often so drastically misinterpreted, even by physicists who really ought to know better.  Anyway, I think we all agree that this is a controversial topic but too complicated for a non expert to write the article, so I am flagging it and making a few short term suggestions for you in the talk page. ---CH 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gravitational interaction of antimatter]]

message: There is currently a vote going on at Talk:Critical mass (nuclear) regarding whether the main article, critical mass, should be a disambiguation page or about the physical concept of critical mass. Interested parties might want to join in the discussion there. --Yath 19:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article of [[critical mass]] 

message: I'd just like to wish all the other Christmas-going wikiphysicists warm and peaceful holidays, and a successful New Year! Karol 16:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And a merry Winter solstice or Neopagan sabbat for the pagan and neopagan wikilinkers! linas 02:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas wishes 

message: I'm disputing recent edits to the virtual particle and casimir effect articles. I'm not an expert, so I would appreciate it if interested experts would contribute to the discussion. As enticement, I have included a quote of Feynman's musings on the uncertainty principle there. On a lighter note, for my alliterative amusement, I have endeavored for my position to be supported solely by citing several scholarly Stephen sources. Also, I've decided to join this project. =) -- Intangir 08:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm putting this up on PNA/Physics, and rolling back changes until they can be vetted, for reasons discussed more fully on the talk page. --Christopher Thomas 19:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote most of the article. linas 06:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casimir Effect Dispute 

message: Thomas Edison has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote if you would like it to be improved.--Fenice 08:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: I'd appreciate comments on moving this page to something like Mass in special relativity; please go to the bottom of Talk:Relativistic mass, thanks. - mako 08:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving [[Relativistic mass]]

message: IP, 69.22.98.162 (contributions) has been making edits to Albert Einstein, Henri Poincaré and David Hilbert, essentially questioning the originality of Einstein's theory of special relativity, giving as a source this:  (see Talk:Albert_Einstein#His Theory and Talk:Albert_Einstein#Nobel prise edit), all of which I think have been reverted (by me and others).  I don't really know much about the history of the development of relativity, (beyond what little I've read on Wikipedia), if anyone can shed any useful light on this, your help would be welcome.  Paul August ☎ 01:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Einstein's work certainly built on work by Poincare and others. Doubt about the originality of his theory should not be rejected out of hand. On the other hand, controversial edits by an anonymous user citing a questionable website promoting a particular book are justifiably viewed with some skepticism, and could perhaps be reverted without further consideration until a better source is found.--Srleffler 19:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon's editing of Einstein 

message: Can somone please have a look at the cold fusion article? It is currently being edited by a number of cold fusion true believers who are starting to push it into the realm of the surreal. I would try to fix it up, but I don't have the expertise and don't fancy arguing with a cabal of highly motivated, POV-pushing editors. It is also – justly, in my opinion – up on featured article removal candidates, here. Thanks. –Joke 02:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've voted that the article should be removed until it's better cited and fixed up.  I urge everyone here to check out Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Cold_fusion and take a look.  The number of pseudoscientific POV pushers on that page is disconcerting to say the least. -- SCZenz 05:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I cross-posted this as an RfC.  I disagree with your view of who is doing the POV pushing, but it doesn't matter, the article is not a very good statement of either side in the controversy.  This definitely needs more eyes on it.  ObsidianOrder 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an RfC?  What's the link? -- SCZenz 02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link is here .  The discussion is here Talk:Cold fusion#RfC. ObsidianOrder 02:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cold fusion]] 

message: Among other things, I have proposed a new category scheme for controversial topics which somehow pertain to physics over at Category talk:Pseudophysics. We at least need some better way to organize them beyond that frightful list of controversial theories. --Intangir 07:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Proposal 

message: Asteroid deflection strategies has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want it to be improved.--Fenice 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: You may like to view Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop#Troika. I don't know if this is going to fly - it may depend on peoples views - but its interesting. William M. Connolley 22:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially interesting proposal at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop#Troika]] 

message: I tried adding :Category: Condensed matter physics to some of the pages that contain image files I uploaded.   I saw that a side-effect of doing this was to actually put thumbnails of the images at :Category: Condensed matter physics.    Since no one else in WP:physics has put thumbnails on a category page (at least as far as I have noticed), I assume that this is undesirable.    Is there a place that we are gathering links to physics images that I haven't stumbled upon?   If not, should be we be categorizing physics images?  Alison Chaiken 22:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's :Category:Physics images, although image categories are very underused.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, assigning images to Wikipedia categories is considered undesirable. The better way to do it is to put the images on the Wikimedia Commons. I'm not very familiar with how the Commons works, but I do know that it has its own categories, into which images can be grouped. The Commons already has a category for condensed matter physics, Commons:Category:Condensed matter physics. You'll have to read the help pages for information on how to put images there, and categorize them. Images there can be easily linked from Wikipedia articles. --Srleffler 04:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I first started working on WP, I uploaded my images to it directly.    Lately I've been uploading them to the Commons and putting them in Commons:Category:Condensed matter physics as you suggest.    That's what got me to wondering if images loaded to WP directly should somehow be categorized.    According to Commons FAQ, it's okay to upload images already loaded on WP to the Commons, so that's the path of least resistance, I guess.   I do think that having a central repository of freely usable physics images will be useful, particularly for lecturers preparing course notes. Certainly one repository is better than two. Alison Chaiken 18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and categories 

message: I see that someone made a participants table, which is a good idea.   Poking around at :Category:Participants_in_WikiProjects, I see that the suggested way of noting that you participate in a particular project is to put a standard notice on your user page.    I did this but then I saw that so far :Category:Participants_in_WikiProject_Physics lists only me.   Perhaps someone who knows what they're doing can make :Category:Participants_in_WikiProject_Physics a redirect to the existing participants table.
By the way, I've been studying the help files to figure out how to make the participants table link an internal wikilink.   I can't figure out how to do it to save my life.   Someone make this change if you know how so I can see how to do it! Alison Chaiken 21:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're looking for participants table, which looks like this: participants table.  The key is using piping.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have set the redirect I proposed above: :Category:Participants_in_WikiProject_Physics now redirects to participants table.  Alison Chaiken 05:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Physics participants

message: A newbie, Itzchinoboi, rewrote Simple harmonic motion. The new article is more elementary, which is good. To me both the original version looks good, and the rewritten version looks good, although the latter is full of newbie mistakes. See the diff. Anybody knowledgeble willing to spend some time understanding the changes and see how to deal with all this matter? Note that a plain revert is not an option, it seems that the user spent half a day on that article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look. Cheers! deeptrivia (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I tried to merge stuff from both versions. Take a look if it looks okay. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with [[Simple harmonic motion]] 

message: This is a non-standard treatment of Maxwell's equations, sounds like a geometric algebra treatment, but not sure. Anyone care to either cleanup or initiate an AfD? linas 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any evidence it's not original research? -- SCZenz 00:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you worried about in this article? I haven't read it in detail, but it doesn't look too bad to me... O. Prytz 07:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've certainly never heard the term "homeostasis" used with respect to E&M.    I'm not sure on skimming the article whether there is a language problem or a real science problem.     Also I suspect that the author couldn't figure out how to make \nabla.  Certainly the content is not what I would expect to find at Laws of electromagnetism. Alison Chaiken 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ooooops! Sorry. I clicked on the Maxwell's equations link in Linas' post, and not on the Laws of electromagnetism link in the title! :) Now I see what you mean O. Prytz 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Laws of electromagnetism]] 

message: would you like to create certified articles in physics? -- Zondor 03:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a great idea. I would be happy to help out, at least in my areas of expertise. –Joke 03:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm interested in helping, though I'd want experts to sanity-check my edit suggestions before addition (I'm a Comp Eng who's been doing physics as a hobby for many years, as opposed to a trained physicist). I know my limits, so I feel that the edits that I do contribute will be useful. --Christopher Thomas 04:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  very well! please create a sign up section and add your signature at Wikipedia:Stable versions. -- Zondor 05:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the article, or the talk page? If it's the article, I'd prefer that you be the one to add it, to remove any possible misinterpretation of my edit (that, and you'll have your own preference on where it looks prettiest in the text). --Christopher Thomas 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  misinterpretation? anyway, i have created the signup section. please sign at Wikipedia:Stable versions#Certification Project Signup. -- Zondor 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So we physicists are supposed to sign up at the main project page for stable versions?  Isn't anybody else signing up?    Alison Chaiken 05:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm generally supportive, I haven't signed up because the details haven't yet been fully fleshed out, etc. If you are interested, you should review the proposal and bring up any questions on its talk page. linas 17:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Stable versions#Certification gang]] 

message: Physical oceanography is a current candidate on the Science collaboration. Vote for it if you want to see this article improved. --Fenice 07:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week]]

message: Does anybody have full names and bio-data for H. Epstein and V. Glaser? --Pjacobi 16:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it is Vladimir Glaser, and Henri Epstein, but finding biographical details for them is hard. I found some here  for Glaser. Epstein was at the IHES when he retired, so you might be able to find info there on him. Salsb 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Added to the (somewhat strange) German article :de:FQFT. Will do a Glaser bio-stub soon. --Pjacobi 13:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  H. Epstein and V. Glaser,