Talk:Physics/wip

message: To ensure that development progresses in an orderly manner there are a few key points that must be kept in mind:
* Consensus is the key rule by which this process lives on.  Only through this method will we arrive at a result which is going to stand up to the test and scrutiny of time.  Give and take is required by all.
* Editing on any section is permitted, and any possible conflicts about a particular section should be discussion on this talk page and be remedied via the normal wikipedia practice. 
* Above and beyond civility, a friendly and co-operative environment is encouraged.  Ultimately we are all here voluntarily, and all just to try and construct a HQ encyclopedia - if folks start getting worked up then we just need to chillout.  A negative environment is neither as constructive nor all that nice a place to work as a positive and friendly one.  The use of smilies is encouraged. !
Thanks, SFC9394, 23 August 2006 (Minor revisions by Krea 17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The key points

message: *Define quantized in the "Classical, quantum and modern physics" section. By the way, I would move this section up before the history section - it will help someone understand the history section. Awadewit 12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Joke137, a physicist, and others have already proposed that History be moved to the location you see now. The outline was agreed upon after extensive discussion. See archives. --Ancheta Wis 07:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Branches of Physics

message: *I really like this section, but I would try to make it sound even more exciting. Make someone want to be a physicist! What are the burning questions physicists want to answer? "What is dark matter? Why does it make up the majority of the universe?" etc. Awadewit 12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Research

message: *It would seem like you could work the "Applied fields" boxes into the prose somehow - must you list them all? Awadewit 12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ancheta Wis 10:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Applications and Influence

message: *I would suggest renaming the "Mainstream physics" links merely "Physics" - don't descend to the adjective - claim the field; "mainstream physics" suggets that there is an "alternative physics" - don't suggest that Awadewit 12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also & External Links

message: thumb|right|Feynman's diagram
Feynman was one of my teachers (perhaps I might upload a picture of the Feynman diagram he inscribed in his Quantum Mechanics volume for me -- if you can't read the symbols, they are \gamma_\mu to  \gamma_\mu  and 1/q^2). I would like to include pictures of the equations of physics in the wip page, as iconic representations of the principles of physics. --Ancheta Wis 05:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea, especially in the "Current Research" section. However, careful not to include too many equations, they might put some readers off. I'm sure you, and certainly, I would love to see equations splatted all over the place, but some readers would disagree that an equation is more beautiful to look at than a picture - especially all the time! Also, could you try to make the image a little clearer somehow? Krea 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Krea, I reloaded an equalized picture. --Ancheta Wis 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good enough, I think, unless somebody takes a better quality one. Krea 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. I'll try to include some when I eventually get to taking a look at the other sections (I am "concentrating" on the introduction section for now). Krea 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. We should try to sneak a picture of one of the most important people in the history of physics somewhere in the article. The Galileo Project has a few nice portraits that are, I think, freely available because they would either be out of copyright or come under fair use. Krea 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait, there already is a nice portrait in the article! It might not survive, however, since the history section needs drastic modification. In this case, I hope we could use it elsewhere in the article in an appropriate place. Krea 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous

message: Ive removed aether from the fringe theories list as its not really a fringe theory as an expired theory.  Its was superseeded by special relativity. If anyone disagrees let me know! CaptinJohn 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "fringe" is ambiguous: it could be interpreted as a theory lacking observational verification but expected to be confirmed, or a crack-pot theory. I'd remove "fringe" altogether. The former theories should be placed in the "Current Research" section; and for the latter, perhaps a paragraph and then links to other articles. Krea 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe 

message: Pascal.Tesson on the Physics talk page brings up the valid point that anything that we do should really be placed in talk or user pages. So, how about moving the Physics/wip article to Talk:Physics/wip/article, and Physics/wip/leadproposal1 to Talk:Physics/wip/leadproposal1/lead1 etc.? Krea 03:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a Wikiproject space? We have to keep it out of Talk at alll costs. That is why there was so much talk in the first place. --Ancheta Wis 10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there is a wikiproject space, but we'll just place the article in a talk page - we won't actually do any talking! Krea 00:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: These pages *must* be moved in order to comply with policy.  See Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses.  Gnixon 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Krea, for saving the history.  I was lazy about how I moved it.  You may want to do the same for the leadproposal pages.  Gnixon 00:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for altering the Welcome box without logging in. I didn't realize my session had expired when I made the change. --Ancheta Wis 10:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin 

message: What happened to the table of field in physics, which originally was in the "Theories and concepts" subsection? I think it was veru useful, even though few corrections should have been made. Dan Gluck 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was axed a while back. Obviously, we need some sort classification of the major field of physics somewhere: this should be placed in the Current Research section; and, instead of a table, I would prefer to see something with a few lines explaining the basics of the subject. E.g., have sections called Thermo, EM & Optics, Mechanics, etc. with a few lines explaining each and a link to the specific article if it exists. Then, each section would be further divided as appropriate; e.g. split Mechanics into Classical and Quantum, and then Classical into Newtonian and Relativistic, and Quantum into QM pre-second quantization, and QFT etc. Each of these subsections will have a line or two explain what it essentially is and a link to the main article. This would be a more responsible way of organizing the information rather than merely dumping it into a table. I don't have the time to do this right now, but I will come to it soon enough; perhaps you would like to make a start on it? Krea 03:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Joke137 suggested this change. You can now see those tables at List of basic physics topics#Nature of physics and List of basic physics topics#Branches of physics. It may be helpful to point out just what you like about the tables. Joke137 stated that the 1st two columns were OK but the right-most columns were not useful; he is not alone. Perhaps we might add specific sentences which include the good links; your contributions are invited. --23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of field in physics

message: As a physicist at university thirty years ago I know that the the term "Modern Physics" used to be reserved for physics that started with "Quantum Physics". "The theory of relativity" and "Nuclear Physics" both belonged to "Classical Physics". I am aware that this does seem to be the way the term is used by most people outside university, but is there anyone that has a reference to this distinction changing inside the university sphere?
I did a spurious google, and all the university references I found confirm the older usage. If the distinction still holds within the universities, should we not try to uphold that distinction here? 
I apologize for copying this question to several talk pages, but I am unsure where it fits.
DanielDemaret 09:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The break started with Einstein, who can be viewed as a transitional figure between Classical and Modern physics, from our point of view and our century. When Einstein learned physics, it was still classical physics, with the atomic hypothesis and molecules still very much in doubt. Einstein's paper on Brownian motion made molecular activity a respectable concept. By the twentieth century, we saw the triumph of  the atomic theory. Particles were no longer in doubt, as the experiments entered realms of higher and higher energy. Modern physics was Inward BoundAbraham Pais, Inward Bound. Quantum mechanics, of course is the theory for Modern physics. I think it is clear that "Outside the nucleus, we seem to know it all" --FeynmanFeynman, Lectures on Physics My personal opinion is that we ought not to distinguish Classical and Modern physics. Quantum mechanics reduces to Classical mechanics when we average it out to macroscopic scalesee Ehrenfest theorem --Ancheta Wis 11:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the suggestions. I am familiar with these. The division does seem arbitrary, doesn't it?. I imagined that the division we made at the time was due to the obvious paradoxes between them. It was a long time now since I worked in the field. DanielDemaret 13:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern physics 

message: Should not the "history" section be merged more with the article named "The history of Physics" to make this article easier to overview? DanielDemaret 14:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: The "Lead section" should be easy to read and give an overview of the rest of the article. To a degree, it does give that, but much of the Lead discusses other things which perhaps makes it a tad heavy. I am too lazy to be a good writer, but since, as far as I can tell, the physics in the article is correct, I descend into reflecting on matters of style instead. DanielDemaret 14:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree it's too heavy. I will try to rewrite it at some point. Thanks for the input, and sorry for the late response. Krea 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: What is the time line for merging this back in to the main article?Carl 00:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ideally, when some of the major sections have been rewritten (such as the introduction section). Right now, however, I gather that a lot of people, myself included, are too busy to be able to be doing any work on it right now.  This project was essentially a response to the deteriorating quality of the main physics article, but if that main article has stabilized, and support for this project degenerates to just myself and Ancheta, I would propose its merger with the main article sooner. It all depends on what happens during the summer. I will check back in a few months time to see where this project is going, and ask people's opinions on where to go next. Krea 19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Line

message: I bowed out of this process for a couple of months since it seemed to be not going anyplace fast, however, I do notice that we do have a lot more activity now on the main article.--Filll 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what to do. I am tempted to just grab the bull by the horns and rewrite, and to heck with the "consensus" with people who do not seem to be here or seem disinterested. The last time, a few months ago, I made some careful suggestions, and based on some "consensus" of people who were not around to even discuss what they had suggested, I was totally over ruled. Hmmm...--Filll 12:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Process

message: Why are all the equations in this article so ugly? Why do we need to upload equations as (highly pixelated) images? Don't we have  tags for equations inside articles? Or am I missing something here. Barak Sh (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equations