Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 14

message: Magnetic field has been nominated for WP:AID. You can see its nomination  here. -- Iotha 01:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Magnetic Field]] for [[WP:AID]] 

message: Can someone have look at this article Speed of gravity? Its been tagged as needing expert attention which I can not give. Phatom87 03:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can't provide the expert attention needed, it does seem to need some basic writing clean up, which I'll take a look at. --Falcorian (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Speed of gravity]] Evaluation 

message: To update people: for two weeks or so, a lengthy discussion was held here on an off-topic, inappropriately-written section by C. Trifle in Planck's law.  Following what appeared to be consensus, I have removed the section on The use of Stirling's formula in the theory of black body radiation and placed it on the article's talk page.  Dr. Submillimeter 07:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to voice support for your edit. I agree that the section was quite off-topic. -Joshua Davis 09:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (2+0)(2+0)/22  00 suggests that the system is either not isolated or, if isolated, has not reached the maximum yet.  If this is off-topic, then I abstain. Study the definition  of integer and admire the view of the left classic column displaced to the left almost twice as far as expected. --C. Trifle 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion to [[Planck's law]] discussion 

message: Phenomenology (science) does not seem to be the same thing as Particle physics phenomenology.  Particle physics phenomenology is currently a stub in reasonably good shape, but Phenomenology (science) is kind of a mish-mash and needs to be pared down and then built up again perhaps from a philosophy of science point of view.  Please comment on the  merger talk page.  Thanks!  HEL 15:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the consensus is that the two separate articles should remain.  I'm therefore going to remove the merger tags.  Thanks!  HEL 16:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of [[Phenomenology (science)]] into [[Particle physics phenomenology]] 

message: AFD List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Iblis (talk • contribs) 
:The AfD closed with a speedy keep; however, now there are some folks on the talk page that are trying to circumvent this decision by gutting the article, and replacing with a thin "proposed draft". I sense they will try to make a move soon. linas 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD [[List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts]] 

message: Hi, please comment here.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 09:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rfc on image

message: This article is now almost entirely about a controversy about a single experiment, which is presented in great detail, with extensive citations of the literature, yet falls somewhat short of NPOV. At the same time, the article contains no mathematical treatment of frame-dragging whatsoever. This is the result of a seemingly endless dispute between anonymous IP editors who edit the article to and fro, centering solely on this dispute. 
Among other things, the references are now almost completely devoted to papers that concern the disputed results, with papers like Einstein's early papers on frame-dragging pushed down the list. Any attempts to summarize the dispute, or to give prominence to frame-dragging as a topic over this specific dispute about a single experimental result, are repeatedly deleted by the edit-warring IP editors.
This is not good. It needs fixing. Unfortunately, my knowledge of general relativity is not up to the job, and my earlier attempts at NPOV summarization of this dispute have failed to satisfy either of the combatants, so all I can do it to bring it to the attention of readers here and request their help. -- The Anome 09:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Frame-dragging]] again: a request for help 

message: I think this article could benefit from the attention of some scientists. It seems that those who believe in the paranormal are saying some somewhat absurd things, such as, science has not studied EVP, therefore it cannot be disproved. They also seem to oppose using words like "claimed" to refer to EVP.-MsHyde 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the article now includes blatantly apologist statements such as "EVP has not been studied by physical scientists, and therefore, research substantiating or disproving the existence of EVP has not been published in physical science peer reviewed literature." Also note that one of the editors making these types of contributions is Tom Butler, director of the AA-EVP, whose association stands to gain from credible views of EVP-- which in itself is a WP:Conflict of interest. --- LuckyLouie 04:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please come to the article talkpage, perhaps?-MsHyde 05:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look in the archives, I have been active there for months, and in the thick of controversy. The article has been a battleground, and the site of several edit wars. It seldom remains stable. Both pro-skeptic and pro-paranormal changes are made frequently. The result is an ongoing mess. Having been worn down by EVP proponents,I  am taking a break from that article for a while. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism --- LuckyLouie 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Electronic Voice Phenomenon]]

message: See . Recently slashdotted, we were lucky that no Wikipedia articles were linked. Summing it up, it combines the theories of Big Crunch and Big Rip, where our Universe will shatter into billions of shards, then collapse into themselves, eventually forming many new universes. I'm bringing this up since I have a hunch that this theory will develop a bit more and we should all be aware of it in case any new information pops up, and becomes notable enough to be put in Wikipedia (maybe it already is?). This theory solves the problem of Entropy (arrow of time). - Zero1328 Talk? 11:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever I hear of the Big Rip, I wonder if I am the one who is being ripped off. What evidence is there that the pressure could ever be more negative than the density is positive? What bizarre equation of state would give that? In this Rip-Crunch-Bounce scenario, what makes it change from Rip to Crunch or from Crunch to Bounce? JRSpriggs 11:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Universe theory (Big Bang/Rip/Crunch etc) 

message: I've just finished writing this article and would appreciate someone taking a look at it.  Also, if anyone here knows about the measurement of the fine structure constant from the quantum Hall effect or the AC Josephson effect, it would be nice if you could take a look at the last section; I am not an expert in that area.  Thanks!  HEL 17:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Precision tests of QED]] 

message: I found this article on Dead-End Pages; it's also Orphaned.  It looks like a real subject that you folks can help with, so please take a look. YechielMan 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vacuum oven]]

message: Please take a look at this article Count Iblis 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow!  An article about pattern recognition run awry.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD [[The science is settled]] 

message: It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.
Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.
If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its more important to work on "stable versions", so that users can have some assurance that they are not looking at vandalized content. Once "stable version" infrastructure is in place, then we can talk about editorial roles. I envision something akin to scientific journal editorial boards: an editorial board, after conducting a review (and making needed corrections), places its "seal of approval" on a given "stable version". linas 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Scientific peer review]]

message: Currently the logo used for this project is a visualization of the Rutherford model. Pictures like this have ruined the life of many students by making them believe that atoms are really like our solar system, with little spheres going round and round. Because of the simple beauty and intuitive feel of this picture, students just refuse to accept the quantum model of the atom. Even when presented with the mountain of evidence against Bohr's model and the necessity to adopt a quantum mechanical perspective, they continue to ask questions like "But where IS the electron?"
As a result, concepts of physics and chemistry become increasingly alien to them  In understanding fundamentally non-classical concepts they keep trying to reconcile with it the classical picture, an effort that has its origins in the Bohr atom which was "quantum on Sundays and classical rest of the week". I think such a misleading  picture has no place in the Physics WikiProject, definitely not as our logo. I appeal for its substitution with something more scientific. Loom91 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I you are referring to :Image:Stylised Lithium Atom.png, its nucleus is much too large relative to the atom. I strongly suspect that your students would be asking "But where IS the electron?" in any case. It is not just this picture, but the whole conventional way of thinking about matter which leads them to ask that. JRSpriggs 08:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you / does anyone have any suggestions for a replacement? Mike Peel 09:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about a probability density map/constant cumulative probability plot of the dz2 orbital? Loom91 07:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I like the cartoon-atom logo, because it is near-universally recognizable.  Quantum orbitals are less so.  But if we are thinking about changing, how about something non-atomic, like the electric field lines between + and - point charges?  HEL 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A picture of Mickey Mouse would be even more recognisable. The point is that this picture is physically incorrect according to our current knowledge. I would be in favour of some image from QM because of its profound impact on our understanding of the world. Loom91 08:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important that the picture be recognizable. This is meant to represent physics not show everything about it. If we could find some picture that is nearly as universally recognizable and that is closer to being acturate, that would be fine. However, it is rather hard to display even a small part of physics in a picture. For example the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is possibly the most important thing to understand but that can not be expressed in a easily recognizable picture. I would suggest keeping the current picture but if anyone has a clear picture of some aspect of physics (preferrably dealing with modern physics) than that could certainly be an acceptable alternative. —David618 t 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a picture of a Van de Graaff generator. It is interesting; and most people have seen one; and is recognizably about physics. JRSpriggs 07:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would strongly advocate for any proposed change in the WikiProject Physics logo to be put up for a vote by the community. HEL 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree. --Falcorian (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A Feynman diagram would be cool.  I just worry that it would confuse non-physicists.  Dr. Submillimeter 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Confuse them how? Are you saying that they don't have a pop-culture pedigree that makes them "instantly recognizable"? linas 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, something like that.  Maybe we could try using the cheesy E=mc^2 (although E^2=p^2c^2+m_0^2c^4 is more enlightening).  I still like the Feynman idea better, but if people want something recognizable to everyone, then Einstein's energy equation would be better. Dr. Submillimeter 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support E=mc^2. I think "the public" associates it with physics, whereas a Feynman diagram is a little esoteric (although it would probably look better...)--Falcorian (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd support a Feynman diagram.  E=mc^2 would be a distant second since, although recognizably physics, it's not visually interesting.  So far as I know, the picture is always somewhere near the words "physics", so the picture really doesn't need to be immediately recognizable by a layperson as respresenting physics.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Showing physics in action (i.e. experimental physics) is important to show that it is real and not just a branch of mathematics or a game played by self-important people. That is why I think that a picture of Einstein (or some other well-known physicist) with his hair standing on end as he holds his hand on a Van de Graaff generator would be ideal. JRSpriggs 10:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Feynman once said that if all scientific knowledge were to be lost, the one idea that he would pass on to future generations to start them down the right track again would be "everything is made of atoms."  Even a highly stylized representation of an atom contains some pretty important ideas.  HEL 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once you get down to it, I actually have no problem with the atom... --Falcorian (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Horsehead nebula is more astronomy and astrophysics than cosmology (it's within our galaxy). Also, it would fit Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy or Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical Objects much better than it would physics. Mike Peel 08:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that that throwing out an intuitive picture because the truth is more subtle, would not allow us any pictures. In this particular case let me give two arguments why the pictograph that currently represents the physics project is by no means a disgrace. First off, the electrons *are* actually outside the nucleus for the enormous majority of the time (remember that even though the radial wave function is nonzero at the origin, the probability of finding the electron at a distance d away from the origin goes to 0 for d->0). Second, the Schroedinger model for the atom, with all its fine and hyperfine structure does a spectacular job at calculating  spectra and cross sections and all based on the assumption that the electron is a point particle *outside* the charge distribution of the nucleus. So the picture of an electron being a point and outside the nucleus is not so strange. the strange part is that we do not know *where* that point is, but that hardly makes the pictograph "dangerously wrong". By the way, I do still like the ripple idea.--V. 18:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Galileo's principle of inertia is more subtle than the 'intuitive' Aristotelian view of motion. Does that mean it would be ok to have a picture that reflects the latter? Intuition is often wrong, and it is the job of physics to replace vaugue things like intuition with more concrete calculations. Loom91 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What is that supposed to be?  Dr. Submillimeter 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a pictorial representation of the truism that when you shoot a granny smith apple with an arrow, it emits sound waves. ;-) HEL 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope you forgive me for tweaking your comment, but the picture was too big to fit on my screen.  Anville 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics project picture 

message: I have a list of missing topics related to physics. I've tried to find if there is any similar articles but I'd appreciate is somebody more proficient could have a look at the list. Thank you - Skysmith 11:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Some were typos, some were simple redirects, some remain red links. linas 02:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly missing topics 

message: Cosmic ray is currently assesed as mid importance, but I would have thought that "Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia" would be true for this topic.  I mean, how many particles were first identified in cosmic rays?  Muons, pions, all sorts of strange particles?  Probably more than half of all current particle physics experiments deal with cosmic rays, and they're a background to all dark matter searches.  I didn't change it (yet) because I am about a biased observer for this topic as is possible.  Please let me know if you feel the same way. Flying fish 03:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cosmic ray should definitely be in a print encyclopedia (it is, actually, in most). HEL 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmic ray assessment 

message: I have recently done some work on stirling engine trying to add some information on the stirling cycle itself. Unfortunately im a biochemist and my memory of thermodynamic cycles is failing me... Can anyone help? - Zephyris Talk 11:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stirling engine

message: ATLAS experiment 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. Atomic1609 13:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATLAS experiment featured article review