Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive October 2007

message: Hi
At the solar power page, rated as B-class for this project, we are talking about whether the page should be renamed solar energy. There are various views and more input would be appreciated. Clarifying for readers the distinction in physics theory between power and energy is one issue at stake. Another is which term best reflects everyday language usage of the concepts discussed in the article. Itsmejudith 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename of [[solar power]] to [[solar energy]]? 

message: Deo here,
i was learning about emission spectums in school so i went on wikipedia and looked up the stuff i was learning in class, which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectroscopy, and i realized the pages are missing pictures so i thought it would make it cooler if a picture could be added. I'm not sure where to put the picture so ill leave it up to you people:
Neon
--Deo Favente 23:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spectroscopy Pictures 

message: Both Physical phenomena and phenomena cover the same concept. Additionally, Observable universe and Hubble volume cover the same concept. I put tags on the later about a month ago, and am wondering what a follow up would be? Thanks Beast of traal T C _ 13:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that "physical phenomenon" and "phenomenon" are coextensive -- that claim seems to take as granted that there are no non-physical phenomena. Certainly it would be possible to have a single phenomenon article that treats physical phenomena as a special case, but whether that's advisable or not is another question; the current "phenomenon" article seems to be mostly about the philosophical concept, and it's not clear that the content of the current physical phenomenon article fits comfortably there. --Trovatore 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you that there are no non-physical phenomena. Beast of traal T C _ 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I can't agree that your assurance settles the question for Wikipedia purposes (or for any other purposes for that matter, but that's not relevant to the current discussion). Wikipedia does not take a stand on whether physicalism is correct. See WP:NPOV. --Trovatore 00:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All phenomena are physical. They are. This has nothing to do with point of view. Beast of traal T C _ 01:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim boils down to "I'm right, and therefore consequences of the things that I believe are not POV, because they're correct". That's not going to cut it. --Trovatore 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. If something is observable, it must be physical. Concepts are not observable, and therefore not phenomena.Beast of traal T C _ 01:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are arguing from a particular point of view that is by no means universal among reputable philosophers. Whether you are correct or not is beside the point, so please quit arguing that point; this is not the correct forum for it. Your assertion that it is not a point of view is completely unsupportable, blatantly false on its face. --Trovatore 01:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a point of view. Phenomenon has a clear definition. The philosophical use has another. A separate page should be created for the use of the word in philosophy. By the way, I used the phrase "I can assure you" only as a figure of speech and did not mean to imply the conclusions you drew from it. Beast of traal T C _ 03:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm? The philosophical usage of "phenomenon" is the principal one. But anyway it doesn't seem to be different from the one you're using -- you say a phenomenon is something you observe (that is, perceive), which is essentially the same as the one from phenomenology, as I understand it. But you can't pretend it's definitional to say that what can be observed is necessarily physical. What if, for example, God speaks to me, and I hear? Surely that is a phenomenon, since I perceive (or even observe it), and this does not imply that God is physical. You may think that God does not exist and that therefore this cannot happen, but even if you're right about that, it is not by definition, nor is it non-controversial. --Trovatore 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. A) The philosophical usage of "phenomenon" is not the principal one (new oxford american dictionary). B) I am using the first definition. C) If god is speaking to you, you are hearing the physical sound waves.Beast of traal T C _ 11:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly how do you know that, if God is speaking to you, you are hearing the physical sound waves? It's a supernatural event; you can't put any constraints on it at all, except possibly the ones that follow from pure logic. Perhaps you perceive the message directly in your soul, with no intermediary physical process whatsoever. --Trovatore 17:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beacause you cannot hear things other than atmospheric vibrations. As to the bit about receiving messages "in your soul", I have no idea what you mean to say- unless you mean to reference schizophrenia. In this case there are known phenomena (see link) that cause the auditory hallucinations. This is not the place to promote your personal views about god/gods and their communication with people. I personally am not interested in the subject and would prefer not to discuss it. If no one has any rational objections to it, I will proceed to merge Physical phenomena and phenomena. If you want, Trovatore, I'll create a stub article on the philosophical use of phenomenon at phenomenon (philosophy) Beast of traal T C _ 22:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also not the place to promote your personal beliefs about the non-existence of gods and their communication with people, which was my point all along. No, I do not agree with the merge as proposed. I will revert if you attempt it, and then we can argue about it on the talk page.  --Trovatore 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However -- as I say, a merge of physical phenomenon into phenomenon would possibly be defensible, treating physical phenomena in one section of the article. The merged article could allude to the physicalist view that physical phenomena are the only ones there are, but must not take a position on whether that view is correct. I am not certain whether that is the best course of action, but I wouldn't fight it if written in an NPOV way. --Trovatore 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: Please see Gabriel Oyibo. --Pjacobi 11:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bogdanov Affair]] v2.0? 

message: FYI, I am proposing the merge of a number of related pages into Frictional pressure drop Bluap 17:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed [[Frictional pressure drop]] merge 

message: I have been updating this page, since I am researching this for personal stories.  Anyhow, I did some major updates including separating the Aluminum cluster and added a Platinum cluster as well as other clusters.  There is also a proposed 3D Periodic Table that I could not get any significant citation, ie.
* Beyond The Periodic Table, Computational Chemistry Portal, 2006.
But many site mention that the 3D table is becoming a reality and have pictures on one of the link in the External Link section.  Just thought is someone could take a look and see if I made any significant errors.  Thanks, Marasama 22:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Superatom]] 

message: As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Radiation of sound is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert review: Radiation of sound 

message: I'd like to create a relativity taskforce as part of Wikiproject Physics. Some time ago, I created a relativity wikiproject proposal, but was encouraged by some editors to make this a taskforce of Wikiproject Physics. I have mulled over this and agree with their suggestion. I have a proposal, which will be renamed. I wanted the views of other editors before I embark on this. I'm also new to the business of creating taskforces so any help in this area will be much appreciated!. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 11:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this differ from the existing User:Mpatel/WikiProject Relativity which you created in October 2006? Its inactivity suggests a lack of sufficient interest to sustain any new taskforce. JRSpriggs 23:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no difference. The lack of interest - caused mainly due to the fact that it wasn't a part of Wikiproject Physics - was the main reason that editors made the suggestion that it should be a part of WP Physics (in particular, as a taskforce). Hence the reason for the stall. I don't know what their current position is, but personally I'd prefer to keep it is a Wikiproject rather than a taskforce. If nobody objects to this, I will add User:Mpatel/WikiProject Relativity - with a name change - to the WP Physics page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpatel (talk • contribs) 12:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativity Taskforce 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fluid dynamics is listed as inactive on the Physics WikiProject main page.  :Template:Inactive was added to the Fluid dynamics WikiProject in July 2005 and subsequently removed in January 2006 and currently is not affixed to the WikiProject.  Should the inactive statement on the Physics main page be updated?  (I am not a participant in either WikiProject) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Fluid dynamics 

message: I have added  to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science, suggesting that deletion notifications related to this WikiProject are appropriate to post there.  Is this consistent with the wishes of the participants of this WikiProject? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion sorting 

message: This article was recently promoted to GA, and it's daughter article gamma ray burst progenators  ran on the home page as a did you know? item.  GRB is rated high importance by this WikiProject.  Would anyone like to help with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gamma ray burst? - Jehochman  Talk 04:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamma ray burst {{icon|GA}} 

message: I added Wikipedia:WikiProject Relativity to the WProject Physics page some days ago. Forgot to mention it. MP (talk•contribs) 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject relativity 

message: See .  Do we usually have articles on derivations, in this way? I thought it was considered a how-to. Cruftbane 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think some how-to's deriving all important equations approximating or predicting the behavior of physical phenomena are appropriate in Wikipedia.  Any such articles that are voted for deletion by others disagreeing with my opinion of the scope of the Wikipedia project should definately be considered for transwiki to Wikibooks or Wikiversity.   Definitely Wikiversity.  Any clear derivation already encoded in the wiki version of html would definitely be a good starting point for seminars or discussion on the related concepts.  The Wikibookeans may prefer to wait for a collection of derivations or an wiki book whose author finds the derivation useful inline.  Lazyquasar 06:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deriving the Schwarzschild solution 

message: The section on choosing measurement systems has been changed from:
:*In scientific articles, SI units are the main units of measure, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to use them (for example, Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1)
Into:
:*In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always. For example, natural units are often used: ångströms (or angstroms) are widely used in such fields as x-ray crystallography and structural chemistry, and Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s−1.
Comments on this change are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement. Thank you Tim Vickers 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One editor is objecting strongly to this change, some feedback from people writing science articles would be very helpful. Tim Vickers 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to Manual of Style on measurement systems 

message: Edward Teller is currently being subjected to a Featured Article Review. If you want to contribute to this discussion, please do. Regards, Daimanta 20:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Teller FAR 

message: What is the best way to present mathematical proofs and derivations in articles? Hooke's law uses Show/Hide boxes which seem quite neat but other articles do not. Is there any consensus or style guide on this? Thanks Andeggs 12:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The S matrix article mentioned below as needing cleanup was tagged for this reason: a large chunk of the article is a mathematical proof of LSZ reduction formula.  --Starwed 19:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proofs and derivations 

message: There are only 7 articles left in :Category:Cleanup from November 2005 and two them are physics articles which are unlikely to be fixed by the average editor.  Can someone knowledgeable about physics look at these?--BirgitteSB 19:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at S Matrix, and it seems like there are some pretty easy things to fix.  Namely, the sections on the LSZ reduction formula and Wick's theorem don't really belong; the former has it's own article, while the latter probably should.  In both cases, there is too much detail which doesn't belong in the article.  --Starwed 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[S matrix]] & [[Shapiro delay]] 

message: I've got a general question about dealing with a vandal. There has been a continuous problem with vandalism with the theoretical physics article from people adding Gordon Freeman and other references to the game Half-Life to the article. This is probably going to happen forever, or at least until they stop making Half-Life games, but there is a particularly egregious editor, IMNTU, whose edit history indicates that vandalism(including some things way more offensive than this half-Life hoax) is about all he/she does on WP. This person has shown no good faith and I don't feel the need to assume it any longer; how do I get this joker banned? Joshua Davis 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official way is to post on WP:AIV after the user has received a couple of warnings. Unofficially, any way which gets the attention of an administrator will do the job. As I happen to be one, I blocked the user for a week. Let me know if the vandalism continue when the block expired and I'll be happy apply another block. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, though I'm curious if there is a more permanent block/ban solution. Some of this user's edits leave no doubt that his/her intent is malicious. See for example his/her October 26th edit of Long Man where the entire page was replaced with a repeated racist epithet. I think the repeated goofy vandalism at theoretical physics that I described may not be bad enough for a permanent ban but patently offensive and racist edits should be a one-way ticket out of WP, no? To pursue this should I go ahead and post at WP:AIV? Joshua Davis 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked the blocking admin to refactor the block to indefinite.    If that happens, fine.  If not, should your vandal return, let me know and I will take care of it.  Thank you.  Sorry for this disruption you have suffered. - Jehochman  Talk 21:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The block is now indefinite. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for your helpfulness. Joshua Davis 17:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with a vandal 

message: A discussion about changing the COI guideline to improve expert retention has begun at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Scientists_and_Experts. Comments are welcome. - Jehochman  Talk 15:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest guideline change proposed