Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 9

message: Hi everyone, 
Photon seems to be getting close to becoming a Featured Article.  But we would really appreciate your suggestions on how to improve it before we submit it as an FA candidate.  Please take a few minutes to review the article and give us your advice on whether it's ready to be an FA at Talk:Photon.  Thanks muchly! :D Willow 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photon as a Featured Article

message: Sort of. EmDrive. The keepers are already piling up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EmDrive, so we have another of those pesky pages to look after. --Pjacobi 16:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A recurring theme. I wouldn't be averse to articulating a policy for this kind of stuff. Anyway, I claim its not notable.  linas 04:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation of momentum disproved 

message: Newton first published his remarkably concise and simple formalism about Nature in 1687. His three Laws of Motion turned out to be far ahead of their time, more accurate than the accuracy of experimental data available to Newton. More than three centuries later, after Classical Mechanics was taken to its climax, considered a dead science and resurrected once more, they remain the prototype of physical theories and high practical utility. More sophisticated reformulations of classical mechanics, while in many ways outstripping Newton's original formulation which seems almost childishly simple compared to the level of mathematical complexity inherent in these formalisms, still lose to Newton's Laws of Motion in terms of practical usefulness because of their failure to model systems with the dissipation approximation.
It is sad indeed, therefore, to see our article on this remarkable theory of Physics lie neglected. The level of exposition is suited to Children's Learning Library, not a serious encyclopedia. Nothing is mentioned about the significance of inertial reference frames. No reference is made to the interpretation of the first law of motion as a definition, no explanation is given why the first law must be considered independent of and preceding the second law. Detailed discussions are not provided about the validity of the third law in the context of classical electrodynamics. No mention at all of their reformulation without using the concept of force, depending on momentum and energy. Very important topics such as the role of Galilean relativity in Newtonian mechanics and the subsequent need to formulate the theory in terms of fiber bundles is absent.
My grasp of physics is not advanced enough to undertake these tasks without the fear of mistake, therefore I appeal to you to improve this article. The current state of the article, particularly in comparison with our articles on Lagrangian Mechanics, Hamiltonian Mechanics, Hamilton-Jacobi equation etc, gives the distinct impression that the contributors considered NLM to be a theory without any mathematical beauty or elegance behind it, something only children do. This situation must be rectified, most importantly for students just learning the theory who may visit our pages for an extended perspective and academics who may have lost sight of the theories remarkable power when faced with the cacophony of alternative theories. Loom91 11:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article, Newton's laws of motion, is of unusual importance and has been relatively static except for a substantial amount of vandalism, I think that it might be good to restrict the ability of anonimous editors to edit it. Would someone with administrative powers please restrict editing of it to registered users! JRSpriggs 05:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, this is not covered by policy. --Pjacobi 06:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Newton's Laws of Motion]] 

message: Hi everyone, 
Photon is now in peer review, in preparation for its Featured Article candidacy.  Please take a few minutes to review the article and give us your advice on how to prepare it to be Featured — thanks! :D Willow 11:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photon in Peer Review

message: As per #Automatic adding of project banner to articles in Category:Physics above, I've put together an initial list of physics categories for auto-tagging with the project banner. The list is currently located at User:Mike Peel/Physics categories. I'd appreciate people's help at trimming down the list to only those appropriate to physics (my selection method wasn't that accurate), as well as adding any that I've missed. I'd also like to pose a question: does this Wikiproject also cover astronomy, or should a new wikiproject be established to cover that? Thanks. Mike Peel 18:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these the categories which are directly or indirectly subcategories of :Category:Physics? If not, then how did you put the list together? JRSpriggs 04:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They're all subcategories of :Category:Physics (or sub-subcategories, etc). Mike Peel 12:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics categories & WP coverage of astronomy? 

message: Someone's theory of everything, "licensed" under the GPL!; this one says we all live inside a hydrogen molecule.  The AfD is here...it started quite well, but now the usual accusations of being the people who burnt Giordano Bruno are coming up.  Oh dear. Byrgenwulf 11:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Infinite nesting]] 

message: Hi everyone,
Thljcl (talk • contribs) has made several edits, which seem questionable to me, to articles such as kinetic energy, E%3Dmc%C2%B2, mass and special relativity. These edits have a theme of removing indications that mass is a form of energy (which is correct, as far as I know). Can anyone have a look and check if they are legitimate? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't figure out what he means by this, and his edits appear to be wrong.  I am working on fixing this and adding comments to the talk page discussion of the issue. -- SCZenz 07:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Think this edit, in which he links to this article, is particularly indicative.  He clearly has some peculiar POV about special relativity disagrees with the definitions used by modern particle physicists.  And we all know what WP:V says about statements you can't cite, and what WP:NPOV says about extremely rare minority viewpoints. -- SCZenz 07:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reverted all his physics related edits, for the time being.  I suggest we keep an eye on his contribs and on the sort of articles he's edited so far.  Special:Contributions/Thljcl. -- SCZenz 07:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless you are working specifically with natural units in which c is dimensionless, mass and energy have different dimensions. Isn't that enough to make obvious they shouldn't be equated just like that? (Butcher, can I have 18 PJ of pastrami?) --LambiamTalk 11:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You are wrong.  Thljcl may have a conceptual system for physics that is self-consistent and useful (i.e. that all energy is mass, rather than vice versa), but that is not the terminology that physicists use.  Unless he can cite sources in the field that use his framework, including his alternate point of view violates Wikipedia:No original research. -- SCZenz 20:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not quite clear what the issue is. Under the assumption that the equation E = mc2 adequately describes physical reality (after all, it's only part a theory that might be overturned by the next revolution), if you give me m I'll give you E, and if you give me E I'll give you m. In natural units, E = m. I think we all know that. It would therefore make perfect sense to talk about excitation FOO, kinetic FOO, potential FOO and material FOO, where FOO is consistently either "mass" or "energy" (or some newly coined term, like "inertia"). This requires reeducating physicists. Until such time as this reeducation project has borne fruit, I think Wikipedia should conform to the usual terminology. --LambiamTalk 21:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right; I didn't need to be as harsh in my last post as I was, and I apologize.  That being said, an idea appearing to be a "new approach" to basic physical concepts with well-established definitions is a point against it, given our policies on original research, especially when the user is citing pages like the one I linked above.   Remember that an interpretation being "legitimate," in the sense of functional, is not the same as it appearing in the literature—and that Wikipedia is a secondary source. Anyway, although it's not relevant to whether we include the edits, I don't see how it's sensible to think of potential energy as mass. -- SCZenz 00:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Energy refers to the time component of linear momentum (more precisely -p0). While mass is the energy of the object in its rest frame divided by c2 (more precisely it is the value determined by the nature of the object to which that quantity tends to be close). These are two different things. The potential energy of an object contributes to its mass, if its rest energy is measured in a global reference frame; but not if measured in a local reference frame where the source of the potential is considered part of the background which is tranformed away. JRSpriggs 05:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Thljcl]] 

message: aka  has been adding blab on some bollocks called the "Gyroverse" to the Theory of everything article.  He has done it 3 times (once under the IP address), and I have reverted all 3 times and warned them, but if I revert again, I am in violation of 3RR whereas he isn't (because of the IP).  If anyone has the chance to keep an eye on the article... Byrgenwulf 13:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. It seems that the user above would be Donald Wortzman (website), the inventor of the theory. Byrgenwulf 14:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's bollocks alright.  I've just reverted him again.  --Michael C. Price talk 15:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I just reported him for 3RR, so let's hope he stops. Byrgenwulf 15:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only count 3 reverts. The first (anon) edit does not qualify as such. --LambiamTalk 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, he seems to have stopped, and that's the main thing; he appears to be here solely to shill for his personal theory. Byrgenwulf 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory of everything 

message: Hi everyone, 
Photon is now a Featured Article candidate.  If you like the article, please leave lots of Support votes there, so that the WikiProject will get another FA.  Thanks! :D Willow 10:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photon is a Featured Article candidate

message: I'm not going to argue and find consensus with  whether electrolysing water,  burning the hydrogen, and having a net energy gain in the process should be considered to be a perpetuum mobile. Nor do I intend to put a humble "cite needed" tag to the claim, that this Water fuel cell powered a car driven across the United States. I will simply revert until someone blocks me for 3RR violation.
If someone is in the mood to resolve the problem by other means, don't hesitate. 
Pjacobi 08:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Wikipedia sucks (sometimes) 

message: My attempt to edit the in-line citation criterion to be saner here was immediately knee-jerk reverted because the old version supposedly "had consensus."  I believe this is false.  
If, as it appears, most of us here agree that my version was more sensible, I propose that we make our voices heard.  This being a wiki, a very reasonable course of action is to revert the criterion once each. -- SCZenz 00:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, as the knee-jerk reverter in question, I think this whole situation has gotten a bit out of hand, several of the articles I saw people actually add warnings too honestly seemed very debateable to me in terms of whether they really fit the inline citation criteria, Mathematics in particular seems pretty well-referenced to me, most of this came from just one user's warnings, and due to the flexible natures of people's reviews, one reviwers standards can deviate somewhat from other reviewers. Which, coincidentally enough, is basically what WP:GA/R is for. Homestarmy 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the criterion should be clarified so it doesn't cause such problems.  It is unacceptable to have guidelines that support the harassment of hardworking experts who volunteer their time. -- SCZenz 00:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hardly call a few advisory notices "harassment"..... Homestarmy 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to explain back on the other page. What would you call writing "Hi, your articles will no longer count as good unless you follow this new rule we made up and never asked you about"...? -- SCZenz 00:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sure, the notifications wern't exactly reflective of the subjective way "Well-refrenced" can be interpreted, but think of it this way, instead of warning articles, (Many of which I noticed some editors improved in time based on the advisories) we could just do nothing and delist most of them with no warning, and I don't think that would be very fair. Homestarmy 00:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe you could talk to the people who wrote the articles, who are in fact experts on the subjects of the articles, and ask them if they think the references are sufficient.  Then you could listen to what they say and revise your criteria. -- SCZenz 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not Citizendium, what the "experts" say isn't the final decision on things. Homestarmy 01:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, we don't get the final say, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  However, you feel no obligation even to listen, or ask our opinion, before declaring consensus finalized.  And in that you are mistaken. -- SCZenz 01:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an approximatly two week discussion where editors who had never before even shown up on the talk page chipped in, how were we supposed to know when we had "enough" people to actually make a good criteria? Maybe we should of waited for people from a couple History Wikiprojects to wander on over, or Chemistry, and maybe some evolutionary biologists, there's no set-in-stone need to wait for all of Wikipedia to join a discussion to change one criteria in one optional grading system which has only recently gotten a real system in place so to speak and still hasn't even impressed many people as to the purpose of the project. Homestarmy 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you putting the "real system" in place seems to be the source of the problem.  And yes, Physics and History and Chemistry and all the other areas of serious article-writing should have been contacted before you put new standards in place, rather than imposing them on the articles we wrote afterward.   But, since those things are done, here's the new problem... Now that we've had issues with the criteria, and new editors are arriving to make their opinions known, the consensus you had goes away—that's the risk of building a consensus with only certain parties, and without those who may be most affected by the results of that consensus.  So now we talk, and stop declaring that the page is finalized because you had a consensus in the past. -- SCZenz 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I know this is a complete side issue, but please please please don't say "a criteria". It's horrifically jarring. Frankly, it sounds completely illiterate. The singular is "criterion". --Trovatore 04:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My attempt to edit 

message: (Originally in reply to Anville's comment at 13:03 27 September.) "Precedence" does not appear to have much weight, unless presented as a "guideline". Can we, by a consensus process, establish a proposal guideline for citations in science and mathematics articles, and then declare them to be a Wikipedia guideline, just as by some mysterious process there are notability guidelines for different kinds of topics? -- --LambiamTalk 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's a good idea to fork the citation guidelines for different subjects; splitting such things is not clearly necessary, adds an extra layer of bureaucracy, and could create some very intense debates.  But we could do as you say: write a page addressing issues particular to the sciences, in particular the issue of line-by-line citation of settled science, and link it from WP:CITE.  I'm undecided on this. -- SCZenz 22:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate guideline for science article citation 

message: Please see Talk:Rietdijk-Putnam Argument. --Pjacobi 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read the article and the talk, however the first words just caught my eye "if special relativity is correct" actually special relativity has been tested in lots of ways.. so probably this should be corrected other than that I still don't see the point of the article at all... And actually I find this even uncorrect under the special relativity postulate, since the two people mentioned when meeting will be simultaneous, and hence their light cones and event horizons will be well defined, and so the paradox wouldn't occur, as it is described at least... maybe I wasn't too clear, but we can discuss about this further Tatonzolo 14:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is silly. One does not use a reference frame tied to his person (which is constantly accelerating). He uses a reference frame tied to the Earth, or even the Sun. And for astronomical purposes, we use retarded time which does not vary from person to person depending on their velocity. JRSpriggs 04:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep that would be the point... it's something like a wrong description of the twin paradox... :-)
Tatonzolo 07:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Is someone here also working at Wikibooks? This article seems to be just a summary from a Wikibooks chapter. --Pjacobi 07:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to business: new article [[Rietdijk-Putnam Argument]] 

message: Heim theory has been proposed for deletion.  Comment as you see fit.  Anville 13:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heim theory AfD