Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive August 2007

message: == Seeking input == i made i guy fly over trhe mon with my pecker, the caght him by his ball ans said cogh
A description of a "physical feat" on Bruce Lee's article is being discussed: "Lee caused a 235lb opponent to fly 15 feet away with a one inch punch."  This is supposedly taken almost verbatim from the source, a book by John Little, who has written numerous books on Bruce Lee.  This claim suggests that after punching someone from only one inch away, Bruce Lee caused the opponent to "fly" across for 15 feet or about 4.5 meters before stopping, essentially flying across an entire room.  The claim does not indicate that the opponent merely stumbled.  I am not aware of any objective evidence where any human being can do this.  In the publicly available videos of demonstrations where Bruce Lee punches people, they only take a couple steps back and fall into a chair.(clip)  
I find that the claim is either grossly exaggerated or inaccurate, but one editor feels that the author's claim is non-controversial and does not qualify as an exceptional claim, and that there is no need to state in the same sentence that the claim is "according to John Little".  For the sake of developing consensus, I encourage editors to drop by Talk:Bruce_Lee#Bruce_Lee_Physical_Feats to suggest how this type of incredible but sourced claim may be presented in accordance with policies.  Thank you.  Shawnc 03:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you're getting somewhere.  Lists like the one in the "physical feats" section are generally a bad format for an article, anyway.  Perhaps you could encourage someone to convert the most interesting items to prose.  Gnixon 16:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

message: As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Pressure extension 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 12:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert review: Pressure extension 

message: Can someone check out this article (and the related Spherical expansion‎ by the same author)?  The author appears to work for http://www.seraworld.com.  Statements like "The SeraWorld Quarter-motion is the basis for all sciences from Quantum Physics to Biology." and "Spherical Expansion is the model which completes the Grand Unification Theory" set off my crackpot alarm, but I figured that someone with more physics backgound should make the call as to whether this should be kept, expanded, or deleted as spam/nonsense/whatever.  Thanks. --Finngall talk 22:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: benign nonsense. delete both. Mct mht 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to sell subscriptions to the explanation and "proof" it looks like.  I deleted both.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Seraworld]] 

message: Superforce has been prodded by user:Creelbm on 04:08, 31 July 2007. 132.205.44.5 22:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the PROD tag. User:Creelbm wants to merge the article into grand unified theory, which may be a reasonable suggestion. However, adding a PROD tag is not the way to do it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a real term?  I can't find it at all in an arXiv search. -- SCZenz 05:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the title of a 1985 book by Paul Davies. Sounds sexier than "Grand Unified Theory". I don't know whether the term was coined by Davies or whether it was in use already; obviously it never caught on as part of physics jargon. PaddyLeahy 08:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that after some searching, yeah.  It's used occasionally, but never in the scientific literature.  I've redirected to Theory of everything. -- SCZenz 08:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you've been bold, perhaps you could merge the content? The target article should refer to "superforce" or the redirect will be more than a bit confusing. Also the diagram is rather useful (worth a thousand words etc)...and will likely be quickly deleted if it is not used in an article. PaddyLeahy 08:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The diagram isn't a separate image or file, just some text using  template, so it will be preserved in the history.  As for the content, there isn't much that isn't in ToE already, and some of it is inaccurate.  As for explaining the word "superforce"... hrmmm, how about a disambiguation page...?  Let me know what you think of my new try momentarily. -- SCZenz 08:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, here's the diagram. 132.205.44.5 23:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, incorporated in Theory of Everything now. Article still needs a lot of work! PaddyLeahy 00:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PROD]] on [[Superforce]] 

message: There is an AFD discussion for the article Why 10 dimensions?.  It seems to me to be in need of some informed opinions.  If you are interested, please read the article and contribute to the discussion.
Thanks.  -- Dominus 03:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Why 10 dimensions?]] nominated for deletion 

message: I've worked on Mass ratio for some time, and it's in a fairly stable state now, though it's very short.  Can I request that someone do an assessment on this article so I can decide what to do next?  --Doradus 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting an independent assessment 

message: An interesting idea i just thought of would be to provide a daily summary of the recent journals published in physics that day, perhaps in WikiNews and then updating the wikipedia with the information that they contain. I'll do it on my own, if needs be -- but if there's anyone else who would like to contribute, then by all means -- satisfy your daemons! :-) Uxorion 21:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting idea. 

message: All the physics timelines are a mess. Timeline of other background radiation fields ! There isn't even a Timeline of background radiation fields, what's the other about? All the other timelines are so messy I couldn't even find one to suggest merging it to. Rmhermen 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timelines 

message: Please help us to restore this article at Deletion Review: Aug 13, 2007. I didn’t even know this happened, it was closed at 14 keeps and 11 deletes; with admins reopening and closing the article on an alternating basis, e.g. see the deletion log history.  Thank: --Sadi Carnot 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for everyone’s help in getting this restored. The article is now called people known as the founder, father, or mother of something, it has a “reason” column, is being ordered by “subject”, and only important world-view people are being included.  Note also that the terms founder of, father of, and mother of link here; if you edit related historical articles, please link these to this article. Thanks and come and help build this fun article. --Sadi Carnot 17:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of people known as father or mother of something]] 

message: We're having a minor dispute over the merger of the articles expectation value (quantum mechanics) and expectation value (quantum physics). Which way should the merger proceed? - JT 23:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be part of a larger concern over whether the term "quantum mechanics" is being used too widely in the rest of Wikipedia articles for everything to do with quantum physics. It's a question of the proper use of terminology. For the particular merge in question, I'll comment on the discussion page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'm actually a physicist and from what I've come across, both in literature and in informal discussion, is simply that the two terms are pretty much interchangeable. Why? I don't know but it may be due to the impact quantum mechanics had on the physics community making it the more "popular" one. Thanks for your comments, but at this point it's still a "draw" and any other opinions would be appreciated. - JT 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Dispute: Requesting assessment 

message: See Lagrangian (disambiguation). Is this not a distinction without any difference? JRSpriggs 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I understand your concern.  It looks to me like that page links to three different articles that people who look for "lagrangian" might be looking for, and that's exactly what disambiguation pages are for.  -- SCZenz 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that "Lagrangian" means the same thing in all three cases. The articles are about the same topic from three different view points. JRSpriggs 18:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lagrangian (disambiguation)&mdash; distinction without a difference? 

message: One of this project's Good Articles, National Ignition Facility has been mentioned for Good Article Review.  All are welcome to contribute to the discussion on the article's GA status. Drewcifer3000 06:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[National Ignition Facility]] GA/R 

message: I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  allowing unconverted metric units in scientific articles 

message: I have just noticed some recent changes made on August 20 to Accelerating universe, by . The result seems to have all kinds of subtle problems. I'll have a closer look; but another view would be appreciated. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accelerating Universe