Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive July 2007

message: In my opinion (and that doesn't say much), I think the most important thing to keep in mind on a topic like this is fundamentals. Think about it, if you set up your own equipment, it makes no sense not to continue and take it a step further! What do you lot think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deimtchek (talk • contribs) 
:Eh? What? What topic are you talking about? Which article? To what or whom are you responding? How about providing a little context! JRSpriggs 05:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, I still do not know what he is asking. JRSpriggs 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentals 

message: There seems to have been some kind of edit war brewing over the last weeks at the heat and thermal energy articles between several editors, primarily User:The Way, that caused User: ScienceApologist to quit Wikipedia.  In any event, the situation still continues; please review Talk:Heat (disambiguation) and Talk:Heat and give your opinion or vote: here . --Sadi Carnot 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this is resolved (no merges).  Gnixon 16:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No merge of [[thermal energy]], [[internal energy]], and [[heat]] 

message: As a mathematician I'm accustomed to such usages as this:
: It follows that
: 
::  a^2 + b^2 = c^2, \, 
: 
: where a and b are ....
etc.  Lately I've come across a number of Wikipedia articles that say things like this:
: It follows that
: 
::  a^2 + b^2 = c^2. \, 
: 
: Where a and b are ....
A period is put at the end of the equation and the initial W in Where is capitalized as if it's the beginning of a new sentence.  Or sometimes the period is omitted; it seems physicists (at least here on Wikipedia) often omit the period after an equation even when it's at the end of a sentence.  The first time I saw this I thought it's obviously a gross gramatical goof by someone who wasn't paying attention to what he was writing.  After a couple of dozen times, I'm thinking maybe this usage is actually standard among physicists.  Can anyone confirm or deny anything?  (Sometimes in certain moods I start to wonder if physicists consider it their sacred duty to be offended by any attempt to be precise in the use of language.) Michael Hardy 12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second version looks like it uses incorrect grammar to me.  Feel free to fix it.  (I wish that the journals in my subject has some style guidelines regarding the integration of equations into sentences.)  Dr. Submillimeter 12:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most physics journals officially use the Chicago Manual of Style, a document which most physicists (including me) have never read. Physicists are not offended by precise use of language but most don't consider it to be part of their job description. We tend leave journal copy-editors to fix errors like the one you mention (on WP, guess that means you!). On lax usage in general, it's telling that interational standards and conventions on fundamental physical quantities are usually agreed by engineering organisations (e.g. IEEE), not organisations of physicists. PaddyLeahy 16:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange syntax 

message: I've just read the above articles. As far as I can see:
* Geometrical frustrated magnets should be called Geometrically frustrated magnets, and I propose to move it.
* Furthermore, much of the material there duplicates and expands upon what's at Spin ice.Theerfore, I propose to excise much of it and move it to Spin Ice
As far as I can see, a Spin Ice is not geometrically frustrated. It has a certain residual entropy, yes, but this is not as a result of any kind of frustration, but as a result of a large number of degrees of freedom. If this is correct (and I'm writing here in the hope that somebody will help!), then I think we should:
* Remove the example of ice from geometrical frustration
* Merge geometrical frustration and the newly created Geometrically frustrated magnets
Comments please! Chris 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new article, to which the old one was moved, is geometrically frustrated magnet; the title is singular, not plural.  The plural would offend Wikipedia conventions unless some special reason for its use is cited. Michael Hardy 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Spin ice]], [[Geometrical frustration]] and [[Geometrical frustrated magnets]] 

message: User:Banno on July 12 2007 WP:PRODed cosmosophy. 132.205.44.5 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmosophy prodded 

message: I'm wondering about the legitimacy of the sources in this article. In particular, some of the self-published stuff by Bjerknes raises some eyebrows, particularly since it's hosted on a website called jewishracism.com.-Wafulz 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is generally taught in college courses, there was some dispute about the chronology of Einstein's discoveries and whether others had discovered some of the key ideas before him. This is especially true with regards to the differential geometry of G.R. which was a particularly amazing acheivement for Einstein seeing as he was not trained as a mathematician unlike Riemann and others working on the problem. Nevertheless, the consensus of historians of science has been that Einstein is rightly credited with the discovery, though the great man theory of history probably has something to do with why he is remembered more than his predecessors. Einstein disparaging is a popular anti-Semetic passtime and so we need to be careful that we do not give a springboard for that kind of advocacy. --Mainstream astronomy 13:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's coverage of Bjerknes is interesting.  He published a book "Einstein: the Incorrigible Plaigarist."  An author of an earlier Science article on the subject reviewed the book very critically in Physics World, calling Bjerknes "monomaniacal."  Bjerknes' reply to Physics World was declined publication.  As Wafulz seems to be pointing out, that section of the article appears to take pains to describe Bjerknes favorably.  Some sections of the article probably have WP:NPOV#Undue weight issues.  Gnixon 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The explanation I've heard is that Poincaré and Lorentz knew the transformation before Einstein published his paper on SR, but Einstein was the first to derive them from basic postulates (that the speed of light is universal and that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames).  Anarchic Fox 09:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Egads, why is the article so long?  Huge chunks of it are block quotes, too.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Relativity priority dispute]] 

message: There is a merge proposal, standing intact for months, to merge X boson and Y boson articles into X and Y bosons, just like W and Z bosons have common article. So it would be really good itea to merge those two, because X and Y bosons are related in same way as W and Z bosons. 
It also looks like there is extremely low edit activity on those articles. --83.131.77.66 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incredibly mindless merge done.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[X and Y bosons]] 

message: I would like to propose that someone who has enough knowledge on the subject creates a page called "Status of String Theory" which details the general consensus of the scientific community regarding the acceptance, falsification, and verifiability of String Theory.
I say this because as a layman, I do not have access to information on the latest tests with CERN or Fermilab colliders, and would like to know more about whether the theory ever is directly confirmed or not.
* This is an excellent suggestion, as most of us want to know about the state of the art in physics, appreciate that String Theory somehow meets this description, (if the hype is to be believed), but somehow are not easliy able to find accessible yet comprehensible summaries of this proposed physics. Maybe Ed Witten or someone of his calibre might jump in here. PD 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for New Page 

message: I have recently been cleaning up the biography of Fritz Zwicky. It had originally included an enormous amount of material relating to tired light, IMO far out of proportion to its importance in a biography. But much worse, all the material related to modern  fringe ideas by Lyndon Ashmore in particular. Similar problems have existed, and been resolved, in the past in the Tired light page. My changes have just recently been reverted or partially reverted by an anonymous editor, and the modern tired light stuff is back, justified by appeal to the authority of Feynman and Ashmore. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know the best way to handle this. I requested 3rd party assistance; a 3rd party Wikipedia expert duly showed up and declared the dispute a bit too technical. I have flagged the contentious section as being under dispute and indicated a drastic edit I wish to apply in the discussion page; which is essentially another revert to what I did a few days ago. Input from people with good understanding of the relevant physics and of Wikipedia conventions would be very much appreciated! -- (Duae Quartunciae 10:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted back to your version which is more in keeping with WP:UNDUE policy. Good luck. --Mainstream astronomy 13:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the changes by Mainstream astronomy, which were a little hasty.  I think enough consensus is developing at Talk:Fritz Zwicky for trimming the section.  We just need to give this a little more time, perhaps just a couple more days, to allow for other people to comment.  (Besides, Duae Quartunciae could improve his passage.)  Dr. Submillimeter 14:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks all. The problem seems to be fixed. One guy had some difficulties comprehending WP:NOR, and has now taken his ball and gone home. I've put up an improved version of what was there before (thnx Dr. Submillimeter) and am now cleaning up the rest and adding a bit more stuff to make it a real biography. We can call this a wrap; though if anyone has useful input on the article feel free to jump in. -- Duae Quartunciae 07:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fritz Zwicky and Tired Light 

message: I lost my account password on my other computer and so began editing as User:Velikovsky to look at some of the catastrophism pseudoscience. I was surprised that Ian Tresman was editing he is extremely well-connected in the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies and makes much of his living by doing web-design for that group. I don't think he should be editing those pages and posted a WP:COI warning on his page which he did not take kindly too. He also reverted a change I made to Anthony Peratt's page about his new-found amicas with Velikovsky supporters. This user reverted it and placed a warning at User talk:Velikovsky. I'm in over my head. Can anyone help me? --Mainstream astronomy 20:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend posting comments about this at WP:ANI and asking for administrator intervention.  Dr. Submillimeter 20:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This user is too much. The kind of absurdity he is promoting is way over my head, and so I've decided to volunteer elsewhere. Good luck, you all need it. --Mainstream astronomy 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, you asked me to help you out, but I've been busy lately. It looks like there's already a thread on the COI noticeboard and involvement with Arbitration Enforcement, so I don't think I'll be able to help past this point (though I'll be sure to monitor the discussions). If you're not SA, then it's awful that you've been wrongfully implicated in a new ArbCom case. If you are, then I'm sad to see you go a second time.-Wafulz 13:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Velikovsky 

message: I've just made a number of significant changes to the long-stagnant Physics article.  The most important changes were cutting a gigantic History section (covered by History of Physics) and moving two illegibly large tables to subpages.  From the remaining content, I've tried to create the skeleton of an article with expanded coverage of the major theories and fields of research, but a lot of work needs to be done.
I'd appreciate it if folks around here would consider expanding the subsections of Physics they're interested in.  Right now they could all be considered stubs.  Alternatively, you could tell me I'm a dunce for messing with the article so much, but I'm hoping these changes will put it on the right track.  See Talk:Physics#Changes.  Thanks, Gnixon 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Physics]] 

message: I was just reading about Stellar nucleosynthesis, and added the following to Talk:Oxygen burning process.
  Isn't the 2 superscript on D redundant? It seems like consistency would be best, ideally any (non-1) superscripts on an H base, although the links could obviously continue to point towards the specific isotope's page.
Is there a style guide about this? I did not turn up anything via google… --Belg4mit 05:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear physics style guide 

message: "Cenetic energy" dosn't get any hits on scholar.google.com and dosn't cite anything. The first contributor (who suspiciously has this article as his/her only contribution) wrote that Neil Turok (real scientist) came up with it. Even so, "cenetic energy neil turok" has no non-wikipedia hits on google. I've signed this article up for deletion and the debate on the deletion proposal can be found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_17 EverGreg 16:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cenetic Energy]] for deletion? 

message: It's been suggested to me that I mention the status of Tesla Coil. I don't know how to put this delicately, but someone making extensive "contributions" is a free energy enthusiast and does not seem to know much about electricity. I haven't gotten through my electromagnetism book yet (blush), but I've designed and built a MOSFET Tesla coil, and done EE professionally for many years. Somebody put a banner on the page saying that it was within the realm of Wikipedia Project Physics, but they don't seem to have stuck around. Anybody who knows the subject is welcome to weigh in; very welcome; that's all I'm saying.
FETSmoke 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at it, and while I'm no expert, I might be able to drag up a few like yourself. But I don't see the banner proclaiming it to be physics. I'm assuming I'm blind...Tsani 18:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tesla Coil 

message: The article on Anthony Peratt is currently up for deletion. We could use some input from someone familiar with plasma physics, specifically plasma cosmology, on whether he is Notable by Wikipedia standards. Cheers, CWC 10:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know this guy, but apparently three governmental agencies find him notable. I'm not getting into the apparent war. Don't know what the arguments are about and don't care. But my vote as an outsider is that he stays and that he is "Notable".Tsani 18:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it mean to be found "notable" by three government agencies?  Anyhow, the article was deleted before this comment was made.  Dr. Submillimeter 20:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anthony Peratt]] and [[WP:PROF]] 

message: I've been making some major revisions to the long-dormant Physics article.  My changes have been rather WP:BOLD and largely unilateral, due to the almost complete absence of any editors frequenting that page over the past few months or responding to my comments on Talk:Physics.  After shedding an obscenely awful History section, I've expanded sections on Theory and Research, largely by stealing big blocks of material from other physics articles (many of which were pretty bad).
The current status is that each subsection has a reasonable amount of text, but not all of it is well-written, and some subsections are still pretty thin.  I'd love it if some of the folks around here could swing by and have a look at their areas of interest.  There should be something to start from in each section if you prefer to make incremental changes, and if you're willing to try complete rewrites, that would be welcome, too.  If you make changes to a section, consider updating the leads of the main articles (on, e.g., particle physics), which are likely to be pretty similar.  Please keep in mind the need to limit excessive detail in this very broad article.  Thanks in advance!!  Gnixon 06:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking at the changes... you've made it a much better article. Well done! I have to run; real life calls. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the quantum mechanics section does a good job overall, but it spends too much time discussing its history (astrophysics has a similar problem).  I suggest shortening the events mentioned, and removing Bohr altogether, since although his model is very important for the history of QM, it's the only finding mentioned there that has been superseded altogether.  Anarchic Fox 06:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Physics]] (again) 

message: What guidelines are there for what historical articles should be included under this project?  I'm wondering in particular about archaic, obscure and/or obsolete theories like Central Fire. Anarchic Fox 07:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about historical articles 

message: The article on Dynamical friction is another one I have just found with additions from W. Kehler. As usual, the English is very poor, and there is no attempt at discussion for his additions.
The addition in this case may have some validity. Zwicky did propose a gravitational drag effect for photons; so perhaps I should not merely delete the section outright. Has there ever been a proper analysis of gravitational drag on photons? Anyhow, I have put a comment on the discussion page, and as before, I would really appreciate input from a physicist.
Thank you to Gnixon for fixing the problem I raised above in relation to Planck mass. I think that there are probably quite a few of these additions to various physics articles being made by 84.158.*.* of dubious credibility. Is there a way to find the list of contributions for a range of IP addresses? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. I have now gone ahead with a major rewrite of the troublesome section, which makes it doubly important that a real physicist checks it for errors! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamical friction with 84.158.*.* insertions