Talk:Physics/Archive 1

message: Well, as an experimental physicist, I protest :-) The page mentiones 2 categories, theoretical and applied phyisics. I think they are apples and pears. The correct division is theoretical vs experimental, and fundamental vs applied. There are 4 combinations, so 4 categories. I am an experimental fundamentalist :-) (particle physics). I think I'll correct the page soon.  Pál 01:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I was wary about my division and nomenclature. Rmalloy 16:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another category is experimental physics 

message: Ok, I just wanted to call people's attentions to the fact that someone added link to the Time Cube article.  Given that it is not a purely "physical" theory (in that it is not in the tradition of physics, and is based in a great part on pure metaphysics), I personally think that it should be removed.  However, I would be greatly interested in what others thought on this (that's primarily the reason why I'm saying this ;) ).--Conwiktion 02:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote to remove it, but I can't claim this is an unbiased opinion; I think the Time Cube theory was written by a Kook. --Mtruch 22:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok... Time Cube link 

message: Does anyone know how much force (in Newtons) a raw egg could withstand? Green789 15:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least 600N. Lecture Demonstration 14:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This would definately depend on how the force is applied. Squashing an egg vertically and horizontally is bound to be different. Also you could wind a string around the egg and increase the tension. If you really want to know you'll have to do some experiments.MarSch 14:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much force could an egg withstand? 

message: is a consequence of time translation symmetry. I believe there are some models of GR that don't have this. Thus energy can simply disappear.MarSch 14:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy conservation

message: I think there should be something on the main Physics page about Learning Physics, both as advice to the reader and to remind us all to attempt pedagogical coherence.  Here's a draft: 
We "learn" a topic in Physics many times, in many ways.  There are many aspects of Mechanics that our bodies understand perfectly, long before we learn names for things like angular momentum; for these, it is just a matter of learning a language -- a set of names for things and conventions for discussing their relationships.  Electricity and Magnetism are quite different; we have almost no instinctive understanding of the subject and have to learn the words and their referents at the same time.  This is often the "watershed" at which those comfortable with abstractions go on in Physics and those who rely on physical Common Sense balk at the strangeness of Physics.  
In primary and secondary school, most people get the impression that Physics is an exercise in algebra: all you need to do is pick the right formula, plug the right numbers in and "turn the crank".  These unlucky souls are usually shocked when they meet up with University Physics for the first time and discover that the formulas are merely "shorthand" for something they are meant to understand.  
The aspiring Physicist learns and re-learns each topic in Physics over and over, each time discovering the shallowness and inadequacy of her previous understanding.  This is a delightful and rewarding experience that even those who do not aspire to become Physicists can enjoy.  
To accomodate this experience, it is important to identify the "level" at which any particular treatment is presented.  There is no point in introducing Electricity and Magnetism using vector calculus for readers who have not yet studied calculus of any kind, even though it is a beautiful and elegant way to describe the subject.  And there is no point in talking about "F = m a" to someone who has just completed a course in Lagrangian Mechanics.  The reader needs to have a way of estimating whether the material is at his level, or mistaken impressions will result.  
OK, this is a little rambly; your turn.  -- Jess
:I think as an encyclopedia Electricity and Magnetism should be very general like "there exists something called charge and like charges attract etc..", but should then refer the reader to the different theories about electromagnetism, like "special relativity explains the necessity of magnetism in the presence of electrism(?)..". I will now take a look and see whether this is the caseMarSch 16:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learning Physics 

message: Dear all,
As my first edit (I'm not even registered yet) I took out some references to "orgone theory" and "timecube theory" in the Fringe Theories section. Since there are many physicists, such as myself, contributing to this page (and I have little time) I won't even try to explain why these theories do not qualify as science. Just wanted to warn everyone that these links have been re-added (they are in the main article right now) by IP 136.186.1.117, with no reason stated.
I will not revert the changes, since I consider myself an outsider. But someone with a little more time should take care of this.
Cheers
(Just took 5 minutes more checking the other contributions of IP 136.186.1.117. Seems that the Greenwich Mean Time article was also heavily edited... with timecube theory.)
14.55, 26th of April 2005 (GMT)
:Very good obvservation. These are not physics theories at all. They aren't even scientific. Time cube is even up for deletion. Will remove these links. -MarSch 13:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orgones and Times cubes 

message: I thought the history section was a mess. A lot of physicists were never mentioned by their full name, some were mentioned twice for the same reason (Schwinger, Tomonoga and Feynman) and there was no clear order to the discussion of the 20th century. I've tried to spend a few minutes improving it. One thing I find frustrating about it is that there is a lot of emphasis given to theoretical particle physics at the expense of the experimental side and other branches of physics. It would be great if someone could make it a little more balanced. --Joke137 16:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: A related topic, Astrophysics is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Come and support the nomination or comment on it.--Fenice 07:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive