Talk:Physics/Archive 4

message: I collected all of the famous thermodynamicists I could think of (~15 so far) and grouped them here: Category:Thermodynamicists.  If you know of more please add them.  Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Category:Thermodynamicists" started 

message: Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The more the better! --MichaelMaggs 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The review of Physics continues at [[Talk:Physics/wip]] 

message: I think some physicists would be offended that there is no non-linear physics in there.  Fields like biophysics seem to be gone.  These are major fields of study into chaos.  Yes it does blend with other field s such as AMO but it should probably still be there.  maybe im the only one --Blckavnger 18:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the categories of Physics 

message: Why were all the images removed and never restored? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&diff=86470595&oldid=86468622 this is why i hate wiki sometimes, how can you not notice something like this for months? can you revert changes made on a edit previous edit to the last without loosing intervening edits? --Deglr6328 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked back at the history, and a HUGE number of pictures and photos were removed. Surely they were not all in violation? What is going on?--ReasonIsBest 18:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to this. --Meno25 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have added back the images that were removed a month ago by this edit. --MichaelMaggs 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhhh 

message: I suggest these theories be listed in chronological order rather than the roughly reverse chronological order they are in at present. --Wfaxon 21:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems that these were deleted, which sucks, because i would really like to read them. BriEnBest 07:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discredited theories 

message: "Physics is a study of the inorganic, physical world..." This statement in the lead is incorrect, IMO. The laws of physics apply to both organic and inorganic matter. Yeah, I know there's a citation ot the Encyclopedia Britannica, but, sorry, they're wrong too :-) There are also a lot of mistakes in grammar and punctuation in the lead. I'm going to go ahead and do a rewrite of the lead.--24.52.254.62 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucas, please be bold and make your changes!  You sound like you have some good ideas.  Gnixon 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually disagree with you, Lucas (sorry!  :p).  I concretely believe that physics IS the study of INORGANIC things, only.  My evidence for this is that physics does not encompass realms of living things, and, (if it does), it does so from the viewpoint of their physical properties.  Biology is the science that studies Organic things, and should be the science that studies those things. BriEnBest 07:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead 

message: I would like the editors to consider adding a reference to Roger Bacon, due to his emphasis on the so-called scientific method in the 13th century, and the impact of his treatises on later 16th and 17th century minds. Add to the para:
"As the influence of the Arab Empire expanded to Europe, the works of Aristotle preserved by the Arabs, and the works of the Indians and Persians, became known in Europe by the 12th and 13th centuries."
Tony 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Roger Bacon to early part of History 

message: As you might know, there has been a slow article improvement process ongoing for the last few months at Talk:Physics/wip. One of the tasks understaken was a "vote" on several proposed leads for physics at Talk:Physics/wip/leadvote. However, the process has ground down to a halt. We need input and possibly a moderator to assist us.--Filll 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't like the idea of trying to push the editing to subpages unless it's limited to a specific part of the article (e.g., the lead) that needs a major, potentially controversial revision.  We shouldn't be cutting off people's well-intentioned edits by telling them to go off to Talk:Physics/wip.  If the concern is that new edits tend to be dis-improvements, the process can be controlled by organizing this talk page to illustrate consensus on certain parts of the article.  A FAQ might be useful.  Gnixon 21:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal to restart the improvement process 

message: The discussions on the improvement to the lead section are now continuing following the vote that was taken. All opinions and suggestions are welcome and should be directed here, thank you. Krea 14:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Physics — from the Greek  (phusis) "nature", and  (phusike) "knowledge of nature" — in everyday terms, is the science that seeks to understand objects in nature, such as particles or fields, through principles such as forces, energies, and conservation laws, amongst others. At its most fundamental description, physics can be described to be the science whose goal it is to understand nature.
If anybody has any comments to make, no matter how trivial, could they please be made at the review page. Just butt in and express an opinion! Krea 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Grammatically, I don't see much wrong with the sentence myself, but if you have a better structure for it let me know. I'd prefer to keep logic out of the definition: I'm not convinced that it is fundamental. It might be, but I am not aware of any discussion or argument that states so. For example, concerning the problem of "where did existence stem from", logic seems to break down doesn't it? Then again, I may be wrong. I'd be grateful if anyone would care to enlighten me if I am indeed mistaken. Krea 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section Review 

message: Hello. The temp pages for the physics article, in particular Physics/wip, Physics/wip/leadproposal1, Physics/wip/leadproposal2 and Physics/wip/leadproposal3 should all be moved to either the user or talk namespaces. Otherwise, chances are me or someone equally uninvolved in this rewriting process will move it to some place that you guys will feel is inconvenient! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 16:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair point. I'll bring this up with the other editors on the Physics/wip page so as not to surprise them with a change. Krea 03:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the moves in order to comply with Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses but left links on the original pages.  The pages should be deleted altogether after awhile.  Gnixon 21:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp pages 

message: This article needs good inline references and fewer of the mishmash references found under the Further reading section.  Nevertheless, the Britannica Concise reference is a particularly lousy choice.
* It doesn't directly support the text in the introductory paragraph to which it is/was attached.
* It's vague and not very accurate anyway.  For instance, this statement - "the different forces of nature are related and are, in fact, interconvertible because they are forms of energy" - is nonsense.  Neither forces nor fundamental interactions are forms of energy. Tim Shuba 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, it's silly for this encyclopedia to reference another one.  This article does need a lot of work on its citations.  Gnixon 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline references 

message: I've reorganized much of the page over a series of recent edits.  Most of the content was untouched.  Major changes are:
* Limited main topics to
:*Introduction
:*Central theories
:*Research
:*History
:*See also
:*Notes
:Most other topics in the prior version fit nicely within "Central theories," "Research," or "History."
* Moved the gigantic lists under Further Reading to a subpage, Physics/Further reading.
These changes brought the article to a reasonable size and I think better organized its contents.  Some of the gross changes may have slightly hurt continuity, especially in the History section, so some work on transitions would be helpful.  As mentioned above, this article is seriously deficient in its references, and needs a lot of work there.  Thoughts? Gnixon 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: The History section now accounts for 5 of the 13 pages in the body of the article, whereas Theories and Research are only 3 pages each.  I think History should be trimmed substantially to allow for a slight expansion of the other sections, especially since there is a separate article devoted entirely to History of Physics.  Remember Wikipedia guidelines suggest a printed length of about 10 pages for the body of the article.  Gnixon 17:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I've seen attempts before to do work on a development page and then move that wholesale into the main article.  I've never seen this work.  What happens is some people work on the main page, others on the development page, and many, knowing that one or the other page will at some point vanish without a trace, don't work on the article at all.  Rick Norwood 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I applaud the effort put in by editors at Talk:Physics/wip, but I have to agree with Rick.  I wish they'd bring their good ideas straight to the article.  I understand it can be tempting sometimes to start from the ground up, and I do remember a time when there was so much constant editing of this page that it became counterproductive, but this article was pretty thin on editors for several months.  By the way, I think it looks pretty good, now, and with some pruning of the History section and editing of the Introduction, it might be time to move toward Good/Featured article reviews.  Gnixon 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  development page 

message: Ages ago, in times I don't well remember, I delisted Physics from "Good article" status, mentioning logical structure, stability, and NPOV as problems.  (See WP:WIAGA.)  The latter two complaints were largely related to a certain figure which is no longer part of the article, so I think they're no longer an issue.  Stability, in particular, is no longer a problem---if anything, the article isn't getting enough edits to improve.  Also, I think at least the overall logical structure is reasonable.  However, there are other problems:
* The lead is too short, and the Introduction probably too long.  It looks to me like the Intro was split off from the lead to avoid violating the 2-4 paragraph guideline for WP:LEAD.  I recommend trying to write a good, concise lead that follows WP:LEAD and eliminates the need for "Introduction".
* Whether or not "Introduction" is incorporated into the lead, what's there is not well-written, and its purpose is unclear.  I mentioned an attempt at improving it in the above discussion topic, and I would appreciate comments there.
* "History" is likewise problematic.  The section is much too long for this article, and the coverage seems random.  Perhaps an ambitious editor could replace it with a concise, well-written summary of History of physics, and add to that article any info from this one that isn't already there.
* "Theories" and "Research" are reasonable for a summary-style article, but I wonder if some good writing could turn the bulleted lists into good, readable prose.  Also, it would be nice to have comments on whether the giant tables in those two sections are useful as links to related articles (again, summary style) or if they disrupt the flow of the article too much.
Those are the main issues I see.  Comments would be much appreciated, as I'd like to make some improvements and move this article toward Featured Article Review.  Cheers, Gnixon 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: Why is the lead photo of the orbital’s of the hydrogen atom, granted this is physics, but you have to crawl before you run.  Should the lead photo not be of something that involved force and motion, like a ball in flight? Carl 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but balls in flight aren't a very current topic of physics research.  I bet we could find a better image, though---hydrogen orbitals aren't exactly current research, either, and the image isn't particularly compelling.  I'd rather have a ball in flight with a diagram, but maybe we could do even better.  How about something along the lines of the levitating magnet/superconductor system shown later on?  It's very modern, very cool-looking, has both experimental and theoretical relevance, and involves a number of different areas (condensed matter, quantum, E&M, cryogenics, etc.).  Gnixon 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this? •Jim62sch• 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dig that picture, but it's pretty limited to GR (plus I always worry that the way it mixes 2-d and 3-d is more confusing than enlightening).  Is there something richer?  It'd be really cool if we could find a way to periodically rotate a stable of neat pictures.  Gnixon 19:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Picture 

message: As a physicist at university thirty years ago I know that the the term "Modern Physics" used to be reserved for physics that started with "Quantum Physics". "The theory of relativity" and "Nuclear Physics" both belonged to "Classical Physics". I am aware that this does seem to be the way the term is used by most people outside university, but is there anyone that has a reference to this distinction changing inside the university sphere?
I did a spurious google, and all the university references I found confirm the older usage. If the distinction still holds within the universities, should we not try to uphold that distinction here?
DanielDemaret 09:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  I've been confused about the issue ever since someone created a section in this article distinguishing between "classical" = "all non-quantum" vs. "modern" = "quantum + relativity."  Tipler's textbook "Modern Physics," for example, covers both relativity and quantum mechanics.  I turned up a NASA webpage that (under "Einstein, Albert") says relativity and quantum are the foundation of modern physics, but I wouldn't give that too much weight since whoever made that webpage could just be following Wikipedia!  Perhaps the confusion is rooted in the fact that relativity and quantum were historically developed at about the same time, but the book on relativity closed quickly, whereas work on quantizing "classical" theories continued.  In particular, since GR still isn't quantized, it's convenient to lump it in with "classical" theories, even though it didn't show up until well into the "modern physics" era.  In any case, I don't think the terms are as well-defined as the article suggests.  It'd be great if we could find some references---is there a physics dictionary on anyone's shelves?  Gnixon 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weisstein's World of Physics calls special relativity an "important tool of modern physics" and says quantum mechanics "represented a fundamental break with classical physics."  Neither topic says anything else relevant.  Gnixon 17:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "modern" is always tricky as the definition of modernity changes over time depending on the rate of development of a given discipline (occasional lapses into the term "post-modern" notwithstanding).  To say that GR or SR are classical physics is to merely note the POV of quantum physicists who feel that their field is more advanced, hence more modern.  Additionally the definition between "classical" and "modern" if often quite arbitrary, and suggests that significant, sudden leaps have occured when in reality most disciplines see a pretty straightforward timeline, with each new theory being built out of previous work. •Jim62sch• 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quantum theory and relativity are both almost as fundamental to physics as E&M and classical mechanics, so I don't think there's some POV issue where one group of physicists disparages the work of others.  For instance, any physicist working on gravity would agree that GR needs to be quantized one way or another.  It seems to me that the crux of the issue is exactly that relativity and quantum theory appeared in a "significant, sudden leap" at the beginning of the 20th century.  Relativity was much more easily reconciled with the rest of physics than quantum theory, so there's a need to distinguish between (a) the historical flurry in the early 20th century that brought both relativity and quantum, vs. (b) theories that do not incorporate quantum mechanics (since incorporating relativity was easy).  Gnixon 18:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but most of the statements I've seen that attempt to put relativity into the classical realm have been from quantum theorists.  The problem of quantising GR may be with us for a very long time as quantum physics deals in a micro- environment and GR/SR in a macro- environment.  Incorporating relativity was "easy" precisely because it studied the same macro- environment as "classical" physics.  There are some modern theories like M-Theory that might be able to merge the two, but M-Theory may not be falsifiable given the massive amounts of energy needed to get beyond point particles into strings (if they even exist). •Jim62sch• 19:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Luckily, there's cosmology---the huge and the tiny at the same time!  I think we really need a survey of quotations to resolve this.  The few that I've found (see above) tend to weakly support the strange definitions of "classical" = "not quantum" and "modern" = "relativity+quantum".  Gnixon 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's kind of the same thing I face as a linguist: Shakespeare and the KJV (original version particularly) are considered "modern" English, but they bear little resemblance to contemporary English except to an extent syntactically: In fact, Shakespearean and Jacobean English were obsolete by the mid-18th century. •Jim62sch• 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there might be a real difference between the meaning of "modern" in "modern physics" versus in, say, "modern history."  Maybe that's just due to the relative youth of the field, but it seems real so far, at least.  Gnixon 00:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know that it the meaning was different at my old University and I know what the argument was, but I think the most common use today is "relativity and quantum", and that works for me too.  If you work 30 years in solid state physics, which most of the physicists I know do, then that distinction is not important anyway. DanielDemaret 06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you think we should just cut that section?  Gnixon 12:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Dan, this is what we've been discussing all along.  As used here, "classical" != "not modern"---note both negations, i.e., they're not opposites.  The position taken in the article is "classical" = "not quantum," whereas "modern" = "relativity+quantum."  Thus "not modern" is a subset of "classical".  (I didn't write it; I'm not vigorously defending it; I'm just saying what it says.)  Gnixon 13:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  mmm. Yes. That is exactly what the text says. Thank you. The extension of this is that relativity  is "modern", due to the first sentence, and at the same time relativity is "not modern", since it does not in itself contain quantum. Both "modern" and "not modern" at the same time. A bit like Schrödingers Cat, really. Alive and not alive at the same time. :) Terry Pratchett might have enjoyed this. DanielDemaret 15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess what I really meant was that, according to the text, "modern" includes both "relativity" and "quantum", whereas "classical" excludes quantum.  So relativity by itself is both "modern" and "classical."  Gnixon 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Gnixon, I vote we skip the section or at least leave the "modern" section out of the first page. It is cruel to the non-physicist to be so confusing at what is supposed to be an introduction.DanielDemaret 15:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  We'll see if others agree.  Gnixon 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a senior undergraduate student in Physics and I took a Modern Physics course a couple years ago. The course titled "Modern Physics" at my university covered special relativity and basic quantum mechanics. I have taken two courses that could be considered advanced classical mechanics courses: "Classical Mechanics", in which the most advanced topic we covered was Lagrangian mechanics, and "Electricity and Magnetism." E&M did cover special relativity; however I believe that was largely due the professor who was teaching it that semester. The instructor is a cosmologist, and I know that the students who had taken that class the previous year with a different teacher did not cover relativity.  Overall I would definitely not consider special relativity to be part of classical mechanics. Heck, it violates Newton's laws. How can it be classical mechanics?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.245.69 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Modern physics" 

message: I thought this page was a bit lacking in references, with one single link, so I clicked that single reference, and it was broken. Unless anyone objects, I shall be putting in a few references to things that seem to me to need qualification, sources, and in some cases, correction. DanielDemaret 09:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: References are always welcome. •Jim62sch• 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stopped myself when I noticed there was a alternate "development page", wherein I assume all changes should go anyway :) DanielDemaret 06:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh contraire!  Those guys are working on some big ideas, but I don't think they'll be wholesale replacing the article anytime soon.  Please do improve the main article directly!  Gnixon 12:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hoping to take this discussion out of the edit summaries.
At some point the lead made a parenthetical remark about how "Physics" apparently used to be called "Physike."  I thought it probably wasn't important enough to be mentioned in the lead, so I removed it.  Someone else then modified the first sentence of the introduction so it mentioned "Physike."  I thought the edit disrupted the flow of the paragraph, so I changed it back, but it was changed back to include "Physike" the same way.  Seems like this issue is worth discussing.
Here are the two versions of the beginning of the introduction:
:::Without Physike:  Since antiquity, natural philosophers have sought to explain physical phenomena and the nature of matter, but the emergence of physics as a modern science began with the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries and continued through the dawn of modern physics in the early 20th century.
:::With Physike:  Since antiquity, natural philosophers have sought to explain physical phenomena and the nature of matter, and this pursuit was formerly the study known as "physics" (once spelled physike, in imitation of Aristotle). The emergence of modern physics as a distinct science began with the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries and continued through the dawn of modern physics in the early 20th century.
Is it important that we mention "physike" (and do it right at the beginning of the article)?  If so, can we at least come up with a way that's less disruptive to the flow of the intro?  The previous version of the intro was a little awkward already, so it'd be great if we could find more elegant phrasing than either of these.  Gnixon 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in the History section?  Gnixon 16:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea; it almost sounds like Physike could be a whole article to it self. Do you have a source for that story? Carl 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering all the discussion we had above previously regarding the importance of not covering up or whitewashing the FACT and TRUTH that "physics" was once the study of natural philosophy, and was known as physike, I am utterly dismayed that someone has taken it upon himself yet again to unilaterally remove this encyclopedic information entirely from wikipedia, with nary a word of discussion.  There is absolutely no consensus to do this in light of previous discussions, therefore I would ask that it be re-added ASAP. Til Eulenspiegel 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two problems with mentioning "physike" in the article, and I don't think there was consensus for including it.  First, and most importantly, I can't find any evidence that "physike" is notable enough to be discussed in the main article on physics.  For example, it's obviously a historical topic, but it's not even mentioned (at all) in History of Physics, which contains lots of info that doesn't make the main Physics article.  Second, there's no natural way for it to be mentioned here without disrupting the flow of the lead.  My recommendation would be to first try bringing History of Physics up to snuff on coverage of the topic, with references.  Gnixon 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been included for a long time, many months, and you (or someone) unilaterally removed it, taking this decision single-handedly without any discussion or warning, claiming that your personal judegement and decision is justified because "there isn't any consensus to include it" ???  OK, I see how you play now... Til Eulenspiegel 01:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If memory serves, it was in the article only because you insisted on it.  I could support leaving "Physike" in the article if you would provide for me a reference that explains why it is more important than all the other historical information that didn't make the article.  I'm having trouble getting past the facts that (a) I've never heard of "physike" and (b) I don't know of any source (including History of Physics) where I can read about it.  From what you've said, it seems like an interesting historical tidbit, so I don't understand why you wouldn't be agreeable to first summarizing the story in History of Physics.  I'm sorry if my previous comments came off as impolite, and I hope we can work something out here.  Gnixon 03:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've never heard of physike, because you can't read about it on wikipedia, eh.... I think that says lots about the level of scholarship we're dealing with here... Til Eulenspiegel 13:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't your comments that came across as impolite, it was your lack of comments.  After all our previous discussion, you acted unilaterally and silently and simply imposed your own conception of how "notable" this is, based apparently on the fact that you'd never heard of it before. Til Eulenspiegel 14:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You might also try looking up the etymology of the word "physician". (Doctor of physike) For countless centuries before Newton, it had much more to do with medicine & nature, than with a bunch of ball bearings on strings crashing into each other... Til Eulenspiegel 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll just mention a reference, I'll be happy to read about physike.  A google search for the word turns up nothing in English except your comments on Wikipedia.  Apparently, physike is a word currently used in some foreign language (german for physics is physik), but I'm not sure which.    Please provide a reference.  Gnixon 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physike 

message: While I agree, in part, with what Thenamenottaken  has to day about energy, I do think the link should be in the lead because you quite often in physics use energy to describe the universe skipping the messiness that comes with talking about space and time. Does this change to the line in question work better? 
old:
It deals with the elementary constituents of the universe—matter, energy, space, and time—and their interactions.
new:
It deals with the fundamental constructs in observing the universe—matter, energy, space, and time—and their interactions.
I think we should remember that all these things are ideas (matter, energy, space and time) are created by us, humans, to describe the natural word we observe with great truth and accuracy. 
I also don’t know how much of a moot point this is because of the opening statement in the development article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Physics/wip/development_article Carl 23:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct improvements to the article are never moot.  Gnixon 00:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy’s place in physics

message: Hey everyone, I am posting here to let you know that the article Mathematical physics, is this month's Math collaboration of the month. I am sorry to say that the article is in fairly bad shape and that participation is spotty. However this can change. I am posting here because I watch this article for vandalism and I noticed that this talk page receives a fair amount of traffic. Mathematical physic is a very important article to the physics wikiproject and wikipedia in general and I hope that you find time to look at and improve the article. Hopefully new discussion can be sparked as well, the last conversation about the article took place almost a year ago. Also, I am aware that the physics wikiproject would be a better place to post this but I wanted to catch all of the exopedians and IPs that patrol over here as well as the established users at the wikiproject. Thanks so much--Cronholm144 00:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics, [[Mathematical physics]]