This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Will someone please review this draft? On first review it appears to be the author's own ideas (and therefore original research). Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is open about the merge of Debye frequency with Debye model, as the former is just a parameter that appears in the later. This merge proposal is open since November 2017 ( Discuss it here). MaoGo ( talk) 09:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Quick question, is this article ( electron liquid) a thing?. None of the references have electron liquid written and it seems just a vague term between Fermi liquid and jellium. -- MaoGo ( talk) 13:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
For the references see the earlier editions: [1]. -- MaoGo ( talk) 13:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Dirac matter links to the DAB page Abelian. This is well out of my field; can any expert here correct the link? Thanks in advance. Narky Blert ( talk) 10:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I think there's something very wrong about the lead of Spacetime topology. And perhaps the recent edits should be reviewed as well. Could someone have a look at this? - DVdm ( talk) 14:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Would this page International System of Electrical and Magnetic Units be relevant for adoption into the WikiProject Physics? Sdc870 ( talk) 17:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I came across two articles that seem to be a duplicate of the same subject: Yarkovsky effect, and Yarkovsky–O'Keefe–Radzievskii–Paddack effect. Are they different phenomena or should they be merged? Thanks. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 18:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Not a term in wide use it seems, going by the existence of only 399 results on Google, many of which are automatically generated from the Wikipedia article.
Unlike Hard radiation and Soft radiation, which refer to loose ends of a spectrum, this article gives a hard limit as if it had been declared definitively true by a major authority. Really, the only citation given for any of it is a now-dead URL from what seems to be a college professor, who disclaims his definition immediately with "It is convenient...".
I am not a physicist and would defer to one in deciding whether this should be RfD'd. But it really seems like a physicist would say so. Henstepl ( talk) 03:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I have been adding Wikilinks to the text in Density matrix renormalization group to enhance comprehensibility for those of us without physics degrees, but I’m stumped by subspace and blocks, both of which are disambiguation pages. I don’t know which of the articles listed in each would be the right one to link to. Can anyone help me out? Thanks in advance. — Gorthian ( talk) 22:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electron liquid. MaoGo ( talk) 09:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Classical and quantum conductivity is very useless as it is. Some articles link to it as a curiosity, it is not a history article, and in the end it does not discuss the difference between quantum and classical models. Additionally it was created by a user who only contribution was to write the unformated version of the article. -- MaoGo ( talk) 15:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It is done. Feel free to leave a comment. -- MaoGo ( talk) 16:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
With this edit a new user Chriskb19 ( talk · contribs) has replaced the image [3] of an alectron positron pair production in article Electron with a new image [4]. User had announced this 5 months ago on the talk page: [5]. I reverted the change for reasons explained in a note on my talk page ( [6]). Can someone have a look at this? TIA. - DVdm ( talk) 18:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
As it happens, I have a PhD in Particle Physics (Manchester 1983) and I did particle physics research up to 2000 with experiments at DESY, CERN and SLAC. As part of this, I was involved with electron-positron conversions from gamma rays produced by B* meson decays, exploiting their production with approximately zero opening angle.
You say you find the zero opening angle (theta) to be problematical. I refer you to the maths in the Pair Production article which shows that, with certain approximations, the solution for theta is exactly zero degrees. However energy and momentum cannot be conserved if the opening angle is exactly zero. (This explains why a photon cannot convert to an electron-positron pair spontaneously.) In order to conserve these quantities, some momentum must be transferred to another object - a nucleus or an atomic electron. This object gets a small kick, partly longitudinal and partly transverse to the direction of the photon. The electron-positron get a transverse kick. It is unlikely that the pair get half each so the electron and positron open up slightly. The angle is typically very small, as good as zero in most cases. To detect an electron-positron pair, a magnetic field is needed to separate the particles by bending one clockwise and the other anti-clockwise. By tracking back the two arcs, the production point can be calculated and the zero opening angle checked. In a bubble chamber an electron-positron pair looks like the Greek letter gamma which becomes a pair of circles or a pair of spirals. The simple diagram in the Pair Production does gives the wrong impression about the opening angle. I have considered changing this diagram but unlike my correct one, it is easier to see what is going on without expanding it. Chriskb19 ( talk) 21:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this picture [10] supports Chrisbk19's position, even if we cannot use it in the article. JRSpriggs ( talk) 02:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Discussion here. May I simply erase Laplace formula article and add a redirection? -- MaoGo ( talk) 10:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The recent deletion proposal ended without a consensus for deletion. However, a strong argument emerged for converting thermal energy to a DAB page. The argument is that "thermal energy" doesn't have a distinct well-defined meaning in thermodynamics. Rather, it can refer to heat, sensible heat, internal energy, or kT (energy), all of which have their own wiki article. Unless there are objections (I'll wait a few days) I intend to go ahead and do that, as I've already stated on Talk:Thermal_energy. Waleswatcher (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Over at the talk page for Entropy, User:82.2.57.14 made the following suggestion: "If we submit a merge request with introduction to entropy and break up section 6 then I think that's the best start. Then this article is responsible for both audiences so there's no cop out. 6.1 can join the definitions, a lot of 6.2 onwards can be merged down into 7 because "Applications" and "Approaches to Understanding" mostly mean similar things as presented here" (the section numbers refer to Entropy). I think merging the two is a good idea, both because Introduction to entropy is not very well written, and because it shouldn't be necessary at all. Instead, the entropy article itself should do a good job of explaining entropy, and if needed can have a non- or less-technical introduction section. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
GNSS positioning calculation links to the DAB page Transit time. I'm not sure if either Radar#Transit time or Time of flight would be a good target, so expert attention in solving this problem would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 14:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I've got an opinion, and other people surely do too. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Template:Scientists whose names are used as SI units has been put up for deletion. Spinning Spark 16:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Will someone please review this draft? On first review it appears to be the author's own ideas (and therefore original research). Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is open about the merge of Debye frequency with Debye model, as the former is just a parameter that appears in the later. This merge proposal is open since November 2017 ( Discuss it here). MaoGo ( talk) 09:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Quick question, is this article ( electron liquid) a thing?. None of the references have electron liquid written and it seems just a vague term between Fermi liquid and jellium. -- MaoGo ( talk) 13:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
For the references see the earlier editions: [1]. -- MaoGo ( talk) 13:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Dirac matter links to the DAB page Abelian. This is well out of my field; can any expert here correct the link? Thanks in advance. Narky Blert ( talk) 10:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I think there's something very wrong about the lead of Spacetime topology. And perhaps the recent edits should be reviewed as well. Could someone have a look at this? - DVdm ( talk) 14:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Would this page International System of Electrical and Magnetic Units be relevant for adoption into the WikiProject Physics? Sdc870 ( talk) 17:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I came across two articles that seem to be a duplicate of the same subject: Yarkovsky effect, and Yarkovsky–O'Keefe–Radzievskii–Paddack effect. Are they different phenomena or should they be merged? Thanks. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 18:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Not a term in wide use it seems, going by the existence of only 399 results on Google, many of which are automatically generated from the Wikipedia article.
Unlike Hard radiation and Soft radiation, which refer to loose ends of a spectrum, this article gives a hard limit as if it had been declared definitively true by a major authority. Really, the only citation given for any of it is a now-dead URL from what seems to be a college professor, who disclaims his definition immediately with "It is convenient...".
I am not a physicist and would defer to one in deciding whether this should be RfD'd. But it really seems like a physicist would say so. Henstepl ( talk) 03:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I have been adding Wikilinks to the text in Density matrix renormalization group to enhance comprehensibility for those of us without physics degrees, but I’m stumped by subspace and blocks, both of which are disambiguation pages. I don’t know which of the articles listed in each would be the right one to link to. Can anyone help me out? Thanks in advance. — Gorthian ( talk) 22:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electron liquid. MaoGo ( talk) 09:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Classical and quantum conductivity is very useless as it is. Some articles link to it as a curiosity, it is not a history article, and in the end it does not discuss the difference between quantum and classical models. Additionally it was created by a user who only contribution was to write the unformated version of the article. -- MaoGo ( talk) 15:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It is done. Feel free to leave a comment. -- MaoGo ( talk) 16:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
With this edit a new user Chriskb19 ( talk · contribs) has replaced the image [3] of an alectron positron pair production in article Electron with a new image [4]. User had announced this 5 months ago on the talk page: [5]. I reverted the change for reasons explained in a note on my talk page ( [6]). Can someone have a look at this? TIA. - DVdm ( talk) 18:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
As it happens, I have a PhD in Particle Physics (Manchester 1983) and I did particle physics research up to 2000 with experiments at DESY, CERN and SLAC. As part of this, I was involved with electron-positron conversions from gamma rays produced by B* meson decays, exploiting their production with approximately zero opening angle.
You say you find the zero opening angle (theta) to be problematical. I refer you to the maths in the Pair Production article which shows that, with certain approximations, the solution for theta is exactly zero degrees. However energy and momentum cannot be conserved if the opening angle is exactly zero. (This explains why a photon cannot convert to an electron-positron pair spontaneously.) In order to conserve these quantities, some momentum must be transferred to another object - a nucleus or an atomic electron. This object gets a small kick, partly longitudinal and partly transverse to the direction of the photon. The electron-positron get a transverse kick. It is unlikely that the pair get half each so the electron and positron open up slightly. The angle is typically very small, as good as zero in most cases. To detect an electron-positron pair, a magnetic field is needed to separate the particles by bending one clockwise and the other anti-clockwise. By tracking back the two arcs, the production point can be calculated and the zero opening angle checked. In a bubble chamber an electron-positron pair looks like the Greek letter gamma which becomes a pair of circles or a pair of spirals. The simple diagram in the Pair Production does gives the wrong impression about the opening angle. I have considered changing this diagram but unlike my correct one, it is easier to see what is going on without expanding it. Chriskb19 ( talk) 21:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this picture [10] supports Chrisbk19's position, even if we cannot use it in the article. JRSpriggs ( talk) 02:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Discussion here. May I simply erase Laplace formula article and add a redirection? -- MaoGo ( talk) 10:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The recent deletion proposal ended without a consensus for deletion. However, a strong argument emerged for converting thermal energy to a DAB page. The argument is that "thermal energy" doesn't have a distinct well-defined meaning in thermodynamics. Rather, it can refer to heat, sensible heat, internal energy, or kT (energy), all of which have their own wiki article. Unless there are objections (I'll wait a few days) I intend to go ahead and do that, as I've already stated on Talk:Thermal_energy. Waleswatcher (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Over at the talk page for Entropy, User:82.2.57.14 made the following suggestion: "If we submit a merge request with introduction to entropy and break up section 6 then I think that's the best start. Then this article is responsible for both audiences so there's no cop out. 6.1 can join the definitions, a lot of 6.2 onwards can be merged down into 7 because "Applications" and "Approaches to Understanding" mostly mean similar things as presented here" (the section numbers refer to Entropy). I think merging the two is a good idea, both because Introduction to entropy is not very well written, and because it shouldn't be necessary at all. Instead, the entropy article itself should do a good job of explaining entropy, and if needed can have a non- or less-technical introduction section. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
GNSS positioning calculation links to the DAB page Transit time. I'm not sure if either Radar#Transit time or Time of flight would be a good target, so expert attention in solving this problem would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 14:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I've got an opinion, and other people surely do too. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Template:Scientists whose names are used as SI units has been put up for deletion. Spinning Spark 16:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)