![]() | 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. |
{{ Classical Physics}} Where does the nonlinear wave equation in this template appear in classical physics? The speed is taken as a function of the field . This non-linear wave equation does not seem to be generated by a variational principle: for instance a Lagrangian leads to The form is quite general if varies in space. I do not know whether this equation has conserved quantities, which one would expect for a dissipationless system. Is it not wiser to take (a constant) in the template, instead of -- Crowsnest ( talk) 23:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
It's such a trivial change I thought to just do it. It's not about how close CM approaches to QM, just that the HJE has such nice properties (at least IMO)... Maschen ( talk) 21:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
New quantum theory is a new article and I believe it is physics related (not too much science background) but it definitely needs attention. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 19:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The material is pseudoscience, and should be deleted due to lack of notability if not for another reason. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
{{ IsaacNewtonSegments}} has been nominated for renaming, see template talk:IsaacNewtonSegments -- 70.24.245.16 ( talk) 13:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Found another one that looks like should get a eye from the Physics community. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Alan Guth proposed that the big bang explosion was caused by the reversal of gravity. When I considered the idea I first thought that he meant that gravity became negative. If so, using the equation A(acceleration) = D(distance) / T(time) squared. If A is negative then, unless D is negative (which seems unlikely) T squared would have to be negative and T would have to equal i. This is hard to understand. After further thought it occurred to me that magnetism can be either positive or negative and perhaps gravity can also be positive or negative. I assume this has long since occurred to others; am I correct? Sui docuit ( talk) 16:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Sui docuit
... because enough is enough. (Most recently, recent edits at Talk:Boltzmann constant, eg [2])
No, I know, I shouldn't try to talk him through his misconceptions, and get him to see the points he's been missing. Enough Arbcom decisions have laid down that's not what WP talk pages are to be used for. One ought to just say WP:RS or no discussion. But particularly in Physics, it's so much about understanding how it all fits together, one always feels that with a bit of a discussion, at least we can make sure everyone editing is at least starting from the same square one, understanding each other's perspectives, so that discussion of how to take the article will at least be informed. Even if it's not what talk pages are for, usually that can be concluded in a couple of back and forth responses, and it's worth it because misconceptions can get identified, and editing on the page can move forward with a much better consensus idea of what it's all about.
Except with Damorbel ( talk · contribs). It's not just me -- wherever he edits, there end up being walls of text on the talk pages, as people try to explain him basic thermal physics, and he just refuses to get it.
In particular he has an idée fixe that temperature is the average kinetic energy of a molecule -- even if there's just one molecule -- that comes back again and again, and nothing will shift him from it.
So I'm asking the community: is it time to say enough is enough, that some minimum level of competence and cluefulness (or at least ability to learn, or to be a useful Wikipedian) is required, and that regrettably, at least in the area of thermodynamics, Damorbel just appears not to have it? (Either that, or else has been deliberately trolling us for the last three years).
I have never put up a request like this before, and I hope never to have to again, but I simply don't know what else to do. Jheald ( talk) 21:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Jheald writes (this section, opening statement.)
I read this as an attempt to take ownership of a Wiki article by restricting who may contribute. Almost all my contibutions are accompanied by Talk Page sections, the vast majority are Talk Page sections; the idea being to sort out technicalities before changing the article. What I am getting from Jheald and others is this kind of sterile argument:-
No logic, no science, just playground banter.
Come on Jheald, I am expecting better "stuff" from you!-- Damorbel ( talk) 12:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that this article may benefit from this link. However, since I am not a science expert I don't understand it very well. I'm not sure if it's proving or disproving the simulation hypothesis. Someone else may be able to make sense of it. Thanks. (This same comment is posted on the talk page of that article.) Lighthead þ 23:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is obvious fringe science and should be deleted for lack of notability. If others agree, perhaps we can start the AfD process. Waleswatcher (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Nominated for a 2nd time - input welcome. Maschen ( talk) 08:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is written (almost) entirely from Nick Laskin's ( user:Nlaskin) point of veiw - so I added the {{ unbalanced}} tag. WP:VANITY is clearly evident. I'll look for additional sources in time (can't right now), but if anyone else has some refs please add... Maschen ( talk) 08:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
How can I find out who the "professional" overseer is for the article Coriolis effect? There seems to be substantial and pervasive errors throughout the article, and rather large group of editors hellbent on not letting these be corrected. If one ignores gravity, then one cannot observe any it's effects, including the Coriolis effect. Watchwolf49z ( talk) 14:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Some contributors claim that I am so ignorant that my contributions are so disruptive and that I should be banned from editing.
So let us resolve the matter.
Basing the resolution on the complaint made above by Jheald and endosed by PAR; S B H arris; Martinvl; Steve; Maschen and Chjoaygame that :-
So I summarise my argument:-
The difficulty, as far as I can see, that user Jheald et al have is not when n is large (>1010) but as n -> 1. The relation between the energy of a particle and its temperature is the Boltzmann constant, this relationship can be extended to complex molecules with more than the three degrees of freedom, because the equipartition of energy extends to all degrees of freedom that are excited at the relevant temperature.
The matter will be resolved if anybody, let alone Jheald et al, can show that the equipartition of energy does not apply in the given equilibrium conditions or that the science behind the Boltzmann constant does not apply to particles in general (including pollen grains!).
I suggest Jheald et al assist in resolving this matter here and now. If it isn't resolved here I shall be more than happy to resolve it at Wikipedia:AN. -- Damorbel ( talk) 09:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm just a newbee here, but aren't we required to fully reference all our statements, even on talk pages? I'm kinda of in the same position as you right now, and my "opposition" is perfectly correct making me dig up peer review scientific literature to back my position. My claim is extrordinary, it absolutely requires extrordinary references. I'd love to debate these people on the matter, but Wikipedia is the wrong place for that. Watchwolf49z ( talk) 14:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Damorbel, your summary appears to be correct. I quote from Kittel:
Temperature is precisely defined only for a system in thermal equilibrium with a heat bath: The temperature of a system A, however small, is defined as equal to the temperature of a very large heat reservoir B with which the system is in equilibrium and in thermal contact. Thermal contact means that A and B can exchange energy, although insulated from the outer world.
The system A may even be a single atom of a gas. Then the reservoir B is composed of all the other atoms of the gas, along with perhaps the walls of the common container. We do not speak of the single atom as having a fluctuating temperature that tracks its fluctuating kinetic energy.— Kittel, Charles (1988). "Temperature Fluctuation: An Oxymoron". Physics Today. 41 (3): 93. doi: 10.1063/1.2811420.
The above statement is true for the standard thermodynamic definition of temperature. However, this definition has been criticized because it does not allow for the intuitive notion of thermal fluctuations. See Mandelbrot, Benoit B. (1989). "Temperature Fluctuation: A Well-Defined and Unavoidable Notion". Physics Today. 42 (1): 71. doi: 10.1063/1.2810881. The issue has been much debated since then, and there have been attempts to define temperature to allow for fluctuations. RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
By contrast, the kinetic energy of a single atom moving at a single velocity forever, can be turned into work at 100% efficiency. And so on and so on. If you give such an atom with unchanging energy a finite temperature (either at any instant in time, or as considering an atom what keeps the same energy over time), none of those things are true. S B H arris 23:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The lead of this section by Damorbel adverts to the proposal to ban Damorbel and seems to imply that allegation of ignorance is the only ground for it. There are other grounds for the proposal to ban Damorbel besides that he is alleged to be ignorant. The other grounds lie in his manner of editing. This point needs to be made here because Darmorbel's lead to this section adverts to the proposal.
But I will not here address the proposal or its grounds. Damorbel's lead here intends to focus on his views on temperature as a question of physics, and that is what I am addressing here. I do not know whether it will be considered useful to work on this question here, but I fear that silence might be construed as consent. I will not try to put all the picture here and now, but will wait to see if other editors are interested in this section.
Damorbel summarizes his argument in the lead to this section above, starting with the phrase "In a system of particles in thermal equilibrium, ..." In starting so, Damorbel is proposing a particular point of view, that of the kinetic theory of gases and perhaps more or less of statistical mechanics, which is focused on systems of particles, as indicated by his starting phrase just quoted. I will argue here that there are other points of view, and I will give some hint that they are more basic to the present Wikipedia articles than the point of view here advocated by Darmorbel. The main other point of view is that of plain thermodynamics, which avoids mention of particles.
That viewpoint, advocated here by Damorbel, is perhaps partly or wholly accepted by some authorities who like to teach their students in a particular way, which may be called the way of thermal physics. Kittel & Kroemer (1969/1980) and Reif (1965) are examples. It so happens that these two texts have been cited for the definition of heat in the current version of the article on heat. This is an accident of Wikipedia editing history, that the definition was taken from those authors, because they were favoured by editors with clout at the time of creation of the current version. Other definitions have been favoured and cited by other editors previously. It cannot be taken as settled that the way of thermal physics is the one right point of view.
The way of thermal physics takes a pedagogical viewpoint, that thermodynamics and statistical mechanics should be taught together, so that the student will have a strong feel for their common elements. It is different from the main alternative viewpoint, that thermodynamics should be taught before statistical mechanics, as a separate subject, for reasons which I will not right here state, but will state later.
The distinction between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics is recognized by many authorities on thermodynamics. For example Fowler and Guggenheim (Fowler, R., Guggenheim, E.A. (1939). Statistical Thermodynamics, Cambridge University Press, Canbridge UK.) on page 3 write about the fundamental assumption of statistical mechanics:
Fowler and Guggenheim are here distinguishing two viewpoints, that of statistical mechanics and that of classical thermodynamics.
Reif (1965) is a member of the thermal physics school of pedagogy, but he nevertheless recognizes that thermodynamics may be considered as a subject separate from statistical mechanics. This recognition is stated in the opening of the preface of his textbook, on page vii. I will not copy this material here, because it is too copious, but I will mention that Reif says that he thinks his pedagogical approach is clearer and more illuminating than the other pedagogical approach.
Kittel & Kroemer (1969/1980) are also members of the thermal physics school of pedagogy. They start with a definition of entropy as measuring the number of quantum states accessible to a system. They do not spend words making the distinction between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. They simply announce on page 1 that their "approach to thermal physics differs from the tradition followed in beginning physics courses."
Some respected texts make it clear that they favour teaching thermodynamics as a distinct subject without essential reference to statistical mechanics. Examples include Adkins (1968/1983), Buchdahl (1966), and Pippard (1957). I will here quote only Adkins (1968/1983) on page xi: "many books and courses on thermal physics attempt to develop classical thermodynamics and statistical mechanics side by side. ... ... it is best to teach classical thermodynamics first and separately, for the ability to use it well depends largely on knowing what it can achieve without appealing to the microscopic nature of things."
In my judgement, Damorbel is here advocating putting the kinetic theory of gases and to some extent statistical mechanics as primary, with little or no recognition of the purely thermodynamic point of view. As I read Darmorbel, he intends to deny that there is a weighty distinction between the thermodynamic viewpoint and that which he advocates which can be labelled that of the kinetic theory of gases and perhaps that of statistical mechanics.
Some editors here think that the thermodynamic point of view has some merit, and propose to define temperature by considering a thermodynamic system defined simply by macroscopic thermodynamic quantities, especially internal energy and entropy. This approach was proposed by Gibbs. It defines temperature in terms of the functions of state of the system so defined, without reference to its microscopic constitution.
In my judgement, this thermodynamic point of view has been considered by the majority consensus of editors here as the primary one for the definition of temperature. In my judgment, Damorbel's lead to this present section is seeking to overthrow this consensus and to replace it with a definition of temperature based in the kinetic theory of gases and in statistical mechanics.
There are textbooks that explicitly admit two distinct definitions of temperature, one based in thermodynamics, the other based in the kinetic theory of gases. An example is Chapman, S., Cowling, T.G. (1939/1970), The Mathematical Theory of Non-uniform Gases. An Account of the Kinetic Theory of Viscosity, Thermal Conduction and Diffusion in Gases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, p. 37. They regard it as a duty to show that the two definitions are properly compatible. Chjoaygame ( talk) 04:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I have been very disappointed with the "encyclopaedic" articles on modern and quantum physics. None of those I have viewed meet the standards of an encyclopaedic article per se. An encyclopaedic entry should be elucidatory. Instead, experts offer the circular and internally self-justifying references and arbitrary ellipses of a technical jargon, routinely failing to link these up to their semantic origins.
Writers in this field should undertand that their ellipses and abbreviations are useful only as reminders and exam crammers for the initiated. They are not "encyclopaedic". Technical language is an abbreviated language, and abbreviations, including the semiotic indices of mathematics (formulae, etc), are arbitrarily constructed and necessarily void of meaning.
Writers here must present their texts to the rigorous judgement of common understanding. This means unravelling technical abbreviation or jargon in order to display its meaning or semantic origins. This is a difficult task to accomplish but is a necessary one if writers here wish to meet the standards required for an accomplished encyclopaedic article. ( JIJnes ( talk) 19:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC))
Technical language is an abbreviated language, and abbreviations, including the semiotic indices of mathematics (formulae, etc), are arbitrarily constructed and necessarily void of meaning. Nonsense. All language is technical and all language is abbreviation. Semiotic indicies you say? LOL. glad you avoided those. But you forgot you weren't writing for a politically correct academic education journal, which of course is full of its own specific jargon.
All good writing must have an intended audience in mind, complete with supposed level of assumed prior knowledge. Where does it say, please, that this should be uniform across WP in general, and math and sci articles in particular? And what do we suppose our lowest common denominator should be? Reader's Digest was written at 6th grade level. It's rather a long way from there to Lie algebra, mesons or metabolic acidosis. S B H arris 23:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Anyway we must keep in mind that the audience for many articles is very broad, and second that this is a hypertext medium, not a newspaper, and we need to use the virtues of linking on this very problem. Still, the technicality of subject should control the rapidity of descent into tech language, but not usually affect the tech level we start at in the lede. See the TALK page for heavy water and the compromise we made there. S B H arris 01:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
More help needed on the Planck's law article - The disputes are endless, but I would like to request comment on one specific point, outlined in the Talk:Planck's law#Presence of mass section. Thanks for any help. PAR ( talk) 03:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Stephen Hawking has been proposed for the mainpage TFA, but I and others have raised concerns about its preparedness. Is anyone from WP:Physics willing to have a look at Talk:Stephen Hawking and pitch in a hand at adding content as needed? Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
I found the article on the CPT theorem needing some serious beefing up. Then, also, it appears (in the article) as if CPT invariance (and Lorentz invariance) is seriously questioned these days. The references include http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0287v5.pdf, which seems legitimate enough (tough reading), and also this: http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html. It is by the same author. I don't doubt that the author is serious, but, ..., is this mainstream?
To me, it would seem as "No Lorentz Invariance in Physics" would be much much bigger news than any Higgs boson whatsoever. YohanN7 ( talk) 16:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to get a few eyes on Alexander Ivanovich Popov. It's up for proposed deletion as a possible hoax. I'm not qualified to evaluate whether the claimed physics accomplishments of this person are plausible. Please have a look and leave feedback at Talk:Alexander Ivanovich Popov. Dcoetzee 23:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Expressing uncertainty.
— A. di M.
10:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion on whether there should or should not be a gallery in the Kármán vortex street article. The discussion is located at Talk:Kármán vortex street#Gallery. As this article is within this WikiProject, I thought I would put this here to get some more discussion as I am so far the only person to have weighed in (and it seemed a little too minor to take to RfC quite yet). Inks.LWC ( talk) 22:54, 24 December 2012 (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. |
{{ Classical Physics}} Where does the nonlinear wave equation in this template appear in classical physics? The speed is taken as a function of the field . This non-linear wave equation does not seem to be generated by a variational principle: for instance a Lagrangian leads to The form is quite general if varies in space. I do not know whether this equation has conserved quantities, which one would expect for a dissipationless system. Is it not wiser to take (a constant) in the template, instead of -- Crowsnest ( talk) 23:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
It's such a trivial change I thought to just do it. It's not about how close CM approaches to QM, just that the HJE has such nice properties (at least IMO)... Maschen ( talk) 21:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
New quantum theory is a new article and I believe it is physics related (not too much science background) but it definitely needs attention. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 19:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The material is pseudoscience, and should be deleted due to lack of notability if not for another reason. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
{{ IsaacNewtonSegments}} has been nominated for renaming, see template talk:IsaacNewtonSegments -- 70.24.245.16 ( talk) 13:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Found another one that looks like should get a eye from the Physics community. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Alan Guth proposed that the big bang explosion was caused by the reversal of gravity. When I considered the idea I first thought that he meant that gravity became negative. If so, using the equation A(acceleration) = D(distance) / T(time) squared. If A is negative then, unless D is negative (which seems unlikely) T squared would have to be negative and T would have to equal i. This is hard to understand. After further thought it occurred to me that magnetism can be either positive or negative and perhaps gravity can also be positive or negative. I assume this has long since occurred to others; am I correct? Sui docuit ( talk) 16:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Sui docuit
... because enough is enough. (Most recently, recent edits at Talk:Boltzmann constant, eg [2])
No, I know, I shouldn't try to talk him through his misconceptions, and get him to see the points he's been missing. Enough Arbcom decisions have laid down that's not what WP talk pages are to be used for. One ought to just say WP:RS or no discussion. But particularly in Physics, it's so much about understanding how it all fits together, one always feels that with a bit of a discussion, at least we can make sure everyone editing is at least starting from the same square one, understanding each other's perspectives, so that discussion of how to take the article will at least be informed. Even if it's not what talk pages are for, usually that can be concluded in a couple of back and forth responses, and it's worth it because misconceptions can get identified, and editing on the page can move forward with a much better consensus idea of what it's all about.
Except with Damorbel ( talk · contribs). It's not just me -- wherever he edits, there end up being walls of text on the talk pages, as people try to explain him basic thermal physics, and he just refuses to get it.
In particular he has an idée fixe that temperature is the average kinetic energy of a molecule -- even if there's just one molecule -- that comes back again and again, and nothing will shift him from it.
So I'm asking the community: is it time to say enough is enough, that some minimum level of competence and cluefulness (or at least ability to learn, or to be a useful Wikipedian) is required, and that regrettably, at least in the area of thermodynamics, Damorbel just appears not to have it? (Either that, or else has been deliberately trolling us for the last three years).
I have never put up a request like this before, and I hope never to have to again, but I simply don't know what else to do. Jheald ( talk) 21:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Jheald writes (this section, opening statement.)
I read this as an attempt to take ownership of a Wiki article by restricting who may contribute. Almost all my contibutions are accompanied by Talk Page sections, the vast majority are Talk Page sections; the idea being to sort out technicalities before changing the article. What I am getting from Jheald and others is this kind of sterile argument:-
No logic, no science, just playground banter.
Come on Jheald, I am expecting better "stuff" from you!-- Damorbel ( talk) 12:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that this article may benefit from this link. However, since I am not a science expert I don't understand it very well. I'm not sure if it's proving or disproving the simulation hypothesis. Someone else may be able to make sense of it. Thanks. (This same comment is posted on the talk page of that article.) Lighthead þ 23:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is obvious fringe science and should be deleted for lack of notability. If others agree, perhaps we can start the AfD process. Waleswatcher (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Nominated for a 2nd time - input welcome. Maschen ( talk) 08:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is written (almost) entirely from Nick Laskin's ( user:Nlaskin) point of veiw - so I added the {{ unbalanced}} tag. WP:VANITY is clearly evident. I'll look for additional sources in time (can't right now), but if anyone else has some refs please add... Maschen ( talk) 08:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
How can I find out who the "professional" overseer is for the article Coriolis effect? There seems to be substantial and pervasive errors throughout the article, and rather large group of editors hellbent on not letting these be corrected. If one ignores gravity, then one cannot observe any it's effects, including the Coriolis effect. Watchwolf49z ( talk) 14:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Some contributors claim that I am so ignorant that my contributions are so disruptive and that I should be banned from editing.
So let us resolve the matter.
Basing the resolution on the complaint made above by Jheald and endosed by PAR; S B H arris; Martinvl; Steve; Maschen and Chjoaygame that :-
So I summarise my argument:-
The difficulty, as far as I can see, that user Jheald et al have is not when n is large (>1010) but as n -> 1. The relation between the energy of a particle and its temperature is the Boltzmann constant, this relationship can be extended to complex molecules with more than the three degrees of freedom, because the equipartition of energy extends to all degrees of freedom that are excited at the relevant temperature.
The matter will be resolved if anybody, let alone Jheald et al, can show that the equipartition of energy does not apply in the given equilibrium conditions or that the science behind the Boltzmann constant does not apply to particles in general (including pollen grains!).
I suggest Jheald et al assist in resolving this matter here and now. If it isn't resolved here I shall be more than happy to resolve it at Wikipedia:AN. -- Damorbel ( talk) 09:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm just a newbee here, but aren't we required to fully reference all our statements, even on talk pages? I'm kinda of in the same position as you right now, and my "opposition" is perfectly correct making me dig up peer review scientific literature to back my position. My claim is extrordinary, it absolutely requires extrordinary references. I'd love to debate these people on the matter, but Wikipedia is the wrong place for that. Watchwolf49z ( talk) 14:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Damorbel, your summary appears to be correct. I quote from Kittel:
Temperature is precisely defined only for a system in thermal equilibrium with a heat bath: The temperature of a system A, however small, is defined as equal to the temperature of a very large heat reservoir B with which the system is in equilibrium and in thermal contact. Thermal contact means that A and B can exchange energy, although insulated from the outer world.
The system A may even be a single atom of a gas. Then the reservoir B is composed of all the other atoms of the gas, along with perhaps the walls of the common container. We do not speak of the single atom as having a fluctuating temperature that tracks its fluctuating kinetic energy.— Kittel, Charles (1988). "Temperature Fluctuation: An Oxymoron". Physics Today. 41 (3): 93. doi: 10.1063/1.2811420.
The above statement is true for the standard thermodynamic definition of temperature. However, this definition has been criticized because it does not allow for the intuitive notion of thermal fluctuations. See Mandelbrot, Benoit B. (1989). "Temperature Fluctuation: A Well-Defined and Unavoidable Notion". Physics Today. 42 (1): 71. doi: 10.1063/1.2810881. The issue has been much debated since then, and there have been attempts to define temperature to allow for fluctuations. RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
By contrast, the kinetic energy of a single atom moving at a single velocity forever, can be turned into work at 100% efficiency. And so on and so on. If you give such an atom with unchanging energy a finite temperature (either at any instant in time, or as considering an atom what keeps the same energy over time), none of those things are true. S B H arris 23:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The lead of this section by Damorbel adverts to the proposal to ban Damorbel and seems to imply that allegation of ignorance is the only ground for it. There are other grounds for the proposal to ban Damorbel besides that he is alleged to be ignorant. The other grounds lie in his manner of editing. This point needs to be made here because Darmorbel's lead to this section adverts to the proposal.
But I will not here address the proposal or its grounds. Damorbel's lead here intends to focus on his views on temperature as a question of physics, and that is what I am addressing here. I do not know whether it will be considered useful to work on this question here, but I fear that silence might be construed as consent. I will not try to put all the picture here and now, but will wait to see if other editors are interested in this section.
Damorbel summarizes his argument in the lead to this section above, starting with the phrase "In a system of particles in thermal equilibrium, ..." In starting so, Damorbel is proposing a particular point of view, that of the kinetic theory of gases and perhaps more or less of statistical mechanics, which is focused on systems of particles, as indicated by his starting phrase just quoted. I will argue here that there are other points of view, and I will give some hint that they are more basic to the present Wikipedia articles than the point of view here advocated by Darmorbel. The main other point of view is that of plain thermodynamics, which avoids mention of particles.
That viewpoint, advocated here by Damorbel, is perhaps partly or wholly accepted by some authorities who like to teach their students in a particular way, which may be called the way of thermal physics. Kittel & Kroemer (1969/1980) and Reif (1965) are examples. It so happens that these two texts have been cited for the definition of heat in the current version of the article on heat. This is an accident of Wikipedia editing history, that the definition was taken from those authors, because they were favoured by editors with clout at the time of creation of the current version. Other definitions have been favoured and cited by other editors previously. It cannot be taken as settled that the way of thermal physics is the one right point of view.
The way of thermal physics takes a pedagogical viewpoint, that thermodynamics and statistical mechanics should be taught together, so that the student will have a strong feel for their common elements. It is different from the main alternative viewpoint, that thermodynamics should be taught before statistical mechanics, as a separate subject, for reasons which I will not right here state, but will state later.
The distinction between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics is recognized by many authorities on thermodynamics. For example Fowler and Guggenheim (Fowler, R., Guggenheim, E.A. (1939). Statistical Thermodynamics, Cambridge University Press, Canbridge UK.) on page 3 write about the fundamental assumption of statistical mechanics:
Fowler and Guggenheim are here distinguishing two viewpoints, that of statistical mechanics and that of classical thermodynamics.
Reif (1965) is a member of the thermal physics school of pedagogy, but he nevertheless recognizes that thermodynamics may be considered as a subject separate from statistical mechanics. This recognition is stated in the opening of the preface of his textbook, on page vii. I will not copy this material here, because it is too copious, but I will mention that Reif says that he thinks his pedagogical approach is clearer and more illuminating than the other pedagogical approach.
Kittel & Kroemer (1969/1980) are also members of the thermal physics school of pedagogy. They start with a definition of entropy as measuring the number of quantum states accessible to a system. They do not spend words making the distinction between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. They simply announce on page 1 that their "approach to thermal physics differs from the tradition followed in beginning physics courses."
Some respected texts make it clear that they favour teaching thermodynamics as a distinct subject without essential reference to statistical mechanics. Examples include Adkins (1968/1983), Buchdahl (1966), and Pippard (1957). I will here quote only Adkins (1968/1983) on page xi: "many books and courses on thermal physics attempt to develop classical thermodynamics and statistical mechanics side by side. ... ... it is best to teach classical thermodynamics first and separately, for the ability to use it well depends largely on knowing what it can achieve without appealing to the microscopic nature of things."
In my judgement, Damorbel is here advocating putting the kinetic theory of gases and to some extent statistical mechanics as primary, with little or no recognition of the purely thermodynamic point of view. As I read Darmorbel, he intends to deny that there is a weighty distinction between the thermodynamic viewpoint and that which he advocates which can be labelled that of the kinetic theory of gases and perhaps that of statistical mechanics.
Some editors here think that the thermodynamic point of view has some merit, and propose to define temperature by considering a thermodynamic system defined simply by macroscopic thermodynamic quantities, especially internal energy and entropy. This approach was proposed by Gibbs. It defines temperature in terms of the functions of state of the system so defined, without reference to its microscopic constitution.
In my judgement, this thermodynamic point of view has been considered by the majority consensus of editors here as the primary one for the definition of temperature. In my judgment, Damorbel's lead to this present section is seeking to overthrow this consensus and to replace it with a definition of temperature based in the kinetic theory of gases and in statistical mechanics.
There are textbooks that explicitly admit two distinct definitions of temperature, one based in thermodynamics, the other based in the kinetic theory of gases. An example is Chapman, S., Cowling, T.G. (1939/1970), The Mathematical Theory of Non-uniform Gases. An Account of the Kinetic Theory of Viscosity, Thermal Conduction and Diffusion in Gases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, p. 37. They regard it as a duty to show that the two definitions are properly compatible. Chjoaygame ( talk) 04:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I have been very disappointed with the "encyclopaedic" articles on modern and quantum physics. None of those I have viewed meet the standards of an encyclopaedic article per se. An encyclopaedic entry should be elucidatory. Instead, experts offer the circular and internally self-justifying references and arbitrary ellipses of a technical jargon, routinely failing to link these up to their semantic origins.
Writers in this field should undertand that their ellipses and abbreviations are useful only as reminders and exam crammers for the initiated. They are not "encyclopaedic". Technical language is an abbreviated language, and abbreviations, including the semiotic indices of mathematics (formulae, etc), are arbitrarily constructed and necessarily void of meaning.
Writers here must present their texts to the rigorous judgement of common understanding. This means unravelling technical abbreviation or jargon in order to display its meaning or semantic origins. This is a difficult task to accomplish but is a necessary one if writers here wish to meet the standards required for an accomplished encyclopaedic article. ( JIJnes ( talk) 19:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC))
Technical language is an abbreviated language, and abbreviations, including the semiotic indices of mathematics (formulae, etc), are arbitrarily constructed and necessarily void of meaning. Nonsense. All language is technical and all language is abbreviation. Semiotic indicies you say? LOL. glad you avoided those. But you forgot you weren't writing for a politically correct academic education journal, which of course is full of its own specific jargon.
All good writing must have an intended audience in mind, complete with supposed level of assumed prior knowledge. Where does it say, please, that this should be uniform across WP in general, and math and sci articles in particular? And what do we suppose our lowest common denominator should be? Reader's Digest was written at 6th grade level. It's rather a long way from there to Lie algebra, mesons or metabolic acidosis. S B H arris 23:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Anyway we must keep in mind that the audience for many articles is very broad, and second that this is a hypertext medium, not a newspaper, and we need to use the virtues of linking on this very problem. Still, the technicality of subject should control the rapidity of descent into tech language, but not usually affect the tech level we start at in the lede. See the TALK page for heavy water and the compromise we made there. S B H arris 01:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
More help needed on the Planck's law article - The disputes are endless, but I would like to request comment on one specific point, outlined in the Talk:Planck's law#Presence of mass section. Thanks for any help. PAR ( talk) 03:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Stephen Hawking has been proposed for the mainpage TFA, but I and others have raised concerns about its preparedness. Is anyone from WP:Physics willing to have a look at Talk:Stephen Hawking and pitch in a hand at adding content as needed? Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
I found the article on the CPT theorem needing some serious beefing up. Then, also, it appears (in the article) as if CPT invariance (and Lorentz invariance) is seriously questioned these days. The references include http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0287v5.pdf, which seems legitimate enough (tough reading), and also this: http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html. It is by the same author. I don't doubt that the author is serious, but, ..., is this mainstream?
To me, it would seem as "No Lorentz Invariance in Physics" would be much much bigger news than any Higgs boson whatsoever. YohanN7 ( talk) 16:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to get a few eyes on Alexander Ivanovich Popov. It's up for proposed deletion as a possible hoax. I'm not qualified to evaluate whether the claimed physics accomplishments of this person are plausible. Please have a look and leave feedback at Talk:Alexander Ivanovich Popov. Dcoetzee 23:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Expressing uncertainty.
— A. di M.
10:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion on whether there should or should not be a gallery in the Kármán vortex street article. The discussion is located at Talk:Kármán vortex street#Gallery. As this article is within this WikiProject, I thought I would put this here to get some more discussion as I am so far the only person to have weighed in (and it seemed a little too minor to take to RfC quite yet). Inks.LWC ( talk) 22:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)