![]() | 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. |
The page Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism is a bit odd. (1) why restrain it to classical electromagnetism (2) weird lead and writing in general (also headers that should be sub headers and so on) (3) it seems it could be merged into electromagnetism or Galilean invariance or something like that. As it is, the article seems too specific unless it is there for historical issues but then the history part is missing. Any thoughts are welcome. See also the talk. ReyHahn ( talk) 09:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
If Galilean transformations were invariant for not only mechanics but also electromagnetism, Newtonian relativity would hold for the whole of the physics.The subject is quite weird, deserving no more of a footnote in treatments of classical electromagnetism. The entire contents of the article are a violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. To top off, its last reference [2] is hair-raising crackpottery. Tercer ( talk) 10:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks you for your feedback. A deleting discussion has been created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 13:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a set of drafts at AfC about or related to fermions, mostly those proposed to solve the fermion doubling problem. Are there enough sources for these to have separate articles, rather than expanding "Fermion doubling"? And if so, is there any way to make these articles at all comprehensible to the general science reader?
StarryGrandma ( talk) 23:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The second sentence of the lead of Day now reads " In terms of Earth's rotation, the average day length is 360.9856...°." In case anyone is interested in assessing this "improvement", which is being defended. — Quondum 01:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The reason why it is roughly 1° greater than 360°and
If the Earth's orbit was perfectly circular, and the Earth had no tilthave a noticeably different tone than expected for an encyclopedic lead (especially for an article on a less technical subject matter). A reworded version explaining this nuance, ideally reading less like an annotated text, might be appropriate later in the article (section Apparent and mean solar day).
Should we add today's four new SI prefixes (quecto-, ronto-, ronna- and quetta-) to our various articles on units of measurement? For example, Tonne now lists ronnatonne and quettatonne with their equivalents. I recently reverted the addition [3] of a table ranging from quectocandela to quettacandela, calling them fantasy units and a waste of our readers' attention, but now regarding Tonne, {{ Quantities of bytes}} and others, I'm told [4] we should include the prefixes even if no-one uses them, and now I'd be glad to see some consensus either way. NebY ( talk) 23:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
foolish and unbalanced to only extend the range at one end.It explicitly mentions that bits and bytes are the main driver for the large-end prefixes:
The main pressure for new SI prefixes comes currently from outside the SI, from information technology and data storage; in particular from ‘units’ for describing digital information and data size, such as ‘bit’, ‘byte’ and ‘octet’. ... Given the accelerating growth of data production rates and data storage requirements this field will soon require prefixes to cover orders of magnitude in excess of yottabytes. The popular scientific literature is already speculating on what these might be.In New Scientist, Brown suggests that ronto- and quecto- would make sense in radio astronomy, where such scales are needed, but a physicist (Mike Merrifield) points out that most astronomers just use janskys instead. But that's not relevant to the question of the byte and bit articles and tables, where none of the negative-power prefixes were included to begin with, and none were proposed for inclusion. This document says that the letter "B" is the last available, yielding one more potential prefix pair, but that might've changed since in the more recent Nature article Dondervogel 2 linked, Brown notes that B is also unavailable. Double sharp ( talk) 21:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Quetta sounds cool! I am a Green Bee ( talk) 10:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Gravity_wave#Unsourced,_seemingly_contradictory_claims_(frequency_times_period_should_be_2π). Annette Maon ( talk) 11:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'm just curious why there isn't an article about photoelectrons. There is an article on the photoelectric effect, but not on the particles themselves. ERBuermann ( talk) 19:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is a mess, and has accumulated lots of garbage since the FA demotion in 2007.
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
As I darkly hinted in a previous thread, WP has accumulated a number of errors related to the mistaken understanding that 1 cyc = 2π rad, or equivalently, that 1 Hz = 2π rad/s. In the collapsed section here, I give a nonexhaustive list of related articles, highlighting example dubious content related to this issue. Note: The unit cycle per second is implicitly defined by the SI. I understand that the revolution was defined by a historical version of ISO 80000-3, and is still effectively defined by NIST SP 811. The associated quantity rotation is still defined by ISO 80000-3:2019. Both cycle and revolution are inherently counts (albeit not restricted to integers), not angles.
list of nitpicks by mainspace name (article/dab/redirect)
|
---|
Normalized frequency (signal processing)
|
How would this best be addressed? It seems as though we need an essay in WP space that addresses this clearly, which could be linked from the top of the relevant talk pages, or alternatively that something like this may belong in mainspace to serve as a reference for readers. (I also would not object to help in cleaning the articles up.) — Quondum 20:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)References
Please excuse my ignorance putting this here. I came across a Youtube video about First Light Fusion's project (Their website) and wanted to look up what their progress was from a hopefully unbiased Wikipedia point of view. Wikipedia searches seem to suggest there is a little about them in Fusion power but not much. If I understand correctly, they are going down a unique path and have made a reasonable amount of progress. It appears that they achieved fusion in 2022. I am thinking this is an article that needs creating but I am not confident to do so myself with this being a complex topic and I only have an amateur understanding on the subject material. Is this a suitable article for yourselves to create?
I think the article should be created by someone, if this is not the place and you are not the group to request it from, can anyone point me in the right direction? Many thanks GQsm Talk | c 16:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Could you help to disambiguate some of the links to Interaction? This list shows the 200+ articles with links to the disambiguation page. It would help readers to link to a more specific article. Some are chemistry related and others biology, physics, mathmatics or other sciences. Any help with sorting these out would be appreciated.— Rod talk 12:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The following paragraph was inserted at Conservation law#Approximate laws on November 13. (See the diff.)
There are also conservation laws which appear approximate, but only because microscopic details are neglected. For instance, the conservation of mechanical energy was often considered to be non-exact because forces such as friction appear to convert mechanical energy into other forms. However, a close inspection of friction reveals that only conservative forces are involved (electromagnetic forces), and the heat energy produced by friction is actually mechanical in nature (in the form of kinetic and potential energy). In this manner, it was realized that mechanical energy, as defined as the sum of kinetic and potential energies, is in fact fully conserved in all circumstances. It is only macroscopic energy which is not. Source: The Feynman Lectures on Physics
This text was posted in one of a number of recent edits by Logic314. (Logic314 has attributed the edits to the Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1. I don’t have a copy.) This paragraph is inconsistent with a number of Wikipedia articles that have Top importance on the project’s importance scale. Here are five examples:
In Mechanical energy Wikipedia says "The principle of conservation of mechanical energy states that if an isolated system is subject only to conservative forces then the mechanical energy is constant." In contrast, in the new paragraph quoted above, Wikipedia now says “In this manner, it was realized that mechanical energy, as defined as the sum of kinetic and potential energies, is in fact fully conserved in all circumstances”.
In Conservative force Wikipedia says the total work done by a conservative force in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken; Wikipedia also says frictional force is an example of a non-conservative force. In contrast, in the new paragraph quoted above, Wikipedia now says “a close inspection of friction reveals that only conservative forces are involved (electromagnetic forces), and the heat energy produced by friction is actually mechanical in nature (in the form of kinetic and potential energy). ... mechanical energy ... is in fact fully conserved in all circumstances ...“
In Friction Wikipedia says “Friction is a non-conservative force – work done against friction is path dependent. In the presence of friction, some kinetic energy is always transformed to thermal energy, so mechanical energy is not conserved.” In contrast, in the new paragraph quoted above, Wikipedia now says “forces such as friction appear to convert mechanical energy into other forms. However, a close inspection of friction reveals that only conservative forces are involved (electromagnetic forces), and the heat energy produced by friction is actually mechanical in nature (in the form of kinetic and potential energy). ... mechanical energy ... is in fact fully conserved in all circumstances ...“
In Inelastic collision Wikipedia says “An inelastic collision, in contrast to an elastic collision, is a collision in which kinetic energy is not conserved due to the action of internal friction.” In contrast, in the new paragraph quoted above, Wikipedia now says “a close inspection of friction reveals that only conservative forces are involved”. The implication appears to be that all collisions are elastic because mechanical energy is always conserved.
In First law of thermodynamics Wikipedia explains that when a body absorbs sensible heat or latent heat, its internal energy increases, regardless of whether the source of the heat is friction, combustion, electric current etc. In contrast, in the new paragraph quoted above, Wikipedia now implies that when a body absorbs heat generated by friction, its microscopic mechanical energy increases to match the reduction in macroscopic mechanical energy so that mechanical energy is conserved. Logic314 has not mentioned internal energy so it is unclear to me how Feynman describes the energy absorbed by a body as a result of combustion or an electric current. The first law of thermodynamics is intimately connected to the concept of internal energy.
Logic314 appears to believe their edits represent a profound change to Wikipedia’s coverage of the subject, and Feynman’s view on this matter is an amazing discovery. I disagree because Logic314’s edits merely alter the definition of the mechanical energy of a body so that, as well as macroscopic kinetic and potential energies, it also includes sufficient of the body’s internal energy that mechanical energy is conserved even in the presence of friction, and therefore friction can be declared a conservative force. Logic314’s law of conservation of mechanical energy is little different to Wikipedia’s law of conservation of energy. Logic 314 has conceded that point because they have written “When everything is considered, conservation of mechanical energy is a complete exact conservation law, and is in fact equivalent to the full conservation of energy”. See Logic314’s diff.
The limited applicability of the principle of conservation of mechanical energy plays an important role in mechanics, particularly for students. It is important for students to realize that conservation of mechanical energy is a principle that is very easily applied quantitatively, but it is only applicable when all forces are conservative. When a non-conservative force is at work, we must rely on conservation of Momentum which is usually the next topic to be studied. Students are entitled to ask "If mechanical energy is always conserved, why do we need conservation of momentum?"
I have challenged some of the edits made by Logic314. See my diff 1 and diff 2. In particular, see Logic314's explanation at Talk:Conservation law#Conservation of mechanical energy. Logic314 has not returned to this topic for more than a week so I am raising the matter for consideration by the Physics community.
The question for the Physics community is What should be done about the inconsistencies introduced by Logic314’s edits at Conservation law?
This discussion thread has been in existence for 5 weeks. The consensus is that the paragraph in question is problematical and should be removed. For example, the cited source (Feynman) does not define or use the expression “mechanical energy”, and does not mention “macroscopic energy”.
I will remove the offending paragraph and give consideration to an endnote that will explain Feynman’s explanation of how friction can be considered a conservative force. Dolphin ( t) 08:29, 27 December 2022 (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. |
The page Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism is a bit odd. (1) why restrain it to classical electromagnetism (2) weird lead and writing in general (also headers that should be sub headers and so on) (3) it seems it could be merged into electromagnetism or Galilean invariance or something like that. As it is, the article seems too specific unless it is there for historical issues but then the history part is missing. Any thoughts are welcome. See also the talk. ReyHahn ( talk) 09:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
If Galilean transformations were invariant for not only mechanics but also electromagnetism, Newtonian relativity would hold for the whole of the physics.The subject is quite weird, deserving no more of a footnote in treatments of classical electromagnetism. The entire contents of the article are a violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. To top off, its last reference [2] is hair-raising crackpottery. Tercer ( talk) 10:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks you for your feedback. A deleting discussion has been created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 13:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a set of drafts at AfC about or related to fermions, mostly those proposed to solve the fermion doubling problem. Are there enough sources for these to have separate articles, rather than expanding "Fermion doubling"? And if so, is there any way to make these articles at all comprehensible to the general science reader?
StarryGrandma ( talk) 23:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The second sentence of the lead of Day now reads " In terms of Earth's rotation, the average day length is 360.9856...°." In case anyone is interested in assessing this "improvement", which is being defended. — Quondum 01:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The reason why it is roughly 1° greater than 360°and
If the Earth's orbit was perfectly circular, and the Earth had no tilthave a noticeably different tone than expected for an encyclopedic lead (especially for an article on a less technical subject matter). A reworded version explaining this nuance, ideally reading less like an annotated text, might be appropriate later in the article (section Apparent and mean solar day).
Should we add today's four new SI prefixes (quecto-, ronto-, ronna- and quetta-) to our various articles on units of measurement? For example, Tonne now lists ronnatonne and quettatonne with their equivalents. I recently reverted the addition [3] of a table ranging from quectocandela to quettacandela, calling them fantasy units and a waste of our readers' attention, but now regarding Tonne, {{ Quantities of bytes}} and others, I'm told [4] we should include the prefixes even if no-one uses them, and now I'd be glad to see some consensus either way. NebY ( talk) 23:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
foolish and unbalanced to only extend the range at one end.It explicitly mentions that bits and bytes are the main driver for the large-end prefixes:
The main pressure for new SI prefixes comes currently from outside the SI, from information technology and data storage; in particular from ‘units’ for describing digital information and data size, such as ‘bit’, ‘byte’ and ‘octet’. ... Given the accelerating growth of data production rates and data storage requirements this field will soon require prefixes to cover orders of magnitude in excess of yottabytes. The popular scientific literature is already speculating on what these might be.In New Scientist, Brown suggests that ronto- and quecto- would make sense in radio astronomy, where such scales are needed, but a physicist (Mike Merrifield) points out that most astronomers just use janskys instead. But that's not relevant to the question of the byte and bit articles and tables, where none of the negative-power prefixes were included to begin with, and none were proposed for inclusion. This document says that the letter "B" is the last available, yielding one more potential prefix pair, but that might've changed since in the more recent Nature article Dondervogel 2 linked, Brown notes that B is also unavailable. Double sharp ( talk) 21:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Quetta sounds cool! I am a Green Bee ( talk) 10:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Gravity_wave#Unsourced,_seemingly_contradictory_claims_(frequency_times_period_should_be_2π). Annette Maon ( talk) 11:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'm just curious why there isn't an article about photoelectrons. There is an article on the photoelectric effect, but not on the particles themselves. ERBuermann ( talk) 19:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is a mess, and has accumulated lots of garbage since the FA demotion in 2007.
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
As I darkly hinted in a previous thread, WP has accumulated a number of errors related to the mistaken understanding that 1 cyc = 2π rad, or equivalently, that 1 Hz = 2π rad/s. In the collapsed section here, I give a nonexhaustive list of related articles, highlighting example dubious content related to this issue. Note: The unit cycle per second is implicitly defined by the SI. I understand that the revolution was defined by a historical version of ISO 80000-3, and is still effectively defined by NIST SP 811. The associated quantity rotation is still defined by ISO 80000-3:2019. Both cycle and revolution are inherently counts (albeit not restricted to integers), not angles.
list of nitpicks by mainspace name (article/dab/redirect)
|
---|
Normalized frequency (signal processing)
|
How would this best be addressed? It seems as though we need an essay in WP space that addresses this clearly, which could be linked from the top of the relevant talk pages, or alternatively that something like this may belong in mainspace to serve as a reference for readers. (I also would not object to help in cleaning the articles up.) — Quondum 20:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)References
Please excuse my ignorance putting this here. I came across a Youtube video about First Light Fusion's project (Their website) and wanted to look up what their progress was from a hopefully unbiased Wikipedia point of view. Wikipedia searches seem to suggest there is a little about them in Fusion power but not much. If I understand correctly, they are going down a unique path and have made a reasonable amount of progress. It appears that they achieved fusion in 2022. I am thinking this is an article that needs creating but I am not confident to do so myself with this being a complex topic and I only have an amateur understanding on the subject material. Is this a suitable article for yourselves to create?
I think the article should be created by someone, if this is not the place and you are not the group to request it from, can anyone point me in the right direction? Many thanks GQsm Talk | c 16:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Could you help to disambiguate some of the links to Interaction? This list shows the 200+ articles with links to the disambiguation page. It would help readers to link to a more specific article. Some are chemistry related and others biology, physics, mathmatics or other sciences. Any help with sorting these out would be appreciated.— Rod talk 12:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The following paragraph was inserted at Conservation law#Approximate laws on November 13. (See the diff.)
There are also conservation laws which appear approximate, but only because microscopic details are neglected. For instance, the conservation of mechanical energy was often considered to be non-exact because forces such as friction appear to convert mechanical energy into other forms. However, a close inspection of friction reveals that only conservative forces are involved (electromagnetic forces), and the heat energy produced by friction is actually mechanical in nature (in the form of kinetic and potential energy). In this manner, it was realized that mechanical energy, as defined as the sum of kinetic and potential energies, is in fact fully conserved in all circumstances. It is only macroscopic energy which is not. Source: The Feynman Lectures on Physics
This text was posted in one of a number of recent edits by Logic314. (Logic314 has attributed the edits to the Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1. I don’t have a copy.) This paragraph is inconsistent with a number of Wikipedia articles that have Top importance on the project’s importance scale. Here are five examples:
In Mechanical energy Wikipedia says "The principle of conservation of mechanical energy states that if an isolated system is subject only to conservative forces then the mechanical energy is constant." In contrast, in the new paragraph quoted above, Wikipedia now says “In this manner, it was realized that mechanical energy, as defined as the sum of kinetic and potential energies, is in fact fully conserved in all circumstances”.
In Conservative force Wikipedia says the total work done by a conservative force in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken; Wikipedia also says frictional force is an example of a non-conservative force. In contrast, in the new paragraph quoted above, Wikipedia now says “a close inspection of friction reveals that only conservative forces are involved (electromagnetic forces), and the heat energy produced by friction is actually mechanical in nature (in the form of kinetic and potential energy). ... mechanical energy ... is in fact fully conserved in all circumstances ...“
In Friction Wikipedia says “Friction is a non-conservative force – work done against friction is path dependent. In the presence of friction, some kinetic energy is always transformed to thermal energy, so mechanical energy is not conserved.” In contrast, in the new paragraph quoted above, Wikipedia now says “forces such as friction appear to convert mechanical energy into other forms. However, a close inspection of friction reveals that only conservative forces are involved (electromagnetic forces), and the heat energy produced by friction is actually mechanical in nature (in the form of kinetic and potential energy). ... mechanical energy ... is in fact fully conserved in all circumstances ...“
In Inelastic collision Wikipedia says “An inelastic collision, in contrast to an elastic collision, is a collision in which kinetic energy is not conserved due to the action of internal friction.” In contrast, in the new paragraph quoted above, Wikipedia now says “a close inspection of friction reveals that only conservative forces are involved”. The implication appears to be that all collisions are elastic because mechanical energy is always conserved.
In First law of thermodynamics Wikipedia explains that when a body absorbs sensible heat or latent heat, its internal energy increases, regardless of whether the source of the heat is friction, combustion, electric current etc. In contrast, in the new paragraph quoted above, Wikipedia now implies that when a body absorbs heat generated by friction, its microscopic mechanical energy increases to match the reduction in macroscopic mechanical energy so that mechanical energy is conserved. Logic314 has not mentioned internal energy so it is unclear to me how Feynman describes the energy absorbed by a body as a result of combustion or an electric current. The first law of thermodynamics is intimately connected to the concept of internal energy.
Logic314 appears to believe their edits represent a profound change to Wikipedia’s coverage of the subject, and Feynman’s view on this matter is an amazing discovery. I disagree because Logic314’s edits merely alter the definition of the mechanical energy of a body so that, as well as macroscopic kinetic and potential energies, it also includes sufficient of the body’s internal energy that mechanical energy is conserved even in the presence of friction, and therefore friction can be declared a conservative force. Logic314’s law of conservation of mechanical energy is little different to Wikipedia’s law of conservation of energy. Logic 314 has conceded that point because they have written “When everything is considered, conservation of mechanical energy is a complete exact conservation law, and is in fact equivalent to the full conservation of energy”. See Logic314’s diff.
The limited applicability of the principle of conservation of mechanical energy plays an important role in mechanics, particularly for students. It is important for students to realize that conservation of mechanical energy is a principle that is very easily applied quantitatively, but it is only applicable when all forces are conservative. When a non-conservative force is at work, we must rely on conservation of Momentum which is usually the next topic to be studied. Students are entitled to ask "If mechanical energy is always conserved, why do we need conservation of momentum?"
I have challenged some of the edits made by Logic314. See my diff 1 and diff 2. In particular, see Logic314's explanation at Talk:Conservation law#Conservation of mechanical energy. Logic314 has not returned to this topic for more than a week so I am raising the matter for consideration by the Physics community.
The question for the Physics community is What should be done about the inconsistencies introduced by Logic314’s edits at Conservation law?
This discussion thread has been in existence for 5 weeks. The consensus is that the paragraph in question is problematical and should be removed. For example, the cited source (Feynman) does not define or use the expression “mechanical energy”, and does not mention “macroscopic energy”.
I will remove the offending paragraph and give consideration to an endnote that will explain Feynman’s explanation of how friction can be considered a conservative force. Dolphin ( t) 08:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)