![]() | 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. |
Could someone review the first two paragraphs of Homi J. Bhabha#Work? I was a bit confused by Bhabha's work on cosmic rays and I am not sure if everything I wrote is accurate. I would appreciate it if someone could look into this matter. Thanks, Nishkid64 ( talk) 20:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The atom article seems to be shaping up fairly nicely, I think, but there is some unhapiness with the Atom's magnetic moment section. Would it be possible for you physics experts to look it over and fix it where necessary? I'd like it to be comprehensible to non-experts, but still correct. (My head's rather disfunctional because of a lingering cold, so I'm not doing the best job of it right now.) Thank you!— RJH ( talk) 22:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that the above article was placed in Category:Quantum Theory(sic), I thought it might be appropriate to inform this project of its AFD. -- Sturm 19:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Please come join the discussion about Astronomy vs Astrophysics articles here. WilliamKF ( talk) 16:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This was shocking: dynamics (physics) disambigs to Kinematics and Kinetics, while Kinetics disambigs to Kinematics and back to dynamics. Result: there's no Kinetics article on this here wiki! -- jwanders Talk 08:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The stub Caloron is currently on AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caloron. There seem to a a fair few papers on it, but I don't know enough to understand what its all about. Perhaps someone here could take a look and turn it into something more than a dicdef. -- Salix alba ( talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
When possible, could anyone give some input at Harteck Process? We think it's a bogus article, so some input or reliable references would be appreciated. Oberiko ( talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I just rewrite this article mroe or less from scratch. It needs a bit of a copy-edit, but hopefully it is now a more rigorous discussion of non-locality in a physical sense. Needs some expansion in the applications section, but I just couldn't keep typing. I also feel that the lead may need expanding, but I can't see how. Can editors please go and take a look and begin editing if necessary? Happy to receive any and all constructive criticisms! - Fritzpoll ( talk) 23:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an edit war at Special relativity over the Postulates of special relativity. One side claim that the second postulate is redundant, and that Einstein said as much. The other side not only (correctly) denies that, but also will not allow the dispute to even be mentioned in the article. Check it out please. JRSpriggs ( talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is the disputed text that is being deleted by Denveron ( talk · contribs):
-- Michael C. Price talk 00:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |arXiv=
ignored (|arxiv=
suggested) (
help) or
causality Zeeman, E. C.
Causality Implies the Lorentz Group, Journal of Mathematical Physics 5 (4): 490-493; (1964). But the first postulate isn't enough.--
Lionelbrits (
talk)
16:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
To MichaelCPrice: You keep saying that we are not listening to you. But it is you who are not listening to us. You dismiss our most important points as incomprehensible. They could only be incomprehensible, if you are either less intelligent than you clearly are or if you are deliberately misunderstanding us. So stop trolling and go away! JRSpriggs ( talk) 10:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
At that time there was a significant problem in reconciling Maxwell's equations with other accepted aspects of physics, particularly invariance under Galilean transformation, and also (whether or not Einstein himself considered it) the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment. This cast doubt on the correctness, or at least the universality, of Maxwell's theory. Only the postulated background "ether" seemed to offer a reasonable way to save the theory, but that notion was definitively shot down by Michelson-Morley. Einstein's observation was that Maxwell's equations could be saved by replacing the postulate of Galilean relativity with the postulate of invariance of the speed of light (which is compatible with Maxwell's equations), and following that to its logical conclusion he obtained the Lorentz transformations, etc. As Ssiruuk25 (labeled "DAG", no relation) said previously, that was Einstein's "inspiration" (or motivation). The theory of special relativity as originally presented did postulate the constancy of the speed of light, but Einstein soon found that he could formulate the theory without putting so much emphasis on that. I see nothing wrong with JRSpriggs' proposal to reword the disputed text to say "In his second 1905 relativity paper, "Does the Inertia of a Body depend on its Energy-Content?" Einstein relegated the second postulate to a footnote, saying 'The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations.'" That avoids getting into the detailed historical considerations, while remaining factually accurate. — DAGwyn ( talk) 23:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Harteck Process, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harteck Process. Thank you. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The image on the right is currently used in four articles, general relativity, spacetime, theory of relativity and theoretical motivation for general relativity. It looks like an illustration of the famous rubber sheet model of gravitation, which is an excellent model of Newtonian gravity; in fact, it's a quantitatively exact model once you make enough idealizing assumptions. I suppose it's also a good model of linearized GR. But as far as I know it's completely wrong, quantitatively and qualitatively, as a model of space(time) curvature. So I don't think this image should be in articles about general relativity. Actually, because people so commonly confuse the rubber sheet with spacetime geometry, maybe it should be in some of the articles with a caption clarifying that it has nothing to do with general relativity, and that this is not the right way to picture spacetime curvature.
It's also possible that this isn't supposed to be a rubber sheet, but an actual picture of spacetime geometry (isometrically embedded). In that case, it's the wrong shape; I suppose you could find a spacelike slice through the Schwarzschild geometry that looked like that (or anything else) when embedded, but the "usual" slice (constant Schwarzschild coordinates) doesn't have that shape. Also, even if it's not intended to be a rubber sheet, it still looks like one, complete with a heavy ball on the top making it curve down, and the articles do nothing to dispel that misconception. So it seems worth explicitly pointing out that this is not a rubber sheet—that there is a rubber sheet model of gravitation, but it's a completely different thing.
If this were one article I'd probably just change it, but it seems like a fairly broad problem; given that "everyone knows" that spacetime is like a rubber sheet, there may be more articles involved than the four that use this image. I'm hoping for a go-ahead or whoa-there from the community before I go and edit everything. -- BenRG ( talk) 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The "rubber sheet" analogy was, as I recall, first used in books and articles for the layman, as an extreme simplification to indicate how an object might be embedded in a curved manifold and how its motion could be influenced somehow by the curvature. I am sure it was never meant as an exact, or even approximate, model. — DAGwyn ( talk) 23:50, 26 February 2008 (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. |
Could someone review the first two paragraphs of Homi J. Bhabha#Work? I was a bit confused by Bhabha's work on cosmic rays and I am not sure if everything I wrote is accurate. I would appreciate it if someone could look into this matter. Thanks, Nishkid64 ( talk) 20:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The atom article seems to be shaping up fairly nicely, I think, but there is some unhapiness with the Atom's magnetic moment section. Would it be possible for you physics experts to look it over and fix it where necessary? I'd like it to be comprehensible to non-experts, but still correct. (My head's rather disfunctional because of a lingering cold, so I'm not doing the best job of it right now.) Thank you!— RJH ( talk) 22:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that the above article was placed in Category:Quantum Theory(sic), I thought it might be appropriate to inform this project of its AFD. -- Sturm 19:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Please come join the discussion about Astronomy vs Astrophysics articles here. WilliamKF ( talk) 16:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This was shocking: dynamics (physics) disambigs to Kinematics and Kinetics, while Kinetics disambigs to Kinematics and back to dynamics. Result: there's no Kinetics article on this here wiki! -- jwanders Talk 08:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The stub Caloron is currently on AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caloron. There seem to a a fair few papers on it, but I don't know enough to understand what its all about. Perhaps someone here could take a look and turn it into something more than a dicdef. -- Salix alba ( talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
When possible, could anyone give some input at Harteck Process? We think it's a bogus article, so some input or reliable references would be appreciated. Oberiko ( talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I just rewrite this article mroe or less from scratch. It needs a bit of a copy-edit, but hopefully it is now a more rigorous discussion of non-locality in a physical sense. Needs some expansion in the applications section, but I just couldn't keep typing. I also feel that the lead may need expanding, but I can't see how. Can editors please go and take a look and begin editing if necessary? Happy to receive any and all constructive criticisms! - Fritzpoll ( talk) 23:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an edit war at Special relativity over the Postulates of special relativity. One side claim that the second postulate is redundant, and that Einstein said as much. The other side not only (correctly) denies that, but also will not allow the dispute to even be mentioned in the article. Check it out please. JRSpriggs ( talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is the disputed text that is being deleted by Denveron ( talk · contribs):
-- Michael C. Price talk 00:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |arXiv=
ignored (|arxiv=
suggested) (
help) or
causality Zeeman, E. C.
Causality Implies the Lorentz Group, Journal of Mathematical Physics 5 (4): 490-493; (1964). But the first postulate isn't enough.--
Lionelbrits (
talk)
16:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
To MichaelCPrice: You keep saying that we are not listening to you. But it is you who are not listening to us. You dismiss our most important points as incomprehensible. They could only be incomprehensible, if you are either less intelligent than you clearly are or if you are deliberately misunderstanding us. So stop trolling and go away! JRSpriggs ( talk) 10:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
At that time there was a significant problem in reconciling Maxwell's equations with other accepted aspects of physics, particularly invariance under Galilean transformation, and also (whether or not Einstein himself considered it) the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment. This cast doubt on the correctness, or at least the universality, of Maxwell's theory. Only the postulated background "ether" seemed to offer a reasonable way to save the theory, but that notion was definitively shot down by Michelson-Morley. Einstein's observation was that Maxwell's equations could be saved by replacing the postulate of Galilean relativity with the postulate of invariance of the speed of light (which is compatible with Maxwell's equations), and following that to its logical conclusion he obtained the Lorentz transformations, etc. As Ssiruuk25 (labeled "DAG", no relation) said previously, that was Einstein's "inspiration" (or motivation). The theory of special relativity as originally presented did postulate the constancy of the speed of light, but Einstein soon found that he could formulate the theory without putting so much emphasis on that. I see nothing wrong with JRSpriggs' proposal to reword the disputed text to say "In his second 1905 relativity paper, "Does the Inertia of a Body depend on its Energy-Content?" Einstein relegated the second postulate to a footnote, saying 'The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations.'" That avoids getting into the detailed historical considerations, while remaining factually accurate. — DAGwyn ( talk) 23:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Harteck Process, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harteck Process. Thank you. TomStar81 ( Talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The image on the right is currently used in four articles, general relativity, spacetime, theory of relativity and theoretical motivation for general relativity. It looks like an illustration of the famous rubber sheet model of gravitation, which is an excellent model of Newtonian gravity; in fact, it's a quantitatively exact model once you make enough idealizing assumptions. I suppose it's also a good model of linearized GR. But as far as I know it's completely wrong, quantitatively and qualitatively, as a model of space(time) curvature. So I don't think this image should be in articles about general relativity. Actually, because people so commonly confuse the rubber sheet with spacetime geometry, maybe it should be in some of the articles with a caption clarifying that it has nothing to do with general relativity, and that this is not the right way to picture spacetime curvature.
It's also possible that this isn't supposed to be a rubber sheet, but an actual picture of spacetime geometry (isometrically embedded). In that case, it's the wrong shape; I suppose you could find a spacelike slice through the Schwarzschild geometry that looked like that (or anything else) when embedded, but the "usual" slice (constant Schwarzschild coordinates) doesn't have that shape. Also, even if it's not intended to be a rubber sheet, it still looks like one, complete with a heavy ball on the top making it curve down, and the articles do nothing to dispel that misconception. So it seems worth explicitly pointing out that this is not a rubber sheet—that there is a rubber sheet model of gravitation, but it's a completely different thing.
If this were one article I'd probably just change it, but it seems like a fairly broad problem; given that "everyone knows" that spacetime is like a rubber sheet, there may be more articles involved than the four that use this image. I'm hoping for a go-ahead or whoa-there from the community before I go and edit everything. -- BenRG ( talk) 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The "rubber sheet" analogy was, as I recall, first used in books and articles for the layman, as an extreme simplification to indicate how an object might be embedded in a curved manifold and how its motion could be influenced somehow by the curvature. I am sure it was never meant as an exact, or even approximate, model. — DAGwyn ( talk) 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)