![]() | 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. |
It needs some attention. Uncle G ( talk) 01:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
One problem that needs expert attention, that we haven't addressed yet, is that there are (or seem to be, after a cursory search) several different dark fluid hypotheses in physics, in addition to the one that the article currently discusses. (Apparently, several people separately groped for some new word other than "energy" or "matter", and all came up with "fluid".) Uncle G ( talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge these to are synonyms. (Or is one or the other used more broadly?) So, there is a clear case for a merger. The big question is which name should be the main article. Any thoughts? ( TimothyRias ( talk) 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC))
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone feel like dealing with Iron Condor, and with the article itself? I don't. Thread here: Talk:Black hole information paradox#Completely false premise. -- BenRG ( talk) 20:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I just started trying to clean up this article, and another editor has twice re-inserted the paragraph:
Although most scientists would agree with Professor P. J. E. Peebles, who declared "Gravitational waves exist… [1]," some scientists disagree. Professor Irwin I. Shapiro more cautiously wrote: "Should we now conclude that the existence of gravitational radiation has been established? Probably not." [2]
Before I embarass myself, can someone take a look to see if this really belongs? Please keep in mind that our treatment needs to follow the preponderance of our most reliable sources, bound by WP:WEIGHT. Certainly the limitations of various detectors are appropriate (and I think made clear), but is this the correct section and the best way to treat the fact that there is still some reasonable doubt regarding whether the observations thus far made are best explained by gravitational waves? - Eldereft ( cont.) 14:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think that some other title might be better? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Army1987 (above) had a very good point: it is the [b]space[/b] not the vector that is Euclidean. Referring to the vectors themselves as Euclidean is only going to encourage confusion. After all: a 4-vector is a vector in a 4D Euclidean space too, but we just don't consider that Euclidean space interesting: it is the interval, not the Euclidean metric, that has physical significance.
Besides: shouldn't we be getting the reader ready for the revelation that what he calls 'vectors' in freshman physics classes si really a contravariant tensor of rank 1? 67.95.202.34 ( talk) 04:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Could we have some knowledgeable input at Talk:G-force#Disputed tag please? -- John ( talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my! Such confusion! If it is an accelerometer, then it should measure acceleration, period. Not force. And how on earth could it distinguish between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due to some other force? Surely the only way it can do this is by calibration: you calibrate it to read 0 when at rest w.r.t the Earth. Or, as in the airplane example given above, calibrate it to read 1.0g when at rest w.r.t. the Earth. 67.95.202.34 ( talk) 04:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I just added a section to this article, based on the original paper by Greenberger, Horne, Shimony, and Zeilinger. This is my first attempt at an edit. I would welcome comments/corrections on the style, formatting, and, of course, content. 69.255.193.52 ( talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that the arrows on the positrons on the first two Feynmann diagrams in the article on Bhabha scattering are the wrong way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.62.144 ( talk) 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
{{ val}} finally got fixed. It can now reliably display at least 12 significant digits, including zeros. Server problems prevent the template from reaching its full potential (14 significant digits guaranteed) but this will be fixed in the upcoming weeks apparently. A few examples of output:
I thought I'd let you guys know, since ... well we use a lot of numbers. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
EPR paradox is very techical, so I've had a go at making the important part legible, although it clearly needs much more work. So I would be grateful if anyone could tell me whether my recent changes to the 'explanation of the paradox' section are an improvement, or whether they contain false statements. I've just tried to make things a little clearer, but I thought I'd better check it with some experienced people first. Mark J ( talk) 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that in the "EPR Paradox" article, in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph (which begins with “The EPR paradox is a paradox”), there is a typo.
The typo is an extra parenthesis after the word “locality”, which confuses the meaning of the sentence.
I propose an edit that removes the erroneous parenthesis:
CHANGE:
(referred to as locality), realism
TO:
(referred to as locality, realism
Proof that a change is needed:
There are seven parentheses in that sentence. Parentheses must occur in pairs. There should be an even number of them. The extra parenthesis is a left parenthesis. The logic of the sentence dictates that the parenthesis I mentioned above is the superfluous one.
What do you think?
- ronjoseph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjoseph ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
In August of 2006 (thirty months ago), a comment within the talk page of atmospheric physics indicated that someone with a strong physics background should take a good look at the article and try to make it less slanted towards meteorology. As a meteorologist, I'm not sure I can do this myself. If someone from the physics project could look over the article and make specific suggestions as to how it could be improved, it would be greatly appreciated Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I've built this image to give an overview of the various families of particles etc... Any comments on accuracy and possible improvements? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm letting you guys know about it because a lot of what is said there is also relevant for you guys. Plus your feedback would definitely be both relevant and appreciated. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we can't watch all disambigs, but over three years staying power is remarkable:
-- Pjacobi ( talk) 12:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Moons shodow in muons.gif
I'd provide a fair use rational, but I just don't know where to go! Help! Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is written as if photons don'exist, that E = mc^2 is false, that it is instead E = mcb, GR and SR false, QM false, and a whole lot of crank stuff. Also the article is AfD'd. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Inertia tensor of triangle has been proposed for deletion via WP:PROD 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 07:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to start a check list for new WikiProject Physics members to help introduce them to the arcane ways of wikipedia. Such a list would have to be relatively short to be effective, but will also need to link to articles where they can get clear information on a focused topic about using wikipedia. (An example of this would be a glossary of wikipedia's alphabet soup will be useful.)
I imagine the checklist should include a list of useful pages to watch. For that the main WikiProject Physics page seems appropriate along with the activity page (which I didn't even know you could watch until recently). What other pages should be on this list?
I imagine we should also include instructions for dealing with vandalism and on rating articles. Having them add their name to the list of participants should be on the check list as well. Anything else?
Summary of questions:
TStein ( talk) 15:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Great initiative. Then we can incorporate this into {{ WP Physics Welcome}} (or otherwise modify it). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I would try to summarize the issues here, but I'm afraid I can't do so without slanting the debate one way or the other. So instead, I'm asking for people more knowledgeable than I to take a look at the page. I am willing to moderate this if needed. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Some of you may have noticed the sudden increase in the number of articles in the scope of the project. Crowsnest expressed interest in reviving this project, so I tagged a bunch of stuff related to Fluid dynamics (and I took the opportunity to tag stuff for the Relativity and Acoustics taskforces as well, even if they are not very active). I've overhauled the looks and archived old discussion, installed articles alerts (same for other taskforces), and some other tweaks. If you are interested, please join it. And if you aren't, but know people who would be interested (IRL or on wiki) please let them know. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm trying to start a Wikiproject to cover Organismal Biomechanics, and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested? Articles such as animal locomotion. gait, muscle, and similar would be our targets. See my userpage for a list of what I'm planning to work on, including some truly awful articles in desperate need of attention. See proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Organismal_Biomechanics. I'll keep anyone who signs up updated via their userpages until I get a project page made. Help of all kinds is appreciated, from brain dumps to wikifying, grammar and dealing with references. Mokele ( talk) 22:38, 28 February 2009 (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. |
It needs some attention. Uncle G ( talk) 01:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
One problem that needs expert attention, that we haven't addressed yet, is that there are (or seem to be, after a cursory search) several different dark fluid hypotheses in physics, in addition to the one that the article currently discusses. (Apparently, several people separately groped for some new word other than "energy" or "matter", and all came up with "fluid".) Uncle G ( talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge these to are synonyms. (Or is one or the other used more broadly?) So, there is a clear case for a merger. The big question is which name should be the main article. Any thoughts? ( TimothyRias ( talk) 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC))
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone feel like dealing with Iron Condor, and with the article itself? I don't. Thread here: Talk:Black hole information paradox#Completely false premise. -- BenRG ( talk) 20:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I just started trying to clean up this article, and another editor has twice re-inserted the paragraph:
Although most scientists would agree with Professor P. J. E. Peebles, who declared "Gravitational waves exist… [1]," some scientists disagree. Professor Irwin I. Shapiro more cautiously wrote: "Should we now conclude that the existence of gravitational radiation has been established? Probably not." [2]
Before I embarass myself, can someone take a look to see if this really belongs? Please keep in mind that our treatment needs to follow the preponderance of our most reliable sources, bound by WP:WEIGHT. Certainly the limitations of various detectors are appropriate (and I think made clear), but is this the correct section and the best way to treat the fact that there is still some reasonable doubt regarding whether the observations thus far made are best explained by gravitational waves? - Eldereft ( cont.) 14:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think that some other title might be better? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Army1987 (above) had a very good point: it is the [b]space[/b] not the vector that is Euclidean. Referring to the vectors themselves as Euclidean is only going to encourage confusion. After all: a 4-vector is a vector in a 4D Euclidean space too, but we just don't consider that Euclidean space interesting: it is the interval, not the Euclidean metric, that has physical significance.
Besides: shouldn't we be getting the reader ready for the revelation that what he calls 'vectors' in freshman physics classes si really a contravariant tensor of rank 1? 67.95.202.34 ( talk) 04:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Could we have some knowledgeable input at Talk:G-force#Disputed tag please? -- John ( talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my! Such confusion! If it is an accelerometer, then it should measure acceleration, period. Not force. And how on earth could it distinguish between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due to some other force? Surely the only way it can do this is by calibration: you calibrate it to read 0 when at rest w.r.t the Earth. Or, as in the airplane example given above, calibrate it to read 1.0g when at rest w.r.t. the Earth. 67.95.202.34 ( talk) 04:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I just added a section to this article, based on the original paper by Greenberger, Horne, Shimony, and Zeilinger. This is my first attempt at an edit. I would welcome comments/corrections on the style, formatting, and, of course, content. 69.255.193.52 ( talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that the arrows on the positrons on the first two Feynmann diagrams in the article on Bhabha scattering are the wrong way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.62.144 ( talk) 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
{{ val}} finally got fixed. It can now reliably display at least 12 significant digits, including zeros. Server problems prevent the template from reaching its full potential (14 significant digits guaranteed) but this will be fixed in the upcoming weeks apparently. A few examples of output:
I thought I'd let you guys know, since ... well we use a lot of numbers. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
EPR paradox is very techical, so I've had a go at making the important part legible, although it clearly needs much more work. So I would be grateful if anyone could tell me whether my recent changes to the 'explanation of the paradox' section are an improvement, or whether they contain false statements. I've just tried to make things a little clearer, but I thought I'd better check it with some experienced people first. Mark J ( talk) 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that in the "EPR Paradox" article, in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph (which begins with “The EPR paradox is a paradox”), there is a typo.
The typo is an extra parenthesis after the word “locality”, which confuses the meaning of the sentence.
I propose an edit that removes the erroneous parenthesis:
CHANGE:
(referred to as locality), realism
TO:
(referred to as locality, realism
Proof that a change is needed:
There are seven parentheses in that sentence. Parentheses must occur in pairs. There should be an even number of them. The extra parenthesis is a left parenthesis. The logic of the sentence dictates that the parenthesis I mentioned above is the superfluous one.
What do you think?
- ronjoseph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjoseph ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
In August of 2006 (thirty months ago), a comment within the talk page of atmospheric physics indicated that someone with a strong physics background should take a good look at the article and try to make it less slanted towards meteorology. As a meteorologist, I'm not sure I can do this myself. If someone from the physics project could look over the article and make specific suggestions as to how it could be improved, it would be greatly appreciated Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I've built this image to give an overview of the various families of particles etc... Any comments on accuracy and possible improvements? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm letting you guys know about it because a lot of what is said there is also relevant for you guys. Plus your feedback would definitely be both relevant and appreciated. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we can't watch all disambigs, but over three years staying power is remarkable:
-- Pjacobi ( talk) 12:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Moons shodow in muons.gif
I'd provide a fair use rational, but I just don't know where to go! Help! Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is written as if photons don'exist, that E = mc^2 is false, that it is instead E = mcb, GR and SR false, QM false, and a whole lot of crank stuff. Also the article is AfD'd. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Inertia tensor of triangle has been proposed for deletion via WP:PROD 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 07:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to start a check list for new WikiProject Physics members to help introduce them to the arcane ways of wikipedia. Such a list would have to be relatively short to be effective, but will also need to link to articles where they can get clear information on a focused topic about using wikipedia. (An example of this would be a glossary of wikipedia's alphabet soup will be useful.)
I imagine the checklist should include a list of useful pages to watch. For that the main WikiProject Physics page seems appropriate along with the activity page (which I didn't even know you could watch until recently). What other pages should be on this list?
I imagine we should also include instructions for dealing with vandalism and on rating articles. Having them add their name to the list of participants should be on the check list as well. Anything else?
Summary of questions:
TStein ( talk) 15:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Great initiative. Then we can incorporate this into {{ WP Physics Welcome}} (or otherwise modify it). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I would try to summarize the issues here, but I'm afraid I can't do so without slanting the debate one way or the other. So instead, I'm asking for people more knowledgeable than I to take a look at the page. I am willing to moderate this if needed. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Some of you may have noticed the sudden increase in the number of articles in the scope of the project. Crowsnest expressed interest in reviving this project, so I tagged a bunch of stuff related to Fluid dynamics (and I took the opportunity to tag stuff for the Relativity and Acoustics taskforces as well, even if they are not very active). I've overhauled the looks and archived old discussion, installed articles alerts (same for other taskforces), and some other tweaks. If you are interested, please join it. And if you aren't, but know people who would be interested (IRL or on wiki) please let them know. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm trying to start a Wikiproject to cover Organismal Biomechanics, and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested? Articles such as animal locomotion. gait, muscle, and similar would be our targets. See my userpage for a list of what I'm planning to work on, including some truly awful articles in desperate need of attention. See proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Organismal_Biomechanics. I'll keep anyone who signs up updated via their userpages until I get a project page made. Help of all kinds is appreciated, from brain dumps to wikifying, grammar and dealing with references. Mokele ( talk) 22:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)