![]() | 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. |
I'd appreciate it if people knowledgeable in statistical mechanics could take a look at this article, which is up for AfD. I hope the issues with it are obvious. -- The Anome ( talk) 16:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Nanog ( talk · contribs) just wrote a new article, Relativistic heat conduction. Take a look at it. JRSpriggs ( talk) 00:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone expert in QFT take a look at that article? It is written so poorly that it can only be understood by someone who already knows the stuff being "explained". -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of the template below?
I've fixed the most blatantly wrong things with it (adding italics and links, etc.), but I consider it somewhat misleading:
Do you think this template can still be useful for anything, provided it's fixed, or shall I take it to TfD? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Article titles about multiples and submultiples of units. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The situation at centrifugal force is still in a bit of a mess. We have a special article called 'Reactive Centrifugal Force' which caters for this subject. But the term 'reactive' is a misnomer. In a circular motion caused by tension in a string, the string causes the inward centripetal force. But it is the outward centrifugal force that causes the tension in the string in the first place. The centrifugal force is pro-active. It is not reactive.
There is more about centrifugal force in another article entitled 'Centrifugal Force (rotating frames of reference)'. In co-rotating situations we have centrifugal force.
These two articles need to be joined together into one, and grossly simplified.
We need a simple introduction. "Centrifugal force is the outward force that arises in connection with rotation". We then need a few simple examples including Keplerian orbits and the centrifuge. David Tombe ( talk) 06:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In several articles ( Hamiltonian mechanics#Relativistic charged particle in an electromagnetic field, Lagrangian, and some other ones which I can't remember), I've seen square brackets used to denote function arguments. I think that they look quite weird, and when nested they can become awkward to read (e.g.
it's hard to read with all the vertical lines which are part of the brackets, would look much better with round parentheses, at least for the innermost ones:
It is just me? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this topic deserve its own article? Wouldn't it make more sense to merge it into Energy? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I started a discussion here about articles related to capacitance. At the moment, we have several very long articles with huge scope, which all overlap significantly. I think we need to decide on a better way to divide up the subject matter, which may involve some page moves. Please join the discussion! Papa November ( talk) 15:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Discuss here. JocK ( talk) 04:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The article ARPES has been listed again as a copyright concern (earlier today I removed the duplication I saw, but evidently multiple sources are involved). Presuming that the IP contributor who tagged it is correct, the article was clean at this point. There's been a lot of work since then, and I am by no means in my field. Is there anyone at the project who would be willing to help clean this text by revising problematic material rather than its being simply gutted? (It's tagged "low" importance, fwiw.) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has been proposed as a featured article. It is listed under the Physics WikiProject, so please take a look and comment here. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unhexseptium. Elements 167 to 173 have been sent for deletion as pure speculation. Note that even the chemical properties cannot be predicted, since some theories say that no electrons can be added to the electron shells beyond 139. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 00:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As of 13:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC) all 11,962 articles in this project have a quality rating. Well done everybody. There are however still 4,548 articles awaiting an importance assessment. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 13:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
The article on vector spaces is up for featured article nomination. Please opine here. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:G-force#Italicizing and subsequent sections of that page. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed the replacing of Kinetics (physics) with Newton's laws of motion on the Vital Article list. My reasoning is on that talk page, but basically boils down to Kinetics being a little-used term anymore, and being an article designated "Low" importance. Comments would be greatly appreciated.- Running On Brains 16:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The merger proposal at Talk:Emission spectrum has received little comment, especially from people who would be likely to perform any significant changes. – OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hydrino theory is up for renaming again... 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 04:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody verify my use of a source at: [1], it's being claimed that I'm misrepresenting the source, but I don't believe that to be the case.
There's a copy of the important part of the source at: [2].
Many thinks.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 09:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have written a rather absurd interpretation of quantum mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fx303#Vector_Energy_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics which, however, is based on solid math and science references. The purpose of this interpretation is not a serious attempt to explain QM, rather to provide a means for alternate views to be expressed through semantic games over "real" and "imaginary" numbers and when to toss the imaginary component. This is for the purpose of helping someone see it in a new light and come up with a real explanation.
The VEIQM would run like: The missing atoms are not missing. They converted to negative vector energy photons and went to the universe's bank of energy-time uncertainty from which other parts of the universe can borrow. Somewhere, a bunch of atoms were needed, so that void borrowed from uncertain energy-time and brought them into existence there (wherever there is). To conserve stuff, whatever was needed took place (like creating a neutrino - hah) and all laws were satisfied. As silly as it sounds, maybe someone finds a new line of inquiry and actually figures it out from reading this.
I propose the idea to you as last editor of that article, the above is my contribution and explanation of intent.
Your call what to do with it, as a newcomer I would request to defer to you on this issue. Fx303 ( talk) 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome, and thanks for contributing! I was the last editor of that article however I only did a minor formatting edit of the layout to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style and I have no knowledge or expertise on the subject. I forwarded this message to Bosenova's Talk page and to WikiProject Physics' Talk page where I'm sure someone can help you with this. Sounds like it could be viewed by some editors as violating Wikipedia's Original Research policy however you mentioned it was based on "solid math and science references" so just be sure to cite your references, and go ahead and be bold! I'll help with any copy editing or formatting you may need. Expanding stubs is in my opinion the most productive way to contribute to Wikipedia so I'm grateful we have knowledgeable editors such as yourself that can do that. OlEnglish ( talk) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been proposed below that CP-violation be renamed and moved to CP violation. Though the vote counting listed at WP:RM is false, because consensus can change thus the "votes" from 2007 and 2008 don't really count. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is edit protected for some unfathomable reason... 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 08:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:Planck units#Need to revise 'Planck units and invariant scaling of nature'. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
RunningOnBrains's posting about replacing Kinetics (physics) in the list of vital articles reminded me that I had noticed a while ago that the whole area of classical mechanics could do with being sorted out.
The classical mechanics article describes mechanics as being divided into three branches: Statics, "Kinetics", and Kinematics. Modern texts typically combine Kinetics and Kinematics and call it Dynamics, or don't differentiate between any of the three branches, just using the term classical mechanics for the whole subject. (More on this division is here.)
Then, looking at what articles exist in this area, there are:
So, I'm posting here to try to establish whether there's a consensus on how the area of classical mechanics should be divided up on Wikipedia? (Perhaps something that matches a standard division of the topic as currently taught?) Is it best presented as all one subject, two subjects, or three? Under what titles?
(Just to be clear, I'm not proposing that any of these articles should be deleted - even if it's felt that some terms are no longer used, the articles should probably explain their former use and point out the current terminology.)
Thanks! Djr32 ( talk) 14:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Throughout wikipedia, various particles are given various names. For example, for example pion and pi meson are the same particle, positron and antielectron are the same thin, tau particle, tauon and tau lepton are the same particle, etc... So how about naming them all consitently?
What say you? The only real problem I foresee with this is converting positron to antielectron, but doing the conversion would IMO improve the understanding of non-expert readers. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Radio active → Radioactive decay
I've nominated Casimir cones for deletion. Although I am 99.4% sure that it is a hoax, please take a look at it in case I'm wrong. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Introduction to special relativity#A radical reorganization of this could be useful. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Periodic table (extended) has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 04:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 2Z-N correlations. A very short article with many references, mostly by one author, concerning relations between the stability of nuclei and their numbers of protons and neutrons. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Plasma propulsion engine and Ion thruster seem to be about the same topic... perhaps a merge is in order? 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 07:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Help desk#Image in dire need of modification Nil Einne ( talk) 12:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I opened a RFC on the Biophoton article. Is it all pseudoscience or is there something worth keeping? Also see Talk:Biophoton. 129.177.30.18 ( talk) 10:33, 29 January 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. |
I'd appreciate it if people knowledgeable in statistical mechanics could take a look at this article, which is up for AfD. I hope the issues with it are obvious. -- The Anome ( talk) 16:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Nanog ( talk · contribs) just wrote a new article, Relativistic heat conduction. Take a look at it. JRSpriggs ( talk) 00:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone expert in QFT take a look at that article? It is written so poorly that it can only be understood by someone who already knows the stuff being "explained". -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of the template below?
I've fixed the most blatantly wrong things with it (adding italics and links, etc.), but I consider it somewhat misleading:
Do you think this template can still be useful for anything, provided it's fixed, or shall I take it to TfD? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Article titles about multiples and submultiples of units. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The situation at centrifugal force is still in a bit of a mess. We have a special article called 'Reactive Centrifugal Force' which caters for this subject. But the term 'reactive' is a misnomer. In a circular motion caused by tension in a string, the string causes the inward centripetal force. But it is the outward centrifugal force that causes the tension in the string in the first place. The centrifugal force is pro-active. It is not reactive.
There is more about centrifugal force in another article entitled 'Centrifugal Force (rotating frames of reference)'. In co-rotating situations we have centrifugal force.
These two articles need to be joined together into one, and grossly simplified.
We need a simple introduction. "Centrifugal force is the outward force that arises in connection with rotation". We then need a few simple examples including Keplerian orbits and the centrifuge. David Tombe ( talk) 06:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In several articles ( Hamiltonian mechanics#Relativistic charged particle in an electromagnetic field, Lagrangian, and some other ones which I can't remember), I've seen square brackets used to denote function arguments. I think that they look quite weird, and when nested they can become awkward to read (e.g.
it's hard to read with all the vertical lines which are part of the brackets, would look much better with round parentheses, at least for the innermost ones:
It is just me? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this topic deserve its own article? Wouldn't it make more sense to merge it into Energy? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I started a discussion here about articles related to capacitance. At the moment, we have several very long articles with huge scope, which all overlap significantly. I think we need to decide on a better way to divide up the subject matter, which may involve some page moves. Please join the discussion! Papa November ( talk) 15:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Discuss here. JocK ( talk) 04:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The article ARPES has been listed again as a copyright concern (earlier today I removed the duplication I saw, but evidently multiple sources are involved). Presuming that the IP contributor who tagged it is correct, the article was clean at this point. There's been a lot of work since then, and I am by no means in my field. Is there anyone at the project who would be willing to help clean this text by revising problematic material rather than its being simply gutted? (It's tagged "low" importance, fwiw.) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has been proposed as a featured article. It is listed under the Physics WikiProject, so please take a look and comment here. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unhexseptium. Elements 167 to 173 have been sent for deletion as pure speculation. Note that even the chemical properties cannot be predicted, since some theories say that no electrons can be added to the electron shells beyond 139. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 00:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As of 13:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC) all 11,962 articles in this project have a quality rating. Well done everybody. There are however still 4,548 articles awaiting an importance assessment. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 13:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
The article on vector spaces is up for featured article nomination. Please opine here. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:G-force#Italicizing and subsequent sections of that page. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed the replacing of Kinetics (physics) with Newton's laws of motion on the Vital Article list. My reasoning is on that talk page, but basically boils down to Kinetics being a little-used term anymore, and being an article designated "Low" importance. Comments would be greatly appreciated.- Running On Brains 16:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The merger proposal at Talk:Emission spectrum has received little comment, especially from people who would be likely to perform any significant changes. – OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hydrino theory is up for renaming again... 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 04:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody verify my use of a source at: [1], it's being claimed that I'm misrepresenting the source, but I don't believe that to be the case.
There's a copy of the important part of the source at: [2].
Many thinks.- ( User) Wolfkeeper ( Talk) 09:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have written a rather absurd interpretation of quantum mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fx303#Vector_Energy_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics which, however, is based on solid math and science references. The purpose of this interpretation is not a serious attempt to explain QM, rather to provide a means for alternate views to be expressed through semantic games over "real" and "imaginary" numbers and when to toss the imaginary component. This is for the purpose of helping someone see it in a new light and come up with a real explanation.
The VEIQM would run like: The missing atoms are not missing. They converted to negative vector energy photons and went to the universe's bank of energy-time uncertainty from which other parts of the universe can borrow. Somewhere, a bunch of atoms were needed, so that void borrowed from uncertain energy-time and brought them into existence there (wherever there is). To conserve stuff, whatever was needed took place (like creating a neutrino - hah) and all laws were satisfied. As silly as it sounds, maybe someone finds a new line of inquiry and actually figures it out from reading this.
I propose the idea to you as last editor of that article, the above is my contribution and explanation of intent.
Your call what to do with it, as a newcomer I would request to defer to you on this issue. Fx303 ( talk) 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome, and thanks for contributing! I was the last editor of that article however I only did a minor formatting edit of the layout to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style and I have no knowledge or expertise on the subject. I forwarded this message to Bosenova's Talk page and to WikiProject Physics' Talk page where I'm sure someone can help you with this. Sounds like it could be viewed by some editors as violating Wikipedia's Original Research policy however you mentioned it was based on "solid math and science references" so just be sure to cite your references, and go ahead and be bold! I'll help with any copy editing or formatting you may need. Expanding stubs is in my opinion the most productive way to contribute to Wikipedia so I'm grateful we have knowledgeable editors such as yourself that can do that. OlEnglish ( talk) 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been proposed below that CP-violation be renamed and moved to CP violation. Though the vote counting listed at WP:RM is false, because consensus can change thus the "votes" from 2007 and 2008 don't really count. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is edit protected for some unfathomable reason... 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 08:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:Planck units#Need to revise 'Planck units and invariant scaling of nature'. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 13:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
RunningOnBrains's posting about replacing Kinetics (physics) in the list of vital articles reminded me that I had noticed a while ago that the whole area of classical mechanics could do with being sorted out.
The classical mechanics article describes mechanics as being divided into three branches: Statics, "Kinetics", and Kinematics. Modern texts typically combine Kinetics and Kinematics and call it Dynamics, or don't differentiate between any of the three branches, just using the term classical mechanics for the whole subject. (More on this division is here.)
Then, looking at what articles exist in this area, there are:
So, I'm posting here to try to establish whether there's a consensus on how the area of classical mechanics should be divided up on Wikipedia? (Perhaps something that matches a standard division of the topic as currently taught?) Is it best presented as all one subject, two subjects, or three? Under what titles?
(Just to be clear, I'm not proposing that any of these articles should be deleted - even if it's felt that some terms are no longer used, the articles should probably explain their former use and point out the current terminology.)
Thanks! Djr32 ( talk) 14:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Throughout wikipedia, various particles are given various names. For example, for example pion and pi meson are the same particle, positron and antielectron are the same thin, tau particle, tauon and tau lepton are the same particle, etc... So how about naming them all consitently?
What say you? The only real problem I foresee with this is converting positron to antielectron, but doing the conversion would IMO improve the understanding of non-expert readers. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Radio active → Radioactive decay
I've nominated Casimir cones for deletion. Although I am 99.4% sure that it is a hoax, please take a look at it in case I'm wrong. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Introduction to special relativity#A radical reorganization of this could be useful. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Periodic table (extended) has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 04:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 2Z-N correlations. A very short article with many references, mostly by one author, concerning relations between the stability of nuclei and their numbers of protons and neutrons. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Plasma propulsion engine and Ion thruster seem to be about the same topic... perhaps a merge is in order? 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 07:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Help desk#Image in dire need of modification Nil Einne ( talk) 12:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I opened a RFC on the Biophoton article. Is it all pseudoscience or is there something worth keeping? Also see Talk:Biophoton. 129.177.30.18 ( talk) 10:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)