![]() | 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. |
Atmospheric reentry naming is under discussion, see talk:Atmospheric reentry, where the definition, usage, and relation to natural phenomena, and balance is noted. As this is a physics of air-solid interaction topic, I thought I'd let you know. 184.144.161.173 ( talk) 20:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There are scientific journals that focus on physics research. For example, Annalen der Physik is the oldest physics journal. It appears to cover all topics in the physics discipline by reporting original work in the areas of experimental, theoretical, applied and mathematical physics. Advances in Physics focuses on interdisciplinary, critical reviews with topics ranging over condensed matter physics, statistical mechanics, quantum information, cold atoms, soft matter physics, and biophysics. Space Science Reviews only synthesizes current results in space science research, which can impact the various related fields and related insturmentation.
Below is a list of general interest articles pertaining to physics related scientific journals:
The theme of the month (February) for the selected article at the Physics portal is "physics related scientific journals". I am looking for recommendations for such journals here. Maybe from experience, the physics community is aware of the most read or consulted journals in their field, or at their work place. I think related engineering journals are also acceptable for this theme. What is recommended for positioning some of the most the cited journals? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed a mention of a supersymmetry representation called "Adinkras" from the article on the West African Adinkra symbols, but the removal was reverted. From my searching these physics "adinkras" have gained little outside attention, but people here might know better. I don't think this physics concept belongs at all in an article on a protoscript - can anyone suggest a better article for that content, to which a hatnote or other short note could point? Fences& Windows 21:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't really have much of a horse in this race, but there seems to be an edit war over in United States gravity control propulsion research, entering and removing the page from the General Relativity category. The page is supported by the Relativity Task Force. It seems to me that you guys should be making the call here. Thanks! xod ( talk) 18:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
An IP editor has made a substantial addition to Kerr metric ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), amounting to a claim of independent discovery by someone else. This could definitely stand vetting. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 04:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I cam across Neodymium magnet today, and noticed that it wasn't tagged for the Physics project. It needs an assessment. Additionally, there's a problem concerning an excessivey bold rewrite in 2009 which seems to have negatively affected the article: see talk:Neodymium magnet#Broken rewrite for details. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added β-disintegration, and several other spellings of the same, as redirects to beta decay, based on my ancient undergraduate physics memories. (See my recent edits for all of these) Can anyone more current than me confirm that these are indeed synonyms? -- Gigacephalus ( talk) 14:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a question about the notability of a biography of a physicist ( Samo Stanič) and some project members here may have valuable input. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia#Samo Stanič. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 16:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Being bold and archiving this. SPI and cleanup are already being handled, and this page is not the place to teach a problem-editor about QM, especially if they don't want to learn. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Could someone have a close look at what has been happening recently at article Speed of gravity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), specially in this addition to the lead by user Antichristos ( talk · contribs)? I have added a cn-tag and removed the bolding ( [1]), but I think this could need an eye or two. DVdm ( talk) 08:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not see why you-all are going on about the Compton wavelength. What matters for detection of classical waves is the actual wavelength which for a close binary star would be shorter than a light-year, not longer than the diameter of the observable universe.
JRSpriggs (
talk)
11:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
StatusNote. An internal search reveals that we now have 5 articles with recently duplicated content: "In relativistic quantum theory, a system cannot be localized..."
All content was added by user Antichristos ( talk · contribs). Is this appropriate? DVdm ( talk) 14:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC) For obvious reasons—see edit summary— I have reverted this most recent string of edits on Speed of gravity and left a third level warning on user talk page. DVdm ( talk) 18:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC) After this edit was reverted once more, I have opened an edit warring report here. DVdm ( talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Give me a break. You can't do anything better than texts from 1935-1969? English and physics are perfectly clear: miles per hour means miles/hour. In any case, for h is in joule*sec (6.626...×10−34 J*sec), and frequency of 0.1 Hz, your energy is merely 6.626 x 10-35 joule. The Heisenberg principle says that for measurement times of 10 seconds like this, the energy uncertainty must be (on the order of) this large.
S
B
H
arris
23:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Antichristos is on a 72 hr block. Doubtless he'll be back. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Antichristos just made an not-logged edit as 89.110.14.26 ( talk · contribs) and removed part of Action at a distance (physics). Technically, this is wp:block evasion. Can anyone have a look at whether this was indeed "his" content and whether it should be removed? DVdm ( talk) 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
References
|
There's a slow-motion edit war in progress at Holographic principle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), focusing around who came up with the concept, if I understand correctly. More eyes would be helpful, as both editors appear to be in "I'm right" mode. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There is one thing Antichristos has brought up which I think is interesting - he produced a load of references saying Plancks constant is in terms of ergs per second whereas it is actually erg seconds. The article here is correct but have people come across this sort of mistake afflicting other units and what do they do when a contributor sticks in a citation with a mistake like that? Dmcq ( talk) 21:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem with thinking that h is a unit of energy/time is that it gives us just the sort of problem Antichristos is stuggling with. That would imply that power can be only so small, and no smaller. Instead, Planck (actually Heisenberg, working with the implications of both Planck and de Broglie) postulates that action changes can be no smaller than (equal to or larger than) h/4π. But action is the product of energy and time, or energy and 1/frequency. If 1/frequency is larger than 1 in your units (1/0.1 Hz = 10 seconds) then that means E is merely h/(10 seconds). That's a very small energy, but it's a perfectly possible energy. There is no lower limit on energy. S B H arris 22:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The box in the top right corner lists several quantum numbers as "flavour quantum numbers". Whereas I agree with isospin, charm, strangeness, topness and bottomness being flavour quantum numbers, I am wondering whether baryon/lepton number, weak isospin, electric charge and X charge should indeed be listed as flavour quantum numbers. On the other hand, the leptonic e, μ, τ flavours are missing. Is there any reference stating that the baryon number, ... are indeed "flavour" quantum numbers? -- Dogbert66 ( talk) 17:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
A new user, Esdacosta ( talk · contribs), has recently attempted to make an addition to Dark matter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to mention a detector he's writing a page about (presently at User:Esdacosta/SIMPLE (dark matter)). From what I can find online, this is a legitimate dark matter detection experiment, and the user in question may actually be one of the researches involved in the project. I've suggested that they come here for advice and assistance for creating a properly-sourced article (at SIMPLE (dark matter)) and for adding links to it on appropriate pages. They appear to be acting in good faith; let's help them with this if possible. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 00:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Yes I am new to this and am just updating the dark matter problem. In fact, the SIMPLE dark matter experiment has been around since 1998. It is a small group (based from Portugal). It has many publications on dark matter, superheated droplet detectors, etc. Although small, this direct detection experiment has presently the best limit on the Spin-dependent sector. This is not stated in my talk! The talk serves to inform the global community, since the dark matter obviously knows about SIMPLE, I hope! thank you! I will update the most I can. esdacosta —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC).
I'm not sure, if it's a good idea to move the article User:D.H/test (translated by me from German) to Criticism of relativity theory. Maybe it would cause some trouble by anti-relativity cranks... Opinions? -- D.H ( talk) 21:46, 30 January 2011 (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. |
Atmospheric reentry naming is under discussion, see talk:Atmospheric reentry, where the definition, usage, and relation to natural phenomena, and balance is noted. As this is a physics of air-solid interaction topic, I thought I'd let you know. 184.144.161.173 ( talk) 20:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There are scientific journals that focus on physics research. For example, Annalen der Physik is the oldest physics journal. It appears to cover all topics in the physics discipline by reporting original work in the areas of experimental, theoretical, applied and mathematical physics. Advances in Physics focuses on interdisciplinary, critical reviews with topics ranging over condensed matter physics, statistical mechanics, quantum information, cold atoms, soft matter physics, and biophysics. Space Science Reviews only synthesizes current results in space science research, which can impact the various related fields and related insturmentation.
Below is a list of general interest articles pertaining to physics related scientific journals:
The theme of the month (February) for the selected article at the Physics portal is "physics related scientific journals". I am looking for recommendations for such journals here. Maybe from experience, the physics community is aware of the most read or consulted journals in their field, or at their work place. I think related engineering journals are also acceptable for this theme. What is recommended for positioning some of the most the cited journals? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed a mention of a supersymmetry representation called "Adinkras" from the article on the West African Adinkra symbols, but the removal was reverted. From my searching these physics "adinkras" have gained little outside attention, but people here might know better. I don't think this physics concept belongs at all in an article on a protoscript - can anyone suggest a better article for that content, to which a hatnote or other short note could point? Fences& Windows 21:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't really have much of a horse in this race, but there seems to be an edit war over in United States gravity control propulsion research, entering and removing the page from the General Relativity category. The page is supported by the Relativity Task Force. It seems to me that you guys should be making the call here. Thanks! xod ( talk) 18:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
An IP editor has made a substantial addition to Kerr metric ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), amounting to a claim of independent discovery by someone else. This could definitely stand vetting. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 04:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I cam across Neodymium magnet today, and noticed that it wasn't tagged for the Physics project. It needs an assessment. Additionally, there's a problem concerning an excessivey bold rewrite in 2009 which seems to have negatively affected the article: see talk:Neodymium magnet#Broken rewrite for details. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added β-disintegration, and several other spellings of the same, as redirects to beta decay, based on my ancient undergraduate physics memories. (See my recent edits for all of these) Can anyone more current than me confirm that these are indeed synonyms? -- Gigacephalus ( talk) 14:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a question about the notability of a biography of a physicist ( Samo Stanič) and some project members here may have valuable input. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia#Samo Stanič. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 16:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Being bold and archiving this. SPI and cleanup are already being handled, and this page is not the place to teach a problem-editor about QM, especially if they don't want to learn. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Could someone have a close look at what has been happening recently at article Speed of gravity ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), specially in this addition to the lead by user Antichristos ( talk · contribs)? I have added a cn-tag and removed the bolding ( [1]), but I think this could need an eye or two. DVdm ( talk) 08:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not see why you-all are going on about the Compton wavelength. What matters for detection of classical waves is the actual wavelength which for a close binary star would be shorter than a light-year, not longer than the diameter of the observable universe.
JRSpriggs (
talk)
11:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
StatusNote. An internal search reveals that we now have 5 articles with recently duplicated content: "In relativistic quantum theory, a system cannot be localized..."
All content was added by user Antichristos ( talk · contribs). Is this appropriate? DVdm ( talk) 14:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC) For obvious reasons—see edit summary— I have reverted this most recent string of edits on Speed of gravity and left a third level warning on user talk page. DVdm ( talk) 18:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC) After this edit was reverted once more, I have opened an edit warring report here. DVdm ( talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Give me a break. You can't do anything better than texts from 1935-1969? English and physics are perfectly clear: miles per hour means miles/hour. In any case, for h is in joule*sec (6.626...×10−34 J*sec), and frequency of 0.1 Hz, your energy is merely 6.626 x 10-35 joule. The Heisenberg principle says that for measurement times of 10 seconds like this, the energy uncertainty must be (on the order of) this large.
S
B
H
arris
23:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Antichristos is on a 72 hr block. Doubtless he'll be back. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Antichristos just made an not-logged edit as 89.110.14.26 ( talk · contribs) and removed part of Action at a distance (physics). Technically, this is wp:block evasion. Can anyone have a look at whether this was indeed "his" content and whether it should be removed? DVdm ( talk) 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
References
|
There's a slow-motion edit war in progress at Holographic principle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), focusing around who came up with the concept, if I understand correctly. More eyes would be helpful, as both editors appear to be in "I'm right" mode. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There is one thing Antichristos has brought up which I think is interesting - he produced a load of references saying Plancks constant is in terms of ergs per second whereas it is actually erg seconds. The article here is correct but have people come across this sort of mistake afflicting other units and what do they do when a contributor sticks in a citation with a mistake like that? Dmcq ( talk) 21:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem with thinking that h is a unit of energy/time is that it gives us just the sort of problem Antichristos is stuggling with. That would imply that power can be only so small, and no smaller. Instead, Planck (actually Heisenberg, working with the implications of both Planck and de Broglie) postulates that action changes can be no smaller than (equal to or larger than) h/4π. But action is the product of energy and time, or energy and 1/frequency. If 1/frequency is larger than 1 in your units (1/0.1 Hz = 10 seconds) then that means E is merely h/(10 seconds). That's a very small energy, but it's a perfectly possible energy. There is no lower limit on energy. S B H arris 22:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The box in the top right corner lists several quantum numbers as "flavour quantum numbers". Whereas I agree with isospin, charm, strangeness, topness and bottomness being flavour quantum numbers, I am wondering whether baryon/lepton number, weak isospin, electric charge and X charge should indeed be listed as flavour quantum numbers. On the other hand, the leptonic e, μ, τ flavours are missing. Is there any reference stating that the baryon number, ... are indeed "flavour" quantum numbers? -- Dogbert66 ( talk) 17:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
A new user, Esdacosta ( talk · contribs), has recently attempted to make an addition to Dark matter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to mention a detector he's writing a page about (presently at User:Esdacosta/SIMPLE (dark matter)). From what I can find online, this is a legitimate dark matter detection experiment, and the user in question may actually be one of the researches involved in the project. I've suggested that they come here for advice and assistance for creating a properly-sourced article (at SIMPLE (dark matter)) and for adding links to it on appropriate pages. They appear to be acting in good faith; let's help them with this if possible. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 00:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Yes I am new to this and am just updating the dark matter problem. In fact, the SIMPLE dark matter experiment has been around since 1998. It is a small group (based from Portugal). It has many publications on dark matter, superheated droplet detectors, etc. Although small, this direct detection experiment has presently the best limit on the Spin-dependent sector. This is not stated in my talk! The talk serves to inform the global community, since the dark matter obviously knows about SIMPLE, I hope! thank you! I will update the most I can. esdacosta —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC).
I'm not sure, if it's a good idea to move the article User:D.H/test (translated by me from German) to Criticism of relativity theory. Maybe it would cause some trouble by anti-relativity cranks... Opinions? -- D.H ( talk) 21:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)