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. |
Working on glass transition, I ran into a strange edit war. Looking deeper into my opponents edit history, I found that User:Logger9 has created a number of pretty long texts, which he pastes almost at random in articles that are unattended by others.
This reveals a fundamental problem of quality control in WP. While usual vandalism is immediately recognised and reverted, while talk space trolls are sooner or later recognised and kept short of food, this user space troll has surprising success. Several editors intervened in his defense; they admitted that they were unable to understand his contributions, and took this as an indication that the material must be very very scientific. Actually, Logger9 decorates his contributions with tons of references (sometimes more than twenty in support of one statement). For me, this is an obvious sign of lacking judgement, but others are deeply impressed.
Right now, Logger9 has abandoned glass transition. Instead, he has pasted his favorite essays into Plastic deformation in solids. Please have a look - you will rapidly see what I am talking about. -- Cheers, Paula Pilcher ( talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me copy just one paragraph from Phase transformations in solids:
"Critical insight into the nature of the heat flow associated with thermal relaxation may be gained by consideration of Frenkel's observation on thermal conductivity that the quantity of heat flowing to a given volume element is used partly to heat it and partly for performing external work. It should be noted that in Debye's theory of the heat motion in a condensed body, the elastic vibrations describing this motion are treated without any a priori reference to the temperature, the latter being introduced merely as a measure of the average intensity of these vibrations. Such a treatment implies a strict validity of the principle of superposition of normal longitudinal and transverse vibrational modes; i.e. a neglect of their deviations from a linear law of force (anharmonicity)."
It is loquacious, partly wrong, off-topic, and as a whole borderline to nonsense. Yet non-scientists who intervene in this debate with opinions based on purely formal criteria defend these contributions, considering them just a little bit too much "technical". It really seems our policies are incapable of preventing this kind of trolling. -- Paula Pilcher ( talk) 15:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The Good Article dark matter has been reviewed by me in accordance with the GA Sweeps process. I left concerns on the talk page; if they are not addressed within seven days the article may be de-listed as a Good Article. Thank you, and happy editing! - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 19:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You folks might want to take a look at what is going on here. -- logger9 ( talk) 05:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
A WP:RM requested move has been filed to rename Geomagnetic storm → Geomagnetic solar storm
70.29.208.69 ( talk) 04:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
We've been having an edit war there, and could use some input from others. It's all pretty well explained on the talk page (start with Talk:Wavelength#The_crux_of_the_problem and work backwards if you care). Dicklyon ( talk) 18:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we have some more opinions at Wave please? See recent talk sections and edits, between me and Brews ohare. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't actually have time to keep up with throttling him; he has expanded Wave from 21 KB to 33 KB in the last few days, and I'm on the road. The expansion wouldn't be a problem if it had a higher proportion of relevant and correct information, but as usual it's full of idiosyncratic interpretations, complexity, bloat, tangents, and stuff duplicated from other articles, including stuff rejected from wavelength due to being wrong and unsourced. Someone else will need to help with this, or I'll just give it up. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Brews has also inserted a big chunk of bloated material that was irrelvant at Wavelength into the Dispersion relation article, where it's even further off-topic. I'd appreciate any comments on how to deal with this; or if anyone thinks the content is useful there, I'll leave it alone. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Could editors please contribute to the discussion regarding the history section in the string theory article. Thanks. MP ( talk• contribs) 11:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, everybosy. As I've suggested here, I think is better to merge point mass and point charge as section in the general article point particle. I think it's better that, if someone look for point charge for example, before they'll learn about the general idea of point particle in physics. We can make a single good article from three stubs and I can't see any reason not to do so. -- CristianCantoro ( talk) 13:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
(<=) I agree with Steve. My two cents: elementary particles are (forgetting for a moment QM and QFT) point particles, but (not all) point particles are elementary particles. They are different models used in rather different ways. Anyway, I think it's a good thing to get some order between articles (but I don't know your situation, since I'm mostly active here. Instead, test particle is the same thing of point particle (I've only heard about test particles when introducing the electromagnetic field or the gravitational field as a synonym for point charge or point mass). -- CristianCantoro ( talk) 18:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Do not merge test particle and point particle; they are different physical concepts. The defining property of a test particle is that doesn't effect the field configuration it is supposed to be testing. That is it charge and mass are assumed to be negligible. Point masses and point charges are point-like sources for gravitational and electromagnetic fields. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
I for one did not understand that - it sounded like you were saying that x is not y because x has the same attributes as y. Where did I go wrong? Abtract ( talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
No you can't calculate the gravitational field of point particles, that is the crux of the conflict between GR and QM. A point particle has an infinite field; and hence the non-linear interaction of gravitons would cause the field to grow without limit at arbitrarily close points to the point mass. However, I take your point that a test particle is not the same as a point particle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouRang? ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to add some physical context to the meaning of the R-value and have encountered some opposition to this effort. The article is currently undergoing a process of reduction and the point of view is becoming somewhat restrictive. Science is being downgraded. This raises the question of the scope of Wikipedia articles.
One assumes that we are writing for the general public and that Wikipedia is not a trade journal. Often articles are group projects since very few individuals are competent to speak for society as a whole. In this case the R-value has meaning to the professional sector which not everyone in the trade industry is aware of. The R-value can be defined as the ratio of the temperature difference across a conductor and the heat flux through it and is relevant since the purpose of insulation is to reduce heat flow and the associated temperature regulation costs. I personally do not know who introduced the R-value. Joseph Fourier identifies a constant, H, for the problem of conductance through the air in The Analytical Theory of Heat. He distinguishes it from h, the thermal conductivity. This was in 1822 and there is no need to clutter an article with excessive detail. But some science is essential in the understanding of the R-value which is used to rate insulating material.
The article is in need of improvement and greater expertise would help. The discussion at the level of building codes is often minimal and I doubt that there is a code of silence involved here. Building codes originate as professional codes. They are often adopted as is by the legal community. It is the case of a private code being imposed on the public. The problem one encounters is that of transmission losses along a chain. Information is lost. Wikipedia can offset this through the inclusion of material in its articles. People have a right to understand public code. They have a right to know what is in the public domain and a free press is a means to this end.
It might help if more than one group involved with Wikipedia shared responsibility for the content of and setting goals for articles. This would reduce the power of some "czar" to restrict the flow of information. -- Jbergquist ( talk) 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have some questions regarding point particles (this is for an article on Wikipedia).
Talk:Black hole has the advisory note "Got a question? Don't ask here!" and provides a list of sites where one can get answers to physics questions. I don't know if this is common practice for physics articles. But I wonder if it's a good idea. Questions from readers can help indicate what should be better explained in the article. For example, if someone asks, "So what is a black hole made out of, exactly?" that indicates the subject is not adequately addressed in the article. It's often difficult for editors to put themselves in the position of someone who knows nothing about the subject matter and imagine what that person might not understand. I remember on Talk:Baseball, a reader asked something along the lines of how many points you get for reaching each base. That indicated the article did not properly explain the basic concept of how runs are scored. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 03:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is something that is based on Eric Schulma's The History of the Universe in 200 Words or Less. The Wiki history has all the words linked to a Wiki physics, astrophysics, or other article, relevant to the link. It is interesting, and I think humorous, because it is a very witty piece written by Eric Schulman. Here is the link to the Wiki History of the Universe.... Ti-30X ( talk) 03:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Introduction to quantum mechanics (mainly between two editors) on how a good introductory article to quantum mechanics should look like. Now we have two competing versions, Introduction to quantum mechanics and Basic concepts of quantum mechanics. I am not too keen on studying the long-drawn-out discussion, but in particular, I am not a physicist, so I cannot really judge any inaccuracies. Is there someone to take pity on the two articles? :-) I guess there is a lot of good content in both, but the two should be well dissociated (Is that correct English?) or merged. -- Momotaro ( talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 00:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
(See Talk:Variational principle. -- A. di M. – 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout 12:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC))
I downloaded a new image of the Standard Model from Fermilab a little while ago. It has the Higgs Boson. In case you are interested here is the link at Wikimedia Commons: Fermilab Standard Model. It also over at the Standard Model (physics) category for images. Ti-30X ( talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine image, but we should all agree that it's promotional literature (at least in part). The particle physics community (Fermilab in particular) has a vested interest in people thinking the Higgs is incredibly important. -- Steve ( talk) 07:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I could use a bit of help responding to talk page posts by 76.126.215.43 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). They _sound_ reasonably well-educated, based on their posts at Talk:Magnetic monopole (among other things), but 1) they've mostly made hostile critiques of articles, rather than proposing helpful corrections, and 2) for the two talk threads I responded to (at Talk:Antimatter and Talk:Electroweak interaction), they seemed to be missing a couple of rather basic concepts.
Long story short, I'd appreciate it if someone with more expertise than I have could respond to Talk:Magnetic_monopole#Is_this_just_a_silly_topic.3F, Talk:Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter#Are_Physicists_retarded.3F, and Talk:Bell's_theorem#Cute_theorem_but_trivially_refutable.3B_why_so_much_space.3F. There's also some borderline-trolling at Talk:Earth's atmosphere diff, though I'll assume good faith, as they seem to have adopted a somewhat less-hostile tone as time has gone on. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 22:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous IP has recently added Main approaches to the solution of the paradox to the article Black hole information paradox.
Looks very OR-ish to me, but maybe not such a bad idea in principle. Would anyone care to take a look? Jheald ( talk) 08:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
As I've been reading a lot of the articles about physics, I have noticed that a lot of basic information is missing, or is hard to find without reading through the entire article. For example, in articles about physical quantities, I think some of the most important things are that it should be easy to find: 1. which sign (letter) is usually used for that physical quantity, 2. the unit of that physical quantity, 3. how to calculate its value as a function of other physical quantities (if possible) and 4. as many ways as possible that the physical quantity is commonly used in. Often when you open an article about a physical quantity, you are only looking to find one of the two or three first of these things. However, it is not always that easy to find, if even present in the article. Often it is hidden somewhere in the text.
What really should be done is that, for example, in every article about a physical quantity, it should be made sure that at least the first three of these things are easy to find.
To help making this a reality, we should make more use of physics infoboxes. There is already a proposed infobox for units, which is great; it should be approved and then it should be made sure it comes to use. We also need an infobox for physical quantities, similar to that one.
What can be done about this? What is done about this today? Is this anything WikiProject Physics deals with or can deal with? If not, is there any other Wikipedia project which has this aim today? Otherwise one should be started. A lot of physics articles need this type of maintenance. But it is worth it, I promise.
-- Kri ( talk) 12:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Coulomb | |
---|---|
Unit system | SI derived unit |
Unit of | Electric charge |
Symbol | C |
Named after | Charles-Augustin de Coulomb |
Conversions | |
1 C in ... | ... is equal to ... |
SI base units | 1 A s |
CGS units | 2997924580 statC |
Natural units | 6.242×1018 e |
Definitely a good start. I was thinking it might also be useful to add the Geometric Unit System , Am I right? Harharvoxels ( talk) 02:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Electric charge | |
---|---|
Common symbols | Q |
SI unit | Coulomb |
Derivations from other quantities | Q = I · t |
Well, now we have created two infobox templates, that is great. Currently no articles are using them, so, what is needed to get these templates to use? Is it possible to start a new project, or a subproject, which aims to make every physics article have certain information easily accessible, and which puts some requirements on every article (depending on what type of physics article it is)? How should we make these templates come to use? I shall start myself (so long) to implement these wherever I feel they are needed. -- Kri ( talk) 20:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, do you think some of the names of the arguments should be changed? For example, "derivations" in the Infobox Physical quantity, I don't know if that is the best name for that variable. Probably the names should be changed as fast as possible if they need to be changed. Anyway, I'm starting to use the templates, we will just have to find all implementations later and change in them at the time. -- Kri ( talk) 20:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is what you need to do:
TStein ( talk) 17:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
We also have to be careful with incompatible units, e.g. the CGS unit of charge is not dimensionally compatible with the SI unit of charge. The conversion factor in the table is thus not useful (because CGS doesn't mean that we can only use centimeters, grams and seconds). It is better to say that q_{si}/sqrt(4 pi epsilon_0) -----> q_{cgs}. Count Iblis ( talk) 19:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think having conversions and/or expressing the unit in other system is too complicated. I would prefer to have just the units with a link to the relevant article. For example:
I added the description category here as well just to see how it would work and as an idea to allow both for simplicity and for flexibility. TStein ( talk) 18:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(undo indent) Someone with AWB privileges can probably do this really quickly. Once we get a template settled. TStein ( talk) 17:46, 12 August 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. |
Working on glass transition, I ran into a strange edit war. Looking deeper into my opponents edit history, I found that User:Logger9 has created a number of pretty long texts, which he pastes almost at random in articles that are unattended by others.
This reveals a fundamental problem of quality control in WP. While usual vandalism is immediately recognised and reverted, while talk space trolls are sooner or later recognised and kept short of food, this user space troll has surprising success. Several editors intervened in his defense; they admitted that they were unable to understand his contributions, and took this as an indication that the material must be very very scientific. Actually, Logger9 decorates his contributions with tons of references (sometimes more than twenty in support of one statement). For me, this is an obvious sign of lacking judgement, but others are deeply impressed.
Right now, Logger9 has abandoned glass transition. Instead, he has pasted his favorite essays into Plastic deformation in solids. Please have a look - you will rapidly see what I am talking about. -- Cheers, Paula Pilcher ( talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me copy just one paragraph from Phase transformations in solids:
"Critical insight into the nature of the heat flow associated with thermal relaxation may be gained by consideration of Frenkel's observation on thermal conductivity that the quantity of heat flowing to a given volume element is used partly to heat it and partly for performing external work. It should be noted that in Debye's theory of the heat motion in a condensed body, the elastic vibrations describing this motion are treated without any a priori reference to the temperature, the latter being introduced merely as a measure of the average intensity of these vibrations. Such a treatment implies a strict validity of the principle of superposition of normal longitudinal and transverse vibrational modes; i.e. a neglect of their deviations from a linear law of force (anharmonicity)."
It is loquacious, partly wrong, off-topic, and as a whole borderline to nonsense. Yet non-scientists who intervene in this debate with opinions based on purely formal criteria defend these contributions, considering them just a little bit too much "technical". It really seems our policies are incapable of preventing this kind of trolling. -- Paula Pilcher ( talk) 15:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The Good Article dark matter has been reviewed by me in accordance with the GA Sweeps process. I left concerns on the talk page; if they are not addressed within seven days the article may be de-listed as a Good Article. Thank you, and happy editing! - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 19:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You folks might want to take a look at what is going on here. -- logger9 ( talk) 05:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
A WP:RM requested move has been filed to rename Geomagnetic storm → Geomagnetic solar storm
70.29.208.69 ( talk) 04:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
We've been having an edit war there, and could use some input from others. It's all pretty well explained on the talk page (start with Talk:Wavelength#The_crux_of_the_problem and work backwards if you care). Dicklyon ( talk) 18:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we have some more opinions at Wave please? See recent talk sections and edits, between me and Brews ohare. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't actually have time to keep up with throttling him; he has expanded Wave from 21 KB to 33 KB in the last few days, and I'm on the road. The expansion wouldn't be a problem if it had a higher proportion of relevant and correct information, but as usual it's full of idiosyncratic interpretations, complexity, bloat, tangents, and stuff duplicated from other articles, including stuff rejected from wavelength due to being wrong and unsourced. Someone else will need to help with this, or I'll just give it up. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Brews has also inserted a big chunk of bloated material that was irrelvant at Wavelength into the Dispersion relation article, where it's even further off-topic. I'd appreciate any comments on how to deal with this; or if anyone thinks the content is useful there, I'll leave it alone. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Could editors please contribute to the discussion regarding the history section in the string theory article. Thanks. MP ( talk• contribs) 11:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, everybosy. As I've suggested here, I think is better to merge point mass and point charge as section in the general article point particle. I think it's better that, if someone look for point charge for example, before they'll learn about the general idea of point particle in physics. We can make a single good article from three stubs and I can't see any reason not to do so. -- CristianCantoro ( talk) 13:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
(<=) I agree with Steve. My two cents: elementary particles are (forgetting for a moment QM and QFT) point particles, but (not all) point particles are elementary particles. They are different models used in rather different ways. Anyway, I think it's a good thing to get some order between articles (but I don't know your situation, since I'm mostly active here. Instead, test particle is the same thing of point particle (I've only heard about test particles when introducing the electromagnetic field or the gravitational field as a synonym for point charge or point mass). -- CristianCantoro ( talk) 18:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Do not merge test particle and point particle; they are different physical concepts. The defining property of a test particle is that doesn't effect the field configuration it is supposed to be testing. That is it charge and mass are assumed to be negligible. Point masses and point charges are point-like sources for gravitational and electromagnetic fields. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
I for one did not understand that - it sounded like you were saying that x is not y because x has the same attributes as y. Where did I go wrong? Abtract ( talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
No you can't calculate the gravitational field of point particles, that is the crux of the conflict between GR and QM. A point particle has an infinite field; and hence the non-linear interaction of gravitons would cause the field to grow without limit at arbitrarily close points to the point mass. However, I take your point that a test particle is not the same as a point particle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouRang? ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to add some physical context to the meaning of the R-value and have encountered some opposition to this effort. The article is currently undergoing a process of reduction and the point of view is becoming somewhat restrictive. Science is being downgraded. This raises the question of the scope of Wikipedia articles.
One assumes that we are writing for the general public and that Wikipedia is not a trade journal. Often articles are group projects since very few individuals are competent to speak for society as a whole. In this case the R-value has meaning to the professional sector which not everyone in the trade industry is aware of. The R-value can be defined as the ratio of the temperature difference across a conductor and the heat flux through it and is relevant since the purpose of insulation is to reduce heat flow and the associated temperature regulation costs. I personally do not know who introduced the R-value. Joseph Fourier identifies a constant, H, for the problem of conductance through the air in The Analytical Theory of Heat. He distinguishes it from h, the thermal conductivity. This was in 1822 and there is no need to clutter an article with excessive detail. But some science is essential in the understanding of the R-value which is used to rate insulating material.
The article is in need of improvement and greater expertise would help. The discussion at the level of building codes is often minimal and I doubt that there is a code of silence involved here. Building codes originate as professional codes. They are often adopted as is by the legal community. It is the case of a private code being imposed on the public. The problem one encounters is that of transmission losses along a chain. Information is lost. Wikipedia can offset this through the inclusion of material in its articles. People have a right to understand public code. They have a right to know what is in the public domain and a free press is a means to this end.
It might help if more than one group involved with Wikipedia shared responsibility for the content of and setting goals for articles. This would reduce the power of some "czar" to restrict the flow of information. -- Jbergquist ( talk) 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have some questions regarding point particles (this is for an article on Wikipedia).
Talk:Black hole has the advisory note "Got a question? Don't ask here!" and provides a list of sites where one can get answers to physics questions. I don't know if this is common practice for physics articles. But I wonder if it's a good idea. Questions from readers can help indicate what should be better explained in the article. For example, if someone asks, "So what is a black hole made out of, exactly?" that indicates the subject is not adequately addressed in the article. It's often difficult for editors to put themselves in the position of someone who knows nothing about the subject matter and imagine what that person might not understand. I remember on Talk:Baseball, a reader asked something along the lines of how many points you get for reaching each base. That indicated the article did not properly explain the basic concept of how runs are scored. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 03:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is something that is based on Eric Schulma's The History of the Universe in 200 Words or Less. The Wiki history has all the words linked to a Wiki physics, astrophysics, or other article, relevant to the link. It is interesting, and I think humorous, because it is a very witty piece written by Eric Schulman. Here is the link to the Wiki History of the Universe.... Ti-30X ( talk) 03:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Introduction to quantum mechanics (mainly between two editors) on how a good introductory article to quantum mechanics should look like. Now we have two competing versions, Introduction to quantum mechanics and Basic concepts of quantum mechanics. I am not too keen on studying the long-drawn-out discussion, but in particular, I am not a physicist, so I cannot really judge any inaccuracies. Is there someone to take pity on the two articles? :-) I guess there is a lot of good content in both, but the two should be well dissociated (Is that correct English?) or merged. -- Momotaro ( talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 00:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
(See Talk:Variational principle. -- A. di M. – 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout 12:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC))
I downloaded a new image of the Standard Model from Fermilab a little while ago. It has the Higgs Boson. In case you are interested here is the link at Wikimedia Commons: Fermilab Standard Model. It also over at the Standard Model (physics) category for images. Ti-30X ( talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine image, but we should all agree that it's promotional literature (at least in part). The particle physics community (Fermilab in particular) has a vested interest in people thinking the Higgs is incredibly important. -- Steve ( talk) 07:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I could use a bit of help responding to talk page posts by 76.126.215.43 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). They _sound_ reasonably well-educated, based on their posts at Talk:Magnetic monopole (among other things), but 1) they've mostly made hostile critiques of articles, rather than proposing helpful corrections, and 2) for the two talk threads I responded to (at Talk:Antimatter and Talk:Electroweak interaction), they seemed to be missing a couple of rather basic concepts.
Long story short, I'd appreciate it if someone with more expertise than I have could respond to Talk:Magnetic_monopole#Is_this_just_a_silly_topic.3F, Talk:Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter#Are_Physicists_retarded.3F, and Talk:Bell's_theorem#Cute_theorem_but_trivially_refutable.3B_why_so_much_space.3F. There's also some borderline-trolling at Talk:Earth's atmosphere diff, though I'll assume good faith, as they seem to have adopted a somewhat less-hostile tone as time has gone on. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 22:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous IP has recently added Main approaches to the solution of the paradox to the article Black hole information paradox.
Looks very OR-ish to me, but maybe not such a bad idea in principle. Would anyone care to take a look? Jheald ( talk) 08:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
As I've been reading a lot of the articles about physics, I have noticed that a lot of basic information is missing, or is hard to find without reading through the entire article. For example, in articles about physical quantities, I think some of the most important things are that it should be easy to find: 1. which sign (letter) is usually used for that physical quantity, 2. the unit of that physical quantity, 3. how to calculate its value as a function of other physical quantities (if possible) and 4. as many ways as possible that the physical quantity is commonly used in. Often when you open an article about a physical quantity, you are only looking to find one of the two or three first of these things. However, it is not always that easy to find, if even present in the article. Often it is hidden somewhere in the text.
What really should be done is that, for example, in every article about a physical quantity, it should be made sure that at least the first three of these things are easy to find.
To help making this a reality, we should make more use of physics infoboxes. There is already a proposed infobox for units, which is great; it should be approved and then it should be made sure it comes to use. We also need an infobox for physical quantities, similar to that one.
What can be done about this? What is done about this today? Is this anything WikiProject Physics deals with or can deal with? If not, is there any other Wikipedia project which has this aim today? Otherwise one should be started. A lot of physics articles need this type of maintenance. But it is worth it, I promise.
-- Kri ( talk) 12:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Coulomb | |
---|---|
Unit system | SI derived unit |
Unit of | Electric charge |
Symbol | C |
Named after | Charles-Augustin de Coulomb |
Conversions | |
1 C in ... | ... is equal to ... |
SI base units | 1 A s |
CGS units | 2997924580 statC |
Natural units | 6.242×1018 e |
Definitely a good start. I was thinking it might also be useful to add the Geometric Unit System , Am I right? Harharvoxels ( talk) 02:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Electric charge | |
---|---|
Common symbols | Q |
SI unit | Coulomb |
Derivations from other quantities | Q = I · t |
Well, now we have created two infobox templates, that is great. Currently no articles are using them, so, what is needed to get these templates to use? Is it possible to start a new project, or a subproject, which aims to make every physics article have certain information easily accessible, and which puts some requirements on every article (depending on what type of physics article it is)? How should we make these templates come to use? I shall start myself (so long) to implement these wherever I feel they are needed. -- Kri ( talk) 20:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, do you think some of the names of the arguments should be changed? For example, "derivations" in the Infobox Physical quantity, I don't know if that is the best name for that variable. Probably the names should be changed as fast as possible if they need to be changed. Anyway, I'm starting to use the templates, we will just have to find all implementations later and change in them at the time. -- Kri ( talk) 20:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is what you need to do:
TStein ( talk) 17:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
We also have to be careful with incompatible units, e.g. the CGS unit of charge is not dimensionally compatible with the SI unit of charge. The conversion factor in the table is thus not useful (because CGS doesn't mean that we can only use centimeters, grams and seconds). It is better to say that q_{si}/sqrt(4 pi epsilon_0) -----> q_{cgs}. Count Iblis ( talk) 19:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think having conversions and/or expressing the unit in other system is too complicated. I would prefer to have just the units with a link to the relevant article. For example:
I added the description category here as well just to see how it would work and as an idea to allow both for simplicity and for flexibility. TStein ( talk) 18:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(undo indent) Someone with AWB privileges can probably do this really quickly. Once we get a template settled. TStein ( talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)