![]() | 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 am working on magnetic field and I am to the point that I can't do too much without some help from a non-technical person to review it. It has a clean-up tag that I want to remove but I want to make certain that it is actually is accessible to non-technical audiences first. Do we have a place to find people who can help with this? If not would it be possible to funnel some from the physics portal? TStein ( talk) 03:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone. If we still have peer review, I may put it up there soon. I am going through an old list that I have now to take care of a few more issues.
I am also debating about setting up a "Jargon Patrol" page if there is some demand for it and if we can find a way to make it useful both in funneling people in and in helping them navigate the mazes of WP. There are already too many half-baked ideas for recruiting and retention on WP I don't want to clutter things up even more by including my own, though. TStein ( talk) 16:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You'd think that we'd have a decent physically correct article on weight. You know, the force that pushes DOWN on masses just enough to put them in free-fall, if they weren't supported by something (like the floor or a scale)? This is the NIST definition for weight, but we've had endless problems in the talk pages ( TALK:weight and TALK:apparent weight) about the matter. The concept is very close to F = ma where "a" is the proper acceleration, which is (when multiplied by mass) the related force (in the opposite direction) necessary to put a mass, from free-fall or inertial motion, INTO the frame in which it is weighed (and in which it has a "weight"). These are counterforces. However, the article on apparent weight has gotten bogged down in gravitational issues, none of which are relevant, when the only thing it's good for as an article (if anything) is discussing why some scales give inaccurate returns for weight due to buoyancy issues. Your weight on the moon or in an elevator, is your real weight, not your "apparent weight."
Anyway, I invite all people who know their physics to weigh in on these talk pages, so we can get this mess cleaned up. S B H arris 23:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
m g in the direction of the acceleration, they would still be floating weighlessly inside the space station.
An object in free-fall obeys the equation
where p is the momentum 4-vector and Γ is the Christoffel symbol (which is the gravitational force field). Any separation of the right hand side into a part which is weight and a part which is fictitious (inertial force) must be based on an arbitrary choice of a preferred reference frame where (by definition) there are no fictitious forces. JRSpriggs ( talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As illuminating as this is, we need to keep the conversation in one spot so that everyone sees the entire conversation. So please discuss this on the weight talk page. Thanks. TStein ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Yang–Mills existence and mass gap#Proof by Dynin?, to keep the discussion unfragmented. -- bender235 ( talk) 11:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Hyperbolic coordinates has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 03:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just noticed Bbbl67 ( talk · contribs) adding links to Dark fluid ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to a few of the cosmology articles (as an apparently good-faith attempt at orphan cleanup). Checking over the dark fluid article, it seems to be fringe work relying on a lot of "unpublished manuscript" reference links, created by a single-edit account ( Suraj.kapil.singh ( talk · contribs)), with cleanup edits by a handful of users since then. Could someone with expertise in the field please take a quick look at the article? My impression is that it isn't noteworthy enough to have links from other cosmology articles (and should probably wind up on AfD due to poor referencing), but I don't follow the field closely enough to be certain of that. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there is a notice at WT:AST about an edit war at Universe , concerning its shape being a dodecahedron.
70.29.212.131 ( talk) 04:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not asking for a general guideline, nor do I want to systematize everything, but I was wondering how people felt about history sections in physics technical articles. There seems to be three main options:
I can see arguments for all of these which is why I am asking for your thoughts. I often prefer that there is no history, since it distracts from the subject matter and because history is messy with many dead ends and incorrect ideas. On the other hand, a well written and not too historically correct 'history' can be a good not too technical introduction to the subject. It can explain why something is important and why the quantity is called what it is called and it can deal with the inevitable historical artifacts with the quantity. Having it at the beginning means that technical details cannot be discussed, though, without losing most of you readers before they even get into the meat of the article. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. TStein ( talk) 17:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
User Kentgen1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have issues with the Friedmann equations, FLRW metric etc. and some strange ideas regarding the gravitational potential of black holes and dark matter. He has made unsourced and somewhat POV additions to deceleration parameter, dark energy, dark matter, Friedmann equations, Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric and Big Bang. I have reverted the most dubious of these additions (and other editors have made some reversions too) but review from more expert eyes would be useful. Gandalf61 ( talk) 14:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There's been some confusion about the use of abstract index notation in a number of articles. My knowledge of the situation is incomplete, but I do know that Einstein notation was developed to deal with certain non-orthogonal coordinate systems, with upper and lower indices representing contravariant and covariant components respectively. Repeated up/down subscripts imply summation. When the systems are orthogonal they become Cartesian, the covariant/contravariant distinction disappears, and all indices may be lowered. Penrose extended the concept to the abstract index notation. The indices appear the same, but now an indexed variable is considered to be free of any coordinate system. Repeated indices represent a particular operation which is also coordinate free (trace, divergence, etc.) but they do not now generally imply a simple summation. For a coordinate system that is locally orthogonal everywhere, the indices may again all be lowered. Some articles (e.g. linear elasticity imply that the indexed equations given are confined to Cartesian coordinate systems, thereby implying that they somehow have limited validity, which they do, assuming Einstein summation. However, the equations given are nevertheless valid for any orthogonal coordinate system, assuming that abstract index notation is being used. I would like to expand the usefulness of this and other articles by removing the Einstein summation note and making the same article more general by saying that abstract index notation is being used, and, in the case of all-lowered indices, is therefore valid for any locally orthogonal coordinate system. I just want to run this by everybody before going off on a campaign. PAR ( talk) 14:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
There's an ongoing dispute about what the lede to Dark matter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should look like. More eyes would be helpful. The relevant thread is at talk:dark matter#Dubious lead sentence(s). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 19:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Article appears to suggest that Tipler's theories are supported by mainstream physics rather than considered fringe. More eyes needed. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Please comment on this edit of Transparent ceramics article at the Talk:Transparent ceramics. Thank you. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we have some close looks at this addition? The basic source is Reg Cahill (See [2]), published in fringe journal Apeiron, which I think is a heavily unreliable source, specialized in proving "that the Ether really exists" and that "relativity is wrong". See also Tom Roberts' comments in this, and search for the string "Cahill" in PhysFAQ/Relativity/SR/experiments.html. DVdm ( talk) 10:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated Black hole for GA. All citation needing statements have been referenced now. The article is not perfect, but feedback from a GA review might reveal some specific aspects to work on for FA. TimothyRias ( talk) 09:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all -- I'm over here by way of the Aviation WikiProject, and I have an open (since March) A-class review of the combustor article. I know it may not be strictly within your purview, but it's something you might be interested in. I am also looking for reviewers who aren't particularly familiar with the topic to take a look because it is a technical topic that I tried to write at an understandable level. Anyway, I would really appreciate it if anyone could take a look and leave some comments on the review page. Thanks! - SidewinderX ( talk) 12:10, 30 June 2010 (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 am working on magnetic field and I am to the point that I can't do too much without some help from a non-technical person to review it. It has a clean-up tag that I want to remove but I want to make certain that it is actually is accessible to non-technical audiences first. Do we have a place to find people who can help with this? If not would it be possible to funnel some from the physics portal? TStein ( talk) 03:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone. If we still have peer review, I may put it up there soon. I am going through an old list that I have now to take care of a few more issues.
I am also debating about setting up a "Jargon Patrol" page if there is some demand for it and if we can find a way to make it useful both in funneling people in and in helping them navigate the mazes of WP. There are already too many half-baked ideas for recruiting and retention on WP I don't want to clutter things up even more by including my own, though. TStein ( talk) 16:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You'd think that we'd have a decent physically correct article on weight. You know, the force that pushes DOWN on masses just enough to put them in free-fall, if they weren't supported by something (like the floor or a scale)? This is the NIST definition for weight, but we've had endless problems in the talk pages ( TALK:weight and TALK:apparent weight) about the matter. The concept is very close to F = ma where "a" is the proper acceleration, which is (when multiplied by mass) the related force (in the opposite direction) necessary to put a mass, from free-fall or inertial motion, INTO the frame in which it is weighed (and in which it has a "weight"). These are counterforces. However, the article on apparent weight has gotten bogged down in gravitational issues, none of which are relevant, when the only thing it's good for as an article (if anything) is discussing why some scales give inaccurate returns for weight due to buoyancy issues. Your weight on the moon or in an elevator, is your real weight, not your "apparent weight."
Anyway, I invite all people who know their physics to weigh in on these talk pages, so we can get this mess cleaned up. S B H arris 23:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
m g in the direction of the acceleration, they would still be floating weighlessly inside the space station.
An object in free-fall obeys the equation
where p is the momentum 4-vector and Γ is the Christoffel symbol (which is the gravitational force field). Any separation of the right hand side into a part which is weight and a part which is fictitious (inertial force) must be based on an arbitrary choice of a preferred reference frame where (by definition) there are no fictitious forces. JRSpriggs ( talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As illuminating as this is, we need to keep the conversation in one spot so that everyone sees the entire conversation. So please discuss this on the weight talk page. Thanks. TStein ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Yang–Mills existence and mass gap#Proof by Dynin?, to keep the discussion unfragmented. -- bender235 ( talk) 11:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Hyperbolic coordinates has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 03:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just noticed Bbbl67 ( talk · contribs) adding links to Dark fluid ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to a few of the cosmology articles (as an apparently good-faith attempt at orphan cleanup). Checking over the dark fluid article, it seems to be fringe work relying on a lot of "unpublished manuscript" reference links, created by a single-edit account ( Suraj.kapil.singh ( talk · contribs)), with cleanup edits by a handful of users since then. Could someone with expertise in the field please take a quick look at the article? My impression is that it isn't noteworthy enough to have links from other cosmology articles (and should probably wind up on AfD due to poor referencing), but I don't follow the field closely enough to be certain of that. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there is a notice at WT:AST about an edit war at Universe , concerning its shape being a dodecahedron.
70.29.212.131 ( talk) 04:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not asking for a general guideline, nor do I want to systematize everything, but I was wondering how people felt about history sections in physics technical articles. There seems to be three main options:
I can see arguments for all of these which is why I am asking for your thoughts. I often prefer that there is no history, since it distracts from the subject matter and because history is messy with many dead ends and incorrect ideas. On the other hand, a well written and not too historically correct 'history' can be a good not too technical introduction to the subject. It can explain why something is important and why the quantity is called what it is called and it can deal with the inevitable historical artifacts with the quantity. Having it at the beginning means that technical details cannot be discussed, though, without losing most of you readers before they even get into the meat of the article. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. TStein ( talk) 17:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
User Kentgen1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have issues with the Friedmann equations, FLRW metric etc. and some strange ideas regarding the gravitational potential of black holes and dark matter. He has made unsourced and somewhat POV additions to deceleration parameter, dark energy, dark matter, Friedmann equations, Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric and Big Bang. I have reverted the most dubious of these additions (and other editors have made some reversions too) but review from more expert eyes would be useful. Gandalf61 ( talk) 14:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There's been some confusion about the use of abstract index notation in a number of articles. My knowledge of the situation is incomplete, but I do know that Einstein notation was developed to deal with certain non-orthogonal coordinate systems, with upper and lower indices representing contravariant and covariant components respectively. Repeated up/down subscripts imply summation. When the systems are orthogonal they become Cartesian, the covariant/contravariant distinction disappears, and all indices may be lowered. Penrose extended the concept to the abstract index notation. The indices appear the same, but now an indexed variable is considered to be free of any coordinate system. Repeated indices represent a particular operation which is also coordinate free (trace, divergence, etc.) but they do not now generally imply a simple summation. For a coordinate system that is locally orthogonal everywhere, the indices may again all be lowered. Some articles (e.g. linear elasticity imply that the indexed equations given are confined to Cartesian coordinate systems, thereby implying that they somehow have limited validity, which they do, assuming Einstein summation. However, the equations given are nevertheless valid for any orthogonal coordinate system, assuming that abstract index notation is being used. I would like to expand the usefulness of this and other articles by removing the Einstein summation note and making the same article more general by saying that abstract index notation is being used, and, in the case of all-lowered indices, is therefore valid for any locally orthogonal coordinate system. I just want to run this by everybody before going off on a campaign. PAR ( talk) 14:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
There's an ongoing dispute about what the lede to Dark matter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should look like. More eyes would be helpful. The relevant thread is at talk:dark matter#Dubious lead sentence(s). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 19:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Article appears to suggest that Tipler's theories are supported by mainstream physics rather than considered fringe. More eyes needed. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Please comment on this edit of Transparent ceramics article at the Talk:Transparent ceramics. Thank you. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we have some close looks at this addition? The basic source is Reg Cahill (See [2]), published in fringe journal Apeiron, which I think is a heavily unreliable source, specialized in proving "that the Ether really exists" and that "relativity is wrong". See also Tom Roberts' comments in this, and search for the string "Cahill" in PhysFAQ/Relativity/SR/experiments.html. DVdm ( talk) 10:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated Black hole for GA. All citation needing statements have been referenced now. The article is not perfect, but feedback from a GA review might reveal some specific aspects to work on for FA. TimothyRias ( talk) 09:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all -- I'm over here by way of the Aviation WikiProject, and I have an open (since March) A-class review of the combustor article. I know it may not be strictly within your purview, but it's something you might be interested in. I am also looking for reviewers who aren't particularly familiar with the topic to take a look because it is a technical topic that I tried to write at an understandable level. Anyway, I would really appreciate it if anyone could take a look and leave some comments on the review page. Thanks! - SidewinderX ( talk) 12:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)