![]() | 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. |
WP:ELEMENTS started creating books on each individual elements. Since there are a lot of them, any help would be very much appreciated. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I changed a number of stub articles from "unknown importance" to "low", and that was my intention. But in the revision history I wrote the change was from NA to "low". I just don't want anyone to be alarmed that I inappropriately changed NA to "low". Only from "unknown importance" to "low". Hopefully this makes sense :) Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) ( talk) 04:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added or enhanced existing links to a handful of physicist pages; these links are to image search results at the Emilio Segrè Visual Archives. Pages include: Richard Feynman, Robert J. Van de Graaff, Ernest Lawrence, Wolfgang Pauli, and Harold Jeffreys. Please let me know whether there is a problem with this.
Sprout333 ( talk) 18:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Why in the world were these reverted? These are wonderful links, to wonderful pictures?? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics}
(unindent) Note that you could also upload the images on the Wikimedia Commons. I'll get someone from WP:OTRS to give you guidance on how to proceed. I'm not entirely sure how it works, but it's definitely something museums and archives have appreciated in the past. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, X-ray lithography is seriously messed up, and the current version is not an article but a message saying you should learn another language and read it off another language Wikipedia.
There was actual content on this page last year.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 11:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | I've started a thread at Talk:Time dilation#Electromagnetic time dilation. That's probably the best place for new comments on this material. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 00:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC) |
A new editor ( Howard Landman ( talk · contribs) recently made this edit to Time dilation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This seems to be fringe material, and also seems to violate WP:COI (for the last of the added references). That said, I'd appreciate a second opinion or two before I revert/move it to the talk page. The editor seems to be acting in good faith. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 08:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) My intention when I derived was that mass was a constant typical of the type of particle but independent of the circumstances in which it finds itself (such as potentials or velocity). The idea was to calibrate the passage of time so that a muon would not be said to experience more time merely because it is more massive than an electron. So I "adjusted" by dividing it by which is the value it would have when the particle is at rest in a vacuum in deep space so that all potentials are zero. In other words, the mass is used to calibrate the rate of passage of time so that it is 1 in a standard situation. JRSpriggs ( talk) 02:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at the Quantum physics demo article? It doesn't seem particularly suitable for the encyclopedia but I thought I would post here before suggesting it go to AfD. Thanks Smartse ( talk) 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Another demonstration: I'm typing a message here, therefore I exist for a longer time scale than would be possible in a classical universe. Count Iblis ( talk) 13:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I hereby nominate both Headbomb and Likebox for the position of co- Grand Poobah. This situation is already pretty ridiculous, why not dive into full absurdity? The Wordsmith Communicate 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor here, named headbomb, has decided to take it upon himself to purge the long-standing use of natural units in some of the sections of the article Schrodinger equation. He did so incorrectly, and these were not typos--- he consistently put in the wrong power of hbar in every equation he modified, and there were many. I will ask other editors if they could talk reason into him. Likebox ( talk) 23:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
It is good that the question has come here and I hope that others will comment. I do not know where Likebox gets "CosineKitty is currently weighing the issues (as a non-expert editor)". That user has not said that. Likebox is mind reading. His "Natural units are accessible to undergrads" is not addressing the undergrads I meet. "Bduke would like elementary articles to have explicit hbars, and advanced articles to not have them" is not my position. My position is that articles such as Schrodinger equation that attract a readership from many disciplines as most more elementary topics would, should use hbar throughout. Advanced articles might use natural units in the more advanced part of the article, but should have a clear and simple introduction that does not use natural units. I made that clear several times. I have recently added a comment to Talk:Schrodinger equation suggesting that there is not even consensus on which natural units to use. All chemists use atomic units at graduate level and these are different to the ones in the article. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with SBHarris. People usually learn QM natural units after learning a substantial amount of QM, not before or during. That's the way it should be, and that's the way it is in almost all courses and textbooks. Therefore, articles on basic aspects of QM (like the Schrodinger equation) should generally not use them, or occasionally put in both forms (with explanation and link) when it helps make a pedagogical point. :-) -- Steve ( talk) 04:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) But inserting incorrect factors of hbar, and reverting a user who removes these incorrect factors is vandalism under any definition.
You are wrong about the meaning of E=mc^2 (it just means E=m) you are wrong about the use of hbar. I pity you. It is too bad that the people who actually write the material are second guessed by the people who don't. Likebox ( talk) 07:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) I didn't claim I "own" it! I claimed that I am familiar with it, and so I know exactly what a destructive thing it will be to change it from natural units. If you look at the first half of the article, peace of cake. But in the second half, if you look at stuff in there, if you start littering the hbars, you just can't do the boosts properly, nor the superpotential stuff, nor the propagator, not anything. It's all wrong units for that, and it's all done in natural units in the professional literature. I wouldn't know where to put all the hbars, or how. There's no convention, because all this stuff has been done in natural units forever.
The problem is that you are making rash judgements without actually looking at the text in the article. Headbomb is adding hbars without checking for consistency from one equation to the next, and revealing appalling gaps in his understanding of dimensional analysis. Everybody here is talking out of their asses without reading the actual text and thinking about what it means to use SI units, and I'm the only one that has the whole text in my head, so I know how ridiculous what you are saying is. Likebox ( talk) 08:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
tl;dr, but I think it depends on what you're doing. There's nothing wrong on using c and ħ in introductory articles, and sometimes it even makes it easier to "see" how the classical limit is approached as c → ∞ and ħ → 0, but using them in advanced theoretical articles about stuff with no classical analogue, e.g. in Clebsch–Gordan coefficients, is just plain silly (and I don't think it'd occur to anyone to do that in the first place). Personally, I'd not use them in Spin–orbit interaction, but it has happened to me to be told off for "forgetting" about powers of ħ and c in the expression for it during an exam. (When that happened, I just wrote those factors down without making a fuss.) ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Now headbomb insists on putting absurd hbars on lattice approximations! This takes the cake. I don't know if anyone here knows what a lattice Schrodinger operator is like, but to put an "hbar" on it is like putting units of "meters" on the lattice in lattice QCD. It's ridiculous. Headbomb just puts "hbar^2" in front of every object he sees.
This editing with lack of understanding is extremely disturbing, and it is a recurring pattern. Likebox ( talk) 08:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
For Klein Gordon equation, unlike S.E., there is a massive consensus on natural units in the literature. Headbomb also insists on reverting these. I would like a large number of people to stop this.
(Headbomb: you don't understand what you are doing here--- you are ending physics on Wikipedia. Perhaps it was inevitable.) Likebox ( talk) 08:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Apologies to those getting tired of this sort of thing (which should be just about everyone, me included), but Likebox is currently soapboxing/venting his rage on Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Participants. Personally I'd remove the entire message (or move it on the talk page) since he's moved on to Citizendium anyway (see [1]), but since I'm involved and I don't want to create more shit than we're currently dealing with, I'd rather that someone uninvolved would do it.
I can't wait for this project to get back to its happy normal state. I'm so tired of this crap. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This article was created today, there are no Google hits for this term. Is it a recognised theory? Cassandra 73 ( talk) 18:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
We've had two extended threads at Talk:Black hole about peoples' pet theories about black holes so far this year. What do people think about putting a variant of Talk:Big Bang's "IMPORTANT: please don't post about your pet theory here" notice over there, to hopefully forestall future extended threads?
Disclaimer: I've been involved in some of these threads, and arguably helped some of them drag on longer than they should have.
If people think this is a potentially useful thing to do, I'll start up a straw poll at Talk:Black hole to confirm that there's community support, and to ask for useful form links to direct people to for posting original work. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The straw poll is up at Talk:Black hole#Straw poll: talk page notice. Please post opinions (positive and negative) and comments/suggestions there. If this turns out to be overkill, I'd rather know about it before putting the notice up. Likewise if there's a better way to word the notice. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor ( 90.229.235.204 ( talk)) created this article and has been adding links to it to multiple cosmology-related articles. I won't be in a position to clean this up for a few hours; would someone else be willing to take a look at it, and if necessary have (polite) words with the IP user? -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking it would be worthwhile to link the other physics pages to this disambiguation page. I have linked a number of them already. I will continue to do so, over time. It will take awhile to finish including with bullet summaries. If this doesn't work for the physics community then just let me know. ---- Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) ( talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an Index of physics articles page, so maybe a lengthly disambiguation page is redundant. Also, the main article "Physics" has linked summations to articles about "Core theories of physics", "Research fields" in the physics arena, along with "Applied physics", and even "Unsolved problems in phyics" article, etc. etc. In other words, there is a plethora of wiki-linking to the subdisciplines and articles of physics from this one page ("Physics"). Perhaps, the disambiguation page should contain only a selection of represenative articles. Any suggestions? -- Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) ( talk) 16:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
A new editor added a reference link to this article from what appears to be a fringe author, which I removed (with comment). They've now added it back in. Could someone else take a look at this to see whether or not I'm off-base? -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Following the example of stable nuclide, I think it's time to modernize both the the isotope and nuclide articles, by merging them. Best current suggestion, to avoid people going to one page when they want the other, is to merge them to only one article, entitled Isotope and nuclide and have both isotope and nuclide redirect to it. That article will explain the (modern) difference in terms in the lead/lede (isotopes refer to the group of nuclides of a single chemical element only), then launch into a history section of isotope discovery, moving onto the history of the term nuclide (hopefully). Then the rest of the modern stuff follows. Since "isotope" and "nuclide" were once synonyms, with isotope being used once as we now use the word "nuclide" (which didn't exist), discussing them in the same merged article seems the best approach.
This is mostly a chemistry topic (see the talk:isotope page, and please comment there, not here), but it has been suggested that due to the nuclear physics component from nuclide, that the proposed merge be announced here, also. S B H arris 23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Impulse was moved to Mechanical impulse without discussion, there is now a request to move Impulse (disambiguation) to Impulse. See Talk:Impulse (disambiguation)
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 05:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The new article titled unit commensurability needs work, including;
Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Recently, this tag-team pair of robots has been working on some of the physics articles. User:FrescoBot seems to be combing articles looking for broken section links and links that need disambiguation, and if it finds them, flags the articles for attention by the second robot. User:WildBot puts a couple of big templates on the articles' talk pages describing the problems it found and linking to an external tool that attempts to help fix them. The two robots are maintained by different users (WildBot was originally supposed to be manually summonned, I think).
I'm not convinced that the robots' attention is a good thing. My main complaint is that it's cluttering up the talk pages, which already have a mile-long list of templates. On the other hand, it's not necessarily a bad thing, either; it's just making a small mess. I've been sticking {{cot|Click to show link-fixing robot's report.}} ... {{cob}} around the templates, as a least-damage interim measure, and have pinged WildBot's maintainer (politely) to ask about doing something similar directly.
Partly I'm posting to give everyone else a heads-up before FrescoBot finds articles you help maintain, and partly to see if anyone else has thoughts about what, if anything, should be done in response to this series of events. I'm of two minds, per above. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The creator of User:FrescoBot has for the time being switched off the WildBot-calling feature of that bot, in response to complaints from other WikiProjects. If automatic tagging of WP:PHYS articles is a feature people think would be useful, by all means suggest mutually-acceptable workarounds at User talk:Basilicofresco (it's not my area of expertise). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Update: The author of WildBot has agreed to modify it so that its templates are added at the end of the list of templates on the page, rather than at the beginning. This removes my objections to automated tagging of physics articles. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 04:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
WildBot was mentionned above, so I thought I would mention this here while it's relevant. WildBot doesn't only go through articles, it also goes through books and create a problem report on the talk page (with details on the cause and effects of these problems, and what to do to fix them). There are currently 6 physics-related books that needs cleanup.
These reports are IMO cuter than those found on articles talk pages, so maybe you could talk to Josh Parris and see if having reports similar to those of books would be an acceptable solution, or at least an improvement. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
As I am not an authority on this subject in any manner, I wanted to bring this article to your attention instead of editing blindly myself. In the article Degenerate energy level, there is a sentence: "For example, in the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, all of the states with the same angular momentum (which corresponds to them having the same principal quantum number) are degenerate." Okay, so, I thought that angular momentum was described by the azimuthal quantum number (l), but I didn't want to just go change the page myself, just in case the sentence is intentionally implying that all of the states of the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom inherently have the same principal quantum number (n) because they have the same angular momentum. I looked at the hydrogen atom page briefly, and I don't think an implication of that nature would be accurate, but I am not knowledgable enough to make that assessment. Anyway! In summation... have a look and fix it if need be! I know this is really trivial, so, sorry it's so lengthy. -- Brittl33 ( talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion at WT:ASTRO about the relatively recent article Hot companion.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 05:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Systemizer ( talk · contribs) seems to have returned from a long absence, and is making substantial changes to several cosmology-related articles. The ones at Dark energy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looked completely incorrect, so I've rolled them back. This appears to have happened elsewhere too, judging by talk-page warnings. If anyone with more time that I have at the moment would be willing to doublecheck their recent contributions, that'd be appreciated. I suspect there's still a fair bit of cleanup to do (and it's always possible that they've made valid contributions as well). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 09:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The page Free space seems to be full of references to the pseudoscientific "aetherometry" theory, and has lots of instances of one particular editor/philosopher(!)'s view of the alleged impossibility of achieving a true vacuum. This is a guy called Correa who has been "in trouble" before for putting up loads of pages about his quack theory; see [ [2]]
Also, one of the cited references next to one of these assertions of opinion links to an anti-wikipedia attack page run by Correa.
I have added numerous tags and am requesting that an expert in free space/vacuum and vacuum constants addresses this page. I don't know if the community is aware of the state of this "mid-importance" physics page, so I am drawing it to everyone's attention.
Liquidcentre ( talk) 16:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Classical mechanics |
---|
Part of a series on |
Classical mechanics |
---|
I've copied them here but you can also see the issue where I first noticed it at Rotation around a fixed axis. Do these two templates both need to exist as they seem to cover essentially the same topics with the same articles; should they be merged or should one or other be deprecated. It's been mentioned before at Template talk:Dynamics but such pages tend to be rarely visited so better to raise it here.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 00:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Done (except checking for articles linking to both...) ―
___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987)
01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
User:RK wants to do some weird things with articles Dark energy star, Dark star and Dark matter star. See the talk pages for dark energy star and dark star.
76.66.194.32 ( talk) 05:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
While we're on the topic of merges and redirects below, comments about the proposed page move at Talk:Dark star#Disambiguation page would be handy. I want to make sure there aren't objections before I perform the move. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 21:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Update: Page move completed. I'm in the process of cleaning up links. Any that are left after the end of March, are ones I've missed. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 06:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Relativistic quantum mechanics now redirects to Dirac equation, but IMO it'd make more sense to redirect it to Quantum field theory. What do you think about it? ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
At first glance, this article seems kosher. With my somewhat dated physics background, I delved a bit deeper, however, and received the strong impression the article was the synthesis of a few editors combining some actual research with large amounts of their own hypotheses and suppositions, dressed up a little with some fringe sources such as "imaginaryweapons.net".
So, using inline templates, I annotated the portions of the article that appeared to be synthesis, self-researched, or unverified, and attempted to start a discussion of the issues on the article talk page. Unfortunately, one of the article's clique of original editors refused to discuss the issues, began reverting my changes, and accused me of vandalizing the article.
If possible, I'd like another set of eyes of look at the article, and see if they reach the same conclusions I did. Thanks. FellGleaming ( talk) 04:32, 31 March 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. |
WP:ELEMENTS started creating books on each individual elements. Since there are a lot of them, any help would be very much appreciated. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I changed a number of stub articles from "unknown importance" to "low", and that was my intention. But in the revision history I wrote the change was from NA to "low". I just don't want anyone to be alarmed that I inappropriately changed NA to "low". Only from "unknown importance" to "low". Hopefully this makes sense :) Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) ( talk) 04:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added or enhanced existing links to a handful of physicist pages; these links are to image search results at the Emilio Segrè Visual Archives. Pages include: Richard Feynman, Robert J. Van de Graaff, Ernest Lawrence, Wolfgang Pauli, and Harold Jeffreys. Please let me know whether there is a problem with this.
Sprout333 ( talk) 18:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Why in the world were these reverted? These are wonderful links, to wonderful pictures?? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics}
(unindent) Note that you could also upload the images on the Wikimedia Commons. I'll get someone from WP:OTRS to give you guidance on how to proceed. I'm not entirely sure how it works, but it's definitely something museums and archives have appreciated in the past. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, X-ray lithography is seriously messed up, and the current version is not an article but a message saying you should learn another language and read it off another language Wikipedia.
There was actual content on this page last year.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 11:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | I've started a thread at Talk:Time dilation#Electromagnetic time dilation. That's probably the best place for new comments on this material. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 00:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC) |
A new editor ( Howard Landman ( talk · contribs) recently made this edit to Time dilation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This seems to be fringe material, and also seems to violate WP:COI (for the last of the added references). That said, I'd appreciate a second opinion or two before I revert/move it to the talk page. The editor seems to be acting in good faith. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 08:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) My intention when I derived was that mass was a constant typical of the type of particle but independent of the circumstances in which it finds itself (such as potentials or velocity). The idea was to calibrate the passage of time so that a muon would not be said to experience more time merely because it is more massive than an electron. So I "adjusted" by dividing it by which is the value it would have when the particle is at rest in a vacuum in deep space so that all potentials are zero. In other words, the mass is used to calibrate the rate of passage of time so that it is 1 in a standard situation. JRSpriggs ( talk) 02:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at the Quantum physics demo article? It doesn't seem particularly suitable for the encyclopedia but I thought I would post here before suggesting it go to AfD. Thanks Smartse ( talk) 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Another demonstration: I'm typing a message here, therefore I exist for a longer time scale than would be possible in a classical universe. Count Iblis ( talk) 13:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I hereby nominate both Headbomb and Likebox for the position of co- Grand Poobah. This situation is already pretty ridiculous, why not dive into full absurdity? The Wordsmith Communicate 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor here, named headbomb, has decided to take it upon himself to purge the long-standing use of natural units in some of the sections of the article Schrodinger equation. He did so incorrectly, and these were not typos--- he consistently put in the wrong power of hbar in every equation he modified, and there were many. I will ask other editors if they could talk reason into him. Likebox ( talk) 23:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
It is good that the question has come here and I hope that others will comment. I do not know where Likebox gets "CosineKitty is currently weighing the issues (as a non-expert editor)". That user has not said that. Likebox is mind reading. His "Natural units are accessible to undergrads" is not addressing the undergrads I meet. "Bduke would like elementary articles to have explicit hbars, and advanced articles to not have them" is not my position. My position is that articles such as Schrodinger equation that attract a readership from many disciplines as most more elementary topics would, should use hbar throughout. Advanced articles might use natural units in the more advanced part of the article, but should have a clear and simple introduction that does not use natural units. I made that clear several times. I have recently added a comment to Talk:Schrodinger equation suggesting that there is not even consensus on which natural units to use. All chemists use atomic units at graduate level and these are different to the ones in the article. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with SBHarris. People usually learn QM natural units after learning a substantial amount of QM, not before or during. That's the way it should be, and that's the way it is in almost all courses and textbooks. Therefore, articles on basic aspects of QM (like the Schrodinger equation) should generally not use them, or occasionally put in both forms (with explanation and link) when it helps make a pedagogical point. :-) -- Steve ( talk) 04:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) But inserting incorrect factors of hbar, and reverting a user who removes these incorrect factors is vandalism under any definition.
You are wrong about the meaning of E=mc^2 (it just means E=m) you are wrong about the use of hbar. I pity you. It is too bad that the people who actually write the material are second guessed by the people who don't. Likebox ( talk) 07:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) I didn't claim I "own" it! I claimed that I am familiar with it, and so I know exactly what a destructive thing it will be to change it from natural units. If you look at the first half of the article, peace of cake. But in the second half, if you look at stuff in there, if you start littering the hbars, you just can't do the boosts properly, nor the superpotential stuff, nor the propagator, not anything. It's all wrong units for that, and it's all done in natural units in the professional literature. I wouldn't know where to put all the hbars, or how. There's no convention, because all this stuff has been done in natural units forever.
The problem is that you are making rash judgements without actually looking at the text in the article. Headbomb is adding hbars without checking for consistency from one equation to the next, and revealing appalling gaps in his understanding of dimensional analysis. Everybody here is talking out of their asses without reading the actual text and thinking about what it means to use SI units, and I'm the only one that has the whole text in my head, so I know how ridiculous what you are saying is. Likebox ( talk) 08:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
tl;dr, but I think it depends on what you're doing. There's nothing wrong on using c and ħ in introductory articles, and sometimes it even makes it easier to "see" how the classical limit is approached as c → ∞ and ħ → 0, but using them in advanced theoretical articles about stuff with no classical analogue, e.g. in Clebsch–Gordan coefficients, is just plain silly (and I don't think it'd occur to anyone to do that in the first place). Personally, I'd not use them in Spin–orbit interaction, but it has happened to me to be told off for "forgetting" about powers of ħ and c in the expression for it during an exam. (When that happened, I just wrote those factors down without making a fuss.) ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Now headbomb insists on putting absurd hbars on lattice approximations! This takes the cake. I don't know if anyone here knows what a lattice Schrodinger operator is like, but to put an "hbar" on it is like putting units of "meters" on the lattice in lattice QCD. It's ridiculous. Headbomb just puts "hbar^2" in front of every object he sees.
This editing with lack of understanding is extremely disturbing, and it is a recurring pattern. Likebox ( talk) 08:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
For Klein Gordon equation, unlike S.E., there is a massive consensus on natural units in the literature. Headbomb also insists on reverting these. I would like a large number of people to stop this.
(Headbomb: you don't understand what you are doing here--- you are ending physics on Wikipedia. Perhaps it was inevitable.) Likebox ( talk) 08:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Apologies to those getting tired of this sort of thing (which should be just about everyone, me included), but Likebox is currently soapboxing/venting his rage on Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Participants. Personally I'd remove the entire message (or move it on the talk page) since he's moved on to Citizendium anyway (see [1]), but since I'm involved and I don't want to create more shit than we're currently dealing with, I'd rather that someone uninvolved would do it.
I can't wait for this project to get back to its happy normal state. I'm so tired of this crap. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This article was created today, there are no Google hits for this term. Is it a recognised theory? Cassandra 73 ( talk) 18:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
We've had two extended threads at Talk:Black hole about peoples' pet theories about black holes so far this year. What do people think about putting a variant of Talk:Big Bang's "IMPORTANT: please don't post about your pet theory here" notice over there, to hopefully forestall future extended threads?
Disclaimer: I've been involved in some of these threads, and arguably helped some of them drag on longer than they should have.
If people think this is a potentially useful thing to do, I'll start up a straw poll at Talk:Black hole to confirm that there's community support, and to ask for useful form links to direct people to for posting original work. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The straw poll is up at Talk:Black hole#Straw poll: talk page notice. Please post opinions (positive and negative) and comments/suggestions there. If this turns out to be overkill, I'd rather know about it before putting the notice up. Likewise if there's a better way to word the notice. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor ( 90.229.235.204 ( talk)) created this article and has been adding links to it to multiple cosmology-related articles. I won't be in a position to clean this up for a few hours; would someone else be willing to take a look at it, and if necessary have (polite) words with the IP user? -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I am thinking it would be worthwhile to link the other physics pages to this disambiguation page. I have linked a number of them already. I will continue to do so, over time. It will take awhile to finish including with bullet summaries. If this doesn't work for the physics community then just let me know. ---- Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) ( talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an Index of physics articles page, so maybe a lengthly disambiguation page is redundant. Also, the main article "Physics" has linked summations to articles about "Core theories of physics", "Research fields" in the physics arena, along with "Applied physics", and even "Unsolved problems in phyics" article, etc. etc. In other words, there is a plethora of wiki-linking to the subdisciplines and articles of physics from this one page ("Physics"). Perhaps, the disambiguation page should contain only a selection of represenative articles. Any suggestions? -- Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) ( talk) 16:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
A new editor added a reference link to this article from what appears to be a fringe author, which I removed (with comment). They've now added it back in. Could someone else take a look at this to see whether or not I'm off-base? -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Following the example of stable nuclide, I think it's time to modernize both the the isotope and nuclide articles, by merging them. Best current suggestion, to avoid people going to one page when they want the other, is to merge them to only one article, entitled Isotope and nuclide and have both isotope and nuclide redirect to it. That article will explain the (modern) difference in terms in the lead/lede (isotopes refer to the group of nuclides of a single chemical element only), then launch into a history section of isotope discovery, moving onto the history of the term nuclide (hopefully). Then the rest of the modern stuff follows. Since "isotope" and "nuclide" were once synonyms, with isotope being used once as we now use the word "nuclide" (which didn't exist), discussing them in the same merged article seems the best approach.
This is mostly a chemistry topic (see the talk:isotope page, and please comment there, not here), but it has been suggested that due to the nuclear physics component from nuclide, that the proposed merge be announced here, also. S B H arris 23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Impulse was moved to Mechanical impulse without discussion, there is now a request to move Impulse (disambiguation) to Impulse. See Talk:Impulse (disambiguation)
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 05:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The new article titled unit commensurability needs work, including;
Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Recently, this tag-team pair of robots has been working on some of the physics articles. User:FrescoBot seems to be combing articles looking for broken section links and links that need disambiguation, and if it finds them, flags the articles for attention by the second robot. User:WildBot puts a couple of big templates on the articles' talk pages describing the problems it found and linking to an external tool that attempts to help fix them. The two robots are maintained by different users (WildBot was originally supposed to be manually summonned, I think).
I'm not convinced that the robots' attention is a good thing. My main complaint is that it's cluttering up the talk pages, which already have a mile-long list of templates. On the other hand, it's not necessarily a bad thing, either; it's just making a small mess. I've been sticking {{cot|Click to show link-fixing robot's report.}} ... {{cob}} around the templates, as a least-damage interim measure, and have pinged WildBot's maintainer (politely) to ask about doing something similar directly.
Partly I'm posting to give everyone else a heads-up before FrescoBot finds articles you help maintain, and partly to see if anyone else has thoughts about what, if anything, should be done in response to this series of events. I'm of two minds, per above. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The creator of User:FrescoBot has for the time being switched off the WildBot-calling feature of that bot, in response to complaints from other WikiProjects. If automatic tagging of WP:PHYS articles is a feature people think would be useful, by all means suggest mutually-acceptable workarounds at User talk:Basilicofresco (it's not my area of expertise). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Update: The author of WildBot has agreed to modify it so that its templates are added at the end of the list of templates on the page, rather than at the beginning. This removes my objections to automated tagging of physics articles. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 04:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
WildBot was mentionned above, so I thought I would mention this here while it's relevant. WildBot doesn't only go through articles, it also goes through books and create a problem report on the talk page (with details on the cause and effects of these problems, and what to do to fix them). There are currently 6 physics-related books that needs cleanup.
These reports are IMO cuter than those found on articles talk pages, so maybe you could talk to Josh Parris and see if having reports similar to those of books would be an acceptable solution, or at least an improvement. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
As I am not an authority on this subject in any manner, I wanted to bring this article to your attention instead of editing blindly myself. In the article Degenerate energy level, there is a sentence: "For example, in the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, all of the states with the same angular momentum (which corresponds to them having the same principal quantum number) are degenerate." Okay, so, I thought that angular momentum was described by the azimuthal quantum number (l), but I didn't want to just go change the page myself, just in case the sentence is intentionally implying that all of the states of the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom inherently have the same principal quantum number (n) because they have the same angular momentum. I looked at the hydrogen atom page briefly, and I don't think an implication of that nature would be accurate, but I am not knowledgable enough to make that assessment. Anyway! In summation... have a look and fix it if need be! I know this is really trivial, so, sorry it's so lengthy. -- Brittl33 ( talk) 04:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion at WT:ASTRO about the relatively recent article Hot companion.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 05:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Systemizer ( talk · contribs) seems to have returned from a long absence, and is making substantial changes to several cosmology-related articles. The ones at Dark energy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looked completely incorrect, so I've rolled them back. This appears to have happened elsewhere too, judging by talk-page warnings. If anyone with more time that I have at the moment would be willing to doublecheck their recent contributions, that'd be appreciated. I suspect there's still a fair bit of cleanup to do (and it's always possible that they've made valid contributions as well). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 09:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The page Free space seems to be full of references to the pseudoscientific "aetherometry" theory, and has lots of instances of one particular editor/philosopher(!)'s view of the alleged impossibility of achieving a true vacuum. This is a guy called Correa who has been "in trouble" before for putting up loads of pages about his quack theory; see [ [2]]
Also, one of the cited references next to one of these assertions of opinion links to an anti-wikipedia attack page run by Correa.
I have added numerous tags and am requesting that an expert in free space/vacuum and vacuum constants addresses this page. I don't know if the community is aware of the state of this "mid-importance" physics page, so I am drawing it to everyone's attention.
Liquidcentre ( talk) 16:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Classical mechanics |
---|
Part of a series on |
Classical mechanics |
---|
I've copied them here but you can also see the issue where I first noticed it at Rotation around a fixed axis. Do these two templates both need to exist as they seem to cover essentially the same topics with the same articles; should they be merged or should one or other be deprecated. It's been mentioned before at Template talk:Dynamics but such pages tend to be rarely visited so better to raise it here.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 00:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Done (except checking for articles linking to both...) ―
___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987)
01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
User:RK wants to do some weird things with articles Dark energy star, Dark star and Dark matter star. See the talk pages for dark energy star and dark star.
76.66.194.32 ( talk) 05:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
While we're on the topic of merges and redirects below, comments about the proposed page move at Talk:Dark star#Disambiguation page would be handy. I want to make sure there aren't objections before I perform the move. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 21:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Update: Page move completed. I'm in the process of cleaning up links. Any that are left after the end of March, are ones I've missed. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 06:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Relativistic quantum mechanics now redirects to Dirac equation, but IMO it'd make more sense to redirect it to Quantum field theory. What do you think about it? ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
At first glance, this article seems kosher. With my somewhat dated physics background, I delved a bit deeper, however, and received the strong impression the article was the synthesis of a few editors combining some actual research with large amounts of their own hypotheses and suppositions, dressed up a little with some fringe sources such as "imaginaryweapons.net".
So, using inline templates, I annotated the portions of the article that appeared to be synthesis, self-researched, or unverified, and attempted to start a discussion of the issues on the article talk page. Unfortunately, one of the article's clique of original editors refused to discuss the issues, began reverting my changes, and accused me of vandalizing the article.
If possible, I'd like another set of eyes of look at the article, and see if they reach the same conclusions I did. Thanks. FellGleaming ( talk) 04:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)