![]() | 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. |
hi, i might be wrong but these articles seems to talk about the same thing. shouldn't they be merged ? the paragraph Axiomatic approaches doensn't even mention the axiomatic QFT article. thanks - MIRROR ( talk) 04:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
So, what's going on here, what is the cloud all about ? I suspect there may be a few articles this could brighten up. There is a lot of things that a volcanic eruption does to the atmosphere, and they are worth documenting, this is a featured picture, and it's as yet unused. I Cross-posted here. Penyulap talk 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A user has recently inserted what seems to be a "theoretical justification" of the gravitational potential to gravitational potential. I removed it, but it was reverted. Opinions are welcome at Talk:Gravitational potential. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 20:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I just deleted similar material at Gravity well. There may be some sockpuppetry as well. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Please, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Centers_of_gravity_in_non-uniform_fields&action=history . Initially it was a good idea to gather all content related to the center of mass in the center of mass article. But is was later botched by an incompetent decision to dump all remainder of the former "Center of gravity" article to the "center of mass". Join the discussion at talk:Centers of gravity in non-uniform fields#Center of mass. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 10:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion to suggest a merger of articles into the AMO article, if anyone would like to comment: Talk:Atomic,_molecular,_and_optical_physics. IRWolfie- ( talk) 16:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
A user who has recently been blocked for writing incoherently and inappropriately has contributed substantially to the article Wire chamber. I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject to check if the additions here are similar or if they are, in fact, improvements.
Would someone look this over? I don't think deep knowledge of the subject is needed (though it would help); the issue is mainly "is this reasonable material" rather than "is all of this right".
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 01:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Fundamental physics concepts has 361 article in it. Seems like it is no longer about fundamental physics concepts. I think it shoud be renamed. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 02:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Big_Bang_Theory_(disambiguation)#Primary_Topic_RFC.
Polyamorph (
talk)
14:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This merge proposal has been on the CAT:MERGE backlog for over 3 years now, and only 2 comments have been made in the discussion (including the nom). I'd like to see this proposal resolved one way or the other soon, so I would appreciate it if some members of this project could join the discussion, and help reach consensus on this. The discussion is at Talk:Mirror matter#Merger proposal. Physics is not my area, but I am willing to help in any way I can if a consensus for merge is acheived. Many thanks, Quasi human | Talk 12:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, i have written some arguments for a new category to Category talk:Particle accelerators#Accelerator physics category. Feel free to participate in the discussion. BR84 ( talk) 11:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
While checking my watch-list, I saw that a few times "Addision Wesley" had been corrected to " Addison Wesley" (which I verified is correct by looking at the external sites). A search indicates that there remain (at this moment) 18 articles in which the misspelling occurs. Could someone who knows how to use a bot please correct these! JRSpriggs ( talk) 00:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello physicists! I hope you can help me. I am writing astatine and I have a question about its alpha decay characteristics. At-211 has 126 neurtons, which is a magic number. Why then energy of alpha decay of At-211 exceeds that of At-210? Also notable that At-213 (N=128=126+2) has two more protons than 126. Its alpha decay half-life is in accordance: the shortest of all astatine isotopes. IS there a reason why At-211 is not the longest-lived astatine isotope? Thanks-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I am not entirely sure the physics project is the right place to go to for this concern, so if I can post this at a more appropriate project, please let me know. Recently I noticed an unexplained term ("Watt topology") in kinematics that sent me searching the web for information. I could only find the term in publications by J.M. McCarthy, whose work is referenced in kinematics, kinematic chain, forward kinematics, inverse kinematics. I also notice that User:Prof McCarthy has extensively edited these articles. I have no idea if this is a case of self-referenced work, and I don't know a quick way to test if in fact someone used the reference independently. While this practice looks suspect, I think it was probably done with good will. I have just left a message for User:Prof McCarthy about providing different references. Please keep an eye on the situation, thank you. Rschwieb ( talk) 15:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Does anyone know where to look for open-source images of experimental data? In particular, I'm looking for a typical data plot from a quantum oscillations experiment, something like this.
Thanks, SPat talk 21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Knowledgeable eyes requested here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
A problem has arisen at our Center of pressure article. Originally, it seemed to be discussion the term as used in fluid mechanics, where it has a precise and well-defined meaning (though the article was less-then-clear with regard to some of the examples given, and could do with a little attention from someone with understanding of the subject). A recent edit [4] added a section on 'center of pressure in biomechanics', which seems to me to be about another topic entirely, probably more related to solid mechanics, and as such in need of its own article (and perhaps with a disambiguation page). I raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics#Center of pressure, but we seem to be at something of an impasse. Could someone from Project Physics perhaps help us find a solution: is there a general 'center of pressure' concept applied to both solid and fluid mechanics (in which case our article needs rewriting to cover both in general terms - with perhaps a section on biomechanics), or is this simply a case of two distinct meanings of the same phrase? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been reverting a few recent edits (on article and on article talk) by user HCPotter ( talk · contribs) today:
all seemingly nonsense, and all pointing to exactly the same pdf ( http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V18NO3PDF/V18N3POT.pdf) at (fringe journal) Apeiron. One of my removals was reverted by another user. We might keep an eye on this. User is warned on talk page at User talk:HCPotter. DVdm ( talk) 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
There are two fairly new articles ND Experiment & SND Experiment which might use some expert help from this project. There are multiple issues with these articles by a new editor, but my initial concern is with the article names and structure of the lede. The title itself might be a neologism, should probably be in the plural, and have ND spelled out, so i thought it best to get some consensus before moving it. The lede, and the whole article for that matter, is somewhat ambiguous in that it is not clear whether it is about the detector, or the experiments carried out with it. The Results sections are next to useless in that they simply refer the reader to references which them selves seem far from useful to me. This article is somewhat beyond my expertise, so would appreciate your thoughts on how to proceed - are there viable articles here, and what to do with them? Derek Andrews ( talk) 14:24, 27 March 2012 (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. |
hi, i might be wrong but these articles seems to talk about the same thing. shouldn't they be merged ? the paragraph Axiomatic approaches doensn't even mention the axiomatic QFT article. thanks - MIRROR ( talk) 04:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
So, what's going on here, what is the cloud all about ? I suspect there may be a few articles this could brighten up. There is a lot of things that a volcanic eruption does to the atmosphere, and they are worth documenting, this is a featured picture, and it's as yet unused. I Cross-posted here. Penyulap talk 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A user has recently inserted what seems to be a "theoretical justification" of the gravitational potential to gravitational potential. I removed it, but it was reverted. Opinions are welcome at Talk:Gravitational potential. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 20:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I just deleted similar material at Gravity well. There may be some sockpuppetry as well. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Please, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Centers_of_gravity_in_non-uniform_fields&action=history . Initially it was a good idea to gather all content related to the center of mass in the center of mass article. But is was later botched by an incompetent decision to dump all remainder of the former "Center of gravity" article to the "center of mass". Join the discussion at talk:Centers of gravity in non-uniform fields#Center of mass. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 10:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion to suggest a merger of articles into the AMO article, if anyone would like to comment: Talk:Atomic,_molecular,_and_optical_physics. IRWolfie- ( talk) 16:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
A user who has recently been blocked for writing incoherently and inappropriately has contributed substantially to the article Wire chamber. I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject to check if the additions here are similar or if they are, in fact, improvements.
Would someone look this over? I don't think deep knowledge of the subject is needed (though it would help); the issue is mainly "is this reasonable material" rather than "is all of this right".
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 01:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Fundamental physics concepts has 361 article in it. Seems like it is no longer about fundamental physics concepts. I think it shoud be renamed. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 02:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Big_Bang_Theory_(disambiguation)#Primary_Topic_RFC.
Polyamorph (
talk)
14:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This merge proposal has been on the CAT:MERGE backlog for over 3 years now, and only 2 comments have been made in the discussion (including the nom). I'd like to see this proposal resolved one way or the other soon, so I would appreciate it if some members of this project could join the discussion, and help reach consensus on this. The discussion is at Talk:Mirror matter#Merger proposal. Physics is not my area, but I am willing to help in any way I can if a consensus for merge is acheived. Many thanks, Quasi human | Talk 12:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, i have written some arguments for a new category to Category talk:Particle accelerators#Accelerator physics category. Feel free to participate in the discussion. BR84 ( talk) 11:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
While checking my watch-list, I saw that a few times "Addision Wesley" had been corrected to " Addison Wesley" (which I verified is correct by looking at the external sites). A search indicates that there remain (at this moment) 18 articles in which the misspelling occurs. Could someone who knows how to use a bot please correct these! JRSpriggs ( talk) 00:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello physicists! I hope you can help me. I am writing astatine and I have a question about its alpha decay characteristics. At-211 has 126 neurtons, which is a magic number. Why then energy of alpha decay of At-211 exceeds that of At-210? Also notable that At-213 (N=128=126+2) has two more protons than 126. Its alpha decay half-life is in accordance: the shortest of all astatine isotopes. IS there a reason why At-211 is not the longest-lived astatine isotope? Thanks-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I am not entirely sure the physics project is the right place to go to for this concern, so if I can post this at a more appropriate project, please let me know. Recently I noticed an unexplained term ("Watt topology") in kinematics that sent me searching the web for information. I could only find the term in publications by J.M. McCarthy, whose work is referenced in kinematics, kinematic chain, forward kinematics, inverse kinematics. I also notice that User:Prof McCarthy has extensively edited these articles. I have no idea if this is a case of self-referenced work, and I don't know a quick way to test if in fact someone used the reference independently. While this practice looks suspect, I think it was probably done with good will. I have just left a message for User:Prof McCarthy about providing different references. Please keep an eye on the situation, thank you. Rschwieb ( talk) 15:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Does anyone know where to look for open-source images of experimental data? In particular, I'm looking for a typical data plot from a quantum oscillations experiment, something like this.
Thanks, SPat talk 21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Knowledgeable eyes requested here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
A problem has arisen at our Center of pressure article. Originally, it seemed to be discussion the term as used in fluid mechanics, where it has a precise and well-defined meaning (though the article was less-then-clear with regard to some of the examples given, and could do with a little attention from someone with understanding of the subject). A recent edit [4] added a section on 'center of pressure in biomechanics', which seems to me to be about another topic entirely, probably more related to solid mechanics, and as such in need of its own article (and perhaps with a disambiguation page). I raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics#Center of pressure, but we seem to be at something of an impasse. Could someone from Project Physics perhaps help us find a solution: is there a general 'center of pressure' concept applied to both solid and fluid mechanics (in which case our article needs rewriting to cover both in general terms - with perhaps a section on biomechanics), or is this simply a case of two distinct meanings of the same phrase? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been reverting a few recent edits (on article and on article talk) by user HCPotter ( talk · contribs) today:
all seemingly nonsense, and all pointing to exactly the same pdf ( http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V18NO3PDF/V18N3POT.pdf) at (fringe journal) Apeiron. One of my removals was reverted by another user. We might keep an eye on this. User is warned on talk page at User talk:HCPotter. DVdm ( talk) 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
There are two fairly new articles ND Experiment & SND Experiment which might use some expert help from this project. There are multiple issues with these articles by a new editor, but my initial concern is with the article names and structure of the lede. The title itself might be a neologism, should probably be in the plural, and have ND spelled out, so i thought it best to get some consensus before moving it. The lede, and the whole article for that matter, is somewhat ambiguous in that it is not clear whether it is about the detector, or the experiments carried out with it. The Results sections are next to useless in that they simply refer the reader to references which them selves seem far from useful to me. This article is somewhat beyond my expertise, so would appreciate your thoughts on how to proceed - are there viable articles here, and what to do with them? Derek Andrews ( talk) 14:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)