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 just noticed this while browsing: Blooming (laser) is a redirect to Directed-energy weapon, and the link from Bloom does not even hit the right paragraph. Is it really so insignificant outside of military applications that it does not even deserve its own article ? However, even if it is, someone who knows what he's doing should probably fix that disambiguation. -- 87.234.74.6 ( talk) 23:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This article has stuck around for a long time. It is fully inferior in every way to the main articles
This article should just be blanked and redirected to list of physics formulae. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate the effort in creation, but it's quite pointless to maintain or even keep anymore. Does anyone disagree? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
A new user, Rvnieuwe ( talk · contribs), has been repeatedly adding a paragraph about what appears to be their own published work to Dark matter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a set of modified-gravity papers by R. Van Neiuwenhove). They've been reverted many times and were already blocked once over it.
As they're new, I left a note on their talk page attempting to explain how WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:COI, WP:BRD, and WP:CONS work, and encouraging them to take the matter up on the dark matter talk page rather than endlessly re-inserting it. Assuming they _do_ that, more eyes on the talk page would help, because I'm not in a position to vet their source publications. Initial impression is that they likely meet WP:RS but not WP:UNDUE (the papers mostly cite each other, as opposed to being cited by others). That said, I'm not an expert on the appropriate journals, so I'd appreciate talk-page comments from people who are.
The entire section on modified gravity could stand to be reviewed, as it looks like a number of models of this type have been added already (the original MOND proposals got press, but I don't know how much weight any of the others mentioned have). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 18:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Talk:Gravitomagnetism#Page move proposal: Gravitomagnetism → Gravitoelectromagnetism by interested editors would be appreciated. — Quondum ☏ 08:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Came across the page Hubble Bubble (astronomy) while reading around, and I noticed the phrase "...a local monopole in the peculiar velocity field, perhaps caused by a local void in the mass density." Someone disambiguated monopole to magnetic monopole a while back, but my feeling is this isn't correct, so I thought I'd bring it here for the attention of someone more qualified. -- Tyrannus Mundi ( talk) 22:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd earlier asked for help suggestions with this article. I have now nominated it at WP:GAN, see review link. It'd be great if someone could help with reviews, comments, suggestions, or improving the article in general.
Thanks a lot, SPat talk 21:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Could someone who knows QED please clarify this section, making the symbols and background to the equations more specific? (what exactly does a, ψ+, and ψ mean? there is no clear mention...) Cheers... F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 06:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Two different systems of units are used in the same section, Mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field#Extension to quantum electrodynamics. A substitution is done and magically, JRSpriggs ( talk) 19:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
There is so much overlap between Mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field and the 2nd half of Maxwell's equations, an obvious point worth mentioning (though I havn't noticed it mentioned before, maybe others have said this)... All the Alternative formulations of Maxwell's equations in the 2nd half of that article ( Potential formulation, relativistic tensor forms, differential forms, GA) are in the Maths of EM field article.
What should we do, if anything?
I'm NOT going to actually do anything (i.e. move all the formulation content, and certianly not to try to merge the articles), but perhaps moving the Alternative formulations of Maxwell's equations from Maxwell's equations to the Maths of EM field article, would reduce the byte count and amount of maths in Maxwell's equations, leaving the more complicated mathematical details to the article of that subject... F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 21:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I would propose this summary in Maxwell's equations, and condensing all the formalism text into one section after moving (only if so). The equation summary could be like this:
Formulation | Maxwell's equations | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
GA | ||||
Differential forms | ||||
Tensor calculus (fields) | ||||
Tensor calculus (potentials) | Lorenz gauge: | |||
QED, vector calculus (potentials) | identites | |||
Vector calculus (potentials) | identites | |||
Vector calculus (fields) |
(reading up the table are the accumulations of equations which become collected together) but again - I'm not actually going to do anything at all. Just a suggestion. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 22:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Terahertz radiation may be headed to the main page via WP:ITN/C because of the Wi-Fi record set this week by Japanese researchers using the spectrum. [1] However, I'm no expert in the field. Would anyone more qualified in the topic be willing to doublecheck my additions to the article? Khazar2 ( talk) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
More eyes are needed on a proposed change by a newbie at Talk:Planck constant#The Entire Discussion under "Uncertainty Principle.... Is this going too far off topic? Spinning Spark 08:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is extraordinarily padded for concept, its trivial to define flux and flux density mathematically... There are merge tags between that article and electromagnetic field, but flux density seems to be written from a general perspective and then describes EM. It should be merged into flux - if anywhere. Opinions? =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 16:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Static_vs_dynamic_topics:_seriously_outdated_articles will be appreciated, so we can get a general perspective on this. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 05:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey all
The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to endorse Access2Research and its petition to make research funded by the US government publicly accessible. This will be done by way of a blog post on Friday morning PST; as noted, we are not trying to speak on behalf of the community, but just the Foundation itself. You can read more in the FAQ, and leave any comments or questions you might have on its talkpage.
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 19:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Our coverage of power spectrum estimation ( spectral density estimation) seems very weak, with very little bringing together or contrasting the different methods, or giving historical perspective. Indeed, most articles looking for a signal processing treatment of the subject appear to have been being redirected to spectrum analyzer, about a hardware box with very little discussion of algorithms usually used in pure-software methods.
In particular, there is very little discussion of all-poles versus all-zeros methods. There appears to be nothing at all about John Parker Burg or the Burg algorithm. We have quite a detailed article on the Levinson recursion, but nothing to say that this is perhaps its most important application. Linear predictive coding appears to exist in a silo of its own, without even a link to ARMA modelling; while in turn the article on ARMA models doesn't appear to mention power spectrum estimation at all. Autoregressive model is a bit better, but doesn't give any sense how a pure AR fit is likely to compare to other fits.
It probably doesn't help that spectral analysis goes to a dab page, and the top link spectrum analysis that probably ought to be merged into spectroscopy.
This is very poor. Given the importance of this topic in signal processing and applications, we ought to be able to match at minimum the level of discussion in Numerical Recipes at least. But at the moment we're way short. Anybody out there willing to step up to the plate? Jheald ( talk) 09:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The list of scientific constants named after people should obviously be a hundred times as long as it is. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
There have been enough physics-related disputes that hit arbitration that I think this RFC is relevant to WP:PHYS:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Effect of arbitration processes on editor retention
If there are changes that could be made to arbcom that would make editing on the wiki less draining, I'd be all for it. If you have ideas, or wish to comment on others' suggestions, the link above is a good place to do so.
If you have ideas about how other parts of the wiki process or ruleset could be changed to make editing here less draining, my understanding is that WP:VPP is a good place for that (though check WP:PERENNIAL first; some things keep getting proposed and shot down over and over again).
Note: Making such proposals _here_ in this thread is _not_ very useful. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 02:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday I was reading up on a revolutionary deep space propulsion system that was pioneered by a 19 year old university student that uses the Casimir Effect. I was surprised this was not in wikipedia yet. I would suggest creating a subsection called "Propulsion System for Spacecraft" within the Applications section, but I am unsure whether the following references are noteworthy within the scientific world. Here are some links that backup this alleged breakthru which are potential references:
http://www.sparkingdawn.com/2012/05/aisha-mustafa-warp-drive/#!prettyPhoto
I suggest someone with a keen interest in the topic insert's the material they feel appropriate in the Casimir Effect article by creating the subsection accordingly or as they see fit. I imagine this would be subject to the finding of more appropriate references, should they be required. I dont really have time to get into this article (or others) right now. Arkatakor ( talk) 06:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The article on Bell's theorem has been taken over by fringe lunatics. Every time I remove references to the discredited work of Joy Christian, and other totally un-notable authors, Joy Christian himself comes back and undos the edit. I think this s an example of vandalism and promoting own research. But if nobody is interested in this article, it can better be left to the cranks, to do with it whatever they like. Richard Gill ( talk) 18:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
If there's only a single editor edit-warring, step 1 is to establish clear consensus among other editors that they shouldn't be making those changes (via a talk-page thread on the article), and step 2 is to visit WP:AIV when they continue reverting. Once you've established that an editor's actions are disruptive, and can say "editor (foo) is making a series of disruptive edits (diff)(diff)(diff) against established consensus (thread link) after being warned (diff)", dealing with them becomes straightfoward.
Problems only occur if you have warring between groups of editors, where establishing consensus isn't clear.
Regarding COI, people are actually allowed to edit; they're just strongly encouraged to be careful while doing so. The blockable bit is "self-promotion", not editing in one's own field, and for that you'd need discussion on the talk page establishing that it _was_ against consensus (violating WP:UNDUE or similar). I'd argue focusing on the disruption rather than trying to use COI as a rationale for action, for that reason.
The interesting bit is that I could have sworn there was an arbitration case involving Bell's Inequality a while back. It might be worth digging that out of the archives to see if any of the present actions are related to it. If this is the return of an old party rather than a new party showing up, WP:AE tends to bring down the hammer rather quickly. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 21:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
A couple of our top-importance articles ( Hysteresis and Equipartition theorem) number their images for reference with, say, "Figure 1: ..." in the caption. The numbering is added manually, and the trouble with this system is apparent at Hysteresis: the figures are out of order (1, 4, 3, 2). Also note that many of the figure numbers at Equipartition theorem are never referred to in the text. What can we do to fix these issues with minimal hassle?
An automatic numbering feature was requested (and ignored) circa 2003, but I have another idea: replace the figure numbers with a bold "Figure title ..." in the image captions, like I've done with the lead image caption at Equipartition. This bold figure title could serve as the handle for its respective image in the text, with the advantage of semantic value. It would also be relatively robust under future article expansion/reordering, and some figures could go untitled or unreferenced without apparent inconsistency. What do you think? -- TSchwenn ( talk) 19:42, 29 May 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. |
I just noticed this while browsing: Blooming (laser) is a redirect to Directed-energy weapon, and the link from Bloom does not even hit the right paragraph. Is it really so insignificant outside of military applications that it does not even deserve its own article ? However, even if it is, someone who knows what he's doing should probably fix that disambiguation. -- 87.234.74.6 ( talk) 23:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This article has stuck around for a long time. It is fully inferior in every way to the main articles
This article should just be blanked and redirected to list of physics formulae. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate the effort in creation, but it's quite pointless to maintain or even keep anymore. Does anyone disagree? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
A new user, Rvnieuwe ( talk · contribs), has been repeatedly adding a paragraph about what appears to be their own published work to Dark matter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a set of modified-gravity papers by R. Van Neiuwenhove). They've been reverted many times and were already blocked once over it.
As they're new, I left a note on their talk page attempting to explain how WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:COI, WP:BRD, and WP:CONS work, and encouraging them to take the matter up on the dark matter talk page rather than endlessly re-inserting it. Assuming they _do_ that, more eyes on the talk page would help, because I'm not in a position to vet their source publications. Initial impression is that they likely meet WP:RS but not WP:UNDUE (the papers mostly cite each other, as opposed to being cited by others). That said, I'm not an expert on the appropriate journals, so I'd appreciate talk-page comments from people who are.
The entire section on modified gravity could stand to be reviewed, as it looks like a number of models of this type have been added already (the original MOND proposals got press, but I don't know how much weight any of the others mentioned have). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 18:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Talk:Gravitomagnetism#Page move proposal: Gravitomagnetism → Gravitoelectromagnetism by interested editors would be appreciated. — Quondum ☏ 08:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Came across the page Hubble Bubble (astronomy) while reading around, and I noticed the phrase "...a local monopole in the peculiar velocity field, perhaps caused by a local void in the mass density." Someone disambiguated monopole to magnetic monopole a while back, but my feeling is this isn't correct, so I thought I'd bring it here for the attention of someone more qualified. -- Tyrannus Mundi ( talk) 22:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd earlier asked for help suggestions with this article. I have now nominated it at WP:GAN, see review link. It'd be great if someone could help with reviews, comments, suggestions, or improving the article in general.
Thanks a lot, SPat talk 21:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Could someone who knows QED please clarify this section, making the symbols and background to the equations more specific? (what exactly does a, ψ+, and ψ mean? there is no clear mention...) Cheers... F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 06:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Two different systems of units are used in the same section, Mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field#Extension to quantum electrodynamics. A substitution is done and magically, JRSpriggs ( talk) 19:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
There is so much overlap between Mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field and the 2nd half of Maxwell's equations, an obvious point worth mentioning (though I havn't noticed it mentioned before, maybe others have said this)... All the Alternative formulations of Maxwell's equations in the 2nd half of that article ( Potential formulation, relativistic tensor forms, differential forms, GA) are in the Maths of EM field article.
What should we do, if anything?
I'm NOT going to actually do anything (i.e. move all the formulation content, and certianly not to try to merge the articles), but perhaps moving the Alternative formulations of Maxwell's equations from Maxwell's equations to the Maths of EM field article, would reduce the byte count and amount of maths in Maxwell's equations, leaving the more complicated mathematical details to the article of that subject... F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 21:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I would propose this summary in Maxwell's equations, and condensing all the formalism text into one section after moving (only if so). The equation summary could be like this:
Formulation | Maxwell's equations | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
GA | ||||
Differential forms | ||||
Tensor calculus (fields) | ||||
Tensor calculus (potentials) | Lorenz gauge: | |||
QED, vector calculus (potentials) | identites | |||
Vector calculus (potentials) | identites | |||
Vector calculus (fields) |
(reading up the table are the accumulations of equations which become collected together) but again - I'm not actually going to do anything at all. Just a suggestion. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 22:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Terahertz radiation may be headed to the main page via WP:ITN/C because of the Wi-Fi record set this week by Japanese researchers using the spectrum. [1] However, I'm no expert in the field. Would anyone more qualified in the topic be willing to doublecheck my additions to the article? Khazar2 ( talk) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
More eyes are needed on a proposed change by a newbie at Talk:Planck constant#The Entire Discussion under "Uncertainty Principle.... Is this going too far off topic? Spinning Spark 08:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is extraordinarily padded for concept, its trivial to define flux and flux density mathematically... There are merge tags between that article and electromagnetic field, but flux density seems to be written from a general perspective and then describes EM. It should be merged into flux - if anywhere. Opinions? =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 16:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Static_vs_dynamic_topics:_seriously_outdated_articles will be appreciated, so we can get a general perspective on this. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 05:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey all
The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to endorse Access2Research and its petition to make research funded by the US government publicly accessible. This will be done by way of a blog post on Friday morning PST; as noted, we are not trying to speak on behalf of the community, but just the Foundation itself. You can read more in the FAQ, and leave any comments or questions you might have on its talkpage.
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 19:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Our coverage of power spectrum estimation ( spectral density estimation) seems very weak, with very little bringing together or contrasting the different methods, or giving historical perspective. Indeed, most articles looking for a signal processing treatment of the subject appear to have been being redirected to spectrum analyzer, about a hardware box with very little discussion of algorithms usually used in pure-software methods.
In particular, there is very little discussion of all-poles versus all-zeros methods. There appears to be nothing at all about John Parker Burg or the Burg algorithm. We have quite a detailed article on the Levinson recursion, but nothing to say that this is perhaps its most important application. Linear predictive coding appears to exist in a silo of its own, without even a link to ARMA modelling; while in turn the article on ARMA models doesn't appear to mention power spectrum estimation at all. Autoregressive model is a bit better, but doesn't give any sense how a pure AR fit is likely to compare to other fits.
It probably doesn't help that spectral analysis goes to a dab page, and the top link spectrum analysis that probably ought to be merged into spectroscopy.
This is very poor. Given the importance of this topic in signal processing and applications, we ought to be able to match at minimum the level of discussion in Numerical Recipes at least. But at the moment we're way short. Anybody out there willing to step up to the plate? Jheald ( talk) 09:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The list of scientific constants named after people should obviously be a hundred times as long as it is. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
There have been enough physics-related disputes that hit arbitration that I think this RFC is relevant to WP:PHYS:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Effect of arbitration processes on editor retention
If there are changes that could be made to arbcom that would make editing on the wiki less draining, I'd be all for it. If you have ideas, or wish to comment on others' suggestions, the link above is a good place to do so.
If you have ideas about how other parts of the wiki process or ruleset could be changed to make editing here less draining, my understanding is that WP:VPP is a good place for that (though check WP:PERENNIAL first; some things keep getting proposed and shot down over and over again).
Note: Making such proposals _here_ in this thread is _not_ very useful. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 02:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday I was reading up on a revolutionary deep space propulsion system that was pioneered by a 19 year old university student that uses the Casimir Effect. I was surprised this was not in wikipedia yet. I would suggest creating a subsection called "Propulsion System for Spacecraft" within the Applications section, but I am unsure whether the following references are noteworthy within the scientific world. Here are some links that backup this alleged breakthru which are potential references:
http://www.sparkingdawn.com/2012/05/aisha-mustafa-warp-drive/#!prettyPhoto
I suggest someone with a keen interest in the topic insert's the material they feel appropriate in the Casimir Effect article by creating the subsection accordingly or as they see fit. I imagine this would be subject to the finding of more appropriate references, should they be required. I dont really have time to get into this article (or others) right now. Arkatakor ( talk) 06:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The article on Bell's theorem has been taken over by fringe lunatics. Every time I remove references to the discredited work of Joy Christian, and other totally un-notable authors, Joy Christian himself comes back and undos the edit. I think this s an example of vandalism and promoting own research. But if nobody is interested in this article, it can better be left to the cranks, to do with it whatever they like. Richard Gill ( talk) 18:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
If there's only a single editor edit-warring, step 1 is to establish clear consensus among other editors that they shouldn't be making those changes (via a talk-page thread on the article), and step 2 is to visit WP:AIV when they continue reverting. Once you've established that an editor's actions are disruptive, and can say "editor (foo) is making a series of disruptive edits (diff)(diff)(diff) against established consensus (thread link) after being warned (diff)", dealing with them becomes straightfoward.
Problems only occur if you have warring between groups of editors, where establishing consensus isn't clear.
Regarding COI, people are actually allowed to edit; they're just strongly encouraged to be careful while doing so. The blockable bit is "self-promotion", not editing in one's own field, and for that you'd need discussion on the talk page establishing that it _was_ against consensus (violating WP:UNDUE or similar). I'd argue focusing on the disruption rather than trying to use COI as a rationale for action, for that reason.
The interesting bit is that I could have sworn there was an arbitration case involving Bell's Inequality a while back. It might be worth digging that out of the archives to see if any of the present actions are related to it. If this is the return of an old party rather than a new party showing up, WP:AE tends to bring down the hammer rather quickly. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 21:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
A couple of our top-importance articles ( Hysteresis and Equipartition theorem) number their images for reference with, say, "Figure 1: ..." in the caption. The numbering is added manually, and the trouble with this system is apparent at Hysteresis: the figures are out of order (1, 4, 3, 2). Also note that many of the figure numbers at Equipartition theorem are never referred to in the text. What can we do to fix these issues with minimal hassle?
An automatic numbering feature was requested (and ignored) circa 2003, but I have another idea: replace the figure numbers with a bold "Figure title ..." in the image captions, like I've done with the lead image caption at Equipartition. This bold figure title could serve as the handle for its respective image in the text, with the advantage of semantic value. It would also be relatively robust under future article expansion/reordering, and some figures could go untitled or unreferenced without apparent inconsistency. What do you think? -- TSchwenn ( talk) 19:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)