![]() | 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'm filling various particle infoboxes and I have a few questions.
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The term "gluon" was first used in the paper of Gell-Mann published in 1962. It was applied for carries of some abstract field. The term stuck, and was later used as the name of QCD field quanta. Ruslik ( talk) 11:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Like the photon, the graviton has no charges to be negated by the charge conjugation operator. So it is its own anti-particle. JRSpriggs ( talk) 12:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The current rating for Dirac large numbers hypothesis on the assessment scale is as a stub of low importance. Significant revisions followed the edit war with 'scottfunkhouser' and the article is now more than just a stub. I'm wondering how to get it reassessed. Also I don't agree with the 'low importance' rating. LNH might be just a 'fringe' theory but it has quite a dynamic history, it has engaged the energies of seminal figures like Dirac and Dicke, it has impacted on the mainstream in significant ways (particularly in the philosophy of science e.g. formulation of the 'Anthropic coincidence') and it continues to be a source of interest and controversy even for mainstream journals. I hope others here will continue to monitor the article. I was a bit too emotionally involved in the edit war with 'scottfunkhouser' and I now want to get it off my hands. Thanks. Lucretius ( talk) 23:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
OK - thanks for that. I'm satisfied with 'mid importance' but I don't agree with 'start class'. However, I'm not going to rate my own work on the assessemnt scale so I'll leave it as is. Hopefully others will change the rating upwards or else contribute something classy to it. Lucretius ( talk) 06:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object has been nominated for deletion at WP:AFD 70.55.86.100 ( talk) 09:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at Kepler's laws? I think the article needs to be rigorously pruned in the amount of mathematical proofs, since they are not illuminating the concepts, but rather tediously proving concepts that are rather easy to visualize. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. Please discuss on Talk:Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Han-Kwang ( t) 21:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you fellows please mention this on Talk:Kepler's laws of planetary motion where currently a two persons are splitting hairs over whether how tangential accelerations should be dealt with in the mathematical description? Han-Kwang ( t) 09:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I made some edits to the introduction to the three laws to make it more comprehensible and reorganized the Talk page into more relevant sections. Hopefully a little structure will lead to some creative criticisms and consensus. Fatka ( talk · contribs) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatka ( talk • contribs)
In the article Fictitious force, several gif diagrams have been added recently. I found that they are incorrectly depicting fictitious forces. Although the discrepancies are subtle, they end up conveying the wrong concept. I have posted this on Talk:Fictitious_force#Possible_errors. But how do I tag the individual images to get the attention of the creator or Wikipedia editors? I have posted this on Help desk, so far no one has replied neither on Help desk or on the article Talk page. What should be the next step? Fatka ( talk · contribs) 01:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatka ( talk • contribs)
The photon article has been nominated for a Featured Article Review, due to concerns about lack of references and other issues. The article may no longer meet the FA criteria. Please comment here. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 19:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There's these two images on wiki. Now it seems to me that these just aren't right. I'm gonna ask the graphic labs to fix them, but I just want to make sure that I don't end up looking like idiot in doing so.
What I'd propose for the fix is this:
e+ e- γ e- e+
instead of
e+ e+ γ e- e-
Is that all right?
Fractal cosmology has been nominated for deletion at AfD. 76.66.192.6 ( talk) 05:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Scale relativity has been nominated for deletion at AfD. 76.66.192.6 ( talk) 05:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently expanding the List of mesons to be something similar to the List of baryons. Right now I'm identifying the vector mesons equivalent of the pseudoscalar mesons and I'm having some trouble. If you could head over to Talk:List of mesons#Completing the tables and give a hand, that would be much appreciated. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested during a PR that the physical properties portion of {{ Infobox Particle}} could be formed into a subsection with its own header. What do you think of this suggestion? The template could also use a little color. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 17:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody have a look at the centrifugal force page with a view to shortening it and unifying the topic into one single article. I have given up trying. The article has been split and forked as a result of different interpretations surrounding a certain dilemma regarding the radial planetary orbital equation. This hasn't been helped by the fact that as well as the disagreements over how to interpret the dilemma, there are also those editors who refuse to acknowledge the dilemma at all.
The radial planetary orbital equation in question is,
A = B + C
Everybody agrees that C is centripetal force, and that if A equals zero we will have circular motion.
But the argument gets bogged down in pointless semantics about whether or not A is called "radial acceleration". OK, so call A Alfred. If Alfred is zero then we will have circular motion.
But the argument then gets bogged down in pointless semantics over what to call B. Some say it is centrifugal force. Others say it is only centrifugal force in the co-rotating frame of reference. OK, so call it Billy.
The point is that when we have circular motion, then Alfred will be zero and Billy and Centripetal force will sum to zero. If we ever get rid of Billy, then Alfred will come back again and we won't have circular motion.
We cannot therefore have a circular motion that only involves centripetal force and nothing else. This fact has serious implications when it comes to extrapolating the rotating frame transformation equations to objects that are at rest in the inertial frame as viewed from the rotating frame of reference. That is were the dilemma lies, because making this extrapolation leads to an absurdity which is actually published in some textbooks.
Somebody needs to go there and take a look. There is only one universal centrifugal force, and anybody who thinks otherwise lacks an overall comprehension of the topic. David Tombe ( talk) 18:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss this edit from a couple months ago, which replaced Physics with a "Development Article." Is the current version an improvement? 200.72.246.90 ( talk) 11:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently working on vector spaces, which has a passage reading
I personally don't have access to physics books right away, so I'd like to kindly ask whether somebody around could provide references for the facts. Probably it's not a big deal for you guys ;) I think I could come up with some math book covering the claims, but I think a physics book for a physics statement might be better. Thanks, this is about the last bit preparing the article for WP:GAN. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 14:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again, Timothy, for your swift help. I have now nominated the vector space article for WP:Good article nomination#Mathematics. I'd be thankful if people around could have a look. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 09:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that WP Relativity, WP Fluid dynamics and WP Acoustics all have low level of participation, if any. I would propose making them taskforces rather than WikiProjects due to the relatively low number of articles under their wings. I think participation in them would increase if they were made taskforces, as well as make it easier to coordinate efforts. Any thoughts?
I'm also posting this on the relavant WP talk pages. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Well no one commented on anything, so I'll just go ahead and move them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Foobar. I've updated the banner to handle them as taskforces. Parameters are relativity=yes, fluid-dynamics=yes, and acoustics=yes. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I've made the bot request [5] to tag articles as being part of the taskforces. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
(Complete Omega- decay chain) (discovery of the Omega-)
I've placed the links on the Omega baryon page, but it seems to me that the one with the complete decay chain should be on more pages than that one. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There are currently three articles on this topic - Statistical physics, Statistical mechanics and Statistical thermodynamics - which seems to be at least one too many. Would it be worth reorganising the information on this topic? If so, what would be the best approach?
(I'm asking this here rather than on each article's own discussion page as I think the issue needs people with a general overview of the topic as a whole. I'm also cautious about just doing it myself, as it isn't really my area. As an added advantage, dealing with the question should allow us to get rid of the final Top-importance Stub-class article!) Djr32 ( talk) 13:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the good work people. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I went through Category:physicists and tried to shove everyone in a nationality, but I've hit a wall. If anyone of you knows from which countries the remaining people are, please shove them where they belong. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I just created the page about Perlow, so if you have anything to add to it, go right ahead. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:33, 29 November 2008 (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'm filling various particle infoboxes and I have a few questions.
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The term "gluon" was first used in the paper of Gell-Mann published in 1962. It was applied for carries of some abstract field. The term stuck, and was later used as the name of QCD field quanta. Ruslik ( talk) 11:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Like the photon, the graviton has no charges to be negated by the charge conjugation operator. So it is its own anti-particle. JRSpriggs ( talk) 12:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The current rating for Dirac large numbers hypothesis on the assessment scale is as a stub of low importance. Significant revisions followed the edit war with 'scottfunkhouser' and the article is now more than just a stub. I'm wondering how to get it reassessed. Also I don't agree with the 'low importance' rating. LNH might be just a 'fringe' theory but it has quite a dynamic history, it has engaged the energies of seminal figures like Dirac and Dicke, it has impacted on the mainstream in significant ways (particularly in the philosophy of science e.g. formulation of the 'Anthropic coincidence') and it continues to be a source of interest and controversy even for mainstream journals. I hope others here will continue to monitor the article. I was a bit too emotionally involved in the edit war with 'scottfunkhouser' and I now want to get it off my hands. Thanks. Lucretius ( talk) 23:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
OK - thanks for that. I'm satisfied with 'mid importance' but I don't agree with 'start class'. However, I'm not going to rate my own work on the assessemnt scale so I'll leave it as is. Hopefully others will change the rating upwards or else contribute something classy to it. Lucretius ( talk) 06:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object has been nominated for deletion at WP:AFD 70.55.86.100 ( talk) 09:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at Kepler's laws? I think the article needs to be rigorously pruned in the amount of mathematical proofs, since they are not illuminating the concepts, but rather tediously proving concepts that are rather easy to visualize. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. Please discuss on Talk:Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Han-Kwang ( t) 21:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you fellows please mention this on Talk:Kepler's laws of planetary motion where currently a two persons are splitting hairs over whether how tangential accelerations should be dealt with in the mathematical description? Han-Kwang ( t) 09:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I made some edits to the introduction to the three laws to make it more comprehensible and reorganized the Talk page into more relevant sections. Hopefully a little structure will lead to some creative criticisms and consensus. Fatka ( talk · contribs) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatka ( talk • contribs)
In the article Fictitious force, several gif diagrams have been added recently. I found that they are incorrectly depicting fictitious forces. Although the discrepancies are subtle, they end up conveying the wrong concept. I have posted this on Talk:Fictitious_force#Possible_errors. But how do I tag the individual images to get the attention of the creator or Wikipedia editors? I have posted this on Help desk, so far no one has replied neither on Help desk or on the article Talk page. What should be the next step? Fatka ( talk · contribs) 01:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatka ( talk • contribs)
The photon article has been nominated for a Featured Article Review, due to concerns about lack of references and other issues. The article may no longer meet the FA criteria. Please comment here. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 19:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There's these two images on wiki. Now it seems to me that these just aren't right. I'm gonna ask the graphic labs to fix them, but I just want to make sure that I don't end up looking like idiot in doing so.
What I'd propose for the fix is this:
e+ e- γ e- e+
instead of
e+ e+ γ e- e-
Is that all right?
Fractal cosmology has been nominated for deletion at AfD. 76.66.192.6 ( talk) 05:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Scale relativity has been nominated for deletion at AfD. 76.66.192.6 ( talk) 05:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently expanding the List of mesons to be something similar to the List of baryons. Right now I'm identifying the vector mesons equivalent of the pseudoscalar mesons and I'm having some trouble. If you could head over to Talk:List of mesons#Completing the tables and give a hand, that would be much appreciated. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested during a PR that the physical properties portion of {{ Infobox Particle}} could be formed into a subsection with its own header. What do you think of this suggestion? The template could also use a little color. Thank you.— RJH ( talk) 17:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody have a look at the centrifugal force page with a view to shortening it and unifying the topic into one single article. I have given up trying. The article has been split and forked as a result of different interpretations surrounding a certain dilemma regarding the radial planetary orbital equation. This hasn't been helped by the fact that as well as the disagreements over how to interpret the dilemma, there are also those editors who refuse to acknowledge the dilemma at all.
The radial planetary orbital equation in question is,
A = B + C
Everybody agrees that C is centripetal force, and that if A equals zero we will have circular motion.
But the argument gets bogged down in pointless semantics about whether or not A is called "radial acceleration". OK, so call A Alfred. If Alfred is zero then we will have circular motion.
But the argument then gets bogged down in pointless semantics over what to call B. Some say it is centrifugal force. Others say it is only centrifugal force in the co-rotating frame of reference. OK, so call it Billy.
The point is that when we have circular motion, then Alfred will be zero and Billy and Centripetal force will sum to zero. If we ever get rid of Billy, then Alfred will come back again and we won't have circular motion.
We cannot therefore have a circular motion that only involves centripetal force and nothing else. This fact has serious implications when it comes to extrapolating the rotating frame transformation equations to objects that are at rest in the inertial frame as viewed from the rotating frame of reference. That is were the dilemma lies, because making this extrapolation leads to an absurdity which is actually published in some textbooks.
Somebody needs to go there and take a look. There is only one universal centrifugal force, and anybody who thinks otherwise lacks an overall comprehension of the topic. David Tombe ( talk) 18:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss this edit from a couple months ago, which replaced Physics with a "Development Article." Is the current version an improvement? 200.72.246.90 ( talk) 11:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently working on vector spaces, which has a passage reading
I personally don't have access to physics books right away, so I'd like to kindly ask whether somebody around could provide references for the facts. Probably it's not a big deal for you guys ;) I think I could come up with some math book covering the claims, but I think a physics book for a physics statement might be better. Thanks, this is about the last bit preparing the article for WP:GAN. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 14:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again, Timothy, for your swift help. I have now nominated the vector space article for WP:Good article nomination#Mathematics. I'd be thankful if people around could have a look. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 09:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that WP Relativity, WP Fluid dynamics and WP Acoustics all have low level of participation, if any. I would propose making them taskforces rather than WikiProjects due to the relatively low number of articles under their wings. I think participation in them would increase if they were made taskforces, as well as make it easier to coordinate efforts. Any thoughts?
I'm also posting this on the relavant WP talk pages. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Well no one commented on anything, so I'll just go ahead and move them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Foobar. I've updated the banner to handle them as taskforces. Parameters are relativity=yes, fluid-dynamics=yes, and acoustics=yes. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I've made the bot request [5] to tag articles as being part of the taskforces. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
(Complete Omega- decay chain) (discovery of the Omega-)
I've placed the links on the Omega baryon page, but it seems to me that the one with the complete decay chain should be on more pages than that one. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There are currently three articles on this topic - Statistical physics, Statistical mechanics and Statistical thermodynamics - which seems to be at least one too many. Would it be worth reorganising the information on this topic? If so, what would be the best approach?
(I'm asking this here rather than on each article's own discussion page as I think the issue needs people with a general overview of the topic as a whole. I'm also cautious about just doing it myself, as it isn't really my area. As an added advantage, dealing with the question should allow us to get rid of the final Top-importance Stub-class article!) Djr32 ( talk) 13:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the good work people. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I went through Category:physicists and tried to shove everyone in a nationality, but I've hit a wall. If anyone of you knows from which countries the remaining people are, please shove them where they belong. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I just created the page about Perlow, so if you have anything to add to it, go right ahead. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)